Objections and Responses to the Presentence Report — United States v. Jon Michael Hallford, No. 24-cr-00113-NYW (Dkt. 70, D. Colo.)

Summary

Jon Michael Hallford, through Assistant Federal Public Defender Laura H. Suelau, filed these objections and responses to the presentence report in Criminal Case No. 24-cr-00113-NYW in the District of Colorado, with a certificate of service dated February 13, 2025; some objections are joint with co-defendant Carie Hallford. The filing does not object to the advisory guideline calculation but contests facts that may bear on sentencing, noting that the probation officer advocates a sentence over 100 months higher than the bottom of the guideline range. On the EIDL loan, it agrees with the government that accrued interest of $119,535.52 on the EIDL fraud of $1,010,983.08 and a $15,000 loan advance should not count, and that total restitution due to the SBA is $876,447.56. It also answers paragraphs about the Hallfords' funeral home business.

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

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 24-cr-00113-NYW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. JON MICHAEL HALLFORD,

Defendant.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

Mr. Jon Michael Hallford, through his attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Laura H.

Suelau, files the following objections and corrections to the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR).

Doc. 64. Certain of the objections herein are “joint” objections in which co-defendant Mrs. Carie

Hallford joins. Those objections are specifically noted for this Court.

Mr. Hallford does not object to the PSR’s advisory guideline calculation, however, he responds

to certain information contained in that report that may bear on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors this

Court must consider at sentencing. Pursuant to Rule 32, facts included in a PSR must be relevant. See

also United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 257 (2005) (sentencing judges decide sentences “based on

relevant information about the offense and the offender…”). Facts included in the PSR must also be

true. If a defendant objects to a fact in a PSR, “the government must prove that fact at a sentencing

hearing by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. McDonald, 43 F.4th 1090, 1095 (10th Cir.

2022). Although an objection to the reliability of facts alone may not trigger the government’s burden

of proof, unreliability and lack of independent corroboration are factors this Court may consider when

determining whether a given allegation is true. The due process clause protects a defendant's right not
to be sentenced based on materially incorrect information, and hearsay statements may only be

considered at sentencing if they bear “some minimal indicia of reliability.” United States v. Cook, 550

F.3d 1292, 1296 (10th Cir. 2008). Importantly, a police report does not inherently satisfy the reliability

threshold. United States v. Padilla, 793 Fed.Appx. 749 (10th Cir. 2019).

The following objections and clarifications are not provided to avoid or minimize

responsibility for the instant offense. Mr. Hallford fully accepts responsibility for and acknowledges

harm caused by his actions during this offense. However, picking and choosing what information to

provide the Court, or providing irrelevant, unreliable, false, or misleading information distorts both

the nature of the offense and Mr. Hallford’s history and characteristics and therefore distorts his

culpability.

Providing this Court with fulsome and accurate information in this case is particularly

important because the probation officer relies on much of the incomplete and misleading information

to advocate for a sentence that is over 100 months higher than the bottom of the applicable guideline

range. Although the instant case is, in some ways, distinguishable from many fraud cases, it is not so

distinguished that it warrants such an upward variance. 1

1. The Hallfords did not evade or attempt to evade law enforcement (Joint).

Several paragraphs in the PSR insinuate or affirmatively allege that the Hallfords attempted to

evade law enforcement after the discovery of the bodies at Penrose in October 2023. That is not true.

The Hallfords specifically object to the following statements in the PSR:

a. Paragraph 47 – “Jon Hallford failed to show up for the appointment [with DORA].”

1
Of 4,904 cases involving theft, property destruction, and fraud defendants sentenced to a variant
sentence in 2023, just 4.5% received an upward variance (97 individuals). The average increase for
those 97 individuals was 83.7%, however the average sentence length was just 23 months. Therefore,
the sentence advocated for in the PSR is 157 months longer than that received in the average theft
and fraud case. USSC, Quick Facts, 2023, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-
and-publications/quick-facts/Theft_Property_Destruction_Fraud_FY23.pdf.
2
b. Paragraph 47 – “it was suspected that he turned [cell phone] off to evade detection.”

c. Paragraph 53 – “Investigators determined the Hallfords had left Colorado on or about

October 4, 2023, once the media became involved.”

d. Paragraph 60 – “On November 8, 2023, the HALLFORDS were arrested by the FBI

in Wagoner, Oklahoma, on Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution warrants (as it relates to El Paso

County Court, Case No. 2023CR4849 and 2023CR4856).”

e. Paragraph 79 – “it is noted the defendant left for Oklahoma shortly after the

discovery of the Penrose location by law enforcement…” through the end of the paragraph.

Those statements are variously inaccurate or require additional and clarifying information.

First, the Hallfords engaged the services of attorney Jason Gardner on or about October 3,

2023. See Doc. 15-1. Thereafter, they were abiding by his legal advice, almost certainly including

advisement of their Fifth Amendment rights. Therefore, Mr. Hallford did not “fail” to meet a legal

obligation when he declined to speak with a DORA inspector. 2 Nothing in the law required that he

meet with an inspector. To the contrary, not meeting with law enforcement (the inspector was actively

working with the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office) is a common invocation of constitutional rights.

Second, Mr. Hallford did not turn off his cell phone “to evade detection.” While law enforcement

might have suspected as much, evidence does not support that suspicion and certainly not that

conclusion. In any event, a PSR is not for suspicion; it is for relevant and reliable information. The PSR

omits the fact that Mrs. Hallford did not discontinue use of her personal cellphone and that law

enforcement both knew that number and had reliable information that the couple were together at most

2
At the time the Hallfords were operating Return to Nature, funeral and mortuary services did not
have an independent regulatory body and instead fell under the umbrella of the Department of
Regulatory Agencies (DORA). A regulatory body was established in 2024, effective January 15, 2025,
to regulate funeral homes and crematories in the State of Colorado.
https://dpo.colorado.gov/FuneralCrematory.
3
times between October 3, 2023, and their arrest. The Hallfords had agreed to use a single phone as they

were together and did not have money to pay two phone bills. This decision is completely understandable

given their financial situation at that time. See ¶ 126-128.

Third, the Hallfords’ decision to take their children and pets to Oklahoma was not an attempt to

evade prosecution, detection, or even negative attention for themselves. Instead, they relocated to live

with Mr. Hallford’s parents in Wagoner, Oklahoma to protect their children and pets. They reasonably

believed that they would be arrested and were planning for that inevitability. Mrs. Hallford states that she

agreed to move her children to live with her in-laws in Oklahoma because she was afraid they would be

traumatized or physically hurt if she was arrested without warning. Mr. Hallford’s parents have resided at

the same address for over 30 years.

Finally, there is affirmative evidence that the Hallfords were not evading law enforcement. Their

attorney, Mr. Gardner, affirmatively contacted the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and the Fremont

County Sheriff’s Office over phone and e-mail around October 5 and 6, 2023, stating that the Hallfords

wanted to cooperate in the investigation and were willing to set up a meeting with law enforcement. Doc.

15-1. Mr. Gardner told law enforcement the Hallfords were out of town. In response, law enforcement

(through CBI Agent Christopher Adams) told Mr. Gardner that the investigation was in the “infant

stages.” At no time did law enforcement instruct the Hallfords (either through Mr. Gardner or directly)

to not leave the state.

On October 10, 2023, Mr. Gardner contacted the CBI again, making clear the Hallfords did not

intend to evade law enforcement:

4
On November 7, 2023, El Paso County issued warrants for the Hallfords. Rather than contacting

Mr. Gardner, taking him up on the offer to facilitate the Hallfords’ surrender, and arranging for their

return from Oklahoma, FBI Special Agent Andrew Cohen3 authored an affidavit to District of Colorado

Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara affirming probable cause to believe Mr. and Mrs. Hallford “did move

and travel in interstate commerce with intent to avoid prosecution, custody, and confinement after

conviction under the laws of the State of Colorado for crimes which are felonies under the laws of the

State of Colorado, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073(1).” D. Colo., 23-mj-00187, Doc. 1-2 (E.D.OK.

case no. 23-mj-00278-JAR). Materially omitted from that affidavit was the fact that the Hallfords, through

their attorney, had previously contacted law enforcement. Also omitted was information provided by Mr.

Gardner about the Hallfords’ whereabouts4, or his offer to “facilitate the Hallfords turning themselves

in.” Neither Agent Cohen, nor any other law enforcement officer, contacted Mr. Gardner. They also did

3
According to numerous police reports and affidavits for search warrants, SA Cohen and CBI SA Adams,
who had communicated directly with Mr. Gardner, worked together closely (if not on a daily basis) during
this investigation.
4
The affidavit states “On or about October 17, 2023, investigators executed a search warrant at the
Hallford’s residence at 7679 Crestone Peak Trail, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Hallfords were
not located at the residence, and items such as their toothbrushes were missing,” but omits that law
enforcement was aware (through Mr. Gardner) that that Hallfords were out of town.
5
not contact Mrs. Hallford’s phone which they knew to be in her possession. Id. (“Geolocation of the

telephone believed to be utilized by Carie Hallford placed the cellular device routinely north of Wagoner,

OK from mid October 2023 to November 7, 2023.”).

On November 8, 2023, state and federal law enforcement arrested Mr. and Mrs. Hallford without

incident (despite their unnecessary use of force) at the home of Mr. Hallford’s parents.

2. There are not additional, unaccounted for, victims that were water cremated, destroyed
with lye, or otherwise disposed.

The PSR variously affirmatively alleges or insinuates that there are additional, unaccounted for,

victims. The instant offense is already distressing to families of the deceased who used Return to Nature’s

services and such an unsupported insinuation is both reckless and false. As outlined in the factual basis

for the Plea Agreement, the Hallfords agreed to, but failed to provide cremations or burials for

approximately 190 individuals. They did not, however, dispose of any additional bodies. One hundred

ninety (190) bodies, placed there between 2019 to 2023, were discovered at Penrose. In a moment of

extreme stress, Mr. Hallford contemplated options to dispose of the bodies at Penrose, but he never

employed those options. Had Mr. Hallford sincerely intended or actually carried out those plans outlined

in text messages he sent in October 2020, ¶ 65, those bodies would not have been located. Instead, there

is no evidence that either Hallford did anything but store remains at the Penrose building. The Hallfords

specifically object to the following statements in the PSR:

a. Paragraph 49 – “Investigators recovered lye (which can be used to dissolve a body).”

Mr. Hallford denies using lye to dissolve bodies. There is no evidence he used lye for that purpose or that

the lye located at Penrose had been opened and used at all. It should also be noted that lye is used in

alkaline hydrolysis, discussed infra.

b. Paragraph 49 (Joint) - “It is not known how many bodies may have been successfully

dissolved.” This statement is a gross and unsupported speculation that is harmful to both the Hallfords

6
and the victims in this case. The Hallfords object to this statement as untrue, prejudicial and unsupported

by fact. The remains found in Penrose represent all the victims in this case.

c. Paragraph 49 – “In one of the rooms, the funeral home was experimenting with water

cremation, which can dissolve a body in four to six hours.” There is no evidence that Mr. Hallford ever

employed water cremation on a body. The probation officer offers unsupported and uncited assertions

about the water cremation (alkaline hydrolysis) process and relies on misleading evidence. For example,

the existence of “femur bones” is not evidence that such cremation took place. Indeed, alkaline hydrolysis

would result in bone fragments, not intact bones.5 Discovery provided by the government indicates that

the Hallfords intended to offer alkaline hydrolysis as a service, and purchased the machine for that

purpose, however, they were never operational.

d. Paragraph 49 (Joint) – “A search warrant for JON HALLFORD’s Home Depot

records reflect that from March 2020 to January 2023, 660 pounds of Quikrete concrete mix had been

purchased.” A more complete statement would include that Quikrete is most often sold in 90-, 80-, or

60-pound bags.6 Therefore, the 660 pounds number roughly correlates to between eight and eleven bags

total, or the purchase of a single bag every three months over 35 months.

e. Paragraph 65 – All of the communications contained herein are provided without

context. To the extent this paragraph insinuates the Hallfords intended to carry out plans discussed via

text message in October 2020 and January 2023, no such plans had been carried out by the time of their

arrest in November 2023.

5
See Cremation Association of North America, Cremation Process
https://www.cremationassociation.org/cremationprocess.html.
6
See Home Depot, https://www.homedepot.com/p/Quikrete-90-lb-Concrete-Mix-
110190/100318523.
7
3. The PSR contains falsehoods and inaccuracies about the cremation process (Joint).

The Hallfords did not own a crematory (retort) machine. The cost to install such a machine is

approximately $250,000, not including licensing, permitting, and other fees.7 Therefore, they contracted

with several different crematories in the Front Range. Those businesses all follow the same general

process of identifying the deceased, placing the deceased in the cremation chamber, closing the door, and

then using flame and heat to reduce the remains to bone fragments. That process generally takes one to

two hours. Thereafter, bone fragments are removed from the chamber to cool and eventually be taken

to a processor. Therefore, an individual’s “remains” consist only of their bones. 8

Based on the forgoing, Mr. Hallford specifically objects to the following paragraphs:

a. Paragraph 57 – “Some families reported the cremains did not match the size of their

loved one, with one indicating they received the same amount as compared to the ashes of their dog, and

another received a smaller amount when the decedent was over 400 pounds.” This paragraph repeats

speculation by grieving family members about their loved ones. While such speculation by victims is

understandable, including such speculation without clarifying facts in the PSR is not. Because cremated

remains consist only of a decedent’s bones, an individual’s weight is not indicative of the volume of their

remains. Instead, cremains are generally between four and six pounds and depend entirely on an

individual’s bone size and density, not their weight.9

7
See, Metal Building Crematory Design, https://www.cremsys.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/09/Metal-Turnkey-data_9-2021_WEB.pdf, Additionally, counsel consulted
with a funeral home director who owns and operates a crematory (and asked to not be identified).
That director, who recently installed a second retort for his business, estimated $250,000.
8
See Cremation Association of North America, Cremation Process
https://www.cremationassociation.org/cremationprocess.html.
9
Id. (“Tissue, organs, body fat, and casket or other container materials burn off as gases and move to
a secondary chamber, where they continue to undergo combustion…The bone fragments remain in
the primary chamber. The average weight of adult cremated remains is between four and six pounds;
a tiny percentage of the body’s original mass.”). The director with whom counsel consulted stated the
same. The director opined that it would not be unusual for the volume of a dog’s remains to be like a
human’s remains and stated that factors like age, health, and height are far more indicative of bone
8
b. Paragraph 49 – “It is not customary practice to have a bone grinder unless the business

operates a crematory.” The probation officer offers no support for that assertion. The Hallfords

contracted with multiple crematories that likely provided different consistencies for remains. Based on

business records provided by those crematories, Return to Nature did carry out legitimate services for the

majority of their 1,178 customers. For the nearly 900 legitimate cremations, Return to Nature could have

employed a bone grinder if the remains delivered by a crematory were returned in an unacceptable

consistency.

4. Mr. Hallford objects to loss amounts not stipulated by the parties in the Plea Agreement.

a. Paragraph 84: Accrued Interest – Mr. Hallford agrees with the government and joins

in their objection to the inclusion of interest. Doc. 68 (1). Accrued interest of $119,535.52 resulting from

the EIDL fraud of $1,010,983.08 should not be included in the total loss or restitution calculation. See

USSG §2B1., app. n. 3(D)(i)

b. Paragraph 69: EIDL Loan – Mr. Hallford agrees with the government and joins in their

objection to the inclusion of a $15,000 loan advance in the loss or restitution calculation. Doc. 68 (1). The

government has not presented any evidence that that advance was the result of fraud or otherwise illegal.

c. Paragraph 77: Restitution – Mr. Hallford agrees with the government’s restitution

calculation and that the total restitution due to the SBA is $876,447.56. Doc. 68 (1).

5. Paragraph 45 (Joint) – “In addition to the two locations from which the HALLFORDS ran

their funeral home business, they also had a storefront location at 815 E. Platte Ave in Colorado

Springs. The Elkton location was also a storefront location, and both were in El Paso County.” That

is untrue and should be corrected. The Hallfords maintain, consistent with discovery provided by the

government in this case and Special Agent Andrew Cohen’s testimony before the Grand Jury, they

density than weight. See, Mayo Clinic, Fact Sheet on Bone Health,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/bone-health/art-20045060.
9
had a storefront location at E. Platte Avenue until around July 2023. They moved the business to the

Elkton Drive location thereafter. There were not two storefront locations in El Paso County.

6. Paragraph 48 – Mr. Hallford denies the allegation that “some children” were recovered from

Penrose. That allegation is likely based on a probable cause affidavit authored in October 2023, before

the remains found in Penrose were identified. The government has presented no evidence to support that

allegation and none of the Victim Impact Statements evidence that a child’s body was recovered from

Penrose. See Exhibits to the PSR. Mr. Hallford maintains that he made a conscious decision to not place

the bodies of children at Penrose.

7. Paragraph 49 – “None of the three refrigerators were functioning properly…” Mr. Hallford

offers additional and clarifying information. Employees interviewed by law enforcement noted that they’d

been in the Penrose location and stated there were three functional refrigerators (coolers). Mr. Hallford

states that the refrigerators failed around July 2023 when an air conditioning unit failed. Thereafter, all

three refrigerators overheated and failed.

8. Paragraph 57 – “The victim also found it strange the funeral home would not disclose the

specific location of the tree they planted that was supposed to contain a small amount of his mother’s

cremains.” It seems the victim referenced misunderstood the Hallfords’ practice of purchasing a

memorial or tribute tree in honor of the deceased. Discovery provided by the government shows the

Hallfords donated $1 to One Tree Planted 501(c)(3) for each of their customers. 10 They did not, however,

promise to deposit a decedent’s cremains with the tree as they were not involved in the tree planting.

Families were then provided a “Tree Certificate” from One Tree Planted stating their contribution was

“essential to the restoration, conservation, and protection of endangered forests across the world.”

10
One Tree Planted, https://onetreeplanted.org/.
10
9. Paragraph 62 – Mr. Hallford offers additional and clarifying information about the purchase and

sale of vehicles. First, the Yukon was purchased for the purpose of serving as a pallbearer vehicle. Later,

due to financial difficulties, the vehicle was sold, after which the Hallfords purchased a substantially less-

expensive vehicle. This paragraph is not relevant except to establish what is already known to this Court

– the Hallfords had extensive financial difficulties.

10. Paragraph 64 – Mr. Hallford objects to the selective inclusion of text communications between

he and Mrs. Hallford, all of which are provided without context. For example, including the statement

“gas all the way around,” without more context is highly misleading. Mr. Hallford was communicating,

“put gas in the cars,” but read in isolation, it sounds more nefarious.

The PSR also omits moments of regret and reflection by Mr. Hallford (“I’m seriously in a panic

and regret doing every bit of this,”) sentiments of care towards his wife and children (“I’m just not being

as good of a husband to you as I should be,”) and self-doubt (“I hate not knowing what to do, my stomach

is a disaster.”). Without the entire context of their communication, the inclusion of selective text messages

is misleading. Moreover, the texts are both highly prejudicial and not relevant. Those texts should be

struck from the PSR.

11. Paragraph 66 – Mr. Hallford does not deny that he had outstanding child support obligations.

He notes, however, that his son with Stephanie Hallford moved to Colorado around March 2019. 11

Before that, Mr. Hallford regularly provided financial support for his son. Thereafter, Mr. Hallford was

his son’s primary caregiver and supported him financially.

12. Paragraph 67 – The inclusion of the information in this paragraph is baffling and it should be

struck from the PSR. The information contained therein is not relevant to the instant offense or any of

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors this Court should consider when imposing a sentence, and lacks any indicia

11
Counsel verified this information during an interview with the son.
11
of reliability. Instead, it is akin to impermissible character evidence and lacks any evidentiary support. Mr.

Hallford is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and therefore does not comment on the

investigation referenced. Counsel notes, however, that the crime referenced occurred nearly 13 years ago.

It appears that OSBI investigated the crime, and yet, Mr. Hallford has never been charged or arrested in

connection with that offense.

13. Paragraph 110 – Mr. Hallford denies that he owes any outstanding child support to Kristin

Hallford for his adult child from that marriage, nor does the PSR’s selective recitation of docket entries

support that allegation.

14. Special Condition of Supervised Release 7 – Mr. Hallford does not object to an occupation

restriction. He notes, however, that he has never engaged in the “body broker” business. Despite the

PSR’s repeated references to United States v. Hess, 106 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. 2024), the instant case is

factually distinct, not in the least because Mr. Hallford never engaged in or profited from the illegal sale

of human remains. To the extent that the inclusion of this condition implies as much, he denies such

conduct. The condition should be modified to omit “body broker.”

Respectfully submitted,

VIRGINIA L. GRADY
Federal Public Defender

s/ Laura H. Suelau
LAURA H. SUELAU
Assistant Federal Public Defender
633 17th Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 8020
Telephone: (303) 294-7002
FAX: (303) 294-1192
laura_suelau@fd.org
Attorney for Defendant

12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on February 13, 2025, I filed the foregoing OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT with the Clerk of
Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following email
addresses:

Craig Fansler, Assistant United States Attorney
Email: craig.fansler2@usdoj.gov

Tim Neff, Assistant United States Attorney
Email: Tim.Neff@usdoj.gov

I hereby certify that I have mailed or served the document or paper to the following participant
in the manner (mail, hand-delivery, etc.) indicated next to the participant’s name:

Jon M. Hallford (via U.S. Mail)

s/ Laura H. Suelau
LAURA H. SUELAU
Assistant Federal Public Defender
633 17th Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 294-7002
FAX: (303) 294-1192
laura_suelau@fd.org
Attorney for Defendant

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cod.233032.70.0.pdf
Size: 220,477 bytes
SHA-256: c1c4dd0d85e8143de22c4e1ad6d77eae63347d37d5b7f860fff15f411cf992a5
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cod.233032.70.0.pdf
Original: archive.org