Motion for Order of Forfeiture by USA — USA v. Simmerer et al (Dkt. 273, M.D. Fla.)

Summary

Document 273 in Case No. 6:24-cr-53-RBD-RMN, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, is the United States' Motion for an Order of Forfeiture as to Shawn Michael Simmerer, filed February 23, 2026. It seeks an order of forfeiture of $344,300, of which $194,000 is joint and several with co-defendant Seth Downes, and asks that the order become final as to the defendant at sentencing. The motion states that a jury found the defendant guilty on Counts One through Nine of the Superseding Indictment, and that the United States introduced evidence at trial of three PPP loan applications, with $108,100 from PPP Loan #1, $42,200 from PPP Loan #2 and $194,000 from PPP Loan #3. The signature line reads s/Nicole M. Andrejko, Assistant United States Attorney.

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

“Motion for Order of Forfeiture by USA — USA v. Simmerer et al (Dkt. 273, M.D. Fla.).” Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-usa-v-simmerer-et-al-dkt-273-m-d-d64a6ec6f7/, SHA-256 52f8008aa8624888ad48a21f12cfa85941b524315a0f02825cec0809282c709e.

Full text

Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 273 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3185

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 6:24-cr-53-RBD-RMN

SHAWN MICHAEL SIMMERER

UNITED STATES’ MOTION
FOR AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE

The United States moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28

U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(2), to enter an order of forfeiture

against the defendant in the amount of $344,300, representing the amount of

proceeds the defendant obtained as a result of the conspiracy offense for which he is

charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment. In support thereof, the United

States submits the following.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Statement of Facts

A. Allegations Against the Defendant

1. In pertinent part, the defendant was charged in a Superseding

Indictment with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349

(Count One). Doc. 115.

2. The Superseding Indictment contained forfeiture allegations putting the

defendant on notice that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. §

2461(c), the United States would forfeit any property constituting, or derived from
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 273 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3186

proceeds the defendant obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such conspiracy,

including, but not limited to, an order of forfeiture in the amount of $344,300. Id. at

14-15.

B. Findings of Guilt and Admissions Related to Forfeiture

3. A jury trial commenced, and at the conclusion of the trial, the jury

found the defendant guilty on Counts One through Nine of the Superseding

Indictment. Docs. 233.

C. Relevant Facts Established at Trial

4. At trial, the United States introduced evidence that established that on

or about April 2020, and continuing through in or about July 2021, the defendant

committed wire fraud by submitting three false and fraudulent PPP loan

applications. As a result of submitting those fraudulent PPP loan applications, the

defendant wrongfully obtained $344,300 in proceeds as a result of his fraudulent

conduct ($108,100 from PPP Loan #1, $42,200 from PPP Loan #2, and $194,000

from PPP Loan #3). See Government’s Trial Exhibits 1b, 1c, 2c, 2d, 3c, and 3d. The

defendant was a signor on all three accounts into which the fraud proceeds were

deposited. See Government’s Trial Exhibits 6a, 6c, 7a, 7c, 10a, and 10b.

II. Applicable Law

A. Forfeiture Statute

The Court's authority to order forfeiture of property for a wire fraud

conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, is found in 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C),

2
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 273 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3187

which provides for the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which

constitutes or is derived from proceeds from any offense constituting "specified

unlawful activity," or a conspiracy to commit such offense. The term “specified

unlawful activity” includes offenses listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). 18 U.S.C. §

1956(c)(7)(A). Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B) includes as an offense any act

which is indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), the

United States is authorized to forfeit this property criminally utilizing the procedures

set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 853.

B. Court’s Determination of Forfeiture

Pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2), because the United States could not locate the

specific property constituting or derived from the proceeds the defendant obtained

from his wire fraud offenses, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture against the

defendant in the amount of proceeds obtained from his offenses. Indeed, for cases in

which a defendant no longer has the actual dollars or property traceable to proceeds in

his/her possession, or the government cannot locate those assets, the obligation to

forfeit simply takes the form of an order of forfeiture in favor of the United States. See

United States v. Padron, 527 F.3d 1156, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2008).

Rule 32.2(b)(1) provides that the court must determine the amount of money

that the defendants will be ordered to pay. The Rule requires this be done as soon as

practical after a verdict or finding of guilty, or after a plea of guilty is accepted. Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(A).

3
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 273 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3188

The Court’s determination may be based on evidence already in the record, or

any additional evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as relevant

and reliable. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). From the testimony and exhibits

presented at trial, the United States established that the defendant obtained $344,300

from his participation in the wire fraud conspiracy. If the Court finds that the

defendant obtained $344,300 as a result of his participation in the wire fraud

conspiracy and that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, see Defendant’s

Presentence Investigation Report, Doc. 258 at ¶¶82-83 and Government’s Trial

Exhibit 30b, then it is appropriate for the Court to enter an order of forfeiture against

the defendant in that amount pursuant to Rule 32.2(b)(2).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the United States requests that the Court,

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Fed. R. Crim. P.

32.2(b)(2), enter an Order of Forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of

$344,300, of which $194,000 is joint and several with his co-defendant, Seth

Downes. 1 The United States further requests that the order of forfeiture become final

as to the defendant at sentencing.

As required by Rule 32.2(b)(4)(B), the United States requests that the Court

include the forfeiture when orally pronouncing the sentence and, in the judgment.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326

1
The United States will not collect more than $344,300 from all defendants.
4
Case 6:24-cr-00053-RBD-RMN Document 273 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3189

(11th Cir. 2000). The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction

to enter any further order necessary for the forfeiture and disposition of such

property.

Respectfully Submitted,

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

By: s/Nicole M. Andrejko_____________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0820601
400 West Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone: (407) 648-7560
Facsimile: (407) 648-7643
E-Mail: Nicole.Andrejko@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 23, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system that will send a notice of

electronic filing to counsel of record.

s/Nicole M. Andrejko___________
NICOLE M. ANDREJKO
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: 273-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture.pdf
Size: 112,086 bytes
SHA-256: 52f8008aa8624888ad48a21f12cfa85941b524315a0f02825cec0809282c709e
Our copy: 273-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)