Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Raymond Magana (Document 54)
Summary
Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Raymond Magana, filed January 10, 2022 as Document 54 in No. 2:21-cr-00007-SB, with a hearing date of January 25, 2022. The memorandum covers the procedural background, the plea agreement and the facts, including a loan of $940,416 that U.S. Bank froze. It says a two-level downward variance and a low-end Guidelines sentence would lower his range from 63-78 to 51-63 months. The government asks for 51 months of imprisonment, 5 years of supervised release, $360,415 in restitution, a $75,000 fine and a $100 special assessment.
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's Sentencing Position for Defendant Raymond Magana (Document 54).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-c-d-cal-no-2-21-cr-00007-dkt-54-c-d-cal-2a99abd7b4/
, SHA-256 b0ca284fe6c33bb04ade961b77ef5c7e30732eb9cf6daecdd689463b6d731c90.Full text
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:164
1 TRACY L. WILKISON
United States Attorney
2 BENJAMIN R. BARRON
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Santa Ana Branch Office
CHARLES E. PELL (Cal. SBN 210309)
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Santa Ana Branch Office
5 411 West Fourth Street, Suite 8000
Santa Ana, California 92701
6 Telephone: (714) 338-3542
Facsimile: (714) 338-3561
7 E-mail: charles.e.pell2@usdoj.gov
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 2:21-cr-00007-SB
13 Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION
FOR DEFENDANT RAYMOND MAGANA
14 v.
15 RAYMOND MAGANA, Hearing Date: January 25, 2022
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
16 Defendant.
17
18
19 Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
20 plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of
21 record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
22 California and Assistant United States Attorney Charles E. Pell,
23 hereby files its sentencing position for defendant Raymond Magana.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27
28
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:165
1 This sentencing position is based upon the attached memorandum
2 of points and authorities, the under seal exhibit, the files and
3 records in this case, and such further evidence and argument as the
4 Court may permit.
5 Dated: January 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
6 TRACY L. WILKISON
United States Attorney
7
BENJAMIN R. BARRON
8 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Santa Ana Branch Office
9
10 /s/ Charles E. Pell
CHARLES E. PELL
11 Assistant United States Attorney
Santa Ana Branch Office
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:166
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 DESCRIPTION PAGE
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................1
4 I. INTRODUCTION...................................................1
5 II. BACKGROUND.....................................................1
6 A. Procedural Background.....................................1
7 B. Plea agreement............................................2
8 C. Factual Background........................................3
9 1. Facts agreed to in the plea agreement................3
10 2. Even though defendant succeeded in tricking
Kabbage/Customer’s Bank to issue him a $940,416
11 loan that was deposited into his bank account at
U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank luckily froze those funds,
12 although defendant refused to agree to send the
funds back...........................................5
13
III. GUIDELINES CALCULATION.........................................6
14
A. The PSR’s calculations and recommendation.................6
15
B. Loss amount...............................................7
16
C. Sophisticated means.......................................9
17
IV. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION REGARDING SENTENCING....................11
18
A. Summary of the Government’s Position.....................11
19
B. Two level downward variance..............................12
20
C. The § 3553(a) Factors Otherwise Call for a Guidelines
21 Sentence.................................................12
22 1. Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the
Offense.............................................13
23
2. Defendant’s History and Characteristics.............14
24
3. Adequate Deterrence to Defendant and the Public.....15
25
4. Need to Protect the Public from Defendant...........16
26
5. Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities......17
27
D. Restitution..............................................18
28
i
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:167
1 V. CONCLUSION....................................................18
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:168
1 Table of Authorities
2 DESCRIPTION
3 Federal Cases Page(s)
4 United States v. Horob,
5 735 F.3d 866 (9th Cir.2013) ................................... 10
United States v. Jennings,
6
711 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................. 10
7
United States v. Lindsey,
8 680 F. App'x 563 (9th Cir. 2017) .............................. 10
9 United States v. Miller,
953 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................. 18
10
United States v. Tanke,
11
743 F.3d 1296–08 (9th Cir.2014) ........................... 10, 11
12 United States v. Treadwell,
13 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................. 18
14 United States v. Young,
537 F. App'x 777 (9th Cir. 2013) .............................. 10
15
Federal Statutes
16
18 U.S.C. § 1040 ............................................... 1, 2
17
18 U.S.C. § 3553 ......................................... 12, 13, 18
18
42 U.S.C. § 5191 ............................................ 3, 5, 6
19
Other
20
Rule 32 ........................................................... 4
21
Section 2B1.1 ................................................. 9, 10
22
Sentencing Guidelines
23
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 ............................................ 2, 6, 9
24
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 ............................................ 6, 7, 8
25
26
27
28
iii
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 6 of 25 Page ID #:169
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 Defendant Raymond Magana, with criminal history category III,
4 exploited a federal government benefits program during the ongoing
5 international crisis – the COVID pandemic. Defendant tried to steal
6 millions of dollars of taxpayer guaranteed funds intended to help
7 people impacted by that pandemic, to which he was not entitled; his
8 crime involved an intended loss exceeding $2,000,000, with actual
9 loss of $360,415. Applying the Section 3553(a) factors, including
10 deterrence, defendant should be sentenced to years in prison.
11 The government agrees with the Guidelines calculations set forth
12 by Probation, which found that defendant has a final offense level of
13 24 and criminal history category of III, resulting in an applicable
14 Guidelines sentencing range of 63 to 78 months of imprisonment.
15 Based upon the facts, the government believes that a low end
16 Guideline sentence, after applying a two-level downward variance for
17 early acceptance of responsibility, is appropriate in this case: 51
18 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and
19 $360,415 restitution.
20 II. BACKGROUND
21 A. Procedural Background
22 On January 11, 2021, defendant was charged by criminal
23 information with fraud in connection with major disaster and
24 emergency benefits, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040(a)(2). (DE 34.)
25 On January 26, 2021, pursuant to a written plea agreement (DE
26 38), defendant pleaded guilty to the sole count of the information.
27 (DE 41 (minutes of change of plea hearing).)
28 On April 6, 2021, the United States Probation Office disclosed
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 7 of 25 Page ID #:170
1 defendant’s Presentence Investigation Report (PSR). (DE 43.) The
2 Probation Office has determined that defendant’s total offense level
3 is 24 and his criminal history category is III. (Id. at 3.) With
4 said offense level of 24, the PSR calculated the resulting Guidelines
5 sentencing range as 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment, two to five years
6 of supervised release, and a fine of $20,000 to $200,000. (Id.) In
7 its disclosed recommendation letter, the Probation Officer recommends
8 a below Guidelines sentence of 51 months of imprisonment, to be
9 followed by five years of supervised release, and restitution of
10 $360,415. (DE 42 at 1-2.)
11 B. Plea agreement
12 Defendant pleaded guilty to the single count information against
13 him. (PSR ¶ 1.) That information charges defendant with violating
14 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1040(a)(2). (Id. ¶ 2.) The
15 statutory maximum sentence that the Court can impose for a Section
16 1040(a)(2) conviction is 30 years of imprisonment, a five-year period
17 of supervised release, a fine of $250,000 (or twice the gross gain or
18 gross loss resulting from the offense), and a mandatory special
19 assessment of $100.
20 In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the following
21 guidelines calculations are correct:
22 Base Offense Level: 7 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)
23 Section 1040 conduct: +2 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(12)
24 (Id. ¶ 4; Plea Agreement ¶ 14.) The parties left open whether
25 additional specific offense characteristics, adjustments, and
26 departures applied (id.), but the government agreed not to argue or
27 seek a loss amount greater than $2,237,831 (Plea Agreement ¶ 14).
28
2
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 8 of 25 Page ID #:171
1 C. Factual Background
2 1. Facts agreed to in the plea agreement
3 Defendant agreed to the following facts as part of the plea
4 agreement and change of plea hearing:
5 • On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared
6 an emergency under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
7 Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5191(b), which authorized
8 assistance for COVID-19 response efforts for all U.S. states,
9 territories, and the District of Columbia. The Coronavirus Aid,
10 Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act is a federal law enacted in
11 around March 2020 and was designed to provide emergency financial
12 assistance to the millions of Americans who are suffering the
13 economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. One source of
14 relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of up to $349
15 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and
16 certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck
17 Protection Program (PPP). Around April 2020, Congress authorized
18 over $300 billion in additional PPP funding. In December 200,
19 Congress authorized more than $250 billion in additional PPP funding.
20 • In May and June 2020, defendant submitted applications
21 for PPP loans to banks, which contained false statements about the
22 number of employees and the amount of employee payroll expenses.
23 Those false statements were material because to qualify for PPP
24 loans, those employee-related figures are used to calculate whether
25 the business qualifies for a PPP loan, as well as to determine the
26 amount of PPP funds the business is eligible to receive.
27 • Specifically, on or about June 3, 2020, defendant
28 submitted a PPP loan application to Kabbage, Customers Bank's PPP
3
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 9 of 25 Page ID #:172
1 vendor, for $940,416 for entity The Building Circle LLC. In support
2 of that PPP loan application, defendant listed that the average
3 monthly payroll was $376,167, and that the number of employees was
4 40. Defendant knew that those statements were false. Further, in
5 support of that loan application, defendant also submitted a 2019
6 Form W-3 (Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements) for The Building
7 Circle LLC, which reported $4,402,000 in Wages, tips, and other
8 compensation paid, $402,589 in federal income tax withheld, and 40
9 total number of Forms W-2 transmitted for 2019, and also submitted a
10 2020 Form 941 (Employer’s QUARTERLY Federal Tax Return) for the first
11 quarter (Jan., Feb., and March 2020) for The Building Circle LLC,
12 which reported $852,000 in wages, tips, and other compensation paid
13 to 40 employees, with $153,360 in federal income tax withheld for
14 that quarter. Defendant knew that those tax documents were
15 fabricated and contained false information. That fraudulent loan
16 application was approved, and on or about June 4, 2020, Customers
17 Bank disbursed $940,416 of PPP loan proceeds to the bank account
18 provided by defendant in the loan application. The funds in that
19 bank account were frozen, and they were never disbursed to defendant.
20 • Defendant also submitted other PPP loan applications
21 in 2020, which he knew also contained similar false statements and/or
22 attached similar fabricated tax documents. One such loan application
23 was approved, and Bank of America disbursed $360,415 as a result.
24 The authorization, transportation, transmission, transfer,
25 disbursement, or payment for the PPP loans submitted by defendant in
26 May and June 2020 was in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.
27 • The parties believe that the actual loss from the two
28 loans that were approved and disbursed is approximately $360,415.
4
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 10 of 25 Page ID #:173
1 (DE 38 at 11-12.)
2 2. Even though defendant succeeded in tricking
3 Kabbage/Customer’s Bank to issue him a $940,416 loan
4 that was deposited into his bank account at U.S. Bank,
5 U.S. Bank luckily froze those funds, although
6 defendant refused to agree to send the funds back.
7 As described in the factual basis of defendant’s plea, on June
8 3, 2020, defendant submitted an application for a $940,416 PPP loan
9 to Kabbage, Customers Bank’s PPP vendor, on behalf of The Building
10 Circle LLC. That loan had false information and submitted fabricated
11 tax documents. Unfortunately, that fraudulent loan application was
12 approved, and on or about June 4, 2020, Customers Bank disbursed
13 $940,416 of PPP loan proceeds to the bank account provided by
14 defendant in the loan application, which was at U.S. Bank. 1
15 Defendant never was able to access or withdraw those funds,
16 because the receiving bank, U.S. Bank, froze them.
17 Shortly after those funds hit defendant’s bank account at U.S.
18 Bank, U.S. Bank altered Customers Bank’s fraud department because the
19 month before, U.S. Bank had declined a previous PPP loan application
20 submitted by defendant, due to suspected fraud. (DE1 ¶¶ 52-53.)
21 U.S. Bank told Customers Bank that they had placed a hold on the
22 funds and advised Customers Bank to work with Wells Fargo to recover
23 the funds from U.S. Bank. (Id. ¶ 56.) On or about July 30, 2020,
24 U.S. Bank wired back $940,416 to Customers Bank through Wells Fargo
25 Bank. (Id.)
26
27
1 Customers Bank funded that loan by wire transfer of $940,416
28 through Wells Fargo Bank, because Kabbage originates its ACH
transactions through Wells Fargo. (DE1 ¶ 51.)
5
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 11 of 25 Page ID #:174
1 However, prior to returning those funds, U.S. Bank contacted
2 defendant to obtain his consent to return the money back to Customers
3 Bank. (Id.)
4 On August 5, 2020, a U.S. Bank manager spoke to defendant about
5 returning the funds. (Id. ¶ 57.) The manager told defendant that
6 the PPP funds had been sent in error, but defendant countered “We
7 have all the documents, we got approved.” (Id. ¶ 56b-c.) Defendant
8 also stated that he would not consent to send the money back. (Id.
9 ¶ 56d.)
10 III. GUIDELINES CALCULATION
11 A. The PSR’s calculations and recommendation
12 The PSR calculates defendant’s Guidelines sentencing range as 63
13 to 78 months of imprisonment, based upon a total offense level of 24
14 and criminal history category of III. (Id. at 3.) The Probation
15 Officer recommends a below Guidelines sentence of 51 months of
16 imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release, and
17 restitution of $360,415. (DE 42 at 1-2.)
18 The PSR found that the intended loss was $1,230,000. (DE 36
19 ¶ 40.) The PSR’s guidelines calculations are summarized as follows
20 (PSR paragraph identified in parentheses):
21 Base Offense Level: 7 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1) (¶ 29)
22 $1.5mm < Loss < $3.5mm: +16 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) (¶ 32)
23 Sophisticated means: +2 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) (¶ 34)
24 Section 1040 conduct: +2 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(12) (¶ 35)
25 Acceptance of Responsibility –3 U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (¶¶ 41-42)
26 Total Offense Level: 24
27 Criminal History Cat.: III
28 Guidelines Range: 63 to 78 months
6
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 12 of 25 Page ID #:175
1 The government does not object to any of the PSR’s Guidelines
2 level calculations, but discusses the loss amount and sophisticated
3 means specific offense characteristics below, because those
4 adjustments were not agreed to in the plea agreement. 2
5 B. Loss amount
6 In the plea agreement, the parties did not agree on the
7 applicable loss amount: “The government believes that the intended
8 loss from the PPP loan applications that defendant submitted is
9 greater than $1,500,000 and less than $3,500,000, that is,
10 approximately $2,237,831. The defendant believes that the intended
11 loss was $1,300,831.” (DE38 at 12-13).
12 The PSR found that the intended loss is $1,555,248, based upon
13 three PPP loan applications filed by defendant. (PSR ¶ 32.) The PSR
14 identified those three fraudulent loan applications as:
15 • $940,416 (The Building Circle LLC);
16 • $252,917 (Antelope Valley Residential Development); 3
17 • $360,415 (Forward Builders, LLC)
18 (Id.). 4 While the government believes the following additional loan
19 does not change the Guidelines offense level found by the PSR,
20
21 2 The government agrees that no role adjustment is applicable in
this case. (PSR ¶ 37.)
22 3 The PSR notes that on a document submitted to Probation,
defendant reported that he has a 50% ownership of Antelope Valley
23 Residential Development LLC with partner Steven Goldstein. (PSR at 7
n.2.) Defendant also provided Probation with the Form 1065 (U.S.
24 Return of Partnership Income) for Antelope Valley Residential
Development for 2019 and 2020 on which he is listed under Designation
25 of Partnership Representative, and he and Goldstein are listed as
each owning 50 percent. (Id.)
26
4 Antelope Valley Residential Development, LLC, was formed on
27 December 5, 2016, and Raymond Magana is listed as a Chief Executive
Officer, and Goldstein is listed as a Manager. (Id. ¶ 13.) Magana
28 is the CEO of The Building Circle, LLC and Forward Builders, LLC.
(Id. ¶ 14.)
7
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 13 of 25 Page ID #:176
1 because without that additional loan, the intended loss still falls
2 in the $1.5mm to $3.5mm range, the government does believe that
3 defendant did, in fact, submit that fraudulent loan application.
4 That is, defendant also submitted the following additional loan
5 application, which was ultimately denied by the bank:
6 • $937,000 (The Building Circle LLC).
7 The criminal complaint against defendant detailed this fraudulent
8 loan application. (DE1 at 11-15). Specifically, on or about May 14,
9 2020, defendant submitted an application to U.S. Bank for a PPP loan
10 in the amount of $937,000 on behalf of The Building Circle LLC. (Id.
11 at 11.) Like the other PPP loan applications submitted by defendant,
12 this loan application signed by defendant had false information as to
13 number of employees (40) and annual employee salary payments
14 ($4,500,000), and defendant also submitted fabricated federal tax
15 forms. (Id. at 12.) Because of the indicia of fraud, the bank
16 ultimately denied this loan application, so no funds were actually
17 disbursed. (Id. at 13-14.) (As detailed in the plea agreement,
18 defendant then turned around and submitted another application by The
19 Building Circle LLC, increased to $940,416, to Bank of America, which
20 did fund, but was frozen inside defendant’s bank account.)
21 The government anticipates that the defense may argue that this
22 May 2020 $937,000 loan application that he made for The Building
23 Circle LLC should not be included in the loss amount, because that
24 was basically the same amount ($940,416) for which defendant applied
25 using the same entity in June 2020, so defendant really just wanted
26 $940,000 for that entity, and not double that amount. Whether that
27 was defendant’s subjective intent is irrelevant for purposes of the
28 loss. In May 2020, defendant submitted a fraudulent loan application
8
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 14 of 25 Page ID #:177
1 for $937,000 on behalf of The Building Circle LLC to U.S. Bank. When
2 that application was denied due to suspected fraud, defendant turned
3 around and applied the next month in June 2020 with a different bank,
4 Customers Bank, attempting to obtain $940,416 for that same entity.
5 Thus, defendant made two separate fraudulent applications, at two
6 different dates, submitted to two different victim banks.
7 Accordingly, the amounts from both of those fraudulent loan
8 applications should be included in the applicable loss amount.
9 Thus, the government agrees with the PSR that the 2B1.1
10 enhancement for loss is 16 levels based upon an attempted loss amount
11 falling between $1.5mm and $3.5mm, but believes that the $937,000
12 loan application submitted by defendant in May 2020 should be
13 included in the intended loss figure. 5 Accordingly, the government
14 requests that the Court find that the applicable loss amount is
15 $2,237,831.
16 C. Sophisticated means
17 The PSR found that Section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)’s two-level increase
18 for “sophisticated means” applies. (PSR ¶¶ 33-34.)
19 “For purposes of subsection (b)(10)(C), ‘sophisticated means’
20 means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct
21 pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense.”
22 Application Note 9(B), U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1. In the Ninth Circuit, this
23 enhancement does not require a highly complex or brilliant scheme.
24
25
5 In the plea agreement, the government agreed not to argue or
26 seek a loss amount greater than $2,237,831. The government did not
include the $252,917 loan in the applicable loss amount because that
27 loan was submitted by Goldstein and not defendant. Consistent with
the approach it used with the sentencing of co-schemer Goldstein, the
28 government cabined the loss amount to the loans actually submitted or
signed by the respective schemer.
9
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 15 of 25 Page ID #:178
1 E.g., United States v. Jennings, 711 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013)
2 (“Conduct need not involve highly complex schemes or exhibit
3 exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means
4 enhancement.”). 6 Nonetheless, this enhancement does require
5 something more than the mine run offense. E.g., United States v.
6 Lindsey, 680 F. App'x 563, 567 (9th Cir. 2017) (“This enhancement
7 applies when the criminal scheme is extensively planned and is more
8 sophisticated than a routine offense.”) And that makes sense,
9 because otherwise, the enhancement would apply to almost all fraud
10 cases to which Section 2B1.1 otherwise applies.
11 The PSR’s conclusion that the enhancement applies here is
12 supported by the facts. In the plea agreement, defendant admitted
13 that he submitted multiple fabricated federal tax forms, including a
14 2019 Form W-3 (Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements) and a 2020
15 Form 941 for The Building Circle LLC entity. (DE38 at 12.)
16 Likewise, the PSR describes other fraudulent federal tax documents
17
18
6 See also United States v. Tanke, 743 F.3d 1296, 1307–08 (9th
19 Cir.2014) (“Although Tanke did not use ‘fictitious entities,
corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts,’ as the Sentencing
20 Commission's commentary contemplates, he created at least six false
invoices and falsified carbon copies of checks in Azteca's check
21 register on at least 10 occasions to conceal the payments.”); United
States v. Horob, 735 F.3d 866, 872 (9th Cir.2013) (“Horob did more
22 than lie to obtain a loan. He manipulated several people to lie for
him, used several different bank accounts (including accounts of
23 other people) to move funds around, and fabricated numerous
documents. Moreover, the complicated and fabricated paper trail made
24 discovery of his fraud difficult.”); Jennings, 711 F.3d at 1145
(“Conduct need not involve highly complex schemes or exhibit
25 exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means enhancement.
Defendants’ effort to conceal income by using a bank account with a
26 deceptive name was sufficiently sophisticated to support application
of the sentencing enhancement.”); United States v. Young, 537 F.
27 App'x 777, 781 (9th Cir. 2013) (affirming sophisticated means
enhancement, noting “Here, the government offered considerable
28 evidence that Young used multiple accounts and corporations as part
of his fraudulent scheme.”).
10
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 16 of 25 Page ID #:179
1 that defendant submitted in the offense. (PSR ¶¶ 20 n.1, 34.) The
2 criminal complaint describes the fraudulent documents too. (DE1 at
3 12-13, 15-16, 26.) Making up the number of employees and payroll on
4 different loan applications and submitting multiple different types
5 of fabricated tax documents, for multiple different business
6 entities, to different banks, is sufficient to meet the Ninth
7 Circuit’s threshold for the sophisticated means enhancement to apply.
8 Accord, e.g., Tanke, 743 F.3d at 1307–08 (finding that enhancement
9 applied because defendant “created at least six false invoices and
10 falsified carbon copies of checks in Azteca's check register on at
11 least 10 occasions to conceal the payments.”).
12 IV. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION REGARDING SENTENCING
13 A. Summary of the Government’s Position
14 Defendant exploited a government benefits program during the
15 international COVID pandemic crisis. He committed the serious
16 federal crime of fraud involving COVID-related PPP benefits, where
17 defendant made false statements and submitted fabricated tax
18 documents to try to steal more than $2,000,000 in PPP funds that were
19 intended to assist employees who had been adversely affected by the
20 COVID pandemic. While he did not succeed in tricking the banks to
21 give him all the funds for which he had applied, he did obtain more
22 than $360,000 through fraud. Simply put, defendant stole taxpayer
23 guaranteed funds intended to help those who had been hurt by the
24 COVID pandemic. And he did so more than once, with multiple
25 fraudulent loan applications. And he used multiple fabricated
26 federal tax documents to effectuate his fraud.
27 In addition to the seriousness of the crime, defendant’s
28 sentence must address general deterrence – to stop others from trying
11
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 17 of 25 Page ID #:180
1 the same thing. Defendant also must be specifically deterred: not
2 only have the lenient sentences he previously received failed to send
3 him the message that he must stop committing crimes, but the
4 seriousness of his crimes have increased to the instant fraud
5 involving an intended loss in the millions.
6 The government does not object to the Guidelines calculations of
7 the Probation Office. As to the appropriate sentence, the government
8 also agrees with Probation’s recommended sentence and believes that a
9 low-end Guidelines sentence – after applying a COVID-based two-level
10 variance – is appropriate in this case.
11 As discussed below, the government respectfully recommends the
12 same sentence recommended by Probation: 51 months’ imprisonment,
13 followed by 5 years of supervised release, and $360,415 in
14 restitution payable to Bank of America.
15 B. Two level downward variance
16 In the plea agreement, the government agreed that defendant was
17 entitled to the so-called COVID variance, that is, a two-level
18 downward variance as recognition of defendant’s early acceptance of
19 responsibility. (DE38 ¶ 5f.) Defendant entered a plea agreement
20 shortly after his house was searched, accepted responsibility by
21 interviewing with the government, and has otherwise demonstrated
22 early acceptance of responsibility. Thus, the government believes
23 that this two-level downward variance is appropriate in this case.
24 C. The § 3553(a) Factors Otherwise Call for a Guidelines
25 Sentence.
26 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court should impose a sentence
27 “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
28 purposes” of sentencing as set forth in § 3553(a)(2). The Court is
12
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 18 of 25 Page ID #:181
1 to consider various factors in determining the particular sentence,
2 including:
3 (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
4 history and characteristics of the defendant; [¶] (2) the
5 need for the sentence imposed –- [¶] (A) to reflect the
6 seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
7 and to provide just punishment for the offense; [¶] (B) to
8 afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [and] (C)
9 to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;
10 . . . [¶] (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing
11 range established [in the Sentencing Guidelines]; . . . [¶]
12 (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
13 among defendants with similar records who have been found
14 guilty of similar conduct; and [¶] (7) the need to provide
15 restitution to any victims of the offense.
16 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
17 Here, application of those factors supports the conclusion that
18 the sentence recommended by Probation and the government, which is a
19 below-Guidelines sentence, is a reasonable and appropriate sentence
20 for defendant.
21 1. Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Offense
22 Defendant committed a very serious federal crime, involving an
23 intended loss of more than $2,000,000 of taxpayer funds (and more
24 than $360,000 of actual loss), which he perpetrated not only with
25 false statements, but also with multiple fabricated tax documents.
26 And as shown by the government’s exhibit, 7 defendant not only did
27
28 7 The government is filing the exhibit under seal, because it
includes tax information.
13
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 19 of 25 Page ID #:182
1 defendant submit the fraudulent loan applications, but when the bank
2 started asking questions about one of them, rather than withdraw his
3 fraudulent request, he continued to try to pursue his scheme to steal
4 the money, including by attempting to shift blame to his CPA for any
5 discrepancies in the information he had submitted. (Exhibit-1 at
6 MAGANA_00002508). Moreover, when defendant did succeed in tricking
7 one bank to approve his fraudulent application and $940,416 was wired
8 into one of his bank accounts, defendant refused to consent to return
9 those fraudulently obtained funds when the bank asked him.
10 Defendant did not file just one loan application with one false
11 statement; he filed multiple fraudulent loan applications. He
12 submitted those fraudulent applications to different banks. Not only
13 did defendant submit multiple loan applications with false
14 statements, but he also submitted multiple fabricated tax documents
15 to attempt to substantiate the false information on the fraudulent
16 loan applications.
17 All of the above shows a level of criminal activity that should
18 be punished.
19 2. Defendant’s History and Characteristics
20 Defendant’s history and characteristics lack significant
21 mitigation in this case. Defendant has a sizable criminal history,
22 which resulted in a Criminal History Category of III. (PSR ¶¶ 47-
23 51). For example, in 2012, defendant was convicted of owning a chop
24 shop. (Id. ¶ 49.) Two years later, defendant was convicted of
25 vehicular manslaughter. (Id. ¶ 50.)
26 Defendant’s upbringing appears to have been stable, and he
27 maintains close relationships with his parents and siblings. (Id.
28 ¶¶ 57-60.)
14
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 20 of 25 Page ID #:183
1 Moreover, defendant appears to have been able to make a
2 legitimate living, including during 2019, making a quite good living
3 of $13,000 monthly, and before that, earning $75,000 per year from
4 2002 to 2014, before he went to jail. (Id. ¶¶ 78-80.) Likewise,
5 defendant owns his four-bedroom, three-and-half-bathroom residence
6 and owned several other properties through his business, some of
7 which he has now sold since his arrest. (Id. ¶¶ 66-68, 81, 86-88.)
8 3. Adequate Deterrence to Defendant and the Public
9 Based upon his criminal history and the facts of this case,
10 specific deterrence appears to apply in this case. As defendant’s
11 criminal history detailed in the PSR shows, defendant has committed
12 various criminal offenses but has usually escaped meaningful
13 punishment, by receiving probation or light sentences – with the
14 longest sentence of 365 days in jail. Those short or probationary
15 sentences do not seem to have deterred defendant from committing
16 crimes. To the contrary, it appears that defendant’s criminal
17 conduct has escalated to the instant scheme - a serious federal crime
18 involving millions of dollars of fraud. 8
19 Likewise, general deterrence is a very important consideration
20 in this case. The need for public deterrence supports the
21 recommended sentence. Given the prevalence of COVID-related fraud
22 against the government – billions of dollars in PPP-related fraud
23 during the past couple years, general deterrence would be served by a
24 sizable prison sentence in this case, so that people stop committing
25 these crimes.
26
27
8 The PSR also reports that defendant’s probation from his 2012
28 conviction was revoked in 2014, and he was sentenced to 180 days
jail. (PSR ¶ 49.)
15
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 21 of 25 Page ID #:184
1 The COVID-19 pandemic is not over. The PPP loan program has now
2 been addressing an important next step — loan forgiveness. For
3 example, the SBA announced that as of September 21, 2021, it had
4 recorded its one millionth PPP loan forgiveness application for
5 borrowers seeking forgiveness for loans of $150,000 or less, totaling
6 more than $17 billion of requested relief. 9 In order for PPP loans
7 to be forgiven, businesses will need to certify that they used the
8 funds for their intended purpose —for payroll, rent, and utilities.
9 News of PPP loan fraud will likely reach others who applied for such
10 relief or who were intended to do so, even though either the loan was
11 fraudulently obtained, or loan forgiveness is not proper.
12 Accordingly, the sentence that the Court imposes in this case may
13 serve as a warning to others to not commit a similar crime.
14 In short, people who commit COVID-related benefits fraud against
15 the government need to know that they will be held accountable - and
16 will be imprisoned for years in federal prison.
17 4. Need to Protect the Public from Defendant
18 The government agrees with Probation that imposing years of
19 supervised release is appropriate in this case. Given defendant’s
20 criminal history and the instant criminal conduct, the government
21 agrees and recommends five years of supervised release, so that the
22 Probation Department and the Court can monitor defendant and prevent
23 recidivism.
24
25
26 9 “SBA Administrator Announces New Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) Milestone: In Less Than Two Months, One Million Borrowers Apply
27 for Direct Forgiveness through Agency’s PPP Portal,” available at
https://www.sba.gov/article/2021/sep/22/sba-administrator-announces-
28 new-paycheck-protection-program-ppp-milestone-less-two-months-one
(visited 01/05/2022).
16
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 22 of 25 Page ID #:185
1 5. Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
2 The recommended below-Guidelines sentence of 51 months of
3 imprisonment does not appear to be disparate to a sentence for a
4 fraud conviction involving a loss exceeding two million dollars, in
5 particular, COVID-related fraud. While each case must be judged on
6 its specific facts and sentences nationwide for PPP loan fraud have
7 run from months to multiple years in prison, some recent sentences
8 for PPP fraud during the last couple months include 110 months’
9 imprisonment for a $2.6 million intended loss/$1.6 million actual
10 loss (November 2021), 10 41 months’ imprisonment in a case involving a
11 $7.9 million loss (January 4, 2022), 11 and 17, six, and five-year
12 sentences for a scheme involving more than $20 million loss (November
13 2021). 12 The recommended sentence falls within those ranges.
14 On the other hand, the government believes that the sentence for
15 defendant’s co-schemer, Steven Goldstein, should be considered when
16 fashioning defendant’s sentence, to avoid potential disparity. 13
17 However, there are some differences between defendant and Goldstein,
18 including criminal history and loss amount. 14 Nonetheless, with
19
20 10 United States v. Lee E. Price, III, 4:20-cr-00522-1 (N.D.
Texas).
21 11United States v. Hunter VanPelt, 1:21-cr-00006-MHC (N.D. Ga.).
12 United States v. Richard Ayvazyan, et al., 2:20-cr-00579-SVW
22
(C.D. Cal.); see also “Seven Members of Los Angeles-Based Fraud Ring
23 Sentenced for Multimillion-Dollar COVID-19 Relief Scheme/Leader
Sentenced to 17 Years in Prison,” available at
24 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/seven-members-los-angeles-based-fraud-
ring-sentenced-multimillion-dollar-covid-19-relief (last visited
25 01/04/2022).
13 On September 14, 2021, the Court sentenced Goldstein to 12
26 months and one day of prison. (DE 54, 55, United States v.
Goldstein, 2:20-cr-00597-SB.)
27
14 Putting aside the intended loss figure, Goldstein caused
28 $655,000 of PPP loan funds to be issued, while defendant caused about
(footnote cont’d on next page)
17
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 23 of 25 Page ID #:186
1 respect to the loans at issue, the government does not believe
2 defendant is any more culpable nor occupied a higher and different
3 role than co-schemer Goldstein.
4 Nonetheless, because federal sentences must be individualized,
5 “sentencing disparity is only one factor a court considers in
6 crafting an individualized sentence under § 3553(a). A district court
7 need not, and, as a practical matter, cannot compare a proposed
8 sentence to the sentence of every criminal defendant who has ever
9 been sentenced before. Too many factors dictate the exercise of
10 sound sentencing discretion in a particular case to make the inquiry
11 [defendant] urges helpful or even feasible.” United States v.
12 Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). 15
13 Based upon the above, the government believes that a two-level
14 below-Guidelines sentence of 51 months of imprisonment is reasonable
15 and will adequately address the applicable Section 3553(a) factors.
16 D. Restitution
17 In the plea agreement, defendant agreed to make restitution.
18 The PSR correctly calculated restitution as $360,415. 16 Assuming
19 defendant pays all the restitution before sentencing, the government
20 believes he should be commended for doing so.
21 V. CONCLUSION
22 During the past couple years, tens of billions of dollars in PPP
23 loans are suspected to have involved fraud. E.g., “15% of Paycheck
24
double that, $1,300,831, of PPP loan funds to be issued. Only
25 through the admirable acts of U.S. Bank, which froze the funds issued
by Customers Bank, was defendant’s actual loss limited to $360,415.
26 15 Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Miller, 953
F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020)
27
16 In preparation for sentencing, federal agents recently
28 confirmed with the victim that the outstanding loan amount remains
$360,415.
18
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 24 of 25 Page ID #:187
1 Protection Program Loans Could be Fraudulent, Study Shows; Some $76
2 billion of the program’s $800 billion in loans may have been taken
3 improperly, a new paper concludes,” New York Times (August 17,
4 2021). 17 Similarly, during the COVID pandemic over the past two
5 years, criminals have robbed the state of California of billions to
6 fraudulently obtain COVID-related unemployment benefits from
7 California EDD. E.g., “California officials say unemployment fraud
8 now totals more than $11 billion,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 25,
9 2021); 18 “1.4 million unemployment fraud cases could take a month to
10 fix, EDD says,” Orange County Register (Jan. 12, 2021). 19
11 Defendant was part of that COVID fraud scourge. He exploited a
12 federal program intended to help others who were adversely affected
13 by the worldwide COVID pandemic, and he perpetrated his scheme by
14 using false statements and fabricated tax documents. Defendant filed
15 several PPP loan applications that had false statements in his
16 attempts to obtain more than two million dollars of taxpayer funds to
17 which he was not entitled. He went even further and submitted
18
19
17Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/17/business/ppp-
20 fraud-covid.html (last visited 01/05/2022); see also “$84 Billion in
PPP Loans Are Potentially Fraudulent, But Only 1% of Funds Have Been
21 Seized,” Newsweek (March 24, 2021), available at
https://www.newsweek.com/84-billion-ppp-loans-are-potentially-
22 fraudulent-only-1-funds-have-been-seized-1578708 (last visited
04/12/2021).
23 18 Available at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-
25/california-unemployment-fraud-11-billion-investigations (last
24 visited 03/29/2021.)
25 19 Available at https://www.ocregister.com/2021/01/12/1-4-
million-unemployment-fraud-one-month-fix-edd-jobs-layoff-economy/
26 (last visited 03/29/2021). See also “Inland Empire Woman Sentenced
to Over 3 Years in Prison for Using Stolen Identities to Fraudulently
27 Obtain Over $500,000 in COVID Relief,” available at
https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/inland-empire-woman-sentenced-
28 over-3-years-prison-using-stolen-identities-fraudulently (last
visited 01/07/2022).
19
Case 2:21-cr-00007-SB Document 54 Filed 01/10/22 Page 25 of 25 Page ID #:188
1 fabricated tax documents to support his false statements and
2 fraudulent loan applications. Defendant went even further by
3 continuing to pursue his fraudulent applications with the banks when
4 they initially identified discrepancies in his information, and in
5 one instance, defendant appears to have blamed his CPA for that
6 discrepancy. When one bank identified his fraud after it had been
7 tricked into wiring him $940,416, defendant refused to consent to
8 return those funds. By his fraud, defendant was ultimately able to
9 steal more than a million dollars in PPP funds.
10 General and specific deterrence are important considerations
11 here. Defendant’s prior lenient sentences have not deterred him from
12 continuing to break the law. Moreover, a sizable federal prison
13 sentence in this case should send a strong message to others that
14 such COVID relief fraud will be swiftly and appropriately punished
15 and that those engaging in it can and will be held accountable.
16 On the other hand, defendant did quickly admit culpability and
17 pleaded guilty immediately thereafter. That, however, is largely
18 addressed by the two-level downward variance and low end Guidelines
19 sentence recommended by the government, which if granted, lowers his
20 sentencing range by about a year, from 63-78 to 51-63 months.
21 For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests
22 that this Court impose the following sentence:
23 1. 51 months of imprisonment;
24 2. 5 years of supervised release;
25 3. $360,415 restitution;
26 4. $75,000 fine; and
27 5. $100 special assessment.
28
20
File and source
- File
- 54.pdf
- Size
- 296,630 bytes
- SHA-256
- b0ca284fe6c33bb04ade961b77ef5c7e30732eb9cf6daecdd689463b6d731c90
- Our copy
- 54.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.