Order — United States v. Zipora Hudson (Northern District of Mississippi)

Summary

An Order, Doc # 118, filed 02/19/25 in Case 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP, United States of America v. Zipora Hudson, No. 3:24-cr-005-MPM-RP, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. The order denies Hudson's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [97] and Corrected Motion for New Trial [108] after her conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and dismisses her original Motion for New Trial [98] as moot. It recounts that she managed Zippy Bee, LLC, a tax preparing service, and referred clients to her son, who created fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, and that the jury convicted on January 13, 2025. The Court finds the evidence sufficient and her claims of bias generic, and the order is signed by Judge Michael P. Mills.

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: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 118 Filed: 02/19/25 1 of 4 PageID #: 669




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


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.                                                                    No. 3:24-cr-005-MPM-RP

ZIPORA HUDSON                                                                          Defendant

                                              ORDER

        This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Zipora Hudson’s Motion for Judgment of

Acquittal [97] and Corrected Motion for New Trial [108] filed after her conviction for conspiracy

to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Having filed a corrected motion

for new trial, Defendant’s original Motion for New Trial [98] is dismissed as moot. For the

following reasons, both motions are denied.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Ms. Hudson’s conviction arises out of her participation in a scheme to defraud the

government by submitting fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan applications to

the Small Business Association (“SBA”). The PPP was a COVID-19 pandemic relief program

administered by the SBA that provided forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and

other related expenses. The PPP permitted participating third-party lenders to approve and disburse

SBA-backed PPP loans to qualifying small businesses. Trial testimony revealed that to qualify for

a $20,000 loan, the borrower’s business must have had an income of approximately $100,000 in

2019.

        Ms. Hudson was the manager of Zippy Bee, LLC, a tax preparing service in Charleston,

Tallahatchie County, Mississippi. Ms. Hudson used her position at Zippy Bee to assist borrowers

in submitting false and fraudulent PPP loan applications. Ms. Hudson referred numerous clients to
        Case: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 118 Filed: 02/19/25 2 of 4 PageID #: 670




her son, Montreal Hudson, who would create fraudulent PPP loan applications on their behalf in

exchange for payment. Many of these clients were unsophisticated borrowers who were unaware

of what a PPP loan was and did not own a qualifying small business. Trial testimony from affected

individuals confirmed that the PPP loans would not have been received absent Ms. Hudson’s

referral to her son, Montreal Hudson, who was responsible for creating the fraudulent loan

applications.

           In January 2023, the Grand Jury returned an Indictment charging Zipora Hudson, Montreal

Hudson, and Deandre Jones 1 with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit

money laundering, among other charges that were later dismissed at trial. On January 13, 2025,

after a three-day jury trial, the jury convicted Montreal and Zipora Hudson on both conspiracy

counts. Ms. Hudson subsequently filed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [97] and Corrected

Motion for New Trial [108].

                                          LEGAL STANDARDS

           Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) provides that a court may set aside a jury's verdict

and enter a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. The standard for reviewing such a motion is

“whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence presented, viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United

States v. Duncan, 164 F.3d 239, 242 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d

593, 597 (5th Cir.1994)). While the court may “weigh evidence and assess the credibility of the

witnesses during its consideration of the motion for new trial, . . . [n]o such discretion is allowed

when the court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal.” United States v. Robertson, 110 F.3d

1113, 1117 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 37–38 (1982)).



1
    Deandre Jones pled guilty to Count One and Count Five of the Indictment.

                                                       2
     Case: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 118 Filed: 02/19/25 3 of 4 PageID #: 671




       Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to grant a new trial

“if the interest of justice so requires.” In considering a motion under Rule 33(a), “[t]he trial judge

may weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses[.]” (quoting United States v.

Arnold, 416 F.3d 349, 360 (5th Cir. 2005)) (additional citation omitted). The district court’s

discretion, however, is not unlimited as it “may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict

simply because it feels some other result would be more reasonable.” Id. (quoting Arnold, 416

F.3d at 360; Robertson, 110 F.3d at 1118). Instead, “[t]he evidence must preponderate heavily

against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.” Id.

(quoting Arnold, 416 F.3d at 360; Robertson, 110 F.3d at 1118).

                                           DISCUSSION

       To obtain a conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the government must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) two or more persons made an agreement to commit wire fraud;

(2) that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) that the defendant

joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further the unlawful purpose. 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1343, 1349. Likewise, to prove a conspiracy to commit money laundering, the government

must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) two or more persons made an agreement to commit

money laundering; (2) that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) that

the defendant joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further the unlawful

purpose. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h).

       Ms. Hudson claims she is entitled to an acquittal because the jury’s verdict was against the

overwhelming weight of the evidence and evinced bias and prejudice against her. However, Ms.

Hudson does not allege any specific facts demonstrating bias or prejudice toward her. Moreover,

when evaluating a motion for acquittal, this Court may not re-weigh the evidence or assess the



                                                  3
     Case: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 118 Filed: 02/19/25 4 of 4 PageID #: 672




credibility of the witnesses but must evaluate whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the

evidence presented, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, established the

defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jurors are the ultimate arbiters of a witness’s

credibility, and the evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to their verdict. United

States v. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d 614, 623 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394,

1405 (5th Cir.1991). Given the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court finds that the

government met its burden.

       Ms. Hudson further claims that she is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is against

the weight of the evidence and contrary to principles of justice and equity. Ms. Hudson’s motion

for a new trial does not allege any specific issues with the jury’s verdict or the evidence presented

by the government at trial but instead makes only generic claims. In viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the Court finds there was sufficient evidence to support

Ms. Hudson’s conviction.

                                         CONCLUSION

       For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for

Judgment of Acquittal [97] and Corrected Motion for New Trial [108] are DENIED and

Defendant’s Motion for New Trial [98] is DISMISSED as moot.

       SO ORDERED this the 19th day of February, 2025.



                                                       /s/Michael P. Mills
                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                                                      NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI




                                                 4


File and source

File

118.pdf

Size

157,442 bytes

SHA-256

7ef4c7f5b87fce9e6b5ddf242bc2fbe46ef5ad8a1879c632cd362a21241d1d5d

Our copy

118.pdf

Original

archive.org