Government's Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Jamie McGowen, No. 3:22-cr-00360 (D. Or.), Doc. 47 (April 23, 2025)

Summary

The Government’s Sentencing Memorandum filed April 23, 2025 in United States v. Jamie McGowen, Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN, Document 47, in the United States District Court, District of Oregon. It states that on December 11, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud (Count 1), bank fraud (Count 5) and money laundering (Counts 3 and 7). The government argues that defendant withheld $705,613 in taxes from the salaries of employees of Al’s Trailer Sales of Salem, Inc and never paid it, and later submitted 15 applications to the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). It asks for 37 months in prison, supervised release, no fine, and restitution of $2,072,860.

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 Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Jamie McGowen, No. 3:22-cr-00360 (D. Or.), Doc. 47 (April 23, 2025).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-s-sentencing-memorandum-united-states-v-jamie-mcgowen-no-3-ef9e1ce58c/, SHA-256 3688a31656ae2328064bf0251dc23591f25df3ee36d4de527128a2c6e9d59f2d.

Full text

Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 1 of 19

WILLIAM M. NARUS, CAB #243633
Acting United States Attorney
District of Oregon
MEREDITH D.M. BATEMAN, OSB #192273
Assistant United States Attorney
Meredith.Bateman@usdoj.gov
1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Telephone: (503) 727-1000
Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3:22-cr-00360-AN

v. GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
MEMORANDUM
JAMIE MCGOWEN,

Defendant.

I. Introduction

Over five years, defendant Jamie McGowen engaged in two separate fraud schemes to

steal over $2,000,000. Between August 2016 and December 2018, she worked as a payroll

processor for Al’s Trailer Sales of Salem, Inc (“Al’s”). Although defendant withheld $705,613

in taxes from Al’s employees’ salaries, she never filed the required tax forms with the Internal

Revenue Service, and she kept all the money for herself. Just months after she “blackmailed”

Al’s owner into selling the business to her (using some of her ill-gotten gains), defendant found

another opportunity to steal – this time from the federal government at the deprivation of

struggling businesses. Over about 18 months, defendant submitted 15 fraudulent applications to

steal from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program and the Paycheck Protection
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 1
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 2 of 19

Program (“PPP”), made off with almost $1.3 million, and then submitted five forgiveness

applications to make sure she would never have to pay the money back.

Defendant should be sentenced to 37 months in prison to hold her accountable for her

conduct.

II. Procedural Posture

On October 12, 2022, the grand jury charged defendant via indictment with two counts of

wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 1 and 4), three counts of money laundering

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts 2, 3, and 7), and two counts of bank fraud in violation

of 18 U.S.C. 1344 (Counts 5 and 6). On December 11, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement,

defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud (Count 1), bank fraud (Count 5), and money laundering

(Counts 3 and 7) and admitted the forfeiture allegations. ECF No. 42.

III. Factual Background

Defendant was the owner or partial owner of nine companies: (1) Salem Outsourcing,

Inc. (“SOI”), a human resources and payroll processing company (100% owner); (2) Reality RV

and Trailers, Inc (“Reality RV”) (100% owner), an RV and trailer dealer; (3) Klamath Falls RV,

Inc. (“Klamath Falls RV”) (100% owner), an RV dealer; (4) Klamath Falls Parts and Service

(“Klamath Falls Parts”) (100% owner), the service and repair side to Klamath Falls RV; (5)

Sutherlin RV, Inc. (“Sutherlin”) (100% owner), an RV and trailer dealer; (5) Al’s (100% owner

as of November 2019), a trailer dealership; (6) Reality Auto Inc (“Reality Auto”), a used car

dealership (50% owner); (7) Valley Investment Company d/b/a Casey’s Restaurant Inc. (“Valley

Investment”) (50% owner), a restaurant; (8) Valley Business and Tax Services, Inc. (“Valley

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 2
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 3 of 19

Business”) (100% owner), an accounting firm; and (9) Valley Accounting and Tax d/b/a Valley

HR Services (“Valley Accounting”) (100% owner), an accounting and tax preparation business. 1

A. Defendant failed to pay over $705,613 in federal income withholding and
payroll taxes.

Between August 2016 and December 2018, Al’s paid defendant (through SOI) $3,000 a

month to calculate and process Al’s payroll and handle its payroll taxes. 2 Defendant withheld

payroll taxes from Al’s employees’ salaries and paid employees either by checks from SOI’s

bank account or interstate wire transfer from SOI’s bank account through Intuit Payroll.

Defendant was the sole signor on SOI’s bank accounts.

Defendant did not file Al’s Forms 941 for the 9 quarters beginning September 2016

through December 2018, and never paid the $705,613 in tax she withheld from Al’s employees’

salaries. Instead, she kept this money for herself to spend on whatever she wanted, including

$200,000 to buy 100% ownership interest in Al’s, writing $150,000 and $79,000 checks to

Sutherlin RV (which she owned) 3, wrote herself a check for $32,000, and wrote two checks

totaling over $53,000 in the same week to two Kia dealerships.

1
SOI, Reality RV, Klamath Falls RV, Klamath Falls Parts, Sutherlin, Al’s, and Reality Auto
were based in Oregon, and were administratively dissolved between March 2020 and March
2024. Valley Investment is in California. Valley Business and Valley Accounting are in
Nevada.
2
The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) requires employers to withhold Social
Security and Medicare taxes from wages and salaries paid to employees. Social Security and
Medicare taxes are imposed on both the employee and the employer at a rate of 6.2% for social
security and 1.45% for Medicare, creating a combined FICA tax rate of 15.3% (12.4% for Social
Security and 2.9% for Medicare). A business uses IRS Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal
Tax Returns, for reporting and paying these taxes to the United States government.
3
Defendant wrote the checks to Sutherlin on August 17, 2017 and August 7, 2018. On
September 6, 2018 Sutherlin was administratively dissolved but defendant reinstated it a week
later, and it was again administratively dissolved in September 2020.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 3
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 4 of 19

In November 2019, when buying Al’s, defendant and her father, a certified public

accountant, leveraged the unpaid taxes to pressure Al’s owner to selling to them at a discount.

The owner described this to law enforcement as “blackmail” and that he “had to” sell Al’s to

defendant and her father because the owner could not tell an outside buyer there were no issues.

Defendant acknowledged her conduct in an indemnification agreement to the seller as part of the

purchase:

B. Defendant lied on 15 COVID-19 benefits applications to try to steal $2.8
million.

Stealing over $700,000 wasn’t enough for defendant. Just nine days after Congress

passed the CARES Act, defendant began submitting fraudulent applications to steal COVID-19

benefits meant for struggling businesses. Between April 3, 2020 and December 30, 2021,

defendant submitted 15 fraudulent EIDL and PPP applications—often multiple on the same day

or just weeks apart—on behalf of 15 different named entities, some of which shared the same

employer identification number, 4 and then submitted forgiveness applications for many of the

loans. On these applications, defendant lied about things like the number of employees the

4
Specifically, on December 14, 2021, defendant applied for an EIDL for “Valley Accounting”
(EIN 46-3186289). Two weeks later, on December 30, 2021, defendant applied for another
EIDL under that EIN but changed the name of the business to “Valley Accounting and Tax d/b/a
Valley HR Services.” In September 2022, “Valley HR Services” was registered with the
Nevada Secretary of State.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 4
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 5 of 19

companies had, their gross revenues, or their average monthly payroll because the larger these

numbers were, the larger the loan defendant could get. And despite having 50%-100%

ownership of numerous companies, on every application she claimed no ownership or

management in any other business, which prevented the Small Business Administration (“SBA”)

from correctly determining business affiliations to correctly count the number of employees and

ensure eligibility. To lend credibility to the applications, defendant knowingly submitted bogus

tax documents (which she told agents her father prepared) that inflated the numbers compared to

what was actually filed with the IRS. By way of just one example, the chart below details the

October-December 2019 IRS Form 941 for Al’s that was filed with the IRS compared to what

defendant submitted to the SBA in support of her PPP application.

Wages, Tips, or Federal Total Taxes
Submitted # of Other Income After
To Employees Compensation Tax Withheld Adjustments
IRS 4 $6,694.17 $601.40 $1,625.60
SBA 41 $370,987 $36,159 $91,505

As shown in the chart below, defendant managed to get $1,297,964 of the $2,887,864 she

tried to steal and caused a loss to the SBA of $1,367,247 including interest and SBA-paid lender

fees.

Date Applicant Entity Program and Loan or Intended
Application Number Loan (noted in
Italics)
April 3, 2020 Al’s Trailer PPP #15988848 $454,532
April 14, 2020 Klamath Falls Parts and PPP #13500934 $50,100
Service Inc
April 14, 2020 Klamath Falls RV Inc. PPP #13526200 $52,800
April 30, 2020 Reality RV PPP #21723838 $293,180
May 6, 2020 Valley Business & Tax PPP #17338786 $45,317
Services Inc.
May 19, 2020 Sutherlin RV Inc. PPP #18135895 $106,983
June 27, 2020 Reality Auto EIDL #3307022210 $3,000
October 2, 2020 Klamath RV Inc. EIDL #3314832770 declined ($877,000)
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 5
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 6 of 19

October 2, 2020 Klamath Falls Parts and EIDL #3314832648 declined ($40,700)
Services
January 19, 2021 Klamath Falls Parts and PPP #24533528 $50,175
Service Inc.
January 19, 2021 Klamath Falls RV Inc. PPP #25078524 $52,885
February 10, 2021 Valley Business & Tax PPP #25292714 $45,317
Services Inc.
May 11, 2021 Valley Investment RRF #31232251 $143,675
Company/Casey’s
December 14, Valley Accounting EIDL #3325694678 declined ($347,100)
2021
December 30, Valley Accounting and EIDL #3326083997 declined ($325,100)
2021 Tax d/b/a Valley HR
Services

Rather than spend the money according to the rules of the PPP and EIDL programs,

defendant transferred most money amongst her various businesses, to her father, to her personal

checking account, and paid off credit cards. By way of just a few examples, after defendant had

the $106,983 Sutherlin RV PPP loan deposited to one of Reality RV’s accounts (instead of

Sutherlin’s), she transferred $20,000 to a different Reality RV account which she then used to

pay an owner of a construction company. She also transferred about $76,000 of the loan to

Sutherlin RV’s account in order to pay off $25,000 of credit card debt, write a $11,403.48 check

to herself, and pay Kabbage Inc. $16,000. Similarly, after receiving the PPPs for Klamath Falls

Parts and Services and Klamath Falls RV Inc., defendant transferred the entirety of both loans to

one of Reality RV’s account, waited a week, then transferred all the money to Valley Investment

Company’s account where she then used it to pay off credit cards and transfer it to her personal

checking account.

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 6
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 7 of 19

To ensure she would not have to pay the government back for the PPPs, she submitted

forgiveness applications for five of the seven 5 PPP loans claiming she spent all the loans on

payroll.

IV. The Presentence Report

On April 14, 2025, Probation disclosed its final PSR to the parties and issued its

Sentencing Recommendation.

A. Defendant’s Total Offense Level is a 23.

In the PSR, Probation concluded that defendant’s total offense level is a 23, calculated as

follows:

Description No. Guideline Section
Base Offense Level 7 USSG §2S1.1(a)(1)(A), (B),
§2B1.1(a)(1)
Loss of $2,072,860 +16 USSG §2B1.1(b)(1)(I)
Sophisticated Means +2 USSG §2B1.1(b)(10)(C)
More than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a +2 USSG §2B1.1(b)(17)(A)
financial institution
Conviction under 18 U.S.C. §1957 +1 USSG §2S1.1(b)(2)(A)
Adjusted Offense Level 28
Zero-Point Offender -2 USSG §4C1.1(a), (b)
Acceptance of Responsibility -3 USSG §3E1.1(a), (b)
Total Offense Level 23

PSR ¶¶ 47-59. In addition, Probation found that Counts 1 and 3, and Counts 5 and 7, are

grouped for purposes of the Guideline calculation. Id. ¶¶ 44-46.

B. Defendant is in Criminal History Category 1.

The PSR concluded that defendant is in Criminal History Category 1 because defendant

has a total criminal history score of zero. Id. ¶ 63.

5
Defendant did not submit forgiveness applications for the PPPs for Al’s or Reality RV.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 7
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 8 of 19

C. Probation Recommended a Sentence of 41 Months’ Imprisonment.

With a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of 1, Probation

determined that defendant falls within an advisory Guidelines range of 46-57 months’

imprisonment. Id. ¶ 87. In its Recommendation Letter, Probation recommended a term of 41

months’ imprisonment.

V. The United States’ Position on the Presentence Report

The government has no objections to the PSR. There are three outstanding PSR issues

for the Court: (1) grouping of counts (no objections by the parties); (2) application of

sophisticated means (defense objects to application); and (3) whether defendant is eligible for

probation (defense objects to language).

A. Grouping

While the parties agreed that Counts 1 and 3 grouped and that Counts 5 and 7 grouped,

the PSR grouped all counts together because (1) “one of the counts in each group embodies

conduct that is treated as a specific offense characteristic in, or other adjustment to, the guideline

applicable to another of the counts; and (2) “the offense level is determined largely on the basis

of the total amount of harm or loss[.]” Id. ¶¶ 45-46. The parties conferred ahead of filing this

memorandum and, upon review, agree the parties made a mistake in the plea agreement and

believe the PSR is correct. Accordingly, all counts are grouped and depending on the Court’s

determination regarding sophisticated means, the final offense level is either 21 (37-46 months)

or 23 (46-57 months).

B. Sophisticated Means

The government and the Probation Officer recommend a two-level enhancement for

sophisticated means under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for Count 5 (the bank fraud relating to the

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 8
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 9 of 19

COVID-19 scheme). PSR ¶ 49. Defendant’s objection letter to the draft PSR objects to this

enhancement but does not provide its reasoning. The government anticipates that defendant will

claim this enhancement does not apply because defendant did not fill out the fraudulent tax form

(she told agents her father completed the forms). 6

Section 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) provides for a two-level enhancement if “the offense . . .

involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct

constituting sophisticated means.” The Guidelines define “sophisticated means” as “especially

complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an

offense.” Id. cmt. n.9. Ninth Circuit law is clear that “[c]onduct need not involve highly

complex schemes or exhibit exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means

enhancement.” United States v. Jennings, 711 F.3d 1144, 1145 (9th Cir. 2013). Judges in this

district uniformly apply this enhancement in COVID-19 fraud cases where the defendant created

or submitted bogus tax documents to support the inflated numbers on the applications. See, e.g.,

United States v. Mandera, 3:23-cr-00307-MO (court imposed the enhancement when identified

in the PSR even though government did not recommend it under the plea agreement); United

States v. Blood, 3:21-cr-00231-IM; United States v. Lysne, 3:21-cr-00167-SI; United States v.

Kirkpatrick, 3:22-cr-00388-001-IM; United States v. Cunningham, 3:22-cr-00018-IM; United

States v. Williams, 3:22-cr-00034-AN. The government is not aware of a single COVID-19

fraud case in this district where the court did not apply the enhancement when identified in the

PSR as applicable.

6
The government will address any other arguments defense raises in its sentencing memo on this
enhancement at sentencing.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 9
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 10 of 19

Moreover, Ninth Circuit law and the guidelines are clear that this enhancement applies

whether or not defendant was the one filling out the forms. See USSG Amendment 592 (the

amendment applies when “the defendant intentionally engaged in or caused conduct constituting

sophisticated means” and the enhancement is based on “defendant’s own intentional conduct.”);

United States v. Terabelian, 105 F.4th 1207, 1220 (9th Cir. 2024) (applying sophisticated means

when defendant “might not have been the mastermind” but “knew what was going on . . . [,]

knew this was an extensive fraud[,] and . . . she knew the methodology” of co-conspirators using

fictitious entities to steal almost $18 million in COVID-19 funds); see also Cunningham, 3:22-

cr-00018-IM (court applied sophisticated means when defendant submitted fake tax documents

created by a friend).

Here, defendant submitted at least 7 fabricated documents to support the gross revenues,

numbers of employees, and other lies on her applications:

1. IRS Form 941 January – March 2019 for Al’s
2. IRS Form 941 April – June 2019 for Al’s
3. IRS Form 941 July – September 2019 for Al’s
4. IRS Form 941 October – December 2019 for Al’s
5. 2019 W-3 Transmittal of Wage and Tax Statements for Al’s
6. 2018 IRS Form 1120, U.S. Income Tax Return for an S Corporation for Al’s
7. IRS Form 941 January – March 2020 for Reality RV

In her plea agreement, defendant admitted that she submitted a fake IRS form that was

never filed with the IRS and was created to get the PPP application for Al’s. ECF No. 42,

¶ 6(L). During her post-arrest interview with law enforcement, she also admitted that she knew

she was submitting incorrect tax documents with the applications and she “knew that it would

come back on me” but did it because of “stupidity, but it was also out of desperation because I

desperately wanted these businesses to work.” Accordingly, this enhancement applies and would

result in an offense level of 23 (46-57 months at Criminal History Category I).

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 10
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 11 of 19

C. Eligibility for Probation

Defendant objects to the PSR’s characterization that she is ineligible for probation.

Defendant asserts that because the Court could sentence her to a non-custodial sentence on Count

5 (bank fraud), she could be eligible for probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a) for Counts 1, 3, and

7 (which charge wire fraud and two counts of money laundering, respectively).

USSG § 5B1.1(a) provides that probation is only authorized if defendant is in either Zone

A or Zone B. 7 Defendant will be in Zone D of the guidelines whether or not the Court imposes

the sophisticated-means adjustment. USSG § 5C1.1(f) states “[i]f the applicable guideline range

is in Zone D of the Sentencing Table, the minimum term shall be satisfied by a term of

imprisonment.” USSG § 5B1.1(b) adopts the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a), which excludes

Class B felonies, like bank fraud, from probationary sentences and excludes Class C felonies,

like wire fraud and money laundering, from probationary sentences if “defendant is sentenced at

the same time to a term of imprisonment for the same or a different offense[.]”

Accordingly, the guidelines require imprisonment for a Zone D defendant and the statute

prohibits probation for the wire fraud and money laundering if defendant is sentenced to

imprisonment. The only way defendant could receive a probationary sentence on the wire fraud

and money laundering counts is if the Court sentences defendant to one day on the bank fraud

count and the Bureau of Prisons credits this time to the sentence.

7
Comment 2 to that guideline further states “Where the applicable guideline range is in Zone C
or D of the Sentencing Table (i.e., the minimum term of imprisonment specified in the applicable
guideline range is ten months or more), the guidelines do not authorize a sentence of probation.”
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 11
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 12 of 19

VI. The United States’ Recommended Sentence and Section 3553(a) Analysis

The United States respectfully recommends that the Court impose (1) a term of

imprisonment of 37 months; 8 (2) a 3-year period of supervised release on counts 1, 3, and 7, and

a 5-year period of supervised release on count 5; (3) a $100 special assessment on each count for

a total of $400; (4) no fine; and (5) restitution of $2,072,860. The United States believes this

sentence appropriately balances the nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense,

defendant’s history and characteristics and the need to provide deterrence and promote respect

for the law, among other sentencing factors.

A. Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Offense

The PSR correctly describes the facts of defendant’s criminal conduct. What warrants

great emphasis is the extensive nature of defendant’s behavior and her willingness to re-engage

in new criminal behavior the moment the pandemic hit. Despite having stolen over $700,000

between August 2016 and December 2018 and using that money however she wanted, she did

not stop. Defendant started stealing COVID-19 benefits almost the moment those benefits

became available. She did it consistently on behalf of all her entities and, between all of her

misrepresentations, she knowingly lied to the government dozens of times to steal benefits

intended to help struggling businesses survive. Applications being denied did not stop defendant

– it fueled her to change patterns. For instance, on October 2, 2020, she submitted two EIDLs on

October 2, 2020 for “Klamath RV Inc” and “Klamath Falls Parts and Services” for over

$900,000 that were declined by the SBA on October 6, 2020, because the “information

8
This is the low-end of the range contemplated by the parties in the plea agreement should the
Court apply sophisticated means. The government recognizes the grouping error in the plea
agreement that results in a low-end range of 46 month, but continues to recommend 37 months.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 12
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 13 of 19

[defendant] submitted does not indicate an economic injury[.]” Defendant waited a few months

and switched gears to steal from a different loan program; on January 19, 2021, she submitted

two PPPs for “Klamath Falls Parts and Service Inc.” and “Klamath Falls RV Inc” and made out

with over $100,000. This type of behavior warrants serious punishment.

B. Defendant’s History and Characteristics

According to the PSR, defendant described her childhood as “pretty standard’ but noted

that she endured trauma as a teenager. PSR ¶ 69. Defendant led a law-abiding life until the

conduct that brings her before the Court now. She currently splits her time between California

(where she lives with her husband and teenage son) and Nevada, where she owns Valley

Accounting and Tax.

C. Need to Provide Adequate Deterrence, Protect the Public, and Promote
Respect for the Law

A sentence of 37 months in custody will serve to deter defendant, who still runs a tax

preparation business, remains close with her CPA father (who, according to February 2023 Yelp

review prepared taxes at defendant’s business) 9, and has a restaurant with her mother (in

California) from doing anything like this again. 10 It will also deter both payroll processing

companies from scamming individuals who have entrusted them to comply with tax laws and

9
https://www.yelp.com/biz/valley-accounting-and-tax-service-las-vegas-2 (last visited April 10,
2025)
10
Because defendant still runs a tax preparation business, the government conferred with the
PSR writer regarding what conditions the PSR recommends relating to that business. The
government understands that two conditions are intended to address this situation and relate to
the business, and the government agrees these are sufficient. First, Standard Condition 12 (“If
the probation officer determines that you pose a risk to another person (including an
organization), the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and you
must comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that
you have notified the person about the risk.”). Second, Special Condition 7 (“You must maintain
proper debit, credit, and receipt ledgers for all business transactions. You must make provide
[sic] these records to the probation officer as directed.”) (emphasis added).
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 13
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 14 of 19

individuals applying for government benefits. General deterrence is especially important in

white collar cases like this one because would-be offenders need to be put on notice that there

are severe consequences for this type of criminal conduct. See United States v. Heine, 2018 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 99922, at *5–6 (D. Or. June 14, 2018) (“White collar crime is peculiarly amendable

to general deterrence [because] white collar criminals, oftentimes, premeditate their crimes and

engage in a cost-benefit analysis.”); United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir.

2006) (“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. 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.”) (internal

citation omitted); United States v. Goffer, 721 F.3d 113, 132 (2d Cir. 2013) (addressing the need

for general deterrence for those who might otherwise feel that some white collar crimes are

“game[s] worth playing”).

The Court should send a message to any would-be fraudsters that theft will land them a

significant prison sentence.

D. Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

Section 3553(a)(6) requires a court to “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct[.]” According to

Probation, during the last five fiscal years, there were 165 defendants whose primary guideline

was Section 2S1.1, with a total offense level of 23 and criminal history category of 1. PSR ¶

106. For the 144 defendants who received a sentence of imprisonment, the average length of

imprisonment imposed was 30 months and the median length of imprisonment was 33 months.

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 14
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 15 of 19

While the government did not locate any cases in which a defendant engaged in a dual

withholding/money laundering scheme and a COVID-19 benefits/money laundering scheme,

there is precedent for Courts to impose significant custodial sentences for both of those schemes

individually.

i. Withholding Schemes

Although defendant was not charged with willful failure to pay over tax in violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7202, the offense conduct is similar, so those cases provide a useful guidepost for

sentencing disparities (recognizing that the guidelines under Section 2T1.6 for a violation of 26

U.S.C. § 7202 for defendant’s conduct would have resulted in a total offense level of 15 11

instead of 17).

In United States v. Eckland, 3:21-cr-00197-HZ, Melodie Eckland, a bookkeeper for an

adoption agency who was responsible for filing and paying employment taxes, engaged in a

failure to pay and a separate wire fraud scheme over seven years that caused a loss of about $1.5

million total. The wire fraud scheme involved Eckland (a) directly stealing about $1,000,000

from the adoption agency’s bank account and writing unauthorized checks to herself; and (b)

applying for loans from lending agencies in the adoption agency’s name without their

authorization to cover the amounts she stole. Eckland also failed to pay almost $100,000 in

employment taxes. The low end of the guideline range was 37 months and the Court sentenced

Eckland to 30 months in prison on the fraud counts. Unlike defendant, the government

11
The government expects the guidelines would have been calculated based on USSG § 2T1.6
and § 2T4.1(H) for an offense level 20, reduced to a 15 with acceptance and the zero-point
offender adjustment.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 15
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 16 of 19

recommended a four-level downward variance for Eckland and Eckland was also sentenced to a

consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft.

In United States v. Fitch, 3:20-cr-00016-SI, Jeffrey Fitch collected but failed to pay about

$450,000 in unemployment taxes for his employees over three-and-a-half years and used most of

the money for his and his daughter’s personal expenses. Fitch’s final guideline range was 18-24

months, but the government recommended 12 months because, unlike defendant, Fitch pled to an

Information and paid his entire restitution prior to sentencing.

In United States v. Williams, 3:21-cr-00405-IM, for about two-and-a-half years, Rebekah

Williams collected but failed to pay about $112,000 12 in employment taxes to expand her

business, pay creditors, and pay her personal expenses. Unlike defendant, the government

recommended a two-level downward variance. The low-end of the guidelines was 8 months,

which the Court imposed.

In United States v. Kohnle, 3:23-cr-00234-IM, over six years, Robert Kohnle collected

but failed to pay more than $22 million in employment taxes on behalf of his clients to prop up

his failing business. Unlike defendant, the government recommended a two-level downward

variance to account for Kohnle’s pre-indictment resolution and his history and characteristics.

The Court sentenced Kohnle to 27 months in prison, 3 months below the government’s

recommended 30-month low-end sentence.

12
In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to the approximate $112,000 for guidelines
purposes but Williams’ tax fraud conduct outside of the statute of limitations was closer to
$725,000.
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 16
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 17 of 19

ii. COVID-19 Fraud

Since the pandemic, Portland judges have sentenced defendants who committed similar

COVID-19 relief loan benefit schemes to sentences comparable to the sentence the government

recommends for defendant.

In United States v. Defrees, 3:22-cr-00184-SI, Mike Defrees, still under supervision for a

prior bankruptcy fraud conviction, submitted four fraudulent PPP and EIDL applications for

legitimate businesses on which he lied about his criminal history and the intended use of the loan

proceeds. Like defendant, Defrees stole just over $1.3 million. Unlike defendant, the

government did not request a sophisticated means enhancement, and it recommended a three-

level downward variance. The Court sentenced Defrees to 21 months in prison for his wire

fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering convictions, which was the low end of the guidelines.

In United States v. Nevis, 3:22-cr-00183-IM, Alfred Nevis stole victims’ identities to

million. Unlike defendant, at the time of sentencing the zero-point adjustment had not been

adopted and the government recommended a two-level downward variance. Nevis received a

sophisticated means enhancement for his misuse of personal identifying information. The Court

sentenced Nevis to 30 months in prison for the wire fraud and money laundering and 24 months

for aggravated identity theft, which was the low end of the guidelines.

In United States v. Tifekchian, 3:21-cr-00244-IM, Benjamin Tifekchian applied for three

fraudulent COVID-19 loans for a hopeful start-up business by lying about his criminal history

and inflating revenues and number of employees. Tifekchian stole over $900,000 and then spent

the money on gambling, vacations, and personal expenses. Unlike defendant, Tifekchian would

not have qualified for the zero-point offender adjustment, the government did not seek a

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 17
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 18 of 19

sophisticated means enhancement, and the government recommended a two-level downward

variance. The Court sentenced him to 21 months in prison, which was the low end of the

guidelines.

In United States v. Unitan, 3:21-cr-00053-BR, David Unitan stole victims’ identities to

apply for dozens of fraudulent EIDLs and PPPs, stole over $979,000, and then fled law

enforcement post-arrest. Like defendant, Unitan received a sophisticated means enhancement

and money laundering enhancement, but unlike defendant, he also received an enhancement for

impeding the administration of justice for not appearing for his arraignment. After the

recommended two-level downward variance, the Court sentenced him to 37 months in prison for

the wire fraud and money laundering and 24 months for aggravated identity theft, which was the

low end of the guidelines.

A sentence of 37 months in prison for defendant would be consistent with sentences

recently imposed in the District of Oregon for similar conduct and would avoid unwarranted

disparity.

VII. Restitution and Forfeiture

Defendant agreed in her Plea Agreement that she would pay $2,072,860 ($705,613 to the

IRS and $1,367,247 to the SBA) to be reduced by any amounts paid before sentencing. ECF No.

42, ¶ 16. As of the time of this memorandum, defendant has not made any payments.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(4), the Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture (ECF No. 44) becomes final at sentencing, so the government requests it be included

in the judgment.

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 18
Case 3:22-cr-00360-AN Document 47 Filed 04/23/25 Page 19 of 19

VIII. Conclusion

The Court should sentence defendant to: (1) a term of imprisonment of 37 months; (2) a

3-year period of supervised release on counts 1, 3, and 7, and a 5-year period of supervised

release on count 5, with the terms recommended by Probation; (3) a $100 special assessment on

each count for a total of $400; (4) no fine; and (5) restitution of $2,072,860.

Dated: April 23, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM M. NARUS
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ Meredith D.M. Bateman
MEREDITH D.M. BATEMAN, OSB #192273
Assistant United States Attorney

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum Page 19

File and source

File: 47.pdf
Size: 305,189 bytes
SHA-256: 3688a31656ae2328064bf0251dc23591f25df3ee36d4de527128a2c6e9d59f2d
Our copy: 47.pdf
Original: archive.org