Information — United States v. Sherrie Lynne Bryant (D. Md.)

Summary

A criminal information in United States of America v. Sherrie Lynne Bryant, Criminal No. PWG 22-cr-308, filed August 30, 2022 as Document 29 in No. 8:22-cr-00308-DLB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Count One charges wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 tied to an EIDL application for NOW LLC submitted on or about March 30, 2020. The information alleges false revenue figures and false answers about a prior federal conviction on the EIDL and a $21,200 PPP application, and it lists EIDL deposits including $89,400 and $298,500 after a loan modification to $388,000. A forfeiture allegation seeks a money judgment of $419,100. The signature block names United States Attorney Erek L. Barron.

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.

Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 9

AOW
RRR: USAO 2021R00509

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
Vv. 7 CRIMINAL NO. PWG 22-cr-308
SHERRIE LYNNE BRYANT, * (Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343;

* Forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C),
Defendant * 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c))

INFORMATION

COUNT ONE
(Wire Fraud)

The United States Attorney for the District of Maryland charges that:
At all times relevant to this Information:

The Defendant

1. Defendant SHERRIE LYNNE BRYANT (“BRYANT?) was a resident of
Maryland between at least March 2020 and July 2021.

Relevant Entities

De NOW LLC was organized in the State of Maryland on or about September 5,
2013. BRYANT was the sole managing member at the time of organization. On or about
October 17, 2014, Individual | was added as a second managing member. NOW LLC stated
their business purpose was to “provide mentoring, education and training to underserved
populations. Also, to provide vocational rehabilitation and mental health support services to:

children, youth and adults.”
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 9

The Economic Injury Disaster Relief Program

3. The Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program was a Small Business
Administration (“SBA”) program that provided low-interest financing to small businesses,
renters, and homeowners in regions affected by declared disasters.

4, During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SBA was authorized to provide EIDLs to
eligible small businesses experiencing substantial financial disruption due to the COVID-19
pandemic and to issue advances of $10,000. The amount of the advance was determined by the
number of employees the applicant certified having. The advances did not have to be repaid.

5. In order to obtain an EIDL and advance, a qualifying business was required to
submit an application to the SBA and provide information about its operations, such as the
number of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month period preceding the disaster, and cost of
goods sold in the 12-month period preceding the disaster. In the case of EIDLs for COVID-19
relief, the 12-month period was that preceding January 31, 2020. The applicant was also
required to electronically certify that all the information in the application was true and correct to
the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

6. EIDL applications were submitted directly to the SBA and processed by the
agency with support from a government contractor. The amount of the loan, if the application
was approved, was determined based, in part, on the information provided by the application
about employment, revenue, and cost of goods, as described above. Any funds issued under an
EIDL or advance were issued directly by the SBA. EIDL funds could be used for payroll
expenses, sick leave, production costs, and business obligations, such as debts, rent, and
mortgage payments. If the applicant also obtained a loan under the PPP, the EIDL funds could

not be used for the same purpose as the PPP funds.
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 9

The Paycheck Protection Program

Te The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act was a
federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial
assistance to the millions of Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization
of up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other
expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). In or
around April 2020, Congress authorized over $300 billion in additional PPP funding.

8. In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business was required to submit a PPP
loan application, which was signed by an authorized representative of the business. The PPP
loan application required the business (through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the
program rules and make certain affirmative certifications in order to be eligible to obtain the PPP
loan. In the PPP loan application, the small business (through its authorized representative) was
required to state, among other things, its: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number
of employees. These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business is
eligible to receive under the PPP. In addition, businesses applying for a PPP loan were required
to provide documentation showing their payroll expenses. The applicant was also required to
electronically certify that all the information in the application was true and correct to the best of
the applicant’s knowledge.

we A PPP loan application was required to be processed by a participating lender,
such as a financial institution. Ifa PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender
funded the PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the SBA. Data

from the application, including information about the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 9

the listed number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the course of
processing the loan.

10. PPP loan proceeds were required to be used by the business on certain permissible
expenses—payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP allowed the interest
and principal on the PPP loan to be entirely forgiven if the business spent the loan proceeds on
these expense items within a designated period of time and used a certain percentage of the PPP

loan proceeds on payroll expenses.

The Scheme to Defraud
his Between in or around March 2020 and continuing until in or around June 2021,
the defendant,
SHERRIE LYNNE BRYANT,

did knowingly and willfully devise and intend to devise, and with the intent to defraud, a scheme
and artifice to defraud the SBA, to obtain money and property by means of materially false and
fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and for the purpose of executing and
attempting to execute the scheme to defraud, did transmit and cause to be transmitted, by means
of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, pictures, and sounds,
as further described below, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

Purpose of the Scheme to Defraud

12. It was the purpose of the scheme to defraud for BRYANT to unjustly enrich

herself and others by fraudulently obtaining EIDL and PPP loan proceeds.
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 9

Manner and Means of the Scheme to Defraud

EIDL Loan Application for NOW LLC

13. On or about March 30, 2020, BRYANT submitted and caused the submission of
an application to the SBA on behalf of NOW LLC for an EIDL loan in the amount of $89,500, as
well as an EIDL advance. The loan application listed BRYANT as the Owner of NOW LLC.

14. | Onthe EIDL loan application, BRYANT falsely stated that NOW LLC had
$475,610 of gross revenue and $276,614 of costs of goods for the 12-month period prior to
January 31, 2020.

15. Additionally, on the EIDL loan application, BRYANT falsely stated that she had
not been, for any criminal offense, convicted, pleaded guilty, pleaded nolo contendere, been
placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation. When
BRYANT made this false statement, BRYANT was on federal probation having pleaded guilty
on December 3, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to Obstruction of a
Federal Audit, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1516, a federal felony.

16. On or about April 15, 2020, the SBA deposited an advance of $10,000 in EIDL
loan proceeds via interstate wire into NOW LLC’s bank account at Financial Institution 1.

Us On or about May 9, 2020, NOW LLC’s EIDL loan application was approved and
BRYANT signed the promissory note on May 9, 2020, as the “Owner/Officer” of NOW LLC.

18. On or about May 12, 2020, the SBA deposited the sum of $89,400 in EIDL loan
proceeds via interstate wire into NOW LLC’s bank account at Financial Institution 1.

19. On or about April 22, 2021, BRYANT submitted a request on behalf of NOW
LLC for a modification of the EIDL loan, requesting and receiving approval to increase the loan

amount from $89,500 to $388,000.
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 6 of 9

20. In seeking this loan modification, BRYANT relied on her prior false certifications
in her original EIDL loan application, including that BRYANT had never, for any criminal
offense, been convicted, pleaded guilty, pleaded nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial
diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation.

21 On or about June 22, 2021, NOW LLC’s request to increase the loan amount was
approved and BRYANT signed the First Modification of Note on the same day as
“Owner/Officer” of NOW LLC.

22. On or about June 28, 2021, the SBA deposited the sum of $298,500 in EIDL loan
proceeds via interstate wire into NOW LLC’s bank account at Financial Institution 1.

PPP Loan Application for NOW LLC

23. On or about April 28, 2020, BRYANT submitted an application to Financial
Institution 2 for a PPP loan in the amount of $21,200. The loan application listed BRYANT as
the CEO of NOW LLC.

24. | Onthe PPP loan application, BRYANT falsely stated that she was not on
probation or parole at the time the application was submitted. When BRYANT made this false
statement, BRYANT was on federal probation having plead guilty on December 3, 2018, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to Obstruction of a Federal Audit, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1516, a federal felony. BRYANT also falsely stated that within the last five years
she had not, for any criminal offense, been convicted, pleaded guilty, or been placed on any form
of parole or probation.

Za. On or about May 6, 2020, Financial Institution 2 deposited the sum of $21,200 in

PPP loan proceeds via interstate wire into NOW LLC’s bank account at Financial Institution 1.
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 7 of 9

The Charge
26. On or about March 30, 2020, in the District of Maryland, the defendant,

SHERRIE LYNNE BRYANT,

did knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to defraud, having devised and intending to
devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of
materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and omissions, transmit and
cause to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate and foreign commerce,
writings, signs, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to
defraud, an interstate wire transmission caused by BRYANT, in Maryland, submitting the EIDL

loan application to the SBA, outside of Maryland.

18 U.S.C. § 1343
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 8 of 9

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

The United States Attorney for the District of Maryland further finds that:

Te Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2, notice is hereby given to the
defendant that the United States will seek forfeiture as part of any sentence in accordance with
18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), in the event of the
defendant’s conviction of the offense charged in Count One of this Information.

Wire Fraud Forfeiture

2a Upon conviction of the offense charged in Count One of this Information, the
defendant,
SHERRIE LYNNE BRYANT,
shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C § 2461 (c),
any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such
offense, including, but not limited to: a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $419,100 in
U.S. Currency equal to the proceeds the defendant obtained as a result of the scheme to defraud.

Substitute Assets

Bu If, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant, any of the property

described above as being subject to forfeiture:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;

C. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or

om has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided

without difficulty,
Case 8:22-cr-00308-DLB Document 29 Filed 08/30/22 Page 9 of 9

it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the

forfeitable property described above.

18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C)
21 U.S.C. § 853(p)
28 U.S.C. § 2461(c)

Date: | August 30 , 2022

Erek L. Barron
United States Attorney


File and source

File

29.pdf

Size

3,712,464 bytes

SHA-256

0c6901eb6da99452d730671303ab54a8ee9716fa4873c89f1998d3b4631b7b8e

Our copy

29.pdf

Original

archive.org