Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing — United States v. Samirah (E.D. Va., Document 14)

Summary

The Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing, Document 14, filed October 16, 2025 in United States of America v. Ibraheem Sabri Samirah, Case No. 1:25-cr-210, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The government states that the defendant applied for a PPP loan of $83,300 for NOVA Healthy Smiles on or about May 12, 2020 with false representations about employees and payroll, during his term in the Virginia House of Delegates. It states that the Probation Officer calculated a total offense level of 9 and an advisory range of 4-10 months, and submits that a term of imprisonment at the low end of that range would be reasonable. It also seeks an Order of Restitution of $88,523.94 and states that an Order of Forfeiture of $83,300 was already entered.

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

Cite this document

“Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing — United States v. Samirah (E.D. Va., Document 14).” Original at ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-usa-v-samirah-dkt-14-e-d-va-b2bcbe6d0c/, SHA-256 630c0852ef96748949ba8a7712b49f86e9134204cbb3d51b263e4d00074ad3ad.

Full text

Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 1 of 12 PageID# 75

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 1:25-cr-210

IBRAHEEM SABRI SAMIRAH

Defendant.

POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING

At a time of immense economic hardship and uncertainty, the defendant, Ibraheem Sabri

Samirah, stole from a government program designed to combat the economic hardships caused by

the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant submitted a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program

(“PPP”) loan and used the taxpayer funded loan proceeds to enrich himself. The defendant

executed this fraud scheme during his term as an elected representative in the Virginia House of

Delegates. Thus, the defendant was stealing federal tax dollars at the same time he was deciding

how to spend Virginia tax dollars.

The United States, through undersigned counsel, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

and the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines” or “USSG”), files

this Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing of defendant Ibraheem Sabri Samirah

(hereinafter “the defendant” or “Samirah”). The United States reviewed the Presentence

Investigation Report (“PSR”) and the computations of the United States Probation Officer

(“USPO”). The USPO calculated a total combined offense level of 9 for the defendant, resulting
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 2 of 12 PageID# 76

in an advisory guidelines range of 4-10 months (Samirah is in criminal history category I). The

United States agrees with the PSR’s calculations.

For the reasons set forth below, the United States respectfully submits that a term of

imprisonment at the low end of guideline range would be reasonable and appropriate under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a). The United States also seeks an Order of Restitution in the amount of

$88,523.94. 1 The Court also already entered an Order of Forfeiture in the amount of $83,300,

which reflect the proceeds Samirah derived from the offense.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Pandemic

The pandemic was a time characterized not only by a serious disease but also by true

economic uncertainty. The fear felt at the time is hard to remember now – there were concerns

about the country falling into an economic depression during the first few months of the pandemic.

Millions of Americans lost their jobs seemingly overnight. 23.1 million Americans were

unemployed in April 2020. 2 The U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) “fell by 8.9 percent in

the second quarter of 2020 … the largest single-quarter contraction in more than 70 years.” 3

1
The United States will be filing a separate Motion for Entry of the Restitution Order and
Proposed Restitution Order.
2
“Unemployment rate rises to record high 14.7 percent in April 2020,” U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, available at https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/unemployment-rate-rises-to-record-
high-14-point-7-percent-in-april-2020.htm (last accessed October 16, 2025).
3
The U.S. Economy and the Global Pandemic, Chapter 3, (April 26, 2022, 4:00 p.m.), page 4,
available at https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04-Chapter-3-
new.pdf (last accessed October 16, 2025).

2
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 3 of 12 PageID# 77

In response to the looming financial peril threatening the country, Congress passed the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, more commonly known as the “CARES

ACT.” Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) in March of 2020. The CARES Act generously

made billions of government-guaranteed loans available to qualified small businesses through the

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). These loans would be forgiven entirely if the loan proceeds

were used on a narrow list of expenses designed to help struggling businesses survive such as

payroll, utilities, rent, and employee health care expenses. PSR at ¶ 18. To qualify for a PPP loan,

an applicant had to meet certain criteria designed to ensure that the program’s assets would be used

to forestall widespread layoffs and economic collapse. The amount approved for the PPP loans

was a function of the applicant’s historic payroll costs. Id.

B. Offense Conduct

The defendant applied for a PPP loan of $83,300 for his business, NOVA Healthy Smiles

(NHS) on or about May 12, 2020. On the loan application form, Samirah listed himself as the

primary contact for the loan. He falsely represented that NHS had four employees and an average

monthly payroll of $33,333.32 and that the purpose of the loan was for payroll, lease/mortgage

interest, and utilities. He made other false certifications throughout the loan application. PSR at

¶¶ 24-25.

Samirah took multiple steps to execute this fraud scheme. He submitted several supporting

documents with the fraudulent PPP loan application, including W-4 forms (Employee’s

Withholding Certificate), Payroll Journals, and Paychex payroll reports for January and February

2020. Samirah falsely represented that NHS paid the four purported employees’ payroll in January

2020 and February 2020 and backdated documents to support his fraud scheme. Specifically, the

3
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID# 78

defendant issued paychecks for “Salary for January” purportedly dated “1/31/2020” and “Salary

for February” purportedly dated “2/29/2020,” even though NHS did not have its financial account

established until May 7, 2020 and did not run payroll journals for those periods until May 2020.

PSR at ¶¶ 27-29.

Samirah then caused the individuals that he sent the monies to, the purported Employee 1,

Employee 2, and Employee 3, to transfer the fraudulent funds back to him. In short, the defendant

used these three individuals’ accounts to launder the fraud funds. See PSR ¶¶ 31-36.

For example, on May 23, 2020, an account was opened at PNC Bank in the name of

Employee 1. On May 26, 2020, two checks for $7,695.83 each, drawn from the NHS business

account at TD Bank, were deposited in Employee 1’s checking account at PNC Bank. One of

these checks (check # 0100 drawn from the NHS business account at TD Bank) was dated January

31, 2020, and bore the note “January Salary.” The second check (check #0098 drawn from the

NHS business account at TD Bank) was dated February 29, 2020, and bore the note “February

Salary.” These two checks posted to the account on May 26, 2020, and comprised the total sum of

$15,391.66 in Employee 1’s PNC Bank account.

Also on May 23, 2020, an account was opened at JP Morgan Chase Bank (JPMC) in the

name of Employee 2. On June 8, 2020, two checks for $7,695.83 each were deposited to the

account via an ATM in Falls Church, Virginia, which comprised the total amount of $15,391.66

in Employee 2’s JPMC account. One of those checks (check # 1024 drawn from the NHS

business account at TD Bank) was dated January 31, 2020, and bore the note “January Salary.”

The second check (check # 1025 drawn from the NHS business account at TD Bank) was dated

February 29, 2020, and bore the note “February Salary.”

4
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 5 of 12 PageID# 79

Between June 3, 2020, and June 11, 2020, there were 16 ATM withdrawals from Employee

1’s PNC Bank account for a total amount withdrawn of $11,000 in cash. These ATM

withdrawals all occurred at ATMs in Virginia and Washington, D.C. 4 Between June 10, 2020,

and June 11, 2020, there were four ATM withdrawals from Employee 2’s JPMC account for a

total amount withdrawn of approximately $4,300 in cash. The total amount of cash withdrawn

from Employee 1’s account and Employee 2’s account for this time period was $15,300. On

June 10, 2020, a cash deposit was made to Samirah’s personal TD Bank account in a counter

transaction for $9,800; on June 11, 2020, a cash deposit was made to SAMIRAH’s personal

Bank of America account in an ATM transaction for $5,540.

Furthermore, between June 15, 2020, and June 16, 2020, there were six ATM

withdrawals from Employee 1’s PNC Bank account for a total amount withdrawn of $4,340.

On June 16, 2020, a cash deposit was made to Samirah’s personal Bank of America account

in a counter transaction for exactly $4,340. These are just a few examples of the efforts that

Samirah made to launder the fraud proceeds, others are detailed in the Statement of Facts and

in the PSR. Id.

On or about August 16, 2021, the defendant electronically signed and transmitted the PPP

forgiveness application to Sonabank. Sonabank submitted the PPP forgiveness application to

travel to the SBA’s cloud-based platform, Summit, via a cloud server located in Oregon. PSR

at ¶ 37. The defendant’s fraud scheme caused a loss of approximately $83,000. Id. at ¶ 39.

4
However, the individual who was listed as the purported Employee 2 lived in Illinois at the
time. A review of Employee 1’s personal bank account at Bank of America shows consistent
charges in northeastern Illinois throughout those same time periods.
5
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 6 of 12 PageID# 80

II. GUIDELINES CALCULATION

Although the Supreme Court rendered the federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory in

United States v. Booker, it held that a sentencing court must “consult [the] Guidelines and take

them into account when sentencing.” 543 U.S. 200, 264 (2005); see also United States v. Clark,

434 F.3d 684, 685 (4th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court directed district courts to “begin all

sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). The “Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial

benchmark,” but the sentencing court must also “consider all of the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors”

in determining the appropriate sentence. Id. at 49-50; see also Clark, 434 F.3d at 685.

Based on the plea agreement reached between the parties and the PSR, the government

submits that the appropriate Guidelines Total Offense Level is 9 resulting in a Guidelines range

of 4 to 10 months of incarceration. The total offense level of 9 results from the following:

Base Offense Level (USSG § 2B1.1(a)(1)) 7
Adjustments
Loss between $40,000 and $95,000 (USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D)) +6
Acceptance of Responsibility (USSG § 3E1.1(a)) -2
Zero-Point Offender (USSG § 4C1.1(a)-(b)) -2

Total Offense Conduct 9

III. THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 3553(A) AND RECOMMENDED
SENTENCE

After calculating the appropriate guidelines range, “the court must ‘determine whether a

sentence within that range . . . serves the factors set forth in § 3553(a) and, if not, select a sentence

[within statutory limits] that does serve those factors.” United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424,

432 (4th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court should consider: (1) the nature and
6
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 7 of 12 PageID# 81

circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for

the sentence imposed to, among other things, reflect the seriousness of the offense and adequately

deter criminal conduct; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the Sentencing Guidelines; (5)

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted

sentence disparities among defendants with similar records found guilty of similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must

meet a standard of reasonableness. See Booker, 543 U.S. at 260-61. The advisory guidelines range

is an important starting point because it captures the seriousness of the offense. United States v.

Goff, 501 F.3d 250, 257 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he Guidelines reflect a carefully considered

assessment of the seriousness of federal crimes”).

A. The Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Offense

During a time of unprecedented uncertainty when millions of Americans were struggling,

Samirah obtained a pandemic relief loan by fraud. The defendant’s actions were not a mistake, a

misunderstanding or undertaken in good faith. The defendant had other legal options to seek

funding for his business, NHS. Instead, choose to take advantage of a government program.

The circumstances surrounding Samirah’s criminal conduct are particularly troubling as he

used a generational tragedy to enrich himself through fraud. The Court should give great weight

to this factor in imposing a carceral sentence. See Gall, 522 U.S. at 59 (holding it was “quite

reasonabl[e]” for the sentencing for the sentencing court to have “attached great weight” to a

3553(a) factor.); see also Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007) (holding that

appellate court should not find the sentencing court’s reliance on a single factor unreasonable, so

long as the court imposes a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the

7
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 8 of 12 PageID# 82

sentencing goals advanced in § 3553(a)(2)”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007) (permitting a district court to “reasonably

accord significant weight to a single sentencing factor in fashioning its sentence.”)

B. The Defendant’s History and Characteristics

The government realizes that there are mitigating circumstances surrounding the defendant.

The Court must balance these mitigating circumstances against Samirah’s own choices and actions

within the fraud scheme. However, the defendant’s history and characteristics also support a

sentence of incarceration. Even though Samirah has no criminal history, the efforts he undertook

to receive and launder these fraud funds, and the fact that he executed this when he was elected to

public office, and held a position of trust with the voters, suggest that only a custodial sentence

will serve as a just punishment.

The fact that Samirah executed this fraud scheme while he was an elected representative is

significant by itself. As an elected Virginia-state representative Samirah was responsible for

making numerous decisions regarding public policies and the expenditures of taxpayer dollars. He

knows the important role that government programs play in our society and how these programs

can provide critical assistance to people in need. In short, he knows the value of a tax dollar much

more than most fraud defendants who come before this Court.

The efforts that Samirah undertook to ensure the success of the fraud scheme are also

noteworthy. The defendant involved multiple individuals in this fraud scheme. As the Statement

of Facts details, Samirah wrote checks to different purported employees and ensured that these

checks were deposited into accounts held in these individuals’ names. More importantly, Samirah

also ensured that these loan proceeds were laundered back to his control. Samirah caused numerous

8
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 9 of 12 PageID# 83

financial transactions to be conducted to ensure that the fraudulent loan proceeds would be

disguised and ultimately returned to him.

C. Need to Deter Future Criminal Conduct and Promote Respect for the Law

The defendant exploited governmental efforts to aid those in need, for his own financial

gain. His actions are serious, and their impact extends beyond this case. Each time federal

benefits are obtained through fraud it misappropriates taxpayer dollars and shakes public

confidence in government. Samirah’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for the law and a failure

to appreciate the purpose of pandemic relief loans.

Thus, a significant, but not excessive sentence, is needed to deter the defendant and

others, from engaging in similar conduct. Absent a meaningful term of imprisonment, general

deterrence – “the effort to discourage similar wrongdoing by others through a reminder that the

law’s warnings are real and that the grim consequences of imprisonment is likely to follow” –

will not be achieved. United States v. Bergman, 416 F. Supp. 496, 499 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). Due to

the prevalence of government program fraud, the United States often lacks the resources to

investigate and prosecute all bad actors. Accordingly, general deterrence is critically important to

dissuading others from engaging in similar conduct. See United States v. Morgan, 635 F. App’x.

423, 450 (10th Cir. 2015) (“General deterrence comes from a probability of conviction and

significant consequences. If either is eliminated or minimized, the deterrent effect is

proportionally minimized.”).

Congress recognized that general deterrence is particularly important in the context of

white-collar crime and “emphasized the critical deterrent value of imprisoning serious white

collar criminals, even when the criminals might be unlikely to commit another offense.” United

9
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 10 of 12 PageID# 84

States v. Sample, 901 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Livesay, 587

F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up) (“[I]n enacting § 3553, Congress was especially

concerned that prior to the Sentencing Guidelines, major white collar criminal often were

sentence to small fines and little or no imprisonment.”)

Pandemic relief loan frauds are deliberate and calculated crimes of choice. They are

therefore more susceptible to general deterrence and more in need of a significant sentence to

achieve that deterrence. United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006) (finding

that crimes that are “rational, cool, and calculated” rather than “crimes of passion or opportunity”

are “prime candidates for general deterrence”) (citation omitted). Moreover, crimes like this are

lucrative and can be difficult to detect. See, e.g., United States v. Hefferman, 43 F.3d 1144, 1149

(7th Cir. 1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for punishing more heavily those

offense that either are lucrative or are difficult to detect and punish, since both attributes go to

increase the expected benefits of a crime and hence the punishment required to deter it.”)

A sentence of incarceration is, therefore, necessary to send the appropriate message to the

defendant—and more importantly, to others—that those who engage in this conduct will be held

accountable. And this type of fraud appears to have been rampant: as much as $136 Billion in

PPP funds and $64 Billion in EIDL funds were stolen by people like Samirah. 5 This Court

should impose a sentence to deter the defendant and others from repeating similar crimes.

5
“Government Watchdog Estimates U.S. Lost $200 billion to COVID Fraud,” by Erin Doherty,
Axios, available at https://www.axios.com/2023/06/27/covid-relief-fraud-inspector-general-sba
(last visited October 16, 2025) (quoting the Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector
General’s report.)
10
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 11 of 12 PageID# 85

D. Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

The defendant’s guidelines are modest. A sentence at the low end of his guideline range

is appropriate and reflects the seriousness of his criminal conduct. A sentence that bears some

relationship to the guidelines, adjusted downward for reasons stated in the government’s sealed

filing, is best calculated to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. As the Seventh Circuit has

noted, “[s]entencing disparities are at their ebb when the Guidelines are followed, for the ranges

are themselves designed to treat similar offenders similarly.” United States v. Boscarino, 437

F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 2006).

CONCLUSION

Based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, a sentence of incarceration at the low-end of

the guideline range and entry of a restitution order are necessary and entirely appropriate in this

case. While loss amount attributable to this fraud scheme is admittedly low, the sentence should

still account for the defendant’s wrongdoing. Given the conduct at issue in this case, the

government would urge the Court to resist any sentence of probation or mere home confinement

and impose some type of custodial sentence. Such a sentence is reasonable and accounts for each

of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Lindsey Halligan
United States Attorney

/s/
Kathleen E. Robeson
Assistant United States Attorney

11
Case 1:25-cr-00210-MSN Document 14 Filed 10/16/25 Page 12 of 12 PageID# 86

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 16, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of that electronic filing (NEF)
to all counsel of record.

A copy has also been sent via email to:

Rachael Meyer
United States Probation Officer
Rachael_Meyer@vaep.uscourts.gov

By: /s/
Kathleen E. Robeson
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Justin W. Williams U.S. Attorney’s Building
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: 703-299-3700
Email: kathleen.robeson@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 14-position-on-sentencing-by-usa-as-to-ibraheem-sabri-samirah.pdf
Size: 207,230 bytes
SHA-256: 630c0852ef96748949ba8a7712b49f86e9134204cbb3d51b263e4d00074ad3ad
Our copy: 14-position-on-sentencing-by-usa-as-to-ibraheem-sabri-samirah.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)