Factual Basis — United States v. Weber (Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 26)
Summary
A Factual Basis in United States of America v. Brandi Weber, Criminal No. 23-35, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 26, filed 07/20/23 in Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC. It states that the defendant has agreed to plead guilty to a one-count bill of information charging a false statement to the executive branch under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2). The parties stipulate that the government would prove that the defendant sought a targeted advance EIDL grant, with the SBA disbursing $3,500, and filed two PPP loan applications with Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC supported by an IRS 1040 Schedule C reporting $49,450. It states the PPP applications resulted in deposits for a total of $20,604, and it carries lines for the AUSA, defendant and counsel.
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
“Factual Basis — United States v. Weber (Eastern District of Louisiana, Document 26).”
Original at ecf.laed.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-usa-v-weber-dkt-26-72c3e67002/
, SHA-256 b4c308fceddeeed55846c7ca13ae81b8fa59a2eb3772117e00e18c8286d4ad4f.Full text
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
&
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 23-35
v * SECTION. $D)'
BRANDI WEBER *
* & *
FACTUAL BASIS
The defendant, BRANDI WEBER (WEBER), has agreed to plead guilty to the one-count
bill of information charging her with making a false statement to the executive branch of the
government of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2).
Both the government and the defendant do hereby stipulate and agree that the following facts set
forth a sufficient factual basis for the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty. The
govemment and the defendant further stipulate that, should this case have gone to trial, the
govemment would have proven, through the introduction of competent testimony and reliable
documentary and other evidence, the following facts, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Parties. Lenders. and Federal Programs
At all times material herein, WEBER was a resident of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, within
the Eastern District of Louisiana, and she was employed by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, doing business as Amtrak ("Amtrak"), which Congress created as a private, for-profit
Government corporation, pursuant to the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, to
operate a nationwide system of passenger rail transportation.
At all times relevant herein, the United States Small Business Administration ("SBA") was
an agency within the executive branch of the Government of the United States. Among other
AUSA h( ,
Defendant 16lV-
Defense Counsel mf
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 6
things, SBA assists in the economic recovery of communities after disasters. SBA loans are made
through banks, credit unions, and other lenders who partner with SBA.
Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC was a participating financial technology lender
approved by the SBA.
Tlrc CARES Act
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") was a federal
law enacted in or about March 2020. The CARES Act provided emergency financial assistance to
the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects of the COVID-I9 pandemic. One source
of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorizationof forgivable loans to small businesses
for job retention and certain other expenses, through a program referred to as the Paycheck
Protection Program ("PPP").
The PPP was overseen by the SBA, which had authority over all PPP loans. Individual PPP
loans, however, were issued by approved private lenders, who received and processed PPP loan
applications and supporting documentation and, following SBA approval, made loans using the
lenders' own funds. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualiffing business had to submit a PPP loan
application 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
to make affirmative certifications to be eligible for the PPP loan. For example, in the PPP loan
application (SBA From 2483), the business, through its authorized representative, had to state its
average monthly payroll expenses and number of employees. In addition, businesses had to
provide documentation showing their payroll expenses, as part of the PPP loan application process.
These figures were used to calculate the amount of money the small business was eligible to
receive under the PPP.
2
,.A,::*fu
Counsel ttrqr
Det'ense
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 6
Among the type of businesses eligible for a PPP loan were individuals who operated under
a "sole proprietorship" business structure. In order to be eligible to receive such a PPP loan,
individuals had to report and document their income and expenses from the sole proprietorship, as
typically reported to the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") on Form 1040, Schedule C, for a given
year. The lending institution or loan processor used this information to calculate the amount of
money the individual was entitled to receive under PPP.
Once a qualiffing business completed a PPP application, a participating lender processed
the application. If a PPP loan was approved, the participating lender funded the PPP loan using its
own monies, which the SBA guaranteed. In the course of processing the PPP loan, the lender
transmitted data from the loan application to the SBA, including information about the borrower,
the total amount of the loan, and the identified number of employees.
proceeds from a PPP loan were legally required to be used only for certain pennissible
business expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and utilities. Under the
applicable PPP rules and guidance, the interest and principal on the PPP loan was eligible for
forgiveness if the business spent the loan proceeds on permissible items within a designated period
of time and used a certain portion of the loan toward payroll expenses.
The Economic Iniury Disaster Loan Progrant
The Economic Injury Disaster Loan ("EIDL") program was an SBA program that provided
targeted advances and low-interest financing to small businesses, renters, and homeowners in
regions affected by declared disasters. The CARES Act provided funding for EIDL advances and
loans for business affected by the COVID- 1 9 pandemic. In contrast to the PPP, EIDL loan amounts
were determined based on the recipient businesses' historical revenue and disbursed directly to the
recipient by the SBA. The EIDL targeted advances did not have to be repaid.
a,
w
J
AUSA
Defenclant
Defense Counsel WBT
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 6
WEBER's EIDL aPPlication
On or about Ju,ly 12,2020, WEBER filed for atargeted advance EIDL grant for "Weber
cash
Services,, and alleged that she owned a dog grooming service. This was a targeted emergency
the dog
disbursement by the SBA that did not have to be repaid. WEBER stated that she owned
grooming business out of her house (6151 Pratt Drive, New Orleans, LA 70122) and that the
she had gross
business had been operating since January 20,2019. WEBER also alleged that
to WEBER'
revenues of $35,000 and 9 employees in2Ol9. As aresult, the SBA disbursed $3,500
Records and documents obtained by law enforcement would show that WEBER
did not
own a dog groolring business on or about July 12, 2020, nor did she have gross revenues
of
the relevant time period was
$35,000 or 9 employees in 2OI}.WEBER's only employment during
false
with Amtrak. Accordingly, WEBER received the targeted advance EIDL grant based upon a
application.
WEBER's PPP Loan APPlications
WEBER completed two separate PPP loan requests for an "Esthetician" business that she
allegedly operated during ZOZ}.WEBER completed the first application on or about
April 2, 2021,
were submitted to
and the second draw application on or about April 10, 2021. Both applications
WEBER
Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC on SBA Form 2483. To support these claims,
grossed $49,450 ir'2020.
submitted an IRS 1040 Schedule C indicating that as an esthetician she
resulted in two direct
These applications submitted to lender Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC
each on or about
deposits of SBA-backed loans to WEBER's Home Bank account of $10,302
April 16, 2O2l,and on or about May 5, 2021, for a total of $20,604' WEBER's first and second
for the following
draw ppp applications were false and contained materially false representations
reasons:
4
AUSA
Defendant
Def-ense Counsel M
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 5 of 6
A check with the State of Louisiana shows no such business registered with the State. In
addition, an esthetician requires a license in the State of Louisiana to practice this trade. WEBER
does not have an esthetician license in the State of Louisiana'
On the loan documents, dated Apirl2,zozl, and April 70,2021,under question number 3,
WEBER was asked if she was an owner of any other business. WEBER answered "no" to this
question. However, wEBERhad previously claimed to own a dog grooming/retail business in her
EIDL from the previous Year.
A review of WEBER,s Home Bank account for 2020 showed nothing to indicate that
WEBER was operating a business. There were no business payroll checks to either herself or any
employees. There was nothing to indicate any business expenses such as supplies or rent- Further,
law enforcement found no indication of any payments related to business licenses or other
professional licenses. Outside of her Amtrak income, WEBER deposited $10,381.50 in cash app
deposits, significantly below the $49,450 she reported on the IRS 1040 Schedule C.
In submitting the two online PPP loan applications to Harvest Small Business Finance,
LLC, WEBER attached, uploaded, and used a false document-an IRS 1040 Schedule
C-indicating that she eamed $49,450 in tax year 2020 as an esthetician, knowing that it contained
materially false entries.
In submitting the two online PPP loan applications, WEBER certified each time that "the
information provided in [the] application and the information provided in all supporting documents
a false
and forms is true and correct in all material respects. I understand that knowingly making
statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable under the law, including
under 18
U.S.C. 1001 [sic] and 3571by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to
years and/or a fine of
$250,000; under 15 U.S.C. 645 [sic] by imprisonment of not more than two
5
AUSA i,B
Defendant
Defense Counsel
Case 2:23-cr-00035-WBV-DPC Document 26 Filed 07/20/23 Page 6 of 6
not more than $5,000; and, if submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 U.S.C. 1014
[sic] by imprisonment of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not more than $1,000,000."
The Government would further establish the material falsity of WEBER's PPP and EIDL
applications with testimony from the lender and the SBA that WEBER would not have received
the EIDL targeted advance or the two PPP loans were it not for said false statements and
documents.
READ AND APPROVED:
7A l t
WARNER THOMPSON Date EDWARD J. RIVERA Date
Counsel for Defendant Assistant U.S. Attomey
1/2012 2
I WEBER Date
Defendant
6
File and source
- File
- 26-factual-basis.pdf
- Size
- 2,966,765 bytes
- SHA-256
- b4c308fceddeeed55846c7ca13ae81b8fa59a2eb3772117e00e18c8286d4ad4f
- Our copy
- 26-factual-basis.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)