United States v. Nathan Reis — Order, Northern District of Texas (Document 385)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Nathan Reis (01), Criminal Action No. 4:24-CR-00287-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, Document 385, filed 12/16/25. The Court rules on Defendant Nathan Reis's Objections and Clarifications to the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 336) and related responses. It overrules the objections to the loss calculation, the sophisticated means enhancement and the aggravating role enhancement, and sustains the objection to the abuse of trust enhancement. It denies the request to call Eric Karnezis to testify at sentencing, and sustains some objections to individual paragraphs while overruling others. The order closes SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2025.

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

Case 4:24-cr-00287-O              Document 385         Filed 12/16/25   Page 1 of 6    PageID 10178
                               IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                       FORT WORTH DIVISION

     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                            §
                                                         §
          Plaintiff,                                     §
                                                         §
     v.                                                  §   Criminal Action No. 4:24-CR-00287-O
                                                         §
     NATHAN REIS                                (01)     §
                                                         §
                                                         §
          Defendants.                                    §


                                                  ORDER

               Before the Court are Defendant Nathan Reis’s Objections and Clarifications to the

 Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 336); the Government’s Response to Defendant’s

 Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 345); the Government’s

 Clarifications to the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 324); Defendant’s Response to

 the Government’s Clarification to the Presentence Investigation Report (ECF No. 349); and

 Defendant’s Objections and Clarifications to the Addendum to the Presentence Investigation

 Report (ECF No. 380).

               Having considered the objections, the record, related briefing, and applicable law, the

 Court’s findings are set forth below.

          I.        DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR.

               A.      Defendant’s Objections to ⁋⁋ 49, 54, 70, 76-80, 86, 92, 95 (Loss Amount)

               Defendant objects to Paragraphs 49, 54, 70, 76-80, 86, 92, 95 of the Presentence

 Investigation Report (“PSR”), which provide the total loss calculations as applied to Defendant. 1

               “Loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) cmt. A.

 “‘Actual loss’ means the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.”

 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) cmt. C(i). “‘Intended loss’ . . . means the pecuniary harm that the defendant


 1
     Def.’s Obj. PSR 5–13, ECF No. 336.
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O          Document 385          Filed 12/16/25         Page 2 of 6       PageID 10179
 purposely sought to inflict[.]” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) cmt. C(iii). When calculating loss in the case

 of jointly undertaken criminal activity, a defendant is responsible for the loss caused by the acts

 and omissions of others that were “(i) within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,

 (ii) in furtherance of that criminal activity, and (iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that

 criminal activity; that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation

 for that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for that

 offense[.]” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). The Court “need only make a reasonable estimate of the

 loss.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt. 3(B).

         Defendant principally objects to the loss calculation on the grounds that the Government’s

 methodology for identifying fraudulent loan applications was flawed and that the fraud of

 Defendant’s coconspirator, Eric Karnezis, is not attributable to Defendant. 2 Defendant also seeks

 to call Eric Karnezis as a witness at sentencing to show that Karnezis’s criminal conduct “should

 not be considered relevant conduct at Mr. Reis’s sentencing, because that conduct was not part of

 reasonably foreseeable, jointly undertaken criminal activity as required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3.” 3

         In support of his objections, Defendant presents testimonial and other evidence regarding

 his involvement with Eric Karnezis. 4 Such evidence includes Karnezis’s statements made in a

 government interview, at Defendant Stephanie Hockridge’s trial, in text messages with Defendant

 Reis, and from Karnezis’s own memoir. 5 The Court finds that Defendant has not explained how

 further testimony by Karnezis at sentencing would be different from the evidence Defendant has

 presented. As such it appears cumulative and repetitive. 6

         Accordingly, the Court has reviewed all of the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing,

 and the applicable law, and finds that the PSR’s loss calculation only holds Defendant accountable


 2
   Id.
 3
   Def.’s Mot. Extended Sentencing Hr’g ⁋ 4, ECF No. 372.
 4
   See id. at Ex. 1, 2.
 5
   Id. at Ex. 1, at 5–9.
 6
   Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request to call Eric Karnezis to testify at sentencing.
                                                    2
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O          Document 385         Filed 12/16/25      Page 3 of 6      PageID 10180
 as to the losses that fall within the definition of § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and § 2B1.1 cmt. 3(C)(i) and is

 based on reliable information. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objections to

 ⁋⁋ 49, 54, 70, 76-80, 86, 92, 95 of the PSR.

           B.     Defendant’s Objections to ⁋ 89 (Abuse of Trust Enhancement)

           Defendant objects to ⁋ 89 of the PSR, which imposes a two-level “abuse of trust”

 enhancement. 7 “Section 3B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level increase to

 the defendant’s offense level ‘[i]f the defendant abused a position of public or private trust, or used

 a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the

 offense[.]’” Miller, 906 F.3d at 377 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3). Applying a two-step inquiry, the

 sentencing court must determine “(1) whether the defendant occupies a position of trust, and (2)

 whether the defendant abused his position in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission

 or concealment of the offense.” § 3B1.3. A “position of trust” is characterized by (1) professional

 or managerial discretion and (2) minimal supervision. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 cmt. n.1; see also

 United States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1161 (5th Cir.1993).

           After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection to ⁋ 89 of the PSR.

           C.     Defendant’s Objections to ⁋ 87 (Sophisticated Means Enhancement)

           Defendant objects to ⁋ 87 of the PSR, which imposes a two-level enhancement under

 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10) for using “sophisticated means.” 8 Under the Sentencing Guidelines, if the

 offense “otherwise involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or

 caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means, increase by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. §

 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). The term “sophisticated means” is defined as “complex or especially intricate

 offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of an offense. . . .” U.S.S.G. §



 7
     Def.’s Obj. PSR 14–15, ECF No. 336.
 8
     Id. at 15–16.
                                                    3
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O           Document 385         Filed 12/16/25      Page 4 of 6      PageID 10181
 2B1.1(b)(10) cmt. 9(b). The Fifth Circuit has “affirmed the application of the sophisticated means

 enhancement in cases involving some method that made it more difficult for the offense to be

 detected, even if that method was not by itself particularly sophisticated.” United States v. Miller,

 906 F.3d 373, 380 (5th Cir. 2018).

            After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection to ⁋ 76 of the PSR because the reliable information

 supports the enhancement.

            D.     Defendant’s Objections to ⁋ 90 (Aggravating Role Enhancement)

            Defendant objects to ⁋ 90 of the PSR, which imposes a four-level “aggravating role”

 enhancement. 9 “Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), the defendant’s base offense level increases by four

 points if a preponderance of the evidence shows that ‘the defendant was an organizer or leader of

 a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.’” United

 States v. Martinez, 131 F.4th 294, 322 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)). “A

 ‘participant’ is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need

 not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 1. “In evaluating whether criminal activity was

 ‘otherwise extensive,’ the court looks at all persons involved during the course of the entire

 offense.” Martinez, 131 F.4th at 322 (quotation marks omitted). “This includes taking into account

 unknowing participants who contributed to the success of the criminal enterprise.” Id. “A district

 court can impose the enhancement under either theory: (1) five or more participants or (2)

 otherwise extensive.” Id.

            After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection to ⁋ 90 of the PSR because the reliable information

 supports the enhancement.




 9
     Id. at 17.
                                                     4
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O          Document 385       Filed 12/16/25      Page 5 of 6      PageID 10182
         E.      Defendant’s Objections to ⁋⁋ 83, 94 (PSR’s Failure to Apply a Three-Point
                 Decrease for Acceptance of Responsibility)
         Defendant objects to the PSR’s failure to apply an additional one point decrease under

 U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b), arguing that Defendant is entitled to a third point for acceptance of

 responsibility. 10 Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, the offense level decreases if defendant was “a minimal

 participant in any criminal activity,” “a minor participant in any criminal activity,” or somewhere

 in between. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a)-(b).

         After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection.

         F.      Defendant’s Objection No. 10 (to ⁋ 23)
         Defendant objects to paragraph 23 of the PSR arguing that it contains a factual inaccuracy

 as to the loan described by Mr. Flores. 11 After considering the evidence presented, the parties’

 briefing, and the applicable law, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection.

         G.      Defendant’s Objection No. 13 (to ¶ 28)
         Defendant objects to paragraph 28 of the PSR on several grounds. 12 To the extent

 Defendant objects to Flores being included as an employee of Juuice LLC, when defendant filed

 the application in question, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection. After considering the

 evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the Court OVERRULES

 Defendant’s other objections to paragraph 28.

         H.      Defendant’s Objection No. 16 (to ¶ 31)
         Defendant objects to paragraph 31 of the PSR arguing that the text exchange regarding

 Hockridge being a "beast" occurred on June 19, 2020, not June 20, 2020, as listed. Defendant also

 objects to the suggestion he was "bragging" about obtaining $80,000, claiming it was a mere




 10
    Def.’s Obj. PSR , Doc. 336.
 11
    Id. at 28.
 12
    Id. at 31.
                                                  5
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O             Document 385         Filed 12/16/25      Page 6 of 6      PageID 10183
 statement. 13 To the extent Defendant objects to the date of the text, the Court SUSTAINS

 Defendant’s objection. After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the

 applicable law, the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s other objections to paragraph 31.

              I.     Defendant’s Objection No. 61 (to ¶ 115)
              Defendant objects to paragraph 115 on page 26 of the PSR because it appears to contain a

 typographical error. 14 To the extent Defendant is correct and paragraph 115 of the PSR contains a

 typographical error, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s objection as to paragraph 115.


              J.     Defendant’s Objection Nos. 1–9, 11–12, 14–60, and 62 (to ⁋⁋ 10, 11, 13, 16–22,
                     25, 27, 29–30, 32–34, 36–38, 40–75, 82, 84–85, 88, 91, 93, 122)
              Defendant raises numerous additional objections to the PSR, many of which have no

 impact on Defendant’s total offense level under the Guidelines. After considering the evidence

 presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law the Court OVERRULES Defendant’s

 objections Nos. 1–9, 11–60, and 62 because the reliable information supports the PSR paragraphs

 as written.

        II.        DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S PSR CLARIFICATIONS

              A. Defendant’s Response to Clarification No. 1 (to ¶ 23)

              After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection.

              B. Defendant’s Response to Clarification No. 2 (to ¶ 66)

              After considering the evidence presented, the parties’ briefing, and the applicable law, the

 Court OVERRULES Defendant’s objection.

              SO ORDERED this 16th day of December, 2025.




 13
      Id. at 31.
 14
      Id. at 79
                                                       6


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.396982.385.0.pdf

Size

490,072 bytes

SHA-256

9599d124336fd2e540c58f385b90f44b747c4c697e2eb3aff2f7c2b05f6dbad1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.396982.385.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.