Government Sentencing Letter — United States v. Jeremy Trapp (Eastern District of New York, June 1, 2022)

Summary

The government's sentencing letter to The Honorable Sterling Johnson, Jr. in United States v. Jeremy Trapp, Criminal Docket Nos. 20-308 and 20-454, filed June 1, 2022, as Document 47, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, ahead of sentencing scheduled for June 7, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. It states that the defendant pled guilty to the top counts of two indictments, one concerning cutting a brake line of a New York City Police Department vehicle and one concerning an application for more than $50,000 of COVID-19 relief funds. The letter says the application sought an EIDL loan and grant, and that the SBA approved a $42,500 loan and $10,000 grant. It states a Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months and asks for a sentence of 18 months. The signature block names Breon Peace, Francisco J. Navarro and Sara K Winik.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Government Sentencing Letter — United States v. Jeremy Trapp (Eastern District of New York, June 1, 2022).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/47-sentencing-memorandum-by-usa-as-to-jeremy-trapp-winik-sara-e-9a7eebd9fe/, SHA-256 ea1506e6db0ce4ab60fe315efec542197bdaef841fb7d437df6f9f3665451540.

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 360

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
DMP:FJN/SKW 271 Cadman Plaza East
F. #2020R00809 Brooklyn, New York 11201

June 1, 2022

By ECF and E-mail

The Honorable Sterling Johnson, Jr.
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201

Re: United States v. Jeremy Trapp
Criminal Docket Nos. 20-308 and 20-454 (SJ)

Dear Judge Johnson:

The government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the defendant
Jeremy Trapp’s sentencing in the two cases captioned above, which is currently scheduled
for June 7, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. The defendant pled guilty to the top counts of two separate
indictments. The first indictment relates to the defendant cutting a brake line of a New York
City Police Department (“NYPD”) vehicle. See 20-CR-308. The second indictment relates
to the defendant submitting a fraudulent application to obtain more than $50,000 of COVID-
19 relief funds. See 20-CR-454.

For the reasons set forth below, the government submits that sentence of 18
months in custody, at the top of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”)
range contemplated by the plea agreement and calculated by the United States Probation
Department, is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing in
these two cases.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Destruction of an NYPD Vehicle

As set forth in the Presentence Report (“PSR”), on July 17, 2020, the
defendant crawled under an NYPD vehicle which was parked on a busy residential and
commercial street near the intersection of 4th Avenue and 42nd street in Brooklyn, New
York, just a few blocks from Sunset Park and Prospect Park. (PSR ¶ 9.) In broad daylight,
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 361

the defendant attempted to cut the NYPD vehicle’s main brake line, which would have left
the vehicle without brakes. (Id.) The defendant’s actions partially severed a similar looking
line in the same area as the brake line that is associated with the vehicle’s anti-lock braking
system. (Id.) The damage done by the defendant affected the vehicle’s stopping power and
maneuverability, and would have seriously impacted a law enforcement officer’s ability stop
and maintain control of the NYPD vehicle in an emergency. (Id. ¶ 10.)

A still image from a video of the defendant crawling underneath the NYPD
vehicle and cutting the brake line associated with the anti-lock braking system is below:

2
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 362

An image of the defendant fleeing after cutting the brake line is depicted
below:

The defendant’s attack on the NYPD vehicle was a continuation of his stated
desire to harm police officers and a product of the defendant’s deliberate planning.
Beginning several days earlier, on July 13, 2020, the defendant bragged to a Confidential
Source (“CS”) that he had previously destroyed property and burned a police car. (Id. ¶ 7.)
The defendant lamented to the CS in a recorded conversation that burning police cars only
resulted in a burned car (i.e. property damage) and that he wanted to raise the stakes. (Id.)
Specifically, the defendant told the CS that he wanted to burn NYPD precincts and cut the
brake lines on police cars. (Id.) The defendant also stated that he thought police were racist
and he wanted to harm police officers and their supporters, presumably civilians. (Id.)

3
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 363

Over the next few days, the defendant began planning for various attacks. On
July 15, 2020, the defendant told the CS that he wanted to burn down the Verrazzano-
Narrows Bridge so that “white supremacists” could not use it to get to Brooklyn from Staten
Island, and that he wanted to conduct “reconnaissance” on the bridge. (Id. ¶ 8.) The
defendant reiterated that he wanted to harm police officers by cutting the brake lines on
police cars and burning down police precincts. (Id.) The next day, furthering his stated goal,
the defendant traveled to the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge to take photographs of the bridge
as part of his plan to burn it down. (Id.) After conducting his reconnaissance, the defendant
drove around Brooklyn looking for an unattended police car so he could cut the brake line.
(Id.) Unable to locate a suitable police vehicle, the defendant resumed his search the
following day, on July 17, 2020, at which time he crawled under a police vehicle and cut a
brake line in the middle of the day. (Id.) After successfully sabotaging the vehicle, the
defendant continued to drive around Brooklyn looking for more police vehicles to damage.
(Id.)

B. COVID-19 Wire Fraud

The defendant also engaged in wire fraud in connection with the Economic
Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program administered by the Small Business Administration
(“SBA”), which provides financial assistance to small businesses that suffered economic
consequences because of the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. ¶ 11.)

In June 2020, during the height of the pandemic, the defendant filed a
fraudulent application for an EIDL loan and grant. (Id. ¶ 13.) In his application, the
defendant claimed, among other things, that he was the sole proprietor of a car wash business
that was located at his home address in Brooklyn. (Id.) The defendant further claimed in the
application that he had 10 employees and that his gross revenues for the 12 months prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic were $150,000. (Id.) The defendant, however, never ran a car
wash business, let alone one from his home, which was a residential building. (Id.) Based
on the defendant’s false representations and paperwork, the SBA approved a $42,500 loan
and $10,000 grant to the defendant. (Id.) The SBA disbursed those amounts to the
defendant in late June and early July 2020, diverting funding from hardworking members of
the community struggling to keep their businesses open. (Id.)

C. The Defendant’s Pretrial Release

On or about August 5, 2020, following the defendant’s arrest after cutting the
brake line of the NYPD vehicle, the Honorable Steven M. Gold ordered the defendant
detained. See ECF No. 6. On or about January 14, 2021, the Honorable Sanket J. Bulsara
released the defendant to home incarceration. See ECF No. 9. The defendant subsequently
moved to modify the conditions of release from home incarceration to home detention,
arguing that the modification was necessary so the defendant could look for employment.
See ECF No. 33. The defendant’s motion was granted on or about May 17, 2021. Id.

4
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 364

Notably, the defendant has adjusted poorly to his release. According to the
defendant’s Pretrial Services Officer, despite having been released from pretrial detention
well over one year ago, the defendant has not yet found and maintained employment as of
the date of this letter. Indeed, according to Pretrial Services, the defendant was fired after
working one day at a bagel store and was dismissed from a job at Citi Bike before his first
day.

II. The Guidelines Calculation

The PSR sets forth the applicable Guidelines calculation:

Docket Number 20-CR-308 (Destruction of an NYPD Vehicle)

Base Offense Level (§ 2B1.1(a)(1)) 7

Plus: Offense involved the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious
bodily injury (§ 2B1.1(b)(16)(A)) +7

Total: 14

Docket Number 20-CR-454 (Wire Fraud)

Base Offense Level (§ 2B1.1(a)(1)) 7

Plus: Loss amount exceeded $40,000 (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D)) +6

Total: 13

Grouping Analysis (§§ 3D1.2, 3D1.4) Units Level

20-CR-408 1 14

20-CR-454 1 13

Highest Offense Level (20-CR-408) 14

Adjustment for Multiple Units (§ 3D1.4) +2

Combined Adjusted Offense Level 16

Less: Timely acceptance of responsibility (3E1.1(a) and (b)) -3

Total: 13

(PSR ¶¶ 20-39.)

5
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 365

With a total offense level of 13 and Criminal History Category I, the
defendant’s advisory Guidelines sentencing range is 12 to 18 months in custody. (Id. ¶ 72.)

III. Legal Standard

It is settled law that “a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings
by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. As a matter of administration and
to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial
benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007) (citation omitted). Next, a
sentencing court should “consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they
support the sentence requested by a party. In doing so, [it] may not presume that the
Guidelines range is reasonable. [It] must make an individualized assessment based on the
facts presented.” Id. at 50 (citation and footnote omitted). “When a factor is already
included in the calculation of the [G]uidelines sentencing range, a judge who wishes to rely
on that same factor to impose a sentence above or below the range must articulate
specifically the reasons that this particular defendant’s situation is different from the ordinary
situation covered by the [G]uidelines calculation.” United States v. Sindima, 488 F.3d 81, 87
(2d Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted, alterations in original). “[W]here the sentence is outside
an advisory Guidelines range, the court must also state ‘the specific reason’ for the sentence
imposed, in open court as well as in writing – ‘with specificity in a statement of reasons
form’ that is part of the judgment.” United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247, 251-252 (2d Cir.
2015), as amended (July 22, 2015) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3533(c)(2)).

Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a) provides that, in imposing
sentence, the Court shall consider:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed –

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [and]

Section 3553 also addresses the need for the sentence imposed “to provide the defendant
with needed education or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in
most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). “The court, in determining whether to
impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in
determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to
the extent they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of
promoting correction and rehabilitation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a).

6
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 366

At sentencing, “the court is virtually unfettered with respect to the information
it may consider.” United States v. Alexander, 860 F.2d 508, 513 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed,
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3661 expressly provides that “[n]o limitation shall be
placed on the information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person
convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the
purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” Thus, the Court must first calculate the
correct Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G.”) range, and then apply the
3553(a) factors to arrive at an appropriate sentence, considering all relevant facts. To the
extent there remain any open issues as to the correct Guidelines range, the Court should first
make any necessary finding to arrive at the correct range. Nevertheless, however the Court
arrives at the correct Guidelines range, it still must fashion a sentence that meets the criteria
of Section 3553(a) under the specific facts of this case.

IV. Sentencing Recommendation

The government respectfully submits that a sentence of 18 months, at the top
of the applicable advisory Guidelines range, accurately reflects the seriousness of the
defendant’s conduct and is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes
of sentencing in this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

First, a Guidelines sentence of 18 months accurately reflects the seriousness of
the defendant’s criminal conduct in cutting the brake line of an NYPD vehicle and
committing fraud against the U.S. government.

In cutting the brake line of an NYPD vehicle, the defendant put the entire
community in danger. The defendant’s actions undoubtedly threatened the lives of the law
enforcement officers who drove the NYPD vehicle. The defendant was not just committing
property damage. As the defendant said multiple times, his goal was to harm the police.
Such harm almost certainly would have occurred had the NYPD vehicle been driven after the
defendant’s attack. The defendant’s actions also put countless civilians in direct danger. An
NYPD vehicle with a disabled brake line driving in the middle of the day on 4th Avenue in
Brooklyn could have injured or killed dozens of people living and working in Brooklyn.

Notably, the defendant’s conduct cannot be minimized as actions taken in the
heat of the moment. Rather, the defendant carefully planned and scouted multiple attacks on
the police over the course of several days with plenty of time to think through his actions.
When the defendant could not find a suitable NYPD vehicle to attack one day, he was
undeterred and returned the next day to carry out his plan. Indeed, after cutting the brake
line on July 17, 2020, the defendant said he wanted to do it again, and he continued to drive
around Brooklyn looking for more vehicles to attack. This is directly in line with the
defendant’s statements to the CS that he had burned a police car in the past and wanted to do
it again.

7
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 367

The defendant’s fraud against the U.S. government also caused serious harm
the public and warrants a significant sentence. While many families and small businesses
were struggling during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020, the defendant
chose to file a false application claiming to run a fictitious car wash business. The
defendant’s flagrant fraud diverted over $50,000 of relief funds from well-deserving
businesses during an especially difficult time and defrauded taxpayers of their hard-earned
money.

In short, both of the defendant’s criminal schemes required careful planning
and forethought. Both schemes were seriously harmful to the community and should be
punished accordingly.

Second, a Guidelines sentence of 18 months is necessary to deter the
defendant from committing future crimes. Together, the defendant’s two criminal schemes
reflect the defendant’s lack of respect for the law. The defendant brazenly attacked a police
car in in broad daylight. Equally troublingly, the defendant fraudulently stole $50,000 that
was supposed to be used to help citizens withstand the devastating economic effects of the
worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. When viewed together, the defendant’s pattern of criminal
conduct shows the defendant’s willingness and eagerness to disobey the law in different
ways.

Tellingly, the defendant did not make a mistake on one occasion and
immediately course correct. Instead, the defendant’s conduct reflects his repeated decisions
to commit crimes over the course of months: the defendant stole $50,000 from the federal
government, the defendant admitted to burning a police car in the past, the defendant cut the
brake line of an NYPD vehicle, the defendant scouted additional police vehicles to destroy,
and the defendant planned to burn down the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge. A significant
sentence, therefore, is necessary to show the defendant that serious consequences exist for
his repeated criminal behavior to deter his future actions.

Notably, the defendant has not used the time since his release from five
months of pretrial custody to make significant strides in his life and may not even be
permitted to live in his mother’s home going forward. Despite multiple opportunities to
obtain employment and despite significant resources expended by Pretrial Services, the
defendant has not been able to maintain employment since his bond conditions were relaxed
last May to permit him to seek and secure employment. According to Pretrial Services, the
defendant was fired after working one day at a bagel store and was dismissed from a job at
Citi Bike before his first day. In addition, according to the PSR, the defendant has created
problems for his mother with her landlord causing his mother to fear she may lose her home.
(PSR ¶ 53.) As the PSR noted, the defendant’s mother “does not wish for him to continue
residing in her home.” (Id.) The defendant’s own conduct, therefore, does not reflect
someone who understands the seriousness of his actions, thus requiring a significant sentence
for deterrent purposes.

8
Case 1:20-cr-00308-WFK-CLP Document 47 Filed 06/01/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 368

Third, a Guidelines sentence of 18 months is appropriate in this case for
general deterrence. The government respectfully submits that when sentencing the defendant
the Court should weigh heavily the extent to which the sentence it imposes will deter those
who wish to intentionally harm law enforcement officers. The sentence imposed by this
Court should send a clear message to the public that tampering with the brake line of a police
vehicle is not merely property damage, and that taking actions that could seriously injure or
kill law enforcement officers and the greater public will be met with serious punishment.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully request the Court
to impose a term of imprisonment of 18 months to provide just punishment for the serious
offenses that the defendant committed, to promote respect for the law, to deter the defendant
from future criminal conduct, and to deter others from engaging in similar criminal conduct
in the future.

Respectfully submitted,

BREON PEACE
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Sara K Winik
Francisco J. Navarro
Sara K Winik
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
(718) 254-7000

cc: Clerk of the Court (SJ) (by ECF)
Leticia Olivera, Esq. (by ECF)
Erica Vest, U.S. Probation Officer (by e-mail)

File and source

File: 47-sentencing-memorandum-by-usa-as-to-jeremy-trapp-winik-sara-e.pdf
Size: 201,259 bytes
SHA-256: ea1506e6db0ce4ab60fe315efec542197bdaef841fb7d437df6f9f3665451540
Our copy: 47-sentencing-memorandum-by-usa-as-to-jeremy-trapp-winik-sara-e.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com