Government's Consolidated Sentencing Memorandum — No. 8:23-cr-00376 (Dkt. 126, D. Md.)
Summary
The Government's Consolidated Sentencing Memorandum in United States v. Ahmed Hussain, Criminal Nos. DLB-23-183 and DLB-23-376, filed August 21, 2025 as Document 126 in Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, with sentencing scheduled for September 4, 2025. It asks the Court to impose a total sentence of 170 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and restitution of $557,078 to the Maryland Department of Labor, and to withhold any offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The memorandum describes an unemployment insurance conspiracy (DLB-23-376) and a firearm and marijuana case (DLB-23-183), and states that the Defendant admits the conspiracy resulted in $3.5 million in loss.
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
“Government's Consolidated Sentencing Memorandum — No. 8:23-cr-00376 (Dkt. 126, D. Md.).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-consolidated-sentencing-memorandum-no-8-23-cr-00376-dkt-1-487e5d90cc/
, SHA-256 de6f7eb67121e4a162c87a16efb6c57fbbc06a55de05073a739f4fd39a48e5ca.Full text
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 1 of 19
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
*
v. * CRIMINAL NO. DLB-23-183
* CRIMINAL NO. DLB-23-376
AHMED HUSSAIN, *
*
Defendant. *
*
*******
GOVERNMENT’S CONSOLIDATED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
1
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 2 of 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 3
I. Procedural History .............................................................................................................. 3
A. DLB-23-CR-183: Indictment and Superseding Indictment ............................................ 3
B. DLB-23-CR-376: Indictment, Detention, Superseding Information, and Guilty Pleas .. 4
II. The Defendant’s Criminal Conduct .................................................................................... 4
A. The UI Conspiracy (DLB-23-376).................................................................................. 5
B. Defendant’s Possession of Firearms and Intended Distribution of a Controlled
Substance (DLB-23-183) ........................................................................................................ 6
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 7
I. Sentencing Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 8
A. Offense Level Calculation .............................................................................................. 8
B. There Should be No Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility ............................... 11
II. Section 3553(a) and the Appropriate Sentence ................................................................. 12
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses ............................................................ 13
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant ............................................................... 15
C. Adequate Deterrence and Protection of the Public ....................................................... 16
III. Supervised Release ....................................................................................................... 17
IV. Restitution ..................................................................................................................... 17
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
2
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 3 of 19
INTRODUCTION
The United States of America, by and through Kelly O. Hayes, United States Attorney
for the District of Maryland, and Harry M. Gruber, Christopher Sarma, and Joseph L. Wenner,
Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits the following memorandum in aid of
sentencing in the above captioned cases, which is scheduled for September 4, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
As set forth below, the government respectfully requests that the Court sentence Defendant
Ahmed Hussain (“Ahmed” or “Defendant”) as follows:
• Impose a total sentence of 170 months of imprisonment, consisting of: 146 months as to
Count One of DLB-23-376 (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud) and Count Two of DLB-
23-183 (Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition); the 60 month statutory maximum,
concurrent, as to Count Three of DLB-183 (Possession with Intent to Distribute a
Controlled Substance); and 24 months’ imprisonment on Count Three of DLB-23-376
(Aggravated Identity Theft), to be served consecutive to the above terms.
• Place the Defendant on supervised release for a period of three years. 1
• Order the Defendant to make restitution of $557,078 to the Maryland Department of
Labor.
The government further asks the Court to impose forfeiture consistent with the government’s
preliminary orders of forfeiture in each respective matter, to be submitted prior to sentencing. 2
BACKGROUND
I. Procedural History
A. DLB-23-CR-183: Indictment and Superseding Indictment
A Maryland federal grand jury indicted the Defendant on one count of Possession of a
Firearm and Ammunition by a Prohibited Person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), in May
2023. Indictment, United States v. Hussain, ECF No. 1, DLB-23-cr-183, (D. Md. May 18, 2023).
Following the Defendant’s arrest, the Honorable Ajmel A. Quereshi and the Honorable Deborah
1
The maximum period of supervised release for Count Two in DLB-23-376 is 1 year.
2
The government expects the preliminary orders of forfeiture to include a $557,078 money
judgment, along with the items specified in paragraph 14 of the operative plea agreement.
3
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 4 of 19
L. Boardman each ordered the Defendant released pending conditions, including home
confinement and location monitoring. Id. ECF Nos. 14 & 21.
In December 2023, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, charging the Defendant
with four additional counts, including another count of Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition
by a Prohibited Person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Two), and one count of
Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
(Count Three). Superseding Indictment, Id. ECF No. 57.
B. DLB-23-CR-376: Indictment, Detention, Superseding Information, and Guilty Pleas
In October 2023, the grand jury returned an indictment against Lawrence Harris (“Harris”),
the Defendant, Zakria Hussain, Terry Chen, Bryan Ruffin, and Kiara Smith, charging them with
multiple criminal offenses, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1349. Indictment, United States v. Hussein et al., ECF No. 1, DLB-23-376 (D. Md. Oct. 24, 2023).
Following his arrest for these offenses, the Defendant remained released on home confinement
and location monitoring conditions. Id. ECF Nos. 11-15. In November 2024, the Defendant was
arrested three months after he had absconded from pre-trial supervision. He then consented to
detention. ECF No. 85.
The government filed a superseding information in January 2025, which charged the
Defendant in Count One with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349,
and in Count Two with aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Id. ECF No.
92. Later that same month, the Defendant pled guilty before this Court to those counts. Id. ECF
Nos. 95-98. At the same hearing, the Defendant also pled guilty in DLB-23-183 to Counts Two
and Three of the Superseding Indictment. Crim. No. DLB-23-183, ECF Nos. 100-102.
II. The Defendant’s Criminal Conduct
As detailed in the Plea Agreement and stipulated facts, the Defendant engaged in multiple
4
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 5 of 19
separate and distinct forms of criminal conduct. First, he played a significant role in a sprawling
conspiracy to steal real individuals’ identities, exploit Maryland Department of Labor’s response
to the COVID-19 pandemic, and defraud the Maryland unemployment insurance program.
Second, he was trafficking marijuana and possessed a firearm in relation to his drug-trafficking
activities. Third, and while on supervision pending trial, the Defendant removed his location
monitoring device and fled from supervision for over three months until he was arrested by
detectives with the Prince George’s Police Department.
A. The UI Conspiracy (DLB-23-376)
For over a year, the Defendant worked with his co-conspirators to defraud the Maryland
Department of Labor (“MD-DOL”), multiple financial institutions, and identity theft victims to
obtain fraudulent unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits. The Defendant’s fraud came at the
height of the pandemic, when Maryland and the United States had expanded access to
unemployment benefits and employed contractors through Company #1 to review an influx of UI
applications and administer benefits. Essentially, two of the Defendant’s co-conspirators had
access to the MD-DOL’s internal databases through their employment with Company #1. The co-
co-conspirators—including the Defendant—then exploited that access to redirect unemployment
benefits meant for real people to their own bank accounts and to file fraudulent benefit claims with
the use of stolen identities. The Defendant admits that the UI fraud conspiracy resulted in $3.5
million in loss, and that he personally participated in claims resulting in over $550,000 in loss.
In order to redirect and file fraudulent UI claims, the Defendant and his co-conspirators
took several coordinated and intricate steps. These included using their surreptitious access to MD-
DOL databases: (1) to change information on existing UI claims; (2) to make numerous false
statements regarding purported applicant’s identity, employment status, wages, and eligibility to
fraudulently inflate the amount of benefits received; (3) to both upload and approve certain
5
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 6 of 19
documents in support of UI claims; and (4) to remove MD-DOL’s internal fraud holds on certain
UI claims and certify weeks of unemployment for payment in the MD-DOL system, among other
actions, all to facilitate the payment of fraudulent UI benefits. Moreover, the Defendant and his
co-conspirators ensured that the fraudulent benefits flowed into bank accounts they controlled.
The Defendant’s own fraudulent conduct was repeated and steadfast. As detailed in the
statement of facts, the Defendant used at least six email addresses, including his own Google email
(ahmedhussain10190@gmail.com), as the contact email for multiple false UI claims. To
perpetuate the ongoing fraud, he communicated with his co-conspirators to coordinate the use of
the Company #1 computers to adjust and file UI claims. For example, the Defendant and other
members of the conspiracy shared images and screenshots of various UI data entry emails. The
Defendant also informed his co-conspirators about the status of various UI claims, at one point
advising them that he was coming over to “check on a couple accts see y they ain’t pay.” He later
linked debit cards with fraudulent UI benefits to his personal Cash App account, transferred funds
from these cards into his Cash App account, and used the funds to buy luxury goods—including
$21,200 of diamonds for a Cartier watch. This conduct required the Defendant’s use of the personal
identifying information of over 10 victims. The statement of facts further details numerous
examples where the Defendant and his co-conspirators adjusted existing UI claims (Identity
Victim #7 and Identity Victim #8, for example), fraudulently induced the MD-DOL to issue UI
benefits, and then transferred money from those claims onto bank cards and accounts that the
Defendant controlled.
B. Defendant’s Possession of Firearms and Intended Distribution of a Controlled
Substance (DLB-23-183)
In November 2022, law enforcement discovered the Defendant possessing multiple fire
arms despite a prior federal felony conviction. The Defendant also possessed more than 60 pounds
of marijuana, over $5,000 in cash, and drug distribution baggies.
6
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 7 of 19
Specifically, when law enforcement searched the Defendant’s room within a residence he
shared with co-defendant Lawrence Harris, the Defendant was knowingly possessing a stolen
Honor Defendant 9mm handgun along with 229 rounds of ammunition of varying calibers. The
Defendant admits that he possessed this firearm and ammunition despite being previously
convicted of an offense punishable by more than one year. The Defendant also admits that he
possessed the handgun in relation to his drug trafficking activities. Indeed, in the same search of
the Defendant’s room, law enforcement also found approximately 60 pounds of marijuana,
complete with small baggies as well as cash.
Law enforcement also searched an attic in the Defendant’s residence. In the attic, law
enforcement found two large duffle bags containing 33 pounds of marijuana subdivided into 30
smaller bags. A third duffle bag contained a Black Ruger AR-15, a Black Chiappa 9mm Rifle, and
corresponding ammunition. Two hand guns—a Masterpiece Arms 9mm and a .45 Automatic
Model 21 pistol equipped with a full-auto sear switch—were also found near the duffle bags. In
the statement of facts, the Defendant admitted to having joint possession of these items.
C. Defendant’s Flight
While the Defendant was released on location monitoring pending trial for these two
underlying cases, he successfully absconded from pre-trial supervision. Specifically, in August
2024, the Defendant removed his location monitoring device and fled from home confinement.
Authorities were unable to locate the Defendant until November 2024, when he was arrested by
Prince George’s County Police. Following this arrest, the Defendant was charged with first degree
assault, malicious destruction of property, and six counts of possession of controlled substances.
That case has now been placed on the STET docket.
ARGUMENT
The government submits that—after calculating the applicable sentencing guidelines,
7
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 8 of 19
resolving the parties’ guideline dispute, and analyzing the appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)—a total sentence of 170 months’ incarceration is the appropriate sentence.
I. Sentencing Guidelines
The government recommends that the Court adopt the guidelines calculation listed in the
parties’ plea agreement, which slightly differ from those in the Presentence Report. See Plea
Agreement, DLB23-376, ECF No. 97 (“Plea Agreement”); Presentence Report, DLB-23-376, ECF
No. 105 (“PSR”). The government also asks this Court to withhold any offense level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility.
A. Offense Level Calculation
In DLB-23-376, pursuant to the Plea Agreement and PSR prepared by the U.S. Probation
Office, the base offense level is seven (7). There is a fourteen (14) level increase in the offense
level based on a loss amount of more than $550,000. The offense level is then increased by six (6)
additional levels from the following enhancements: (i) two (2) levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1(b)(2)(A), because the offense involved 10 or more victims; (ii) two (2) levels, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), because the scheme involved sophisticated means, and the Defendant
intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means; and (iii) two (2)
levels, pursuant to pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii), because the scheme involved the
use of an authentication feature. Finally, there is an agreement that the offense level should be
increased by two (2) levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because the Defendant obstructed or
impeded the administration of justice with respect to the prosecution of the instant offense of
conviction and the obstructive conduct related to the Defendant’s offense of conviction and any
relevant conduct. This results in an adjusted offense level of twenty-nine (29).
In DLB-23-183, pursuant to the Plea Agreement and PSR, Counts Two and Three of the
Superseding Indictment group for guideline calculation purposes because one of the counts
8
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 9 of 19
embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in, or other adjustment to, the
guideline applicable to another of the count. PSR ¶ 52. However, the parties and the PSR differ in
their positions as to how the appropriate offense level.
Under the Plea Agreement, the parties stipulated to calculations for Count Two and Count
Three that both result in an offense level of 22. As to Count Two—which is where the parties differ
from probation—the base offense level is fourteen (14) under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(6). The
following enhancements apply to increase the offense level to 22: two (2) levels, pursuant to
U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4), because the firearm was stolen; and four (4) levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2K2.1(b)(6), because the Defendant used or possessed the firearm in connection with another
felony offense. The two (2) level enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for the Defendant’s
obstruction of justice, brings the offense level to 22.
The PSR, however, calculates the offense level to be 30. See PSR ¶¶ 59-66. Specifically,
it reasons that the base offense level is twenty (20) under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, because the offense
involved a machine gun as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 5845(a) and the Defendant was a prohibited
person at the time of the offense. In addition to the stolen firearm (2 levels) and possession in
connection with another felony offense (4 levels) enhancements described above, the PSR also
applies a two (2) level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2K2.1(b)(1)(A), reasoning that the offence
involved five firearms. With the two (2) level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for the
Defendant’s obstruction of justice, the offense level to would be 30.
The significance of this difference is apparent under the multiple count adjustment rules.
See U.S.S.G. §3D1.4. Under the parties’ position, because the offense level for DLR-23-183 (22)
is seven levels less than the offense level for DLR-23-376 (29), the total number of units between
the two cases is one and the corresponding overall adjusted offense level would therefore be thirty
9
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 10 of 19
(30). With a criminal history category of III 3, the Defendant’s advisory guidelines range would be
121-151 months. Under the PSR’s position, however, two (2) additional offense levels should be
added to the offense level for DLR-23-183 (30), resulting in an adjusted combined offense level
of thirty-two (32), which based on criminal history category of III, would suggest an advisory
range of 151-188 months’ incarceration.
The government asks the Court to follow the calculation as set forth in the plea agreement.
As explained in the Stipulation of Facts, the Defendant had access to the attic where law
enforcement recovered marijuana and numerous firearms. Because the Defendant had access to
the attic, he could access the items in the attic. Based on text message communications obtained
during the investigation, the Defendant was engaging in a drug-trafficking business with his co-
defendant Lawrence Harris. Because the Defendant and Harris were working together to traffic
marijuana, the Defendant had joint control over the marijuana found in the attic, which is why
those amounts are included in the Guidelines calculation for Count Three of the Superseding
Indictment in DLB-23-183. As to the firearms, there was not a similar joint enterprise.
In addition to the adjusted offense level for Count One in DLB-23-376 and Counts Two
and Three in DLB-23-183, the guidelines and statute provide for a sentence of 2 years’
imprisonment for Count Two in DLB-23-376, which must be consecutive to any other sentence
imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.6. Moreover, the Court cannot alter its
sentence on the grouped counts to take into account the mandatory minimum on Count Two in
DLB-23-376. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(b)(3) (“in determining any term of imprisonment to be
imposed for the felony during which” the defendant used a means of identification, “a court shall
not in any way reduce the term to be imposed for such crime so as to compensate for, or otherwise
3
The government concurs with the PSR’s assessment that the Defendant has a criminal history
category III.
10
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 11 of 19
take into account, any separate term of imprisonment imposed or to be imposed for a violation of
this section”).
B. There Should be No Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility
The government anticipates that the Defendant will ask for an acceptance of responsibility
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), despite his obstruction of justice enhancement. 4 But to do
so, the Defendant “must show that he has done something atypical or beyond the ordinary course
either to take responsibility or to minimize the effects of his own obstruction to merit the
reduction.” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 488 (4th Cir. 2018). He cannot.
“Ordinarily, the two-level reduction is not available when the defendant has received an
enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the Guidelines.” Harris, 890 F.3d at 488.
(citing U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. cmt. 4.). The Defendant bears the burden to show that there are
“extraordinary” circumstances justifying such a reduction, and “must make a heightened showing
of acceptance of responsibility.” Id. (citing United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 264 (4th Cir.
2001)). Here, Defendant can do neither; “this is not an extraordinary case that would warrant
acceptance of responsibility in the face of obstruction of justice.” United States v. Perrin, 551 F.
App’x 694, 697 (4th Cir. 2014).
As explained above and in the PSR, while released on conditions pending trial, the
Defendant removed his location monitoring device and fled home confinement in August 2024.
The Defendant remained on the lam for over three months. He was not apprehended by authorities
until November, and only then by chance. As explained in the PSR, Prince George’s County police
officers happened to observe the Defendant commit several traffic violations in his 2014 Maserati
Quattroporte. When law enforcement attempted to stop the vehicle, the Defendant tried to flee,
4
The Plea Agreement provides that the government will oppose any such reduction, while the
Defendant reserves his right to argue that he is entitled to it. See Plea Agreement at 7.
11
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 12 of 19
colliding his car into two police cruisers. When the Defendant’s vehicle became stuck, he exited
the vehicle and ran before he was apprehended. As the PSR reports, the Defendant’s vehicle was
found to contain multiple controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. See PSR ¶91.
Defendant cannot point to extraordinary circumstances that undo this conduct. In
explaining the circumstances where both the obstruction enhancement and the acceptance
reduction could apply, the Fourth Circuit has speculated that perhaps “a defendant who escapes
custody might be able to demonstrate an exceptional circumstance if he immediately turns himself
over to authorities.” Harris, 890 F.3d at 488 (citing United States v. Gregory, 315 F.3d 637, 641
(6th Cir. 2003)). Not so here. The Defendant absconded from court supervision for three months.
Not only that, but the Defendant struggled to flee until the bitter end, forcing law enforcement to
pin his car and subsequently track him down on foot. Such conduct “clearly evin[ces] a desire to
evade responsibility indefinitely.” Id. (citing United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 172, 177 (4th
Cir. 2010) (affirming denial of reduction because defendant fled while out on bond)). Indeed, the
Defendant “was only brought back into the justice system by an arrest, not by surrender.” Knight,
606 F.3d at 177. Where a Defendant flees pending proceedings and fails to turn himself in, courts
in the Fourth Circuit routinely deny acceptance of responsibility credit. 5 This case is no different.
The Court should refrain from granting such a reduction.
II. Section 3553(a) and the Appropriate Sentence
As this Court is well aware, it must impose a reasonable sentence that is sufficient but no
5
See, e.g., Harris, 890 F.3d at 488 (affirming denial of acceptance credit where defendant cut
ankle monitor while on bond, fled jurisdiction, and failed to “voluntarily cease his obstructive
conduct” before being arrested); United States v. Hudson, 272 F.3d 260, 263 (4th Cir. 2001)
(reversing district court’s application of acceptance credit where defendant had failed to appear
for sentencing and “actively eluded apprehension by the police for more than six months” before
arrest); United States v. Lewis, 282 F. App’x 254, 254–55 (4th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of
acceptance credit when defendant “failed to appear at his original sentencing hearing and was
arrested approximately seven weeks later”); United States v. Brown, 438 F. App’x 203, 205 (4th
Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of acceptance credit “given [Defendant’s] fugitive status”).
12
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 13 of 19
greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, based on multiple factors, including “the
nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the history and characteristics of the defendant,” the
need “to promote respect for the law,” the need for just punishment without unwarranted
sentencing disparities and the need for both specific and general deterrence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The government will address all of these factors at the sentencing hearing but addresses some of
them below. Based on these factors, a total sentence of 170 months, consisting of 146 months as
to Count One of DLB-23-376 and Count Two of DLB-23-183; the 60-month statutory maximum,
concurrent, as to Count Three of DLB-376; and 24 months imprisonment on Count Three, to be
served consecutive to the above terms—is appropriate.
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses
This Defendant has committed not one, but two sets of offenses. Both are serious and
disturbing. One is a stunning financial fraud that exploited individual victims, financial
institutions, and public institutions at a time when society was navigating an unprecedented
economic and public health crisis. In the other, the Defendant possessed multiple firearms and
copious ammunition in connection with dealing illicit substances, exposing his community to
potential violence. Both merit a significant sentence.
The UI fraud. The context of this offense is key. The Defendant and his co-conspirators
defrauded their victims during an ongoing pandemic. In 2021, businesses were still reeling from
COVID-19-related closures and loss of business, and Marylanders had lost their jobs or were
working reduced hours. UI played a vital role providing individuals with a lifeline to keep their
families safe, housed, and fed. Recognizing this, Congress expanded UI benefits and eligibility
throughout the pandemic. And the MD-DOL enlisted remote contractors through Company #1 to
screen claims and handle increased volume.
The Defendant, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to commit fraud. He and his co-
13
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 14 of 19
conspirators used and obtained Company #1 credentials to fraudulently alter the UI claims of real
people using MD-DOL’s internal databases, inflating these claims and directing hundreds of
thousands of dollars into the Defendant’s and co-conspirators’ bank accounts. This caused
profound harm. Real Marylanders lost access to their UI funds in the middle of the pandemic. The
MD-DOL lost UI funds to a criminal conspiracy. Banks and financial institutions unknowingly
transferred fraudulent UI funds under their care. While the U.S. and Maryland taxpayer bears the
monetary loss in this case, the Defendant’s conduct harmed the real vulnerable people whose
identities he stole.
The Defendant himself advanced this scheme in multiple essential ways. He coordinated
the fraudulent use of Company #1’s laptops among his co-conspirators. He used his own personal
email address and others to change the contact information and misdirect UI claims away from
real claimants. And he directly benefitted in the fruits of his scheme. He loaded debit cards and
bank accounts under his control with fraudulent proceeds. He used those funds to purchase—
among other things—tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of diamonds. The Defendant was not a
minor player in this conspiracy; he was all in.
Moreover, it is important to note that the Defendant’s advisory guidelines range reflects
solely the UI funds that he personally participated in obtaining. Since the overall conspiracy
involved funds exceeding $3.5 million, the government asks this Court to consider the
government’s conservative approach to loss in this case and reject any requested downward
variance from the guidelines proposed by the defense.
The Firearm and Drug Offenses. Near contemporaneously with the UI fraud scheme, the
Defendant was also found illegally possessing firearms and distribution-level quantities of
marijuana. The number of firearms and amount of ammunition here is striking. Not only did the
Defendant have a stolen 9mm handgun and over 200 rounds in his room, but there were also two
14
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 15 of 19
semi-automatic rifles, two additional handguns (one modified with a full auto switch), and dozens
of rounds of corresponding ammunition in his attic. Dozens of pounds of marijuana, drug
distribution baggies, and cash were kept alongside these firearms.
While the Defendant did not use this arsenal on this occasion to commit a violent act, the
fact that the Defendant felt the need to arm himself with so many firearms and so much ammunition
is telling regarding the violent nature of the drug trade. See Orrego Goez v. United States, 2023
WL 2045970, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2023) (“Guns and drugs ‘are a dangerous combination’ –
as courts across the country have consistently found.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, it also is
illustrative of the scope of his furtive drug operation. Such a scope deserves a significant sentence.
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The Defendant’s crimes were not an aberration or a one-time lapse in judgment. Rather,
they constituted a continuous and well-thought-out course of conduct—the UI fraud in particular.
The quantity of stolen identity information the Defendant and his co-conspirators possessed, the
command of that information, and the constant coordination of his co-conspirators cannot be
ignored.
These crimes are another entry in this Defendant’s growing criminal record. He had already
been convicted of illegally possessing regulated firearms twice in Prince George’s County Circuit
Court (in 2019 and 2020), and was convicted second degree escape when he cut his ankle monitor
while on supervision in 2020. PSR ¶ ¶ 76 & 78. Despite these convictions, the Defendant entered
the UI fraud conspiracy shortly after being released. And his prior gun offenses did not stop him
from possessing even more guns as part of his drug distribution efforts soon after.
Moreover, as reflected above, the Defendant has demonstrated that he lacks respect not
only for the law but also for others. The Defendant repeatedly victimized people by stealing their
identities to commit fraud and then tried to flee while pending trial in this case. The Defendant
15
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 16 of 19
chose to flee despite a prior conviction for fleeing home confinement on state supervision. See
PSR ¶77. It’s notable that even when released pending trial and under the duress of a potentially
significant federal sentence, the Defendant’s criminal behavior continued. Accordingly, the
Defendant’s history and characteristics paint a grim picture and warrant a significant sentence.
C. Adequate Deterrence and Protection of the Public
The facts demonstrate that this Defendant is both an economic and physical danger to those
around him. His sentence should appropriately reflect the requisite protection of the public and the
need to deter future criminal conduct.
Sophisticated fraud schemes like the Defendant’s require deterrence that only can be
accomplished through a significant period of incarceration. “Because economic and fraud-based
crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, these
crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240
(11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). “Defendants in white collar crimes often calculate
the financial gain and risk of loss, and white collar crime therefore can be affected and reduced
with serious punishment.” Id. at 1227. The Fourth Circuit has recognized the importance of
incarceration for defendants convicted of white-collar crimes such as tax evasion, theft, fraud, and
embezzlement. See, e.g., United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 501 (4th Cir. 2010). As evidenced
by the scope of the Defendant’s criminal conduct, cases such as this involving individual benefits
fraud, counterfeiting, and false documents are difficult to detect.
The Defendant’s exploitation of a high-profile relief program during an unprecedented
pandemic also heightens the importance of general deterrence. Programs created by the CARES
Act (like expanded UI benefits and eligibility) were designed to get money to people in need as
quickly as possible. In times of national calamity, the United States must be able to aid its citizens
expeditiously and with streamlined bureaucratic scrutiny. And yet it is precisely the lack of
16
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 17 of 19
scrutiny that this Defendant (and many others) wrongfully exploited. The imposition of criminal
penalties severe enough to deter others who may seek to take similar advantage of public largesse
in future disasters is critical. The anonymous, online nature of these offenses will otherwise prove
too tempting to far too many. Undeterred fraud of this sort will also undermine public support for
similar relief efforts even when they are unquestionably needed. The Defendant’s sentence will
serve as a warning and deterrent to others inclined to exploit future relief programs. Therefore, a
lengthy sentence is necessary to protect the public and provide both specific and general deterrence
to others who might think to use another national emergency for personal financial gain.
Indeed, a lengthy sentence is also necessary to specifically deter this Defendant. Despite
prior criminal history, this Defendant engaged in long term fraud, while at the same time ignoring
his prohibition of firearm possession and entering the large-scale drug trade. The Defendant then
proceeded to abscond from supervision while these cases were pending. Therefore, only a
significant term of imprisonment can deter this Defendant from future violations of law.
III. Supervised Release
The government asks the Court to further sentence the defendant to three years of
supervised release. In addition to the conditions of supervised release set forth in the presentence
report, the government urges this Court to consider imposing some or all of the following
additional special conditions:
• Disclose to Pretrial Services all phone numbers used by the Defendant on a monthly
basis;
• Prohibit the use of encrypted communication applications such as Telegram and
WhatsApp; and
• Require the Defendant to obtain prior approval from Pretrial Services for any financial
transactions exceeding $10,000.
IV. Restitution
The government asks that this Court impose restitution order of $557,078 to the MD-DOL.
17
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 18 of 19
The government has been advised by defense counsel that the Defendant agrees to a restitution
order in this amount. Additional information for the MD-DOL in included in the table below.
Victim Total Actual Loss Amount
Maryland Department of Labor
Benefit Payment Control Unit,
Room 206 $557,078.00
1100 N. Eutaw St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein and further discussed at the sentencing hearing, the
government respectfully requests that the Court sentence the Defendant as follows:
• Impose upon the Defendant a total sentence of 170 months of imprisonment
• Place the Defendant on supervised release for a period of three years.
• Impose forfeiture consistent with the government’s preliminary orders of forfeiture in each
respective matter, to be submitted prior to sentencing.
• Order restitution of $557,078 to the MD-DOL.
The government views this recommended sentence to be sufficient, but not greater than necessary,
to achieve the purposes of sentencing.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly O. Hayes
United States Attorney
/s/
Harry M. Gruber
Christopher Sarma
Joseph L. Wenner
Assistant United States Attorneys
18
Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB Document 126 Filed 08/21/25 Page 19 of 19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing government’s filing was served via email on
the defendant’s counsel.
________/s/_______________
Joseph L. Wenner
Assistant United States Attorney
19
File and source
- File
- 126.pdf
- Size
- 326,242 bytes
- SHA-256
- de6f7eb67121e4a162c87a16efb6c57fbbc06a55de05073a739f4fd39a48e5ca
- Our copy
- 126.pdf
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com