Plea Agreement — U.S. v. Frank Adriel Romero Leandro (M.D. Fla.)

Summary

A Plea Agreement in United States of America v. Frank Adriel Romero Leandro, Case No. 5:25-cr-44-TPB-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, filed May 6, 2026 as Document 53. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the indictment, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, carrying a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment, and Count Two will be dismissed at sentencing. The defendant agrees to make full restitution to victims through the Federal Trade Commission and to forfeit the $1,234,360.46 in proceeds the defendant admits obtaining. The factual basis includes an account of a customer who ordered N95 masks from Trend Deploy and on April 5, 2020 received cloth facemasks without N95 labeling and no refund. The United States will recommend a low-end sentence if full restitution is mailed before sentencing.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 27 and 28 of 35 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 35 PagelD 90

AF Approval JMH Chief Approval

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. CASE NO. 5:25-cr-44-TPB-PRL
FRANK ADRIEL ROMERO LEANDRO

PLEA AGREEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c), the United States of America, by
Gregory W. Kehoe, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida,
and the defendant, Frank Adriel Romero Leandro, and the attorney for the

defendant, Christine N. Bird, Esq., mutually agree as follows:

A. _ Particularized Terms

1. Count Pleading To

The defendant shall enter a plea of guilty to Count One of the
indictment. Count One charges the defendant with wire fraud, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1343.

2. Maximum Penalties

Count One carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’
imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain caused by the
offense, or twice the gross loss caused by the offense, whichever is greater, a

term of supervised release of not more than 3 years, and a special assessment

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 35 PagelD 91

of $100. With respect to certain offenses, the Court shall order the defendant
to make restitution to any victim of the offenses, and with respect to other
offenses, the Court may order the defendant to make restitution to any victim
of the offenses, or to the community, as set forth below.

3. Elements of the Offenses

The defendant acknowledges understanding the nature and
elements of the offenses with which defendant has been charged and to which
defendant is pleading guilty. The elements of Count One are:

First: The Defendant knowingly devised or participated in

a scheme to defraud someone by using false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;

Second: the false pretenses, representations, or promises

were about a material fact;

Third: the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and

Fourth: the Defendant transmitted or caused to be

transmitted by wire some communication in

interstate commerce to help carry out the scheme to

defraud.

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 35 PagelD 92

4. Count Dismissed

At the time of sentencing, the remaining count against the
defendant, Count Two, will be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(A).

5 No Further Charges

If the Court accepts this plea agreement, the United States
Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida agrees not to charge
defendant with committing any other federal criminal offenses known to the
United States Attorney's Office at the time of the execution of this agreement,
related to the conduct giving rise to this plea agreement.

6. Mandatory Restitution to Victim of Offense of Conviction

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a) and (b), defendant agrees to make full
restitution to the victims of this offense through the Federal Trade
Commission.

7. Acceptance of Responsibility - Three Levels

At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse
information is received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted,
the United States will not oppose the defendant’s request to the Court that the
defendant receive a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a). The defendant understands that

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 35 PagelD 93

this recommendation or request is not binding on the Court, and if not
accepted by the Court, the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw from the
plea.

Further, at the time of sentencing, if the defendant's offense level
prior to operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and if the defendant
complies with the provisions of USSG § 3E1.1(b) and all terms of this Plea
Agreement, including but not limited to, the timely submission of the financial
affidavit referenced in Paragraph B.5., the United States agrees to file a motion
pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(b) for a downward adjustment of one additional
level. The defendant understands that the determination as to whether the
defendant has qualified for a downward adjustment of a third level for
acceptance of responsibility rests solely with the United States Attorney for the
Middle District of Florida, and the defendant agrees that the defendant cannot
and will not challenge that determination, whether by appeal, collateral attack,
or otherwise.

8. Low End

At the time of sentencing, and in the event that no adverse
information is received suggesting such a recommendation to be unwarranted,
the United States will recommend to the Court that the defendant receive a

sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range, as calculated by the

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 35 PagelD 94

Court. The defendant understands that this recommendation or request is not
binding on the Court, and if not accepted by the Court, the defendant will not
be allowed to withdraw from the plea.

This recommendation by the United States is conditioned on the
defendant mailing full restitution to the victims through the Federal Trade
Commission in advance of the sentencing date.

9. Forfeiture of Assets

The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States immediately
and voluntarily any and all assets and property, or portions thereof, subject to
forfeiture, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),
whether in the possession or control of the United States, the defendant or
defendant's nominees. The assets to be forfeited specifically include, but are
not limited to, the $1,234,360.46 in proceeds the defendant admits he
obtained, as the result of the commission of the offenses to which the
defendant is pleading guilty. The defendant acknowledges and agrees that:
(1) the defendant obtained this amount as a result of the commission of the
offenses, and (2) as a result of the acts and omissions of the defendant, the
proceeds have been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party, and
are unavailable for forfeiture. Therefore, the defendant agrees that, pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), the United States is entitled to forfeit any other property

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 6 of 35 PagelD 95

of the defendant (substitute assets), up to the amount of proceeds the
defendant obtained, as the result of the offenses of conviction. The defendant
further consents to, and agrees not to oppose, any motion for substitute assets
filed by the United States up to the amount of proceeds obtained from
commission of the offenses and consents to the entry of the forfeiture order
into the Treasury Offset Program. The defendant agrees that forfeiture of
substitute assets as authorized herein shall not be deemed an alteration of the
defendant's sentence.

The defendant additionally agrees that since the criminal
proceeds have been transferred, sold to, or deposited with a third party, and
are unavailable for forfeiture, the preliminary and final orders of forfeiture
should authorize the United States Attorney’s Office to conduct discovery
(including depositions, interrogatories, requests for production of documents,
and the issuance of subpoenas), pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, to help identify, locate, and forfeit substitute
assets.

The defendant also agrees to waive all constitutional, statutory,
and procedural challenges (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any
other means) to any forfeiture carried out in accordance with this Plea

Agreement on any grounds, including that the forfeiture described herein

Defendant’s Initials fr 6
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 7 of 35 PagelD 96

constitutes an excessive fine, was not properly noticed in the charging
instrument, addressed by the Court at the time of the guilty plea, announced at
sentencing, or incorporated into the judgment.

The defendant admits and agrees that the conduct described in
the Factual Basis below provides a sufficient factual and statutory basis for the
forfeiture of the property sought by the government. Pursuant to Rule
32.2(b)(4), the defendant agrees that the preliminary order of forfeiture will
satisfy the notice requirement and will be final as to the defendant at the time
it is entered. In the event the forfeiture is omitted from the judgment, the
defendant agrees that the forfeiture order may be incorporated into the written
judgment at any time pursuant to Rule 36.

The defendant agrees to take all steps necessary to identify and
locate all substitute assets and to transfer custody of such assets to the United
States before the defendant’s sentencing. To that end, the defendant agrees to
make a full and complete disclosure of all assets over which defendant
exercises control, including all assets held by nominees, to execute any
documents requested by the United States to obtain from any other parties by
lawful means any records of assets owned by the defendant, and to consent to
the release of the defendant’s tax returns for the previous five years. The

defendant agrees to be interviewed by the government, prior to and after

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 8 of 35 PagelD 97

sentencing, regarding such assets. The defendant further agrees to be
polygraphed on the issue of assets, if it is deemed necessary by the United
States. The defendant agrees that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and
USSG § 1B1.8 will not protect from forfeiture assets disclosed by the
defendant as part of the defendant’s cooperation.

The defendant agrees to take all steps necessary to assist the
government in obtaining clear title to any substitute assets before the
defendant’s sentencing. In addition to providing full and complete
information about substitute assets, these steps include, but are not limited to,
the surrender of title, the signing of a consent decree of forfeiture, and signing
of any other documents necessary to effectuate such transfers.

Forfeiture of the defendant's assets shall not be treated as
satisfaction of any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty
the Court may impose upon the defendant in addition to forfeiture.

The defendant agrees that, in the event the Court determines that
the defendant has breached this section of the Plea Agreement, the defendant
may be found ineligible for a reduction in the Guidelines calculation for
acceptance of responsibility and substantial assistance, and may be eligible for

an obstruction of justice enhancement.

Defendant’s Initials fr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 9 of 35 PagelD 98

The defendant agrees that the forfeiture provisions of this plea
agreement are intended to, and will, survive the defendant, notwithstanding
the abatement of any underlying criminal conviction after the execution of this
agreement. The forfeitability of any particular property pursuant to this
agreement shall be determined as if the defendant had survived, and that
determination shall be binding upon defendant’s heirs, successors and assigns
until the agreed forfeiture, including the forfeiture of any substitute assets, is
final.

B. Standard Terms and Conditions

1. Restitution, Special Assessment and Fine

The defendant understands and agrees that the Court, in addition
to or in lieu of any other penalty, shall order the defendant to make restitution
to any victim of the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, for all offenses
described in 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1); and the Court may order the defendant
to make restitution to any victim of the offense(s), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3663, including restitution as to all counts charged, whether or not the
defendant enters a plea of guilty to such counts, and whether or not such
counts are dismissed pursuant to this agreement. The defendant further
understands that compliance with any restitution payment plan imposed by

the Court in no way precludes the United States from simultaneously pursuing

Defendant’s Initials tr
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53 _ Filed 05/06/26 Page 10 of 35 PagelD 99

other statutory remedies for collecting restitution (28 U.S.C. § 3003(b)(2)),
including, but not limited to, garnishment and execution, pursuant to the
Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, in order to ensure that the defendant's
restitution obligation is satisfied.

On each count to which a plea of guilty is entered, the Court shall impose a
special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013. The special assessment is
due on the date of sentencing. The defendant understands that this agreement
imposes no limitation as to fine.

2. Supervised Release

The defendant understands that the offense(s) to which the
defendant is pleading provide(s) for imposition of a term of supervised release
upon release from imprisonment, and that, if the defendant should violate the
conditions of release, the defendant would be subject to a further term of
imprisonment.

3. Immigration Consequences of Pleading Guilty

The defendant has been advised and understands that, upon
conviction, a defendant who is not a United States citizen may be removed
from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the

United States in the future.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 10
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 11 of 35 PagelD 100

4, Sentencing Information

The United States reserves its right and obligation to report to the
Court and the United States Probation Office all information concerning the
background, character, and conduct of the defendant, to provide relevant
factual information, including the totality of the defendant's criminal activities,
if any, not limited to the count(s) to which defendant pleads, to respond to
comments made by the defendant or defendant's counsel, and to correct any
misstatements or inaccuracies. The United States further reserves its right to
make any recommendations it deems appropriate regarding the disposition of
this case, subject to any limitations set forth herein, if any.

5. Financial Disclosures

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P.
32(d)(2)(A)(ii), the defendant agrees to complete and submit to the United
States Attorney's Office within 30 days of execution of this agreement an
affidavit reflecting the defendant's financial condition. The defendant
promises that his financial statement and disclosures will be complete,
accurate and truthful and will include all assets in which he has any interest or
over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, including
those held by a spouse, dependent, nominee or other third party. The

defendant further agrees to execute any documents requested by the United

fr

Defendant’s Initials 11
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53 Filed 05/06/26 Page 12 of 35 PagelD 101

States needed to obtain from any third parties any records of assets owned by
the defendant, directly or through a nominee, and, by the execution of this
Plea Agreement, consents to the release of the defendant's tax returns for the
previous five years. The defendant similarly agrees and authorizes the United
States Attorney's Office to provide to, and obtain from, the United States
Probation Office, the financial affidavit, any of the defendant's federal, state,
and local tax returns, bank records and any other financial information
concerning the defendant, for the purpose of making any recommendations to
the Court and for collecting any assessments, fines, restitution, or forfeiture
ordered by the Court. The defendant expressly authorizes the United States
Attorney's Office to obtain current credit reports in order to evaluate the
defendant's ability to satisfy any financial obligation imposed by the Court.
6. Sentencing Recommendations

It is understood by the parties that the Court is neither a party to
nor bound by this agreement. The Court may accept or reject the agreement,
or defer a decision until it has had an opportunity to consider the presentence
report prepared by the United States Probation Office. The defendant
understands and acknowledges that, although the parties are permitted to
make recommendations and present arguments to the Court, the sentence will

be determined solely by the Court, with the assistance of the United States

fr

Defendant’s Initials 12
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 13 of 35 PagelD 102

Probation Office. Defendant further understands and acknowledges that any
discussions between defendant or defendant's attorney and the attorney or
other agents for the government regarding any recommendations by the
government are not binding on the Court and that, should any
recommendations be rejected, defendant will not be permitted to withdraw
defendant's plea pursuant to this plea agreement. The government expressly
reserves the right to support and defend any decision that the Court may make
with regard to the defendant's sentence, whether or not such decision is
consistent with the government's recommendations contained herein.

rf Defendant's Waiver of Right to Appeal the Sentence

The defendant agrees that this Court has jurisdiction and
authority to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum and expressly
waives the right to appeal defendant's sentence on any ground, including the
ground that the Court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range
pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground
that the sentence exceeds the defendant's applicable guidelines range as
determined by the Court pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines;
(b) the ground that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum penalty; or (c)
the ground that the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment to the

Constitution; provided, however, that if the government exercises its right to

Defendant’s Initials 13
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 14 of 35 PagelD 103

appeal the sentence imposed, as authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b), then the
defendant is released from his waiver and may appeal the sentence as
authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

8. Middle District of Florida Agreement

It is further understood that this agreement is limited to the
Office of the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida and
cannot bind other federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, although this
office will bring defendant's cooperation, if any, to the attention of other
prosecuting officers or others, if requested.

9, Filing of Agreement

This agreement shall be presented to the Court, in open court or
in camera, in whole or in part, upon a showing of good cause, and filed in this
cause, at the time of defendant's entry of a plea of guilty pursuant hereto.

The defendant acknowledges that defendant is entering into this
agreement and is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily without reliance upon
any discussions between the attorney for the government and the defendant
and defendant's attorney and without promise of benefit of any kind (other
than the concessions contained herein), and without threats, force,

intimidation, or coercion of any kind. The defendant further acknowledges

fr

Defendant’s Initials 14
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 15 of 35 PagelD 104

defendant's understanding of the nature of the offense or offenses to which
defendant is pleading guilty and the elements thereof, including the penalties
provided by law, and defendant's complete satisfaction with the representation
and advice received from defendant's undersigned counsel (if any). The
defendant also understands that defendant has the right to plead not guilty or
to persist in that plea if it has already been made, and that defendant has the
right to be tried by a jury with the assistance of counsel, the right to confront
and cross-examine the witnesses against defendant, the right against
compulsory self-incrimination, and the right to compulsory process for the
attendance of witnesses to testify in defendant's defense; but, by pleading
guilty, defendant waives or gives up those rights and there will be no trial.

The defendant further understands that if defendant pleads guilty, the Court
may ask defendant questions about the offense or offenses to which defendant
pleaded, and if defendant answers those questions under oath, on the record,
and in the presence of counsel (if any), defendant's answers may later be used
against defendant in a prosecution for perjury or false statement. The
defendant also understands that defendant will be adjudicated guilty of the
offenses to which defendant has pleaded and, if any of such offenses are
felonies, may thereby be deprived of certain rights, such as the right to vote, to

hold public office, to serve on a jury, or to have possession of firearms.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 15
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 16 of 35 PagelD 105

11. Factual Basis
Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty.
The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set
forth in the attached "Factual Basis," which is incorporated herein by
reference, are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be
able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.

12. Entire Agreement

This plea agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
government and the defendant with respect to the aforementioned guilty plea
and no other promises, agreements, or representations exist or have been

made to the defendant or defendant's attorney with regard to such guilty plea.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 16
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53 _ Filed 05/06/26 Page 17 of 35 PagelD 106

13. Certification
The defendant and defendant's counsel certify that this plea
agreement has been read in its entirety by (or has been read to) the defendant
and that defendant fully understands its terms.

DATED this day of May 2026.

GREGORY W. KEHOE

Frank Aldriel Romero Leandro oe Hannah Watson
Defendant Assistant United States Attorney

Ch risti ne Digitally a by A

hristige N. Bird, Fsqpate: 2026.05.05 Robert E. Bodnar, Jr.
tht y for Deferdans , 29:25 -04'00' Assistant United States Attorney
—_ Chief, Ocala Division

fr

Defendant’s Initials 17
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 18 of 35 PagelD 107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. CASE NO. 5:25-cr-44-TPB-PRL
FRANK ADRIEL ROMERO LEANDRO

PERSONALIZATION OF ELEMENTS

Do you admit that between March 16, 2020, through February 10,
2021, in the Middle District of Florida, you knowingly devised a scheme to
defraud by using false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises
regarding the sale facemasks during the COVID-19 global pandemic?

Do you admit that it was part of your scheme that you were the sole
creator and editor of a website, trendeploy.com, through which you sold
goods under the business name, “Trend Deploy”?

Do you admit that it was part of your scheme that you made false
representations on your website that you sold N95 facemasks to customers?

Do you admit that it was part of your scheme that customers would
order N95 facemasks from you?

Do you admit that it was part of your scheme that you would purchase
different types of facemasks (not N95 facemasks) to fulfill your customers’

orders?

fr

Defendant’s Initials 18
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 19 of 35 PagelD 108

Do you admit that it was part of your scheme that you did not provide
your customers with the N95 facemasks they ordered?

Do you admit that these false pretenses, representations, and promises
were about material facts?

Do you admit that you acted with the intent to defraud?

Do you admit that you caused to be transmitted by wire some
communication in interstate commerce to help carry out the scheme to
defraud? Specifically, you caused the March 21, 2020, electronic wire transfer
in the amount of $59.98 from Bank of America credit card ending in 1774 to

Trend Deploy?

fr

Defendant’s Initials 19
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 20 of 35 PagelD 109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Vv. CASE NO. 5:25-cr-44-TPB-PRL
FRANK ADRIEL ROMERO LEANDRO

FACTUAL BASIS

Frank Adriel Romero Leandro is a Middle District of Florida resident
who lives in Ocala, Florida. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Romero sold
facemasks throughout the United States under the business name, “Trend
Deploy.” Romero falsely claimed that he sold N95 facemasks, which are
certain medical-grade facemasks that were regulated by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). However, the representations
Romero made about the facemasks he sold were false. In almost every case,
he did not sell N95 facemasks, as he claimed.

When a customer would purchase an “N95” facemask from Romero
through the Trend Deploy website, Romero would buy generic facemasks
from wholesale dealers to fulfill the order. In over 95% of the consumer orders
submitted for N95 masks, Romero ordered something other than an N95
mask. Customers would email their complaints to Romero, telling him that

the facemasks they received were not N95. In response, Romero would either

Defendant’s Initials _fr 20
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 21 of 35 PagelD 110

ignore their complaints and requests for refunds or he would try to convince
the customer that the facemasks were N95 by providing them with a fake
certificate purporting to be from the CDC National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (“NIOSH”). In at least ten cases, customers informed.
Romero the certificate was fraudulent.

Despite multiple complaints from customers and requests for refunds,
Romero continued to make false representations regarding the masks he sold.
Between March 16, 2020, through February 10, 2021, Romero sold 12,785
facemasks he falsely claimed were N95, and he fraudulently obtained a total of
$1,234,360.46 from the sales.

COVID-19 and the Defense Production Act

On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
declared a national public health emergency under 42 U.S.C. § 247d due to
the spread of COVID-19, which was a highly contagious, severely acute
respiratory syndrome in the United States. On March 11, 2020, the World
Health Organization characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic.

On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued
Proclamation 9994 declaring a national emergency due to the rapid spread of
COVID-19 within the United States. On March 18, 2020, the President issued

Executive Order 13909 invoking the powers vested in the President by the

fr

Defendant’s Initials 21
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 22 of 35 PagelD 111

Defense Production Act of 1950. In Executive Order 13909, the President
stated, “I find that health and medical resources needed to respond to the
spread of COVID-19, including personal protective equipment and
ventilators, meet the criteria specified in section 101(b) of the [Defense
Production Act.]” The President further delegated authority to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services to “identify additional specific health and
medical resources that meet the criteria of section 101(b).”

On March 23, 2020, the President issued Executive Order 13910
delegating to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the President’s
authority under 50 U.S.C. § 4512 “to prevent hoarding of health and medical
resources necessary to respond to the spread of COVID-19 within the United
States,” and “to implement any restrictions on hoarding.”

On March 30, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services
published a notice designating the following health and medical resources,
among others, under the Defense Production Act as scarce materials or
materials the supply of which would be threatened by accumulation in excess
of reasonable demands of business, personal, or home consumption, or for the
purpose of resale at prices in excess of prevailing market prices:

1. N-95 Filtering Facepiece Respirators, including devices that are

disposable half-face-piece non-powered air-purifying particulate

fr

Defendant’s Initials 22
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 23 of 35 PagelD 112

respirators intended for use to cover the nose and mouth of the
wearer to help reduce wearer exposure to pathogenic biological
airborne particulates;

2. Other Filtering Facepiece Respirators (e.g., those designated as N99,
N100, R95, R99, R100, or P95, P99, P100), including single-use,
disposable half-mask respiratory protective devices that cover the
user’s airway (nose and mouth) and offer protection from particulate
materials at an N95 filtration efficiency level per 42 CFR 84.181;

3. Elastomeric, air-purifying respirators and appropriate particulate
filters/cartridges; and

4. PPE surgical masks, including masks that cover the user’s nose and
mouth and provide a physical barrier to fluids and particulate
materials.

Trend Deploy

Romero sold goods throughout the United State under the business
name, “Trend Deploy,” through his website, trendeploy.com. Romero was
the sole creator and editor of this website. He operated it primarily from the
Middle District of Florida where he resided. Romero had two employees who

worked as independent contractors, P.M. and S.R. The independent

fr

Defendant’s Initials 23
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 24 of 35 PagelD 113

contractors had customer service responsibilities, and they reported to
Romero.

Romero’s business model consisted of promoting products in social
media ads, which redirected customers to his trendeploy.com store website.
The customers then made purchases online through his website. Romero did
not keep an inventory of products. He sent orders to wholesale distributors
who then shipped the products to his customers.

To add products to his online store, Romero used Shopify' and two
other ecommerce platforms. The platforms allowed him to access wholesale
distributors. When Romero selected a product from a distributor, he imported
the product’s pictures and description to his Trend Deploy website. Romero
could add and delete any picture and description to a product’s page. Romero
was the only person involved in the publication process for products he sold
on Trend Deploy’s website.

Romero’s customers would place orders on the Trend Deploy website,

and Romero would submit the orders to his wholesale distributors. When

' Shopify is a Canadian multinational e-commerce company headquartered in
Ottawa, Ontario. E-commerce, or electronic commerce, is the buying and
selling of products and services online. Shopify is the name of its proprietary
e-commerce platform for online stores and retail point-of-sale systems. The
platform offers retailers services, including payments, marketing, shipping and
customer engagement tools.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 24
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 25 of 35 PagelD 114

Romero sent an order list to his distributors, they would return it to him with
the wholesale prices he must pay. After Romero paid the distributor, the
distributor would ship the products to Romero’s customers and provide him
the shipment’s tracking number.

Romero’s false representations

On March 13, 2020, which was the same day the President issued
Proclamation 9994 declaring COVID-19 a national emergency, Romero began
marketing facemasks on his Trend Deploy website. G.B. and A.C., both
located in China, were two of Romero’s facemask distributors. Romero has
never met any of his distributors in person.

Romero advertised through social media and listings on his Trend
Deploy website that he was selling “N95” masks.”

The designation of “N95” is significant. The CDC NIOSH regulates
N95 respirators. Surgical N95 respirators for healthcare settings are regulated
by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The CDC
website provides a listing of NIOSH-approved particulate filtering facepiece
respirators. This type of air-purifying respirators protects by filtering particles

out of the air the user is breathing. There are seven classes of filters for

?Romero also described the facemasks as “Class N95” and “KN95.” Romero
claimed these masks had the same filtration efficiency as N95 facemasks.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 25
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document 53 Filed 05/06/26 Page 26 of 35 PagelD 115

NIOSH-approved filtering facepiece respirators available. An N95 respirator
is a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and
very efficient filtration of airborne particles. The edges of the respirator are
designed to form a seal around the nose and mouth. The minimal level of
filtration that will be approved by NIOSH is 95%, as required by 42 CFR Part

41Mask Class N95 & PM2.5 Anti-Virus
Micro-Particle Barrier Respirator
Mask With Valve. (1pe, Spes,
10pes, 50pes)

26 reviews:
A660 $6.99 sate
Color
White
Quantity Ovantity
(
‘on 1 Mask . -| 1 +
ADD TO CART

\\ 2 People watching right now.

a PRODUCT DETAILS:

* Protection Class: NOS

* Function: Anti-Dust, Anti-Pollution, Virus Protection,
Micro-Particle Barrier

« Use Cycle: Disposable

« Material: High Grade Polypropylene

« Filtering Rate: 295% (0.075um particles)

* Model Number: 11654652

* Quantity: 1p¢, 5p¢, 10pc, 20pc, Supe

ER

84.

Screenshot from the Trend Deploy website advertising genuine N95 masks.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 26
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document 53 Filed 05/06/26 Page 29 of 35 PagelD 118

Despite his advertising, he almost never provided an “N95” mask to a
customer. Romero’s customers ordered “N95” masks and filters, but Romero
did not purchase “N95” masks or filters from wholesale distributors. Instead,
Romero purchased different and inferior types of masks and filters from
wholesale distributors to fill the orders.

Romero received 10,853 orders for “N95” masks, and he purchased
7,277 “PM 2.5” masks and 3,576 “reusable face masks” from wholesale
distributors to fulfill those orders. Romero received 2,731 orders for “N95
micro-particle barrier double filters,” and he purchased 1,500 “filters” and
1,231 “PM2.5” filters to fulfill those orders. Romero knew that he was not
providing the advertised products to his Trend Deploy customers because he

was not ordering the advertised products to fulfill their order requests.

\
1

i

An example of the masks a customer received when she ordered “N95” masks from
Romero. This customer worked at a hospital and needed N95 masks to work. Instead,
she received cloth masks that do not have the protections of the N95 masks.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 29
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document 53 _ Filed 05/06/26 Page 30 of 35 PagelD 119

An example of the mask a customer received when they ordered an N95 mask from
Romero.

Due to the significance of the “N95” designation, customers contacted
Romero to confirm that the facemasks were, in fact, N95 facemasks. On
March 16, 2020, a customer, S.F., contacted Romero through the Trend
Deploy email address stating the following:

I just purchased the reusable cloth masks with N95 filter. Who is the

manufacturer? I would like to verify they are on the list from the CDC list

of certified n95 manufacturers.

On March 18, 2020, a customer, H.S., contacted Romero through the

Trend Deploy email address stating the following:

I ordered these masks but I cannot find your approval on the cdc site. Please
send me a way to verify that you are NIOSH approved or cancel my order.

Defendant’s Initials fr 30
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 31 of 35 PagelD 120

Romero responded to H.S.’s email with an attachment of a purported
NIOSH certificate stating:

Here's a digital copy of our manufacturer's N95 Certification along with

the NPPTL Info for verification purposes. For additional info, please

kindly email us at any time. Thank you.

NIOSH did not issue the certificate Romero sent to H.S. There are only
seven different NIOSH testing certification codes for respirators. NIOSH has
never used the testing code that is listed in Romero’s purported N95
certificate. NIOSH has also never used the task numbers listed in it. Anyone
can go on the CDC website to look up NIOSH reference numbers and.
approval numbers.

Romero sent the same fake NIOSH certificate to 16 customers who
asked him for verification that the facemasks he sold were N95 facemasks.
The fake NIOSH certificate was also on the Trend Deploy website. Romero’s
customers explained to Romero that the CDC’s website maintains a list of
NIOSH-approved filters, and his certificate is fake.

Despite Romero having notice that his representations on the Trend

Deploy website and in emailed exchanges were false, Romero continued

selling facemasks under the false representations that they were N95

fr

Defendant’s Initials 31
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 32 of 35 PagelD 121

facemasks.* The last date that Romero sold a purported "N95" mask was on
February 10, 2021. Through his false representations regarding the facemasks
he sold, Romero made a total of $1,234,360.46 between March 16, 2020,
through February 10, 2021.

The below table shows a breakdown of the sales Romero made:

Start Date End Date "N95" masks sold | Total value

March 16, 2020 | February 10, 2021 | 12785 $1,234,360.46

Charged wire transaction

On March 21, 2020, a Coast Guard attorney in Seattle, Washington,
A.S., ordered two facemasks from Romero through the Trend Deploy website.
The masks were advertised as, "N95 PM2.5 Anti-Virus Micro Particle Barrier

Face Mask (Reusable with Activated Carbon Filter).”

> Other false representations Romero made about his facemasks were about
the manufacturers. Romero claimed the facemasks were manufactured in the
United States, despite his primary wholesalers being G.B. and A.C., which are
both companies located in China. At least one customer was told, “[W]e are a
US based company located in Ocala FL. We’re currently mass producing
class N95 masks.” Romero told another customer that a specific mask that
was advertised on his website was manufactured and shipped from the United
States. Many customers complained after they received their masks and
learned from the shipping labels that the masks were sent from China.
Customers were fearful of buying respiratory products from China because the
first human cases of the COVID-19 virus occurred in Wuhan, People's
Republic of China.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 32
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 33 of 35 PagelD 122

A.S. needed the facemasks because she was dealing with COVID-19
outbreaks on cruise ships. A.S. was also about to relocate to Washington
D.C. for work, and she wanted N95 facemasks for protection during her cross-
country move.

A.S. paid Trend Deploy $59.98 for the facemasks. A.S. used her Bank
of America credit card ending in 1774 to complete the transaction. Bank of
America credit cards are issued through FIA Card Services, National
Association (“FIA”), which is a subsidiary of Bank of America located in
Wilmington, Delaware. Because A.S. initiated an electronic wire transfer of
funds from Delaware to Trend Deploy in the Middle District of Florida, her
transaction affected interstate commerce.

After placing the order, A.S. searched the facemask information from
the NIOSH certificate she found on Trend Deploy’s website. She did not see
the facemask information listed as N95. A.S. emailed the NIOSH certificate
from the Trend Deploy website to Romero through the Trend Deploy email
address stating:

Hi Trend Deploy:

I placed the below order and then saw several folks commenting that the

N95 verification was fraudulent based on your posted info (attached

below).

I checked the NIOSH list and do not see where your product is on the list.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 33
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53 _ Filed 05/06/26 Page 34 of 35 PagelD 123

If you made an error on your post with the representation of certification,
please cancel my order.

If you stand by the representation of certification, please include the
accurate verification with my order.

A.S. then received a response from Trend Deploy, stating:

Since we're retailers, we do not require a certification of such. The N95
Certificate you're referring to was provided to us by our manufactures and
comes with the NPPTL telephone number for verification purposes. I hope
this helps.

A.S. responded:

If the Manufacturer has the certification then great. Who is the
manufacturer? Obviously resell of fraudulently marketed products would
be ill advised and illegal so I’m sure by now you inquired. Like everyone
else, just worried about COVID scams (which seem to be plentiful).

A.S. received a response from Trend Deploy, stating:

Our certified masks have been selling since before this tragedy started. We
can assure you the products we sell are legitimate.

On April 5, 2020, A.S. received two facemasks from Trend Deploy.
The facemasks were made of cloth, and they did not have any N95 labeling on
them. She emailed Romero through the Trend Deploy website asking for a
refund because the masks were not N95. She never received a response from

Trend Deploy. She never received a refund from Trend Deploy.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 34
Case 5:25-cr-00044-TPB-PRL Document53_ Filed 05/06/26 Page 35 of 35 PagelD 124

The above is merely a summary of some of the events, some of the
persons involved, and other information relating to this case. It does not
include, nor is it intended to include, all the events, persons involved, or other

information relating to this case.

fr

Defendant’s Initials 35


File and source

File

53.pdf

Size

10,355,093 bytes

SHA-256

1c3048ad971546565215720fb5b413380f707fe7c62cfce7f1986d78b5718d04

Our copy

53.pdf

Original

archive.org