Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Criminal Complaint - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket PPP fraud case (2023…

Criminal Complaint - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket PPP fraud case (2023-06-20)

Issuer
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Document type
Criminal Complaint
Date
2023-06-20
Case
United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket
Case number
1:20-cr-00228

Summary

Sentencing memo filed June 20, 2023 as Document 316 by counsel for defendant Daniel Eric Jay in United States v. Daniel Eric Jay, No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, ahead of a sentencing hearing set for June 23, 2023. The memo argues that the 2-level role enhancement recommended by the Probation Office is correct and the 3-level enhancement sought by the government is not, describing Maurice Fayne as the leader of the scheme. It states a Final Offense Level 29, Criminal History Category I and an advisory range of 87-108 months, and says Jay agreed to restitution of $4,465,865.55 and a personal forfeiture of $250,000. It asks the court to impose a sentence no longer than 60 months. The 20-page memo is signed by counsel L. Burton Finlayson.

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

Full text

   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 1 of 20




                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

                              ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA      )
                              )
          v.                  )
                              )            No. 1:20-CR-228-MHC-JKL
                              )
DANIEL ERIC JAY               )
_____________________________ )

                             SENTENCING MEMO

       COMES NOW DANIEL ERIC JAY, by and through counsel, and files this

memo to be considered by this Honorable Court in conjunction with his

Presentence Report and all argument, evidence and allocution to be put forth at his

sentencing hearing set for Friday, June 23, 2023, in Atlanta. Mr. Jay asks that this

information be used to fashion a sentence which comports with the requirements

of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) and which is otherwise reasonable.

      Introduction: DANIEL ERIC JAY is a 47 year-old man, raised in the small

township of Bessemer, PA. He comes before the Court with no prior convictions

and zero (0) criminal history points. Like many of the victims in this case, Dan

Jay initially believed in MAURICE FAYNE and his trucking company’s “big deal

with Amazon.” Dan Jay invested his own money into the operation / scheme and

encouraged others to do the same. At one point, he even borrowed money from a
          Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL        Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 2 of 20




     loan-shark to meet Fayne’s requests for additional funds to keep the deal alive. As

     time went by and the fantasy crumbled, Dan Jay remained in the scheme, hoping to

     recover the money he invested. Jay, like many investors, desperately desired to

     get his money back out of the deal, even after it became obvious the deal was

     suspect. As the government acknowledges, Dan Jay received comparatively little

     money from Fayne’s fraud schemes. He did receive $30,000 from the PPP loan,

     most of which he used to repay the aforementioned loan-shark. It is surprising in

     this case that Jay got so little money from Fayne's schemes, meanwhile Fayne

     bought luxury cars, expensive jewelry and other high-dollar items.




[Dan with                                                                          [Dan with his
his father                                                                         father in the
and                                                                                later days.]
newphew
in the better
days.]




                Loss of his father. Dan was very close to his father, Elmer “Butch” Jay.

     Butch was a lineman for Ohio Edison Power Company for 40 years. He served as

     the union representative / “Grievance Man,” and was a renowned fast-pitch

     softball pitcher. In 2017, Butch broke his back. This injury led to a series of

                                                  2
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316      Filed 06/20/23   Page 3 of 20




medical complications and illnesses including vasculitis and COPD. (PSR ¶ 148).

When his illnesses progressed, Dan moved back into the family home to take care

of his father. In July of 2020, Dan was arrested on a complaint in this case. (Doc.

4). On June 30, 2021, his father passed away. Following his father’s death, Dan

Jay spiraled out of control. His abuse of pain medicines (including Percocet and

Oxycodone) increased exponentially. He began making terrible and misinformed

decisions about how to handle this legal case. He violated the conditions of his

bond, and ended up living in extended-stay hotels and ultimately on the streets of

Youngstown, Ohio.

      Mr. Jay continues to apologize for his erratic and disruptive behavior during

the litigation of this case. He has apologized for the disrespect he showed to the

Court, the prosecutor and his attorney. (PSR ¶127). The undersigned counsel can

attest that since being returned to custody and sobriety, Dan Jay has been a stellar

and most reasonable client.

I) SENTENCING GUIDELINE ISSUES.

      (Paragraph 134) Role in the Offense.

       The Probation Office has awarded Mr. Jay a 2-level upward role

enhancement. The government has objected and requests a 3-level role

enhancement. Mr. Jay submits the Probation Officer is correct on this issue, only

                                          3
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316        Filed 06/20/23   Page 4 of 20




a 2-level adjustment is warranted. In response to the governments objection, the

Probation Officer writes,

      In response, this officer maintains a two level, not a three level,
      enhancement is warranted in this case. Regarding the Ponzi scheme,
      this officer notes the Government did not seek a role enhancement for
      Michael Sargent, Jay's codefendant in this case, and this officer views
      both of them on a par of culpability. Regarding the PPP loan, this
      officer concurs with the Government that Jay exercised a managerial
      role by recruiting Crivilli and Capone to assist in the creation of the
      phony documents but does not view the procurement of the PPP loan
      as an "extensive criminal activity," as required for the 3-level
      enhancement. For all these reasons, a two-level enhancement is
      recommended.

      (PSR ¶134).

      As shall be discussed at a later point, Dan Jay submits he was less culpable

than Michael Sargent, a man who victimized several women through “romance

fraud” and who defrauded members of his own family. Regardless, Mr. Jay agrees

with the Probation Officer’s ultimate conclusion and notes that Michael Sargent

received zero (0) points for his role in the offense.

      Furthermore, Dan Jay is being held accountable for a huge loss amount,

$8,725,500, which adds 18 offense levels to his sentencing guidelines. In relation

to the quantity of money for which he is being held accountable, Mr. Jay’s role

was deserving of only a 2-level enhancement, not the 3-level enhancement sought

by the government. The level of supervisory authority which Jay exercised during

                                           4
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 5 of 20




this conspiracy was diminished by his lesser role with respect to the vast loss

amount. “[T]he district court must measure the defendant's role against the

relevant conduct for which she has been held accountable. . . . In other words, the

district court must assess [the defendant’s role] in relation to the relevant conduct

attributed to the defendant in calculating her base offense level.” United States v.

De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 940-941 (11th Cir. 1999).

      The Application Notes to USSG § 3B1.1 direct the Court to consider a

variety of factors including - the nature of participation in the commission of the

offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the degree of control and authority

exercised over others, and the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of

the crime. USSG § 3B1.1, Application Note 4 (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Jay

did recruit Carrie Capone, who was not charged, however given Dan Jay’s

relatively minuscule share of the fraud proceeds, a 2-level role enhancement is

sufficient and appropriate.

      This was not a large or otherwise extensive fraud ring. Only four (4) people

were indicted. Clearly, Maurice Fayne was the leader, organizer, the boss. It was

Fayne’s trucking company, his scheme, and he got almost all of the money. As the

Background Commentary to USSG § 3B1.1 reads:

             In relatively small criminal enterprises that are not

                                          5
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 6 of 20




             otherwise to be considered as extensive in scope or in
             planning or preparation, the distinction between
             organization and leadership, and that of management or
             supervision, is of less significance than in larger
             enterprises which tend to have clearly delineated
             divisions of responsibility. This is reflected in the
             inclusiveness of § 3B1.1 (c).

      USSG § 3B1.1, Background.

      When the totality of the circumstances are considered, including the lack of

role enhancement for Michael Sargent and the absence of prosecution for several

others, Mr. Jay should receive no more than a 2-level upward role adjustment.

II) REQUESTS FOR A REASONABLE AND LOWER SENTENCE:

      Mr. Jay’s current sentencing guidelines include a Final Offense Level 29,

Criminal History Category I, and an advisory range of 87-108 months. As

authorized by Title 18 USC § 3553 (a) and United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738

(2005), Mr. Jay requests a reasonable sentence lower than the advisory guidelines.

After considering the Guidelines, “the District Court may impose a more severe or

more lenient sentence as long as the sentence is reasonable.” United States v.

Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, at 1179 (11th Cir. 2005). A below-Guidelines sentence

is assessed for reasonableness in light of the factors set out at 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).

“These factors include available sentences, the applicable Guideline range, the

nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need for the sentence to reflect

                                          6
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316      Filed 06/20/23   Page 7 of 20




the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just

punishment for the offense, and provide the defendant with needed medical care.”

United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 2005).

      A) THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE.

      Obviously, the nature of the offense is serious. Victims were defrauded out

of large sums of money with promises of high returns on a non-existent insider

Amazon contract, and the PPP loan program and the American taxpayers were also

victims of fraud and intended fraud. Such crimes wreak havoc on the lives of the

innocent and erode the trust people once had in one another. Defrauding and

attempting to defraud the PPP loan program undermines an important assistance

program and wastes funds and resources intended for real business owners in need

of assistance during the COVID pandemic to keep their employees on the payroll.

While the intended loss amount for Dan Jay is calculated to be “approximately

$8,725,500,” (PSR ¶123), and he has agreed to a loss amount between 3.5 and 9

million dollars, and agreed to pay restitution of $4,465,865.55, and a personal

forfeiture of $250,000 - he personally received very little of the funds actually lost.




                                           7
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL            Document 316        Filed 06/20/23          Page 8 of 20




B) THE HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEFENDANT.

      Who is Daniel Eric Jay ? Dan Jay has no prior convictions and zero (0)

criminal history points. “Danny” to his family, Dan Jay is the youngest of three

children born to “Butch” and Nancy Jay. They lived in a small house on a hill just

above the highschool football stadium in Bessemer, PA. Dan Jay literally grew up

under the Friday night lights.




       [The house Dan Jay grew up in.]                [Remains of the H.S. stadium behind
                                                      Dan's house. Only the lights are left.]

          Dan’s father played competitive softball until the age of 53. Dan grew up

an obsessive sports fan with an immense knowledge of sports’ statistics. He

followed baseball, and, like his Dad, loved boxing.1 Dan wanted to be a contender.

Bessemer, PA, is small. As of 2000, there were 1,172 people, and 345 families

residing in the borough. “Bessemer was once a thriving industrial community. It


      1
          One of Bessemer’s two “Notable People” was Charley Burley, professional boxer.
          (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer,_Lawrence_County,_Pennsylvania)
          (Accessed 6/19/2023).

                                                8
   Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL             Document 316        Filed 06/20/23     Page 9 of 20




hosted a cement plant, two brick yards, and two railroad spurs from the

Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroads…. Bessemer also hosted

several department stores, supermarkets, businesses and a plethora of bars and

restaurants. The brick yards closed by the mid-1960’s and the cement plant

ceased production in 2009. With the decline of industry, Bessemer also saw a

decline in terms of businesses as well.”2




                                            [Bessemer, PA]




      2
          The Borough of Bessemer, Pennsylvania (bessemerpa.com) (Accessed 6/19/2023).



                                                 9
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL   Document 316   Filed 06/20/23        Page 10 of 20




                                                     [Bessemer Hotel & Diner in
                                                     2022.]




                                                                                  [Bessemer
                                                                                  Bowling
                                                                                  Alley in
                                                                                  2022.]




                                            [Bessemer Presbyterian Church
                                            where the Jay family attended.]




                                  10
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316    Filed 06/20/23   Page 11 of 20




       After he left Bessemer, Dan Jay sought fame and fortune as a boxing

promoter, among other endeavors. Unfortunately, he lost more money in boxing

than he ever made.




      As reflected in the letters provided by family members, DANIEL ERIC JAY

is a loyal, giving and loving person.

      His sister, CINDY BARTH, writes the following:

             Our family was a bit unusual - I am the oldest, my sister
             Amy is 9 years younger than me & Danny was born the
             summer that I graduated from high school. I married my
             high school sweetheart the following year & we began
             having our family shortly after that so my daughter &

                                        11
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL    Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 12 of 20



         Danny are only 3 years apart in age. Because of that,
         even though Danny is my brother, he grew up more as
         one of my “kids” in many ways. My children all adored
         him growing up and even though he was just a few years
         older than they were, he was always “Uncle Danny” to
         them.

                He was married for many years & lived out of
         state but because he and his wife never had children, he
         always had a special place in his heart for our
         grandchildren. He made his way back home for every
         important event in our family and showed up for soccer
         games, wrestling matches, football & basketball games
         whenever possible, and of course for birthdays &
         Christmas. We were always grateful for the love and
         attention he gave the kids & they thought he was the
         greatest ! He was always so generous with his time as
         well as his money. . . .

                When our father developed a life-threatening
         infection in the fall of 2020, my sister & I weren’t sure
         how we could possibly keep him in the home that he
         loved because the care he needed was beyond our
         physical ability. Danny decided to step up & move back
         in with him so that there would be someone to care for
         him around the clock. . . . . It was Danny who was with
         him 24/7 (in the middle of the night making sure his
         CPAP & oxygen were working properly, helping him in
         and out of bed, dressing his wounds & being available
         when his home health nurses would be there for visits.)
         Without Danny stepping up as he did, our father would
         have had to go to a nursing home & would never have
         received the love and care that he got at home. He spent
         the last 9 months of his life very happy & comfortable
         with his family being able to visit in the home that he
         loved.

               This is my brother. This is the man who stands

                                    12
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316            Filed 06/20/23   Page 13 of 20



         before you. I know that the memo you have of all his
         crimes paints a very dark picture, but there is so much
         more to him & I wanted you to hear from my heart the
         part of him that you may not see.

               He was a beloved son, Uncle Danny to my 5
         children & 10 grandchildren & a man that I love dearly.
         May you consider all of this as pronounce his sentence.
         ....

   (See Exhibit 1, attached hereto, letter from Cindy Barth).




                         [Dan and his sister's, Amy and Cindy.]




                                         13
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 316     Filed 06/20/23    Page 14 of 20



   SCOTT JOHNSON, Dan’s brother-in-law, (husband of sister, Amy), writes,

         I have personally known Dan for most of his life, as I
         was introduced to his family when he was a young boy....

         My three children, all adults now, really adored their
         uncle while growing up ! Dan was a fun loving person
         toward them and they looked forward to seeing him at
         birthday parties, holidays and various gatherings.

         Dan was always kind hearted towards his nieces and
         nephews and affectionate towards his family and friends
         as he would be later get on to caring and assisting my
         father-in-law during his last year on earth.

   (See Exhibit 2, attached hereto, letter from Scott Johnson).

   Dan’s niece, HOLLY PAULIN, writes the following:

         I am aware that you will be the one to judge and sentence
         Dan for the crimes he committed and my heart is heavy
         with the knowledge that he will now have to pay the
         consequences for the poor choices he’s made. I am
         saddened by this because I know there is so much more
         to Dan than these choices.

         .... Dan was always there to lift me up and cheer me on,
         while reminding me there are brighter days to come. He
         is a phenomenal motivator for anyone going through
         hard times.

            He has an absolutely kind and generous heart, and I’m
         not sure what our family would have done had he not
         stepped up to care for my grandfather during his last
         couple years on this earth. . . . .

            Grandpa was his best friend and I know that caring
         for him during that time was a blessing to Uncle D, while

                                     14
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316       Filed 06/20/23      Page 15 of 20



             at the same time, incredibly painful.

                . . . I just wanted you to know that there’s so much
             more to Dan than the crimes he’s committed and he has a
             family who loves him deeply.

      (See Exhibit 3, attached hereto, letter from Holly Paulin).




                                                          [Dan and his niece, Holly Paulin.]




C) THE NEED FOR DETERRENCE AS WELL AS
   THE NEED TO AVOID UNWARRANTED DISPARITIES.

      Deterrence. Mr. Jay’s codefendants have received substantial prison

sentences. These sentences, and Mr. Jay’s, will sufficiently deter members of

society from committing future fraud and PPP loan fraud crimes. Furthermore,

there no evidence or sentencing data to suggest that longer sentences will have a

correspondingly greater deterrent effect.
                                            15
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL       Document 316      Filed 06/20/23   Page 16 of 20



      Avoiding Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities.

      Michael Sargent was sentenced to 60 months. He and his brother, Mark

Sargent, committed “romance fraud” on unsuspecting, trusting older women. The

Sargent brothers also defrauded members of their own family. The Sargents

received more money from the scheme than Dan Jay. Unfortunately, Mr. Jay has

picked up two (2) points for Obstruction (PSR ¶135) and lost one (1) point from

Acceptance of Responsibility (PSR ¶138). Had Mr. Jay not spiraled out of control

and behaved badly after his father died, he would have been in a good position to

request a variance down to somewhere between 36 and 44 months. In light of his

lesser culpability, but taking into account his pre-trial transgressions (obstruction),

Daniel Jay submits 60 months is a reasonable sentence.


D) ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR VARIANCE.

      In Kimbrough v. United States, the Supreme Court made clear that a

sentencing court had the authority to downwardly vary if there was no empirical

evidence supporting the applicable guideline. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85, 108-10

(2007). Here, the fraud guidelines overly inflate Mr. Jay’s sentence in light of his

criminal conduct and personal history. As numerous federal courts have

recognized, the fraud guidelines outlined in USSG §2B1.1 are not based on

empirical data and often result in seemingly random and excessively harsh
                                          16
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316     Filed 06/20/23      Page 17 of 20



sentences. See Barry Boss and Kara Kapp, How the Economic Loss Guideline

Lost its Way, and How to Save It, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law at

https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/2021/07/18/how-the-economic-loss- guideline-

lost-its-way-and-how-to-save-it/ (collecting cases).

      In a concurrence in United States v. Corsey, District Judge Underhill

explained the issue:

             The loss guideline, like the child pornography guideline
             at issue in Dorvee, was not developed by the Sentencing
             Commission using an empirical approach based on data
             about past sentencing practices. As such, district judges
             can and should exercise their discretion when deciding
             whether or not to follow the sentencing advice that
             guideline provides.
             ....
             The three sets of amendments to the loss table of the
             fraud guideline alone have effectively multiplied several
             times the recommended sentence applicable in 1987 for
             large-loss frauds, which itself was set higher than
             historic sentences. Each of the three increases in the
             recommended Guideline ranges for fraud crimes was
             directed by Congress, without the benefit of empirical
             study of actual fraud sentences by the Sentencing
             Commission.

             The history of bracket inflation directed by Congress
             renders the loss guideline fundamentally flawed,
             especially as loss amounts climb. The higher the loss
             amount, the more distorted is the guideline's advice to
             sentencing judges. As a well-known sentencing
             commentator has put it, “For the small class of
             defendants . . . convicted of fraud offenses associated
             with very large guidelines loss calculations, the

                                         17
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316    Filed 06/20/23    Page 18 of 20



            guidelines now are divorced both from the objectives of
            Section 3553(a) and, frankly, from common sense.

            Accordingly, the guidelines calculations in such cases
            are of diminished value to sentencing judges.” Frank O.
            Bowman, III, Sentencing High-Loss Corporate Insider
            Frauds After Booker, 20 FED. SENT'G REP. 167, 168
            (2008). Id. at 380. See also United States v. Musgrave,
            674 Fed. App’x 529, 530 (6th Cir. 2016) (affirming
            downward variance for defendant with offense level of
            25 and a $1.7 million loss to a sentence of one day of
            imprisonment, reasoning that “because the loss
            Guidelines were not developed using an empirical
            approach based on data about past sentencing practices,
            it is particularly appropriate for variances.”); United
            States v. Johnson, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 71257 at *16-20
            (E.D. N.Y. 2018) (finding that application of the 16-
            point loss enhancement corresponding to loss amount
            would result in a sentence well out of the proportion to
            [an] appropriate sentence”); United States v. Parris, 573
            F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. N.Y. 2008) (varying down from
            300 months to a 60-month sentencing and finding that
            the guidelines have “run so amok that they are patently
            absurd on their face” after conviction for 6 counts of
            securities fraud and witness tampering).

      United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 380 (2nd Cir. 2013).

      Meanwhile, the United States Sentencing Commission has recently

proposed new Sentencing Guidelines, some of which are persuasive or relevant

here. For instance, the new Guidelines which take effect November 1, 2023, will

create an additional 2-level reduction for defendants who have zero (0) criminal

history points. Additionally, there has been extensive debate and discussion about


                                        18
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL      Document 316     Filed 06/20/23   Page 19 of 20



removing intended-loss from the offense level calculation and sentencing only

upon actual loss.

      Request for Recommendation to the RDAP Program.

      Mr. Jay requests a recommendation to the BOP’s Residential Drug

Treatment Program. He clearly suffered from substance abuse problems (PSR ¶¶

155-164), and would benefit from drug treatment.

      WHEREBY, based upon the above, DANIEL ERIC JAY requests that

this Honorable Court deny the government’s role objection to the PSR, grant him

variance down from 87 months, and impose a reasonable sentence no longer than

60 months.

             Dated: This 20th day of June, 2023.

                         Respectfully submitted,

                         L. Burton Finlayson
                         ______________________________
                         L. BURTON FINLAYSON
                         Attorney For DANIEL ERIC JAY
                         Georgia Bar Number: 261460

LAW OFFICE OF
L. BURTON FINLAYSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW
931 Ponce de Leon Avenue, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30306
(404) 872-0560
LBFCOURTS@aol.com

                                        19
  Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 316      Filed 06/20/23   Page 20 of 20



                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing

Sentencing Memo upon the following:

              Russell Phillips
              Assistant United States Attorneys
              600 U.S. Courthouse
              75 Ted Turner Drive, S. W.
              Atlanta, Georgia 30303


by CM/ ECF delivery.

           DATED: This 20th day of June, 2023.

                        L. Burton Finlayson
                        ____________________________
                        L. BURTON FINLAYSON
                        ATTORNEY FOR DANIEL ERIC JAY
                        State Bar Number: 261460




                                        20


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gand.278523.316.0.pdf
Size
5,681,807 bytes
SHA-256
f386a059f139f25e4f130b59e78d5671da003ab11205bc072eb233823093348a
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gand.278523.316.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top