United States’ Motion for Order of Forfeiture — United States of America v. Clarence Gardener (Document 48)

Summary

The United States' motion for an order of forfeiture, filed May 14, 2026 as Document 48 in United States v. Clarence Gardener, Case No. 8:25-cr-481-TPB-LSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. It asks the court under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) and Rule 32.2(b)(2) to enter an order of forfeiture of $261,253. The motion states that on April 30, 2026, without a plea agreement, the defendant pleaded guilty to Count One, and that the PPP application for Gardener Enterprises of Florida, LLC falsely claimed 23 employees and an average monthly payroll of $104,502.00. It states a lender wired $261,253.00 to an account the defendant controlled, argues the entire scheme's proceeds are forfeitable, and seeks substitute assets. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Suzanne C. Nebesky.

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

“United States’ Motion for Order of Forfeiture — United States of America v. Clarence Gardener (Document 48).” Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-usa-v-gardener-dkt-48-m-d-fla-071fd26a08/, SHA-256 d1a53526c24267473ff51d9801463f575a1de755832a07a141530dd742fb20b4.

Full text

Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 8:25-cr-481-TPB-LSG

CLARENCE GARDENER

UNITED STATES’ MOTION
FOR 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 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2), to enter an

order of forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $261,253. In support, the

United States submits the following.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

I. Statement of Facts

A. Allegations Against the Defendant

1. The defendant was charged in an Indictment with wire fraud, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Doc. 1.

2. The 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 seek an order of forfeiture in the amount of $261,253,

representing the amount of proceeds the defendant obtained from his wire fraud

scheme. Id. at 6.
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID 90

B. Finding of Guilt

3. On April 30, 2026, without the benefit of a plea agreement, the

defendant plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Docs. 39 and 42. The Court

accepted the defendant’s plea and adjudicated him guilty. Doc. 44.

4. The defendant’s plea to the charge and the United States’ Notice of

Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense, Personalization of Elements, and Factual

Basis established that, in or about April 2020 and continuing through October 2020,

the defendant submitted a false and fraudulent Small Business Administration

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan application for his business, Gardener

Enterprises of Florida, LLC. Doc. 33 at 4. The loan application contained false

representations about the business including (1) his business was operational prior to

the start of the pandemic and (2) the business had 23 employees with an average

monthly payroll of $104,502.00. Id. As a result of the material misrepresentations

contained in the PPP loan application, Lender #1 transmitted an interstate wire of

$261,253.00 to a Financial Institution #1 bank account controlled by the defendant

located in the Middle District of Florida. Id. at 5.

II. Applicable Law

A. Forfeiture Statutes

Forfeiture in this case is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), which provides

for the civil forfeiture of any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is derived

from proceeds traceable to a violation of any offenses constituting “specified

2
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID 91

unlawful activity” (as defined in section 1956(c)(7) of this title). "Specified unlawful

activity," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7)(D), includes activities described in

section 1961(1), such as wire fraud (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 scheme, the United States seeks an order of forfeiture against the

defendant in the amount of proceeds he obtained from his offense. 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).

Here, the United States is entitled to an Order of Forfeiture against the

defendant for the entire amount of the wire fraud scheme, not just the proceeds of the

specific substantive count to which the defendant pled guilty. “When a scheme is

charged, even though only certain substantive counts are proved, the proceeds of the

scheme are forfeitable.” United States v. Clark, 13-10034-CR, 2016 WL 361560, at *2

(S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1279–1280 (11th Cir.

2003)); see also United States v. Venturella, 585 F.3d 1013, 1015 (7th Cir. 2009) (forfeiture

3
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID 92

in fraud case “forfeiture is not limited to the amount of the particular mailing but

extends to the entire scheme”).

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

that the defendant will be ordered to pay. The Court’s determination may be based on

evidence submitted by the parties and accepted by the Court as relevant and reliable.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(1)(B). As was established by the United States’ Notice of

Maximum Penalties, Elements of Offense, Personalization of Elements, and Factual

Basis, the defendant obtained at least $261,253 in proceeds as a result of his wire fraud

scheme. If the Court finds that the defendant obtained at least $261,253 as a result of

his wire fraud scheme and that the defendant has dissipated those proceeds, 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 Rule 32.2(b)(2), enter

an Order of Forfeiture against the defendant in the amount of $261,253, for which he

will be held liable.

The United States further requests that, because the $261,253 in proceeds was

dissipated by the defendant, the United States may seek, as a substitute asset,

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), forfeiture of

any of the defendant’s property up to the value of $261,253.

4
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID 93

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 include the

forfeiture order, directly or by reference, in the judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

32.2(b)(4)(B) and United States v. Kennedy, 201 F.3d 1324, 1326 (11th Cir. 2000).

The United States further requests that the Court retain jurisdiction to order

any substitute assets forfeited to the United States up to the amount of the order of

forfeiture.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney

By: s/Suzanne C. Nebesky
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
Assistant United States Attorney
Fla. Bar No. 59377
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602
Tel: (813) 274 6000
E-mail: suzanne.nebesky@usdoj.gov

5
Case 8:25-cr-00481-TPB-LSG Document 48 Filed 05/14/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID 94

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 14, 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/Suzanne C. Nebesky
SUZANNE C. NEBESKY
Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File: 48-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-as-to-clarence-gardene.pdf
Size: 113,314 bytes
SHA-256: d1a53526c24267473ff51d9801463f575a1de755832a07a141530dd742fb20b4
Our copy: 48-motion-for-order-of-forfeiture-by-usa-as-to-clarence-gardene.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)