Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Mateus Pina Mendes

Summary

Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Mateus Pina Mendes, filed December 20, 2022 as Document 37 in No. CR 22-CR-371-PA, with sentencing set for Jan. 10, 2023, before Hon. Percy Anderson. He signed a plea agreement to plead guilty to a single-count Information for wire fraud and entered the plea on September 1, 2022. The government says he used defunct companies and falsified tax documents to obtain Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan funds, receiving approximately $143,283.67. It recommends 21 months in prison, three years of supervised release, restitution of $143,283.67 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

Full text

      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:157



1    E. MARTIN ESTRADA
     United States Attorney
2    SCOTT M. GARRINGER
     Assistant United States Attorney
3    Chief, Criminal Division
     SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719)
4    Assistant United States Attorney
     Deputy Chief, Major Frauds Section
5         1100 United States Courthouse
          312 North Spring Street
6         Los Angeles, California 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-6527
7         Facsimile: (213) 894-6269
          E-mail:    scott.paetty@usdoj.gov
8
     GLENN S. LEON
9    Chief, Fraud Section
     Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
10   JENNIFER BILINKAS
     Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
11   Criminal Division, Fraud Section
          1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor
12        Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 305-3928
13        Email:     jennifer.bilinkas@usdoj.gov

14
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
15   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17                     FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                No. CR 22-CR-371-PA
19
               Plaintiff,                     GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION
20                                            FOR DEFENDANT MATEUS PINA MENDES
                      v.
21                                            Sentencing Date: Jan. 10, 2023
     MATEUS PINA MENDES,                      Sentencing Time: 12:00 p.m.
22                                            Location:     Courtroom of the
               Defendant.                                   Hon. Percy Anderson
23

24

25
          Plaintiff United States of America hereby submits its position
26
     regarding the sentencing of defendant MATEUS PINA MENDES
27
     (“defendant”).
28
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:158



1         This position is based upon the attached memorandum of points

2    and authorities, the Presentence Report disclosed by the United

3    States Probation Office on November 30, 2022, the files and records

4    in this case, and such further evidence and argument as the Court may

5    permit.

6    Dated: December 20, 2022             Respectfully submitted,

7                                         E. MARTIN ESTRADA
                                          United States Attorney
8
                                          SCOTT M. GARRINGER
9                                         Assistant United States Attorney
                                          Chief, Criminal Division
10

11                                             /s/ Jennifer Bilinkas
                                          SCOTT PAETTY
12                                        Assistant United States Attorney
                                          JENNIFER BILINKAS
13                                        Trial Attorney

14                                        Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                             2
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:159



1                       MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2         For the reasons set forth below, the government recommends a

3    sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year

4    term of supervised release, a restitution order in the amount of

5    $143,283.67, and a special assessment of $100.

6    I.   FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7         A.     The Fraudulent Scheme

8         Between approximately May 2020 and March 2021, defendant MATEUS

9    PINA MENDES (“defendant”) was involved in a scheme to defraud the

10   Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and its affiliated lenders of

11   approximately $143,283.67 in funds intended for COVID-19 pandemic

12   relief.   Through the use of defunct companies and falsified tax

13   documents, defendant fraudulently obtained federal disaster relief

14   funds from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic

15   Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program, which were programs aimed to

16   help small businesses suffering from the economic impacts of the

17   COVID-19 pandemic.     As part of the scheme, defendant applied for PPP

18   and EIDL loans by making materially false representations about the

19   entities’ payroll, revenue, and operating expenses.           In furtherance

20   of his fraud, and to further conceal the fraudulent proceeds,

21   defendant misused the PPP and EIDL loan proceeds for his own personal

22   benefit, including the purchase of cryptocurrency and gold coins.

23        Over the course of the scheme, defendant applied for a total of

24   ten loans totaling approximately $184,690.67 and in fact received

25   approximately $143,283.67 in loan proceeds to which he was not

26   entitled.    (PSR ¶ 18.)

27

28
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:160



1          B.     Procedural History

2          Defendant signed a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead

3    guilty to a single-count Information to wire fraud, in violation of

4    18 U.S.C. §1343. 1   (PSR ¶¶ 1-2.)     Defendant subsequently appeared

5    before this Court on September 1, 2022 and entered a plea of guilty.

6    (ECF No. 27.)

7    II.   THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

8          The Probation Office found that defendant’s total offense level

9    is 16, based on a base offense level of 7 (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)), a

10   ten-level upward adjustment for the loss amount over $150,000 under

11   U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F), a two-level upward adjustment for

12   sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10), and a reduction

13   for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a)-(b).             (PSR

14   ¶¶ 25-40.)    The government concurs in the Probation Office’s

15   calculation of defendant’s total offense level.

16         The Probation Office calculated defendant’s criminal history

17   category as I based on zero criminal history points.           (PSR ¶ 45.)

18   The government concurs in the Probation Office’s calculation of

19   defendant’s criminal history.       With an offense level of 16 and a

20   criminal history category of I, defendant’s applicable advisory

21   guidelines sentencing range is 21-27 months.

22   III. ARGUMENT

23         A.   The Seriousness of the Offense and the Need to Provide Just
                Punishment Support the Government’s Recommended Sentence.
24

25         Defendant’s criminal conduct in this case is serious, as he

26   fraudulently sought to obtain pandemic-related loans offered to

27

28         1The government requests that the Court incorporate the plea
     agreement into the proceedings at the sentencing hearing.
                                        2
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:161



1    address emergency and disaster relief to those businesses affected by

2    the COVID-19 pandemic.     The COVID-19 pandemic was an extraordinarily

3    serious public health crisis, and it had profound economic

4    ramifications.    Defendant’s exploitation of the crisis not only cost

5    the government, the SBA, and affiliated lenders time and money, but

6    also diverted funds that could have been used the way PPP loans were

7    intended: to assist struggling businesses and to keep people

8    employed.   Instead, defendant took money that was earmarked for

9    legitimate small businesses and dissipated it for his own personal

10   enrichment.    Moreover, this was not a victimless crime.         The PPP and

11   EIDL programs were not a limitless pot of money.          By taking money he

12   was not entitled to, defendant defrauded taxpayers who helped fund

13   the program and the SBA which guarantees these loans, and also

14   potentially made it more difficult for legitimate loan applicants to

15   obtain pandemic relief funds.

16        Furthermore, defendant’s fraud was not an impulsive one-off; he

17   applied for ten different loans to which he knew he was not entitled,

18   and knowingly submitted false documents attesting to these defunct

19   companies, payroll expenses, tax payments, and other financial

20   information.    As such, defendant’s conduct, which through the

21   diversion of relief money caused direct harm to a vulnerable public,

22   warrants a meaningful custodial sentence.

23        B.     The Need for General Deterrence Supports the Government’s
                 Recommended Sentence.
24

25        A significant sentence is also necessary to provide general

26   deterrence.    Defendant’s actions warrant commensurately significant

27   consequences, both due to the seriousness of the offense and as a

28   general deterrent to send a message to the broader public that taking

                                             3
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:162



1    advantage of a national emergency to enrich oneself at the public

2    expense will result in serious consequences.         Given that criminal

3    conduct like defendant’s is typically more difficult to detect and

4    prosecute than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, there is a

5    greater need for general deterrence.        See, e.g., United States v.

6    Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks

7    omitted)); United States v. Heffernan, 43 F.3d 1144, 1149 (7th Cir.

8    1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for punishing more

9    heavily those offenses that either are lucrative or are difficult to

10   detect and punish, since both attributes go to increase the expected

11   benefits of a crime and hence the punishment required to deter it.”).

12   Here, the government’s proposed sentence will help to deter other

13   fraudsters, like defendant, who believe that they can generate income

14   through fraudulent schemes against government agencies during a time of

15   crisis.

16        C.    The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities Among
                Similarly Situated Defendants Supports the Government’s
17              Recommended Sentence.

18        Section 3553(a)(6) directs the Court to consider “the need to

19   avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar

20   records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.”           The

21   Government therefore notes for the Court’s awareness that two

22   defendants in related cases have pleaded guilty and been sentenced.

23   On December 12, 2022, this Court sentenced Ramiro Mendes (22-CR-370-

24   PA) to 41 months’ imprisonment and Ammon Mendes (22-CR-369-PA) to 21

25   months’ imprisonment.     As such, the government believes that a

26   sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment for the defendant would avoid any

27   unwarranted sentencing disparities.

28

                                             4
      Case 2:22-cr-00371-PA Document 37 Filed 12/20/22 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:163



1           D.   Restitution

2           Restitution is applicable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.           (PSR ¶

3    19.)    The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”) requires a

4    district court to order restitution when (1) a defendant commits an

5    “offense against property,” and (2) there is an identifiable

6    “victim.”    18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1).       The scheme to submit

7    fraudulent PPP and EIDL loan applications to the SBA and affiliated

8    lenders is an offense against the property of the United States.                The

9    MVRA provides for “restitution to each victim in the full amount of

10   each victim’s losses,” and restitution must be determined “without

11   consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.”                18

12   U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A).      The amount of restitution due in this case,

13   measured by the amount that the defendant received in PPP and EIDL

14   loan proceeds, is $143,283.67.       (PSR ¶ 20; Plea Agreement ¶ 6.)

15   IV.    CONCLUSION

16          For the foregoing reasons, the government believes that a

17   sentence of 21 months imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised

18   release, a restitution order in the amount of $143,283.67, and a

19   special assessment of $100 is sufficient, but not greater than

20   necessary, to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                             5


File and source

File

37.pdf

Size

140,572 bytes

SHA-256

aebb52843b06b915b4235d0004ce383a4813fbec4c6d84ea2114d9afa60aafa7

Our copy

37.pdf

Original

No public link identified.