Defendant’s Objections to the Presentence Report (Doc. #29) — No. 1:22-cr-00063 (Dkt. 39, D. Colo.)

Summary

Defendant Patricia Ann Gilroy's objections to the Presentence Report (Doc. #29), filed July 8, 2022 as Document 39 in United States v. Gilroy, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00063-DDD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. She joins the government in objecting to paragraph 18 on total loss and states that the plea agreement fixed the loss at $865,551, a 14 level enhancement rather than sixteen, for an offense level of 18. The filing states that she used $55,000 of PPP funds as a condominium deposit, that the clerk now holds $131,143.00 toward restitution, and that a July 1 forfeiture order covers $686,000 in invested funds. It gives a range of 27 months to 33 months and states she agrees with the government's recommendation of 19 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

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00063-DDD Document 39 Filed 07/08/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3




                              IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00063-DDD



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


     Plaintiff,


v.
1.     PATRICIA ANN GILROY,



      Defendant.


                  DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT (DOC. #29)


     The defendant joins with the Government in objecting to paragraph 18 of the Presentence

Report with respect to total loss and agrees that pursuant to the plea agreement, the agreed

upon loss was $865,551. The defendant understands the Probation Department’s position, but

agrees with the Government, that in the context of a pre Indictment resolution, given the

uncertain and speculative nature of “intended” loss, and as an inducement for a timely

resolution, the parties stipulated and agreed to a then fixed and determined loss of $865,551,

which would then result in a 14 level enhancement as opposed to sixteen level enhancement.

Accordingly, the defendant is in agreement with the Government that the offense level after

taking into account timely acceptance should be a level 18.




                                                1
Case 1:22-cr-00063-DDD Document 39 Filed 07/08/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3




   The defendant’s only other objection (actually a supplement) is to page 5, paragraph 15

where the report reflects that “Gilroy used the PPP and EIDL proceeds for other purposes,

including using the funds toward the purchase of a new home”. It is submitted that the

defendant did in fact use $55,000 of the PPP funds as a deposit on a condominium, but upon

learning of the investigation, immediately embarked upon the recovery of such funds to be

used for restitution in this case.


The defendant cancelled the purchase of the condominium, and was successful in obtaining the

return of the $55,000 which was immediately converted to a cashier’s check payable to the

Clerk of the Court in June of 2021. That cashier’s checks was given to the Clerk of the Court at

the time of the plea, but by then was “stale” in that ninety days had expired since its issue in

June of 2021.


    Additionally, in an effort to recover as much funds as possible for “restitution” the

defendant had also secured an additional $50,000 in the form of a cashier’s check, payable to

the Clerk of Court, which was also tendered to the Clerk of the Court at the time of the plea.

Unfortunately both checks totaling, $105,000, were returned by the clerk.


   The defendant has since had them reissued and secured additional cashier’s checks now

totaling, $131,143.00. The now reissued checks have been sent to the Clerk and have been

received and the clerk now holds restitution in the amount of $131,143 .00.


   Although the plea agreement only required immediate payment of $50,000, in an effort to

accelerate restitution, the defendant has recovered and preserved funds totaling $131,143.00

as advance payments towards restitution.


                                                 2
Case 1:22-cr-00063-DDD Document 39 Filed 07/08/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3




  The defendant has also attempted to assist the Government in the forfeiture and return of

an additional $686,000 in funds that were “invested”. The Government, with the defendant’s

cooperation, filed an agreed motion for forfeiture, and this Court on July 1st entered a forfeiture

order relating to those “invested” funds. Hopefully by the time of sentencing, this Court’s order

will have been complied with by the entities holding the investments, and additional funds will

have been recovered


With respect to Paragraph 85, page 15, should the Court accept the joint objection of the

Government, the total base level would be 18 with a guideline imprisonment range of 27

months to 33 months.


The defendant has not sought a “variance” and is in concurrence with the Government’s

subsequent sentencing recommendation of 19 months.


s/ Peter D. Aiken
BY: Peter D. Aiken, Esquire
Aiken and O’Halloran
1188 N. Tamiami Trail Suite 205-A
Sarasota, Florida 34236
Telephone: (941) 366-3506
E-mail: peterdaiken@gmail.com
Attorney for (Patricia Ann Gilroy, defendant)




                                                3


File and source

File

39.pdf

Size

324,400 bytes

SHA-256

4a07e3bb2b2badbaced721c3443cbc92f70965e5f4f2d85a7cacbd0575cb7e50

Our copy

39.pdf

Original

No public link identified.