Order Denying Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Sentence Reduction — United States v. Bruey (Document 178)

Summary

An Order Denying Defendant's "Unopposed Motion for Sentence Reduction Under Amendment 821," filed August 29, 2024 as Document 178 in United States v. Anthony James Bruey, Case No. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-KCD, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, by United States District Judge Tom Barber. The Court states that Defendant was sentenced on May 20, 2022 to a total of 51 months imprisonment and that the Probation Office and the Federal Defender reported eligibility for a reduction. It exercises its discretion to deny the request, stating that it would impose the same sentence today, and cites the amount involved, $881,659.35. The Court concludes that a reduction would be "a gross injustice."

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 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 178 Filed 08/29/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID 2034



                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                              FORT MYERS DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.                                                   Case No. 2:21-cr-74-TPB-KCD

ANTHONY JAMES BRUEY,

      Defendant.
________________________________/

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S “UNOPPOSED MOTION
          FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER AMENDMENT 821”

      This matter is before the Court on Defendant Anthony James Bruey’s

“Unopposed Motion for Sentence Reduction Under Amendment 821,” filed by counsel

on July 22, 2024. (Doc. 177). After reviewing the motion, case file, and the record, the

Court finds as follows:

      Defendant, along with his wife and co-defendant Amber Bruey, was involved in

a conspiracy scheme involving benefit programs enacted under the Coronavirus Aid,

Relief, and Economic Securities (“CARES”) Act of March 2020. As a result of the

fraud, the Brueys personally benefited in excess of $850,000, which they spent on

luxury purchases and other personal expenses. Defendant pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to commit wire fraud (Count One), wire fraud (Counts Twelve and

Thirteen), conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count Fourteen), and illegal

monetary transactions (Counts Fifteen and Sixteen). (Docs. 60; 111). On May 20,

2022, the Court sentenced Defendant to a total of 51 months imprisonment as to each

count, with each count to run concurrently, followed by 36 months of supervised


                                       Page 1 of 4
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 178 Filed 08/29/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID 2035



release. (Doc. 111). Even though Defendant was responsible for directly, or indirectly,

depriving the federal treasury of a total of $881,659.35 through his criminal activities,

this term of imprisonment was at the low end of the advisory sentencing guidelines

range of 51-63 months. 1 On September 27, 2023, the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentences. See United States v. Bruey, No. 22-

12452, 2023 WL 6290830 (11th Cir. 2021).

       Defendant now seeks to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendment 821 to the

United States Sentencing Guidelines, which decreased the advisory guidelines for

offenders that meet certain criteria, including the absence of a criminal history point.

In accordance with the Middle District of Florida’s administrative order implementing

Amendment 821 (Doc. 115 in 3:21-mc-1-TJC), the United States Probation Office

submitted a memorandum reporting that Defendant is eligible for a sentence

reduction. (Doc. 174). The Office of the Federal Defender confirmed Defendant’s

eligibility for a reduction and moved unopposed to reduce his sentence proportionately

to the low end of the revised advisory guidelines. (Doc. 177).

       The Court exercises its discretion to deny the requested reduction. Although a

district court must consider the advisory guidelines when sentencing a criminal

defendant, the guidelines are “only one of a dozen or so factors that the court must

take into account.” United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir.

2015); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 59 (2007). The guidelines are advisory,

not mandatory. Id.; United States v. Henry, 1 F.4th 1315, 1322 (11th Cir. 2021). As



1 The judgement in this case (Doc. 111) includes a restitution obligation of $881,659.35.   This
loss amount is also identified in paragraph 38 of the presentence report (Doc. 99).
                                           Page 2 of 4
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 178 Filed 08/29/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID 2036



such, the Court always considers the advisory guidelines as required by applicable

law, but the Court never imposes a sentence simply because the advisory guidelines

suggest a particular range. The Court’s discretion is guided by the sentencing factors

enunciated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Some sentences imposed by the Court are below

the advisory guidelines, some are within the advisory guidelines, and some sentences

are above the advisory guidelines. The fact that the advisory guidelines were recently

lowered does not mean, as some assume, that a defendant sentenced under those

advisory guidelines is automatically entitled to have his sentence reduced.

      Under the facts of this particular case, even considering the revised advisory

guidelines, along with all of the other factors, the Court would impose the same

sentence today that it originally imposed. The Defendant and his wife were

responsible for egregious PPP fraud. The amount of money involved in this case,

$881,659.35, is very high and it will almost certainly never be repaid. Furthermore,

the Defendant and his wife wasted a large amount of the money they stole on

unnecessary luxury items. The level of fraud here was shocking, and the Defendant

got the punishment that he deserved. To grant Defendant’s request would reduce the

sentence below that level necessary to accomplish the purposes of sentencing,

particularly considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the seriousness

of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to provide just

punishment and appropriate deterrence.




                                        Page 3 of 4
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-KCD Document 178 Filed 08/29/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID 2037



      Under the facts presented here, a reduction of the Defendant’s sentence would

be a gross injustice. Consequently, the motion is DENIED.

      DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in Fort Myers, Florida, this 29th day of

August, 2024.




                                     __________________________________________
                                     TOM BARBER
                                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                     Page 4 of 4


File and source

File

178.pdf

Size

140,153 bytes

SHA-256

0ea32f254a199a8cd3ba4d3b4234b1a6ca21c214d1793baca92cc0cf3bfcfce5

Our copy

178.pdf

Original

No public link identified.