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

Summary

An Order filed 02/19/25 as Doc #: 119 in United States of America v. Montreal Hudson, No. 3:24-cr-005-MPM-RP, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, on Defendant Montreal Hudson's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [102] and Motion for New Trial [103] filed after a conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The order states that both motions are denied. It describes the conviction as arising out of a scheme to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications to the SBA, and states that on January 13, 2025, after a three-day jury trial, the jury convicted Montreal and Zipora Hudson on both conspiracy counts. It discusses the standards under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 29(c) and 33(a).

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 #: 119 Filed: 02/19/25 1 of 4 PageID #: 673




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


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

MONTREAL HUDSON                                                                        Defendant

                                            ORDER

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

of Acquittal [102] and Motion for New Trial [103] filed after his conviction for conspiracy to

commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. For the following reasons, both

motions are denied.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        Mr. Hudson’s conviction arises out of his 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.

        Zipora 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

her son, Montreal Hudson, who would create the fraudulent PPP loan applications on their behalf
        Case: 3:24-cr-00005-MPM-RP Doc #: 119 Filed: 02/19/25 2 of 4 PageID #: 674




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. Montreal Hudson subsequently filed Motion for Judgment of Acquittal [102] and Motion

for New Trial [103].

                                          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 #: 119 Filed: 02/19/25 3 of 4 PageID #: 675




       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).

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

overwhelming weight of the evidence and evinced bias and prejudice against him. However, Mr.

Hudson does not allege any specific facts demonstrating bias or prejudice toward him. 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 #: 119 Filed: 02/19/25 4 of 4 PageID #: 676




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.

       Mr. Hudson further claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the verdict is against

the weight of the evidence and contrary to principles of justice and equity. Mr. 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

Mr. Hudson’s conviction.

                                         CONCLUSION

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

Judgment of Acquittal [102] and Motion for New Trial [103] are DENIED.

       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

119.pdf

Size

156,065 bytes

SHA-256

bddfc239f89e5cfd3639ddeb38b36d84f8e369b4d2740ced36f338d254436ed5

Our copy

119.pdf

Original

archive.org