Government Sentencing Memorandum — USA v. Gurba (Dkt. 123, M.D. Fla.)
Summary
The United States' sentencing memorandum in United States of America v. Stephen L. Gurba, Case No. 8:24-cr-461-WFJ-NHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, filed June 30, 2026 as Document 123. It states that the jury returned a guilty verdict on January 15, 2026 and that sentencing is set for July 10, 2026. The government argues that the initial PSR correctly calculated $1,160,448.75 in losses and a total offense level of 21, with an advisory range of 37 to 46 months for Counts One, Two, and Five and mandatory 24 months for Count Three and Count Four. It states the correct restitution amount is $1,150,448.75, asks the Court to deny the defendant's loss objections and to impose a 5-year term of supervised release. It is signed /s/ by Special Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Poor.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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 Sentencing Memorandum — USA v. Gurba (Dkt. 123, M.D. Fla.).”
Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/government-sentencing-memorandum-usa-v-gurba-dkt-123-m-d-fla-838457e0a4/
, SHA-256 4b880456b6cbfa4a8ad03db6cfbb933d4895e546335a9ba6d1bdbcc30d605e86.Full text
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID
1337
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 8:24-cr-461-WFJ-NHA
STEPHEN L. GURBA
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The United States files this sentencing memorandum to address
contested issues raised in defendant Gurba’s initial Presentence Investigation
Report (“PSR”), and to assist the Court in assessing defendant Stephen
Gurba’s criminal conduct in fashioning an appropriate sentence for the crimes
he has been convicted of.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural History of the Case
On October 24, 2024, a federal Grand Jury sitting in Tampa, FL
returned a five-count Indictment that charged the defendant with two counts
of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, two counts of aggravated
identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and one count of making a
false statement to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. (Doc.
1).
1
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID
1338
On January 12, 2026, the defendant’s trial commenced. (Doc. 87).
On January 15, 2026, the petit jury returned a guilty verdict finding the
defendant guilty as charged. (Doc. 93).
Sentencing has been set for July 10, 2026, at 2.00 pm (Doc. 114).
B. Factual Background
According to the testimony and evidence presented at trial, between
March and June 2020, defendant Gurba submitted false and fraudulent
Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) applications and supporting
documentation on behalf of Big Red Express Trucking, LLC (“Big Red”) and
Zenith Express, LLC (“Zenith”). To obtain approval and funding for the Big
Red and Zenith EIDL loans, the defendant fraudulently assumed the identity
of his former business partner, R.W. who passed away on December 26, 2019,
listed R.W.’s name, signature, date of birth, Social Security Number, and
other means of identification on the EIDL loan applications certifying under
criminal penalty that the applications were true and correct. The defendant
also committed aggravated identity theft when used his R.W.’s name and
forged his signature on the EIDL loan authorization agreements and loan
notes he submitted to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). During
post-loan related communications with the SBA, Gurba continued to
impersonate his deceased business partner. As a result of his fraudulent
2
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID
1339
scheme, Gurba induced the SBA to approve and fund the Big Red and Zenith
EIDL loans.
Additionally, evidence at trial established that the defendant applied for
a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan on behalf of Big Red from
Truist Bank (“Truist”), an FDIC-insured financial institution. The defendant
certified and signed under criminal penalty that all the PPP loan proceeds
would be spent on payroll, mortgages, rent, or other SBA authorized
expenses. Evidence presented at trial proved the defendant used PPP proceeds
at a casino, to enrich himself and family members, pay off unrelated business
debts, and other impermissible expenses. As a result of Gurba’s false
statement, Truist approved and funded a $955,448.75 PPP loan to Big Red.
The losses caused by the defendant’s criminal conduct are tragically
borne by the American taxpayer.
C. Guidelines Calculation
On June May 29, 2026, the U.S. Probation Office prepared the initial
PSR for the defendant. The initial PSR calculates the defendant’s guidelines
range as follows:
7 Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(2))
+14 Actual Loss in excess of $550,000, but less than $1,500,000
(U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C))
+2 The offense involved conduct described in 18 U.S.C. §
3
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID
1340
1040 (fraud in connection with a major disaster or
emergency benefits (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(12)
-2 The defendant meets the criteria at U.S.S.G.
§§ 4C1.1(a)(1)-(10), making the defendant a Zero-Point
Offender, reducing his offense level by two levels
____
21 TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL
The guidelines are correctly calculated. According to the PSR, the
defendant has criminal history category I. Based on a zero-offense level and a
criminal history category of I, the defendant’s advisory guidelines range is
presently 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment for Counts One, Two, and Five. The
defendant faces a mandatory 24 months’ imprisonment for Count Three and a
mandatory 24 months’ imprisonment for Count Four.
All of the offense characteristics described in the PSR should be applied
in fashioning the defendant’s sentence.
II. United States’ Response to Defendant’s PSR Objections
A. Selected Objections
On June 22, 2026, counsel for Gurba sent a letter to U.S. Probation
Officer Johanna Perez outlining multiple objections to the initial PSR. The
United States has no objection to Gurba’s objections set forth in paragraphs
45, 50,53, 54, 55, and 58. The United States is unable to take a position on
Gurba’s objections set forth in paragraphs 67, 70, and 71 due to lack of
documentation.
4
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID
1341
As to the defendant’s objection to paragraph 16, the government agrees
that there were only three fraudulent loans. The ten loans represent the total
number of PPP and EIDL loans the defendant’s companies received from the
SBA and private lenders during the COVID pandemic.
B. Loss Amount
The initial PSR correctly calculated $1,160,448.75 in losses caused by
Gurba’s criminal conduct, resulting in a 14-level increase to the guidelines
calculation contained in Exhibit B. The correct loss figure is supported by the
SBA certifications of losses. The correct restitution amount is $1,150,448.75.
The restitution amount accounts for the $10,000 Zenith EIDL repayment after
the defendant was approached by federal agents. The defendant objects to the
loss amount in paragraphs 16, 19, 21, 23, 33, 38, 75, and 78. The United
States urges the Court to deny the defendant’s objections to each of these
paragraphs for the reasons set forth below.
As a preliminary matter, Gurba incorrectly argues that the Big Red
EIDL loan is $149,900. As set forth in Gov. Ex. 9B, the Big Red EIDL Loan
Authorization and Agreement, the amount of the loan is $150,000. SBA
witness Pandora Dysart testified that a standard $100 fee was deducted from
the $150,000 loan and Gurba is still responsible for $150,000 in losses. Gurba
also argues that “the $15,000” loan was paid back. As set forth in Count One
5
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID
1342
of the Indictment, the grand jury returned an Indictment charging the
defendant with defrauding the SBA to obtain a $10,000 Zenith EIDL loan.
The $5,000 EIDL advances the defendant obtained were not charged.
Gurba’s first objection to the loss calculation is based on the claim the
Evelyn Gurba, the defendant’s spouse, spent $342,000 of the Truist Bank
$995,448.75 in PPP loan proceeds on $57,000 monthly rental payments to
Zenith Express pursuant to a lease agreement. As established at trial, on June
1, 2020, Gurba transferred $300,000 from the Big Red account ending in
x7751 to the Stephen and Evelyn Gurba Truist account ending in x0468 along
with other transfers from the Big Red account to the joint account. Prior to the
transfers of PPP funds, the joint account had a balance of $2,998.47. 1 A
review of the relevant joint account bank statements does not show any
$57,000 monthly rent payments or any other transfer of funds to the Zenith
Truist corporate account ending in x7769.2 Additionally, Zenith corporate
bank records were obtained from a second financial institution. A review of
the bank records did not show any monthly rental income deposits. The Court
should deny any objections seeking a $342,000 reduction on the loss figure
based on purported monthly rental payments.
1 Exhibits 14B, 14I, and 15B
2 Ex. 13B
6
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID
1343
Evidence shown at trial established that the defendant falsely stated that
he would spend the PPP loan proceeds on permissible expenses. The evidence
presented through bank statements and checks showed that defendant spent
$100,000 in proceeds purchasing stocks through a Fidelity Brokerage account,
$123,736 paying off a debt to a business partner for a failed venture, $20,000 to
a decedent’s estate, $14,891 spent at a Harley Davidson dealer, monies spent
at the Hard Rock Casino, a $90,000 transfer to another business controlled by
Gurba as well as other unauthorized expenditures. A Truist Bank witness
testified that if the bank was aware that the defendant had not falsely stated
that loan proceeds would be used only for authorized purchases, Truist would
have never approved or funded the loan. The evidence shows that the
defendant lied to get a $995,448.75 PPP loan. The defendant asserts that
Truist forgave $716,467 of the PPP loan amount. That statement is
misleading. As shown in the SBA certificate of loss, that $716,467
“forgiveness” was passed on to the SBA as a loss. The American taxpayer is
responsible for the entire Big Red PPP loan loss. The defendant has failed to
repay the PPP loan and is responsible for $995,448.75 in losses related to the
criminal conduct he was found guilty of.
The defendant argues in his objections that the Court should lower the
guidelines calculation should be lowered by 2-levels based on a revised loss
7
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID
1344
figure of $278,980.94 and the amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Commission
changes to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(h) set to take effect on November 1, 2026, absent
congressional action. The United States urges the Court to deny this objection
for two reasons: (i) The Court should apply the 2025 U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines based on the date of conviction and not apply guidelines that have
yet to take effect; and (ii) The PSR has correctly calculated the losses
attributable to the defendant’s conduct and as such, the defendant would not
be entitled to a 2-level reduction even under the adopted amendments taking
effect on November 1, 2026.
III. Sentencing
A. The Sentencing Process
A district court must fashion a sentence that is “sufficient, but not
greater than necessary,” to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and
protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In arriving at its sentence, the
district court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense
and the characteristics of the defendant, (2) the kinds of sentences available,
(3) the sentencing guideline range, (4) the pertinent policy statements of the
Sentencing Commission, (5) the need to avoid sentencing disparities among
similarly situated defendants, and (6) any need for restitution to victims. Id.
8
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID
1345
Furthermore, in determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the
correct guidelines range, consider the § 3553(a) factors, and make “an
individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007).
The district court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors at
sentencing, United States v. Shaw, 560 F.3d 1230, 1237 (11th Cir. 2009),
however, it is not required to discuss each factor on the record. United States v.
Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2013); United States v. Rodriguez, 596
F. App’x 753, 756-57 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that the district court is not
required “to state on the record that it has explicitly considered each of the
section 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of [them]”). The weight given to
each factor is a matter committed to the discretion of the district court. United
States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2007). And the district court is free
to “attach great weight to one factor over others.” United States v. Rosales-
Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).
B. The Nature and Characteristics of the Defendant
The defendant’s background set forth in the PSR and during trial
testimony paints the picture of an extremely well educated and successful
businessman.
9
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID
1346
The defendant holds a bachelor’s, master’s degree, and doctorate.
According to the PSR, the defendant has enjoyed a successful career in the
defense industry providing products and services to the United States military
that were funded by the American taxpayer. The defendant is the former
President of NAPC Defense, Inc., a publicly traded defense contractor based
in Florida that provides military hardware, munitions, and construction
services to the U.S. Military, NATO allies, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and
domestic law enforcement agencies.3 The defendant was also President, CEO,
and Chairman of the Board of Bulova Technologies Group, another defense
contractor.
As a result of obtaining contracts from the federal government, the
defendant has achieved a life of abundance. This luxurious lifestyle was
illuminated through the testimony of defense witness Craig Schnee.4 During
direct examination, Mr. Schnee testified that he and the defendant had
traveled the world together, gone on extensive motorcycle excursions, and
were members of the Belleair Country Club, an exclusive country club located
in the tony community of Belleair, FL, which was founded in 1897.5 The
defendant also lives in a $1.8 million personal residence in Belleair.
3 https://napcdefense.com/
4 Undersigned counsel does not have the trial transcript and is relying on his recollection and trial
notes.
5 https://www.belleaircc.com/
10
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID
1347
This leads to the inevitable questions: Why would a man of such means
and education defraud the very government that made the defendant so
successful through military contracts? And worse: Why would the defendant
leverage the tragic death of his business partner to commit fraud?
The answer to the first question is greed. Greed is at the heart of almost
every white-collar fraud case. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal
government mounted massive public health response to save American lives
from the virus. The government also rapidly developed a series of programs to
save American businesses through two primary programs; PPP EIDL. The
President sought and Congress appropriated hundreds of billions of dollars to
these necessary programs.
Due to the rapid spread of the Coronavirus pandemic, both the EIDL
and PPP programs were quickly stood up to get honest business owners the
working capital to save their businesses from bankruptcy and funds to pay and
retain workers, while much of the business activity in the country ground to a
halt. Both the EIDL and PPP programs relied on business owners being
truthful and not making materially false statements to obtain taxpayer funds
they were otherwise not entitled to. The Small Business Administration and
Truist Bank relied on the defendant being truthful. Sadly, that trust was
misplaced.
11
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID
1348
As established at trial, the defendant’s criminal activity did not apply to
a single loan. His fraud was not a “one off”, but rather deliberate and
systematic. Gurba chose to commit fraud to steal as much money as he could
as quickly as he could and he obtained over $1 million in short order.
The most disturbing aspect of the defendant’s crime spree involved
taking over the identity of his former business partner to defraud his victims.
R.W. tragically passed away on December 26, 2019, months before the world
experienced the devastating consequences of COVID-19. The defendant and
R.W. were partners in multiple business ventures, including Big Red. Yet four
months after R.W.’s death, Gurba made a deliberate and cold calculated
decision steal his business partners identity in furtherance of his criminal
activities. R.W. was listed as the primary owner and the defendant
electronically signed his name to the EIDL Note, Loan Authorization
Agreement for Zenith and Big Red, and other documents making a dead man
financial responsible for the defendant’s fraud. Why? Because as SBA attorney
Pandora Dysart testified, the SBA had no legal recourse against a dead man if
the EIDL loans defaulted.
After the SBA funded the Big Red and Zenith EIDL loans, the
defendant wasn’t finished with his scheme to defraud and continued to
impersonate R.W., to conceal his fraudulent conduct. As shown through
12
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID
1349
evidence presented at trial, the defendant pretended to be R.W. during
customer service interactions with SBA representatives to conceal his crimes
and avoid detection.6
At the time of his passing, R.W. had been married to C.W. R.W.’s
death devastated his widow, who was also burdened with handling R.W.’s
affairs and estate. As noted in C.W.’s victim impact statement to the Court,
attached as Exhibit A, she cannot understand how the defendant stole her
husband’s identity for personal gain in the wake of his death. C.W. also
cannot understand the defendant’s depravity and seeks justice from the Court.
Rather than being able to come to peace with her husband’s death and move
forward in her life, C.W. has suffered through the stress and indignation of
R.W. being used in furtherance of criminal activity. The audacity as well as
the nefarious and pernicious nature of the defendant’s identity theft is an
important consideration for the Court when fashioning a sentence.
C. The Need for Deterrence
Deterrence is of paramount importance for white-collar offenses.
“Because economic and fraud-based crimes are ‘more rational, cool, and
calculated than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity,’ these crimes are
‘prime candidate[s] for general deterrence.’
6 Exs. 8D and 9E
13
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID
1350
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.” United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir.
2006) (quoting in part Stephanos Bibas, White-Collar Plea Bargaining and
Sentencing After Booker, 47 WM. & MARY L. REV. 721, 724 (2005)); see also
United States v. Hayes, 62 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2012) (“general deterrence
is an important factor in white-collar cases, where the motivation is greed.
In this case, the defendant is facing a mandatory 2-year term of
imprisonment for the aggravated identity theft convictions charged in Counts
Three and Four. A sentence of 24 months for Counts Three and Four with
time served for Counts One, Two, and Five would be woefully insufficient
and not accomplish the goals of sentencing. Such a low sentence would not
send the proper message to similarly situated successful businessmen that they
cannot defraud the taxpayer with impunity.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests the
Court should impose a 61-month terms of imprisonment as follows; (i) A
sentence of 37 months for Counts One, Two, and Five to run concurrently;
and (ii) a term of 24 months’ imprisonment for Counts Three and Four to run
consecutively. The government also requests the Court impose a 5-year term
14
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID
1351
of supervised release. Given the pernicious and systemic nature of Gurba’s
criminal activity, this sentence will adequately achieve justice pursuant to the
four main objectives of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Additionally, the United States respectfully requests that the Court
remand the defendant the United States Bureau of Prisons to await
designation to the appropriate facility. The defendant has been out on bond
since the jury returned a guilty verdict as to all counts on January 15, 2026.
The defendant has highlighted several health problems to delay his prison time
and unsuccessfully sought a lengthy continuance. The Bureau of Prisons has
healthcare facilities to treat inmates with cardiovascular and possible oncology
issues. Under no circumstances should the defendant be allowed to remain out
on bond pending appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Christopher Poor
Christopher Poor
Special Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney No. 152
400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200
Tampa, FL 33602-4798
Telephone: (813) 274-6000
E-mail: Christopher.Poor@usdoj.gov
15
Case 8:24-cr-00461-WFJ-NHA Document 123 Filed 06/30/26 Page 16 of 16 PageID
1352
U.S. v. Gurba CASE NO. 8:24-cr-461-WFJ-NHA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 30, 2026, I electronically filed the
foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which
will send a notice of electronic filing to counsel of record.
/s/ Christopher Poor
Christopher Poor
Special Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney No. 152
400 N. Tampa St., Ste. 3200
Tampa, FL 33602-4798
Telephone: (813) 274-6000
Facsimile: (813) 274-6358
E-mail: Christopher.Poor@usdoj.gov
16
File and source
- File
- 123-government-sentencing-memorandum.pdf
- Size
- 210,890 bytes
- SHA-256
- 4b880456b6cbfa4a8ad03db6cfbb933d4895e546335a9ba6d1bdbcc30d605e86
- Original
- PACER (login required)