United States' Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Shane Spierdowis (D. Mass., Dkt. 38)

Summary

The United States' Sentencing Memorandum in United States v. Shane Spierdowis, Docket No. 1:21-cr-10095-RGS, Document 38, filed February 18, 2022, in the District of Massachusetts. It states that the United States intends to recommend 27 months of imprisonment and 24 months of supervised release, and that the applicable guideline range in the PSR is 24 to 30 months. It states that on October 21, 2021 the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and alleges that shell corporations were used to obtain a PPP loan and an EIDL, with the SBA disbursing more than $190,000. The memorandum also lists the defendant's earlier case, 1:18-cr-20355. William F. Abely, Assistant U.S. Attorney, signs.

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 1:21-cr-10095-RGS Document 38 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 5




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                               )
                                                       )
               v.                                      )
                                                       )        Docket No. 1:21-cr-10095-RGS
                                                       )
SHANE SPIERDOWIS,                                      )
                                                       )
                       Defendant                       )
                                                       )

                    UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       The United States hereby states that it intends to recommend a sentence to include 27

months of imprisonment, which is within the expected guideline sentencing range. Such a

sentence is appropriate in light of factors including Defendant’s criminal history, his repeated

demonstration of disrespect for the law, his high risk of recidivism, and the brazenness of the

crime. The United States further intends to recommend 24 months of supervised release.

I.     Background

       On October 21, 2021, Shane Spierdowis pleaded guilty to one count of Wire Fraud in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Defendant used multiple shell corporations to fraudulently

obtain a U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan

and an SBA Economic Injury Disaster loan (“EIDL”). See Presentence Investigative Report

(“PSR”) ¶¶ 8, 10-16, 18-20. The process for obtaining these loans required numerous instances of

deception. The Defendant misrepresented his Social Security number (“SSN”) to open bank

accounts for his shell companies. Id. ¶¶ 9, 17. He similarly misrepresented his SSN in loan

applications and submitted forged bank records and IRS filings in support of these applications.

Id. ¶¶ 10-14, 18,20. He also attested to yearly revenue that did not exist. Id. ¶¶ 14, 19. In connection

with these two fraudulent loan applications, the SBA disbursed more than $190,000. Id. ¶¶ 16, 21.
          Case 1:21-cr-10095-RGS Document 38 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 5




The Defendant brazenly lied to his bank in an effort to obtain access to these funds. Id. ¶¶ 22-26.

After deducing that his bank may have notified law enforcement about his fraud, the Defendant

proposed fleeing the country or kidnapping and threatening a bank employee. Id. ¶¶ 27-29. Even

at this point, the Defendant still planned to submit additional fraudulent applications. Id. ¶ 31.

II.    Discussion

       The Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, though sentencing courts “must

consult these Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005). The Sentencing Guidelines are “the ‘starting point and the initial

benchmark.’” Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 108 (2007) (quoting Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007) (noting that the Guidelines should “be kept in mind throughout the

process”). The sentencing court must conduct a two-step process: first calculating the sentence

using the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and then applying an individualized assessment under

the statutory sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Vázquez, 724

F.3d 15, 28–29 (1st Cir. 2013). These factors include:

       (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;

               (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant . . .

       (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar

       records who have been found guilty of similar conduct

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
           Case 1:21-cr-10095-RGS Document 38 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 5




       As set forth in the PSR, the applicable Guideline Sentence Range in this case is 24 to 30

months. The United States recommends that the Court sentence the Defendant to a sentence of 27

months imprisonment, at the midpoint of this range. In large part, this recommendation is

motivated by the Defendant’s recent history in federal court, which demonstrates a profound

disrespect for the law. Since the Defendant’s 2018 arrest in Florida on a charge of conspiracy to

commit securities fraud, and the subsequent “huge break” that he was afforded, he has had

numerous opportunities to demonstrate a willingness and ability to change his behavior and

comply with the law. Yet, the Defendant has chosen to shirk the law each and every time, and to

squander each and any break he was given. The pertinent chronology includes the following:

       •    In October 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida sentenced
            the Defendant to probation on a charge of securities fraud. See Case 1:18-cr-20355,
            Docket 23. The Court subsequently described this as “a huge break.” See Exhibit A
            (Annotated transcript, May 28, 2019, Case 1:18-cr-20355), p 7. See also id. at p.9 (“I
            have him a very big break”).1

       •    Subsequently, the Defendant tested positive for cocaine, arising from an apparent all-
            night “cocaine and strippers” binge just prior to his sentencing – but the Court gave
            him another break and did not violate him. See Exhibit B (Annotated transcript, March
            13, 2019, Case 1:18-cr-20355), pp. 3-4.

       •    Thereafter, the Defendant engaged in a “pattern of conduct” that resulted in a series of
            probation violations, including false statements regarding his whereabouts and repeated
            “nastiness,” “belligerence,” and disrespect towards U.S. Probation (“USPO”). Id, pp.,
            4-5, 7. USPO indicated that it lacked the resources to supervise the Defendant given
            his behavior. Id. At p. 6. The U.S. Magistrate Judge found that the Defendant had been
            lying to USPO and had committed repeated violations, and that he was “not likely to
            obey any order” of the Court. Id., p. 13-14.

       •    The Defendant subsequently submitted a letter to the Court pledging his intention that
            this be his “last experience with the court system.” See Exhibit C (Case 1:18-cr-20355,
            Docket 44-1). The Defendant contrasted himself with criminals who do not care who
            they hurt, emphasizing “I DO CARE.” Id.

       •    The Defendant also gave the Court his word that he would not commit any further
            violations. Exhibit A, p. 7. With shrewdness and wisdom, the U.S. District Court found

1
  Defendant’s guideline sentencing range was 18 – 24 months, and the United States requested a
sentence of 17 months. See id. at p. 3.
         Case 1:21-cr-10095-RGS Document 38 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 5




           that there was “absolutely no reason to believe” the Defendant’s protestations that he
           was a changed man. Id. p. 8. The Court noted that the Defendant had violated his terms
           of probation “time and time and time and time again,” and revoked this probation. Id.,
           p. 9.

       The Defendant then remained in custody until late June 2020, and he had only been released

a short time before committing the instant offense. This underscores the emptiness of the

Defendant’s promises and his unwillingness to reform himself. The Defendant does not deserve

another “big break,” but instead must face appropriate consequences for his misconduct in this

case specifically and for his pattern of misconduct generally.

III.   Conclusion

       The seriousness and sophistication of the Defendant’s conduct, combined with his history

of contempt for the law, merits a sentence that includes a term of imprisonment of 27 months.

                                                     Respectfully submitted,

                                                     RACHAEL S. ROLLINS
                                                     UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

                                                     By:/s/ William F. Abely
                                                     WILLIAM F. ABELY
                                                     Assistant U.S. Attorney
                                                     William.abely@usdoj.gov


Date: February 18, 2022
         Case 1:21-cr-10095-RGS Document 38 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 5




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that this document will be filed via ECF and thereby transmitted to all
counsel of record; a copy will also be sent via email to United States Probation.

                                                     /s/ William F. Abely
                                                     WILLIAM F. ABELY
                                                     Assistant U.S. Attorney
Date: February 18, 2022


File and source

File

38.pdf

Size

168,173 bytes

SHA-256

4b9cef9b0fc6b0627874789d2d1672f9a2aea8e81409f4f27be6880bd674eeee

Our copy

38.pdf

Original

archive.org