Defendant’s Objections to the Draft Presentence Investigation Report — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 85, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Defendant Luke Joselin's objections to the draft Presentence Investigation Report, filed October 11, 2022 as Document 85 in United States v. Joselin, Case No. 22-60028-CR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The four-page filing states Joselin's position that the total amount he is responsible for is $477,533 and not $3.6 million, and lists amounts by count, including $27,005 on Count II and $186,972 on Count VII. It states that he accepts responsibility, denies recruiting or supervising others, and notes his acquittal on the conduct in count twelve of the indictment. It asks for a total offense level of 17 and a guideline range of 24-30 months.

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

“Defendant’s Objections to the Draft Presentence Investigation Report — No. 0:22-cr-60028 (Dkt. 85, S.D. Fla.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/defendant-s-objections-to-the-draft-presentence-investigation-report-n-b229a05be6/, SHA-256 2cfef9f6bde257931c7b37deeb43453e985b3fd7df7c609adeb50dc85b513d5e.

Full text

Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.:22-60028-CR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff
vs.

LUKE JOSELIN,

Defendant.
_________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT PRESENTENCE
INVESTIGATION REPORT

COMES NOW the Defendant, LUKE JOSELIN (“Mr. Joselin”), through
undersigned counsel, and hereby files the following objections to the draft Presentence
Investigation Report (“PSI”) and states:

PART A. THE OFFENSE

Paragraph 19: The Defense’s position is that Joselin was not involved in a
conspiracy with Harrison, Jean Louis, or others.

Paragraph 20: The Defense’s position that he used his email account related to the
preparation of his loan applications. Further, the coconspirator’s shared the same email
address to provide information necessary for Joseline to prepare an application on their
behalf.

Paragraph 22: It is the Defendant’s position that there was no recruitment involved
when Jean Louis requested that the Defendant prepare a PPP loan on his behalf.

Paragraph 27: It is the Defendant’s position that he did not mask the illegitimacy
by transferring funds to a new account and issuing “pay period” checks to four individuals.

Paragraph 28: It is the Defendant’s position that both Jean Louis and Harrison took
steps to obtain loan funds.
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
1
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 2 of 4

Paragraph 29: It is the Defendant’s position that Jean Louis stole the victim TD’s
personal identifying information. The Defendant was acquitted of the conduct in count
twelve of the indictment.

Paragraph 30: It is the Defendant’s position that he relied on the information
provided by Harrison and Jean Louis in the preparation of the SBA applications.

Paragraph 31: It is the Defendant’s position is that he did not lie during his post-
arrest statements conducted in October 2021. Further, it is the Defendant’s position that
the total amount that he is responsible for is $477,533 and not $3.6 million.

The Defense respectfully requests that the Court make the following findings with
respect to his amount that he is responsible for in the instant case:

COUNT I-NO AMOUNT OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANT
COUNT II- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $27,005
COUNT III- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $20,833
COUNT IV- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $20,833
COUNT V-DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $19,412
COUNT VI- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $19,998
COUNT VII- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $186,972
COUNT VIII- DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR $182,500
COUNTS VIIII-X- PPP LOAN APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BUT
NOT FUNDED
COUNT XI-NO AMOUNT OBTAINED BY THE DEFENDANT
COUNT XII-DEFENDANT ACQUITTED OF AGGRAVATED IDENTITY
PART A. ROLE ASSESSMENT

Paragraph 32: It is the Defendant’s position that he did not recruit, direct, or cause
the submission of false and fraudulent information to secure PPP and EIDL loans in the
amount of $3.6 million. But that rather, the Defendant accepts responsibility for the loans
that he prepared on his behalf and for the applications that he submitted on behalf of
Harrison and Judelex without verifying the information.
DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
2
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 3 of 4

Paragraph 33: It is the Defendant’s position that Jean Louis was not recruited into
a fraudulent scheme by the Defendant.

Paragraph 39: It is the Defendant’s position that he is accepting responsibility for
his role in the offense. Therefore, the Defense would be respectfully requesting that the
adjustment for the acceptance of responsibility apply.

Paragraph 43: It is the Defendant’s position that he is not responsible for the total
amount of $3.6 million. (See the calculation in Defendant’s objection as to paragraph 31)
Because the loss was more than $250,000 but less than $550,000, the Defense is requesting
that his offense level is increased by twelve (12) levels, ⸹2B1.1(b)(1)(G).

Paragraph 46: It is the Defendant’s position that he is not the organizer, leader,
manager, or supervisor of any criminal activity involving Jean Louis and Harrison.

Paragraph 50: It is the Defendant’s position that he qualifies for the adjustment for
the acceptance of responsibility.

PART D. SENTENCING OPTIONS

Paragraph 84: It is the Defendant’s position that he has a total offense level of seven
(7), with a specific offense characteristic level of 12 points, and sophisticated means
enhancement of two additional levels. The Defense is objecting to the Adjustment Role
enhancement of two (2) levels and respectfully requesting that this court sustain his
objection.

Thereby, the Defendant is requesting that his total offense level be seventeen (17)
and criminal history of I, therefore the guideline imprisonment range is 24-30 months in
the Bureau of Prison’s custody. Per 18 U.S.C ⸹ 1028A(a)(1) and (b)(2) as to Count Twelve
of the indictment, the Court is required to impose the respective count consecutive to the
underlying count.

Paragraph 89: It is the Defendant’s position that the applicable guideline range is
in Zone C of the sentencing table, thereby making the Defendant ineligible for probation.

DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
3
Case 0:22-cr-60028-WPD Document 85 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 4 of 4

PART F. FACTORS THAT MAY WARRANT A SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF
THE ADVISORY GUIDELINE SYSTEM

Paragraph 95: It is the Defense's position that Defendant is eligible for a variance
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(e) factors based upon his: lack of criminal history;
family circumstances; and the nature of the offense.

WHEREFORE, the Defense respectfully requests this Court to sustain the above-
described PSI objections.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
/s/ Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 0110587
2719 Hollywood Boulevard, A-1187
Hollywood, Florida 33020
Telephone: 954-256-5958
Fax No.: 954-272-7665
Email: ddavis@thedavislegalcenter.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 11, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using PACER. I also certify that the foregoing document is
being served this day on all counsel of record in this matter by PACER.

/s/ Dameka L. Davis, Esq.
Dameka L. Davis, Esq.

DAVIS LEGAL CENTER
2719 HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020
4

File and source

File: 85.pdf
Size: 191,035 bytes
SHA-256: 2cfef9f6bde257931c7b37deeb43453e985b3fd7df7c609adeb50dc85b513d5e
Our copy: 85.pdf
Original: No public link identified.