United States v. Michael J. Moller — Order (D.R.I., Document 243)

Summary

An Order in United States of America v. Michael J. Moller, 20-cr-88-JJM-AEM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, filed July 28, 2025 as Document 243, ruling on 15 motions Moller filed after sentencing. It recounts a sentence of 70 months of imprisonment on a bank fraud charge tied to fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan applications, stating that Moller submitted 11 applications seeking more than $4.7 million and received $699,251. The court denies reconsideration of the § 2255 denial, requests for counsel, an expert at court expense, and return to the Wyatt Detention Facility. It grants a Certificate of Appealability on a § 3584(c) sentencing question and denies the compassionate release motion without prejudice so a complete motion can be filed. The order is signed s/John J. McConnell, Jr., Chief Judge.

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

“United States v. Michael J. Moller — Order (D.R.I., Document 243).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-u-s-v-michael-j-moller-no-1-20-cr-00088-dkt-243-d-r-i-d43e7c508d/, SHA-256 867ed2d68a44e00c6565573bcd84407bed2a893917f2277aae28d783c5b25722.

Full text

Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
2713

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. )
20-cr-88-JJM-AEM
)
MICHAEL J. MOLLER, )
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

Defendant Michael J. Moller was sentenced to 70 months of imprisonment on

a bank fraud charge (ECF No. 42) and 12 months plus one day of imprisonment to be

served consecutively for violating the terms of his supervised release on a previous

bank robbery conviction. (ECF No. 21 in Case No. CR-20-81) The bank fraud charge

related to a scheme to defraud financial institutions during the pandemic by

submitting fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan applications in his

name and in the names of others. Mr. Moller submitted 11 fraudulent PPP loan

applications seeking more than $4.7 million in funds and received $699,251 in illicit

funds. He is projected to be released from custody on August 3, 2026.

Pending before the Court are 15 motions Mr. Moller has filed in his post-

sentencing criminal case.

1. Mr. Moller asks this Court to reconsider its denial of it his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

Petition. But Mr. Moller subsequently filed a Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 60, making

this Motion moot. DENIED as moot. ECF No. 198.
Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
2714

2. Mr. Moller filed a Motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) seeking relief from this

Court’s Order (ECF No. 195) denying his Amended Petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (ECF No. 174, supplemented by ECF No. 191), claiming he was entitled

to an evidentiary hearing. ECF No. 202. After some initial back-and-forth,

and prior to the filing of the supplemental petition, the Court (a previous

presiding judge) appointed counsel for Mr. Moller. ECF No. 176. That counsel

filed a supplemental § 2255 petition—containing some old and some new

issues. ECF No. 191. The Court considered the newly filed § 2255 petition on

the papers and exercised its discretion in deciding that an evidentiary hearing

was not needed.1 This Court, in an extensive and detailed Memorandum and

Order, denied the § 2255 Petition. ECF No. 195. There was no requirement

that the Court conduct a hearing to resolve ECF No. 191, the supplemental

§ 2255 petition. Accordingly, Mr. Moller’s Motion is DENIED. ECF No. 202.

3. Mr. Moller filed Motions for Writs of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum seeking

to be returned to the Wyatt Detention Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island.

Mr. Moller has no legal basis at this time to be returned to a pretrial detention

facility while he is in Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) custody; therefore, this Motion

is DENIED. ECF Nos. 203, 225.

1 A district court need not hold an evidentiary hearing where, as here, the

claims raised in the § 2255 petition can be determined on the papers. DeCologero v.
United States, 802 F.3d 155, 167-68 (1st Cir. 2015). The First Circuit has stated that
“[e]videntiary hearings on § 2255 petitions are the exception, not the norm .. . . .”
Moreno-Morales v. United States, 334 F.3d 140, 145 (1st Cir. 2003).

2
Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
2715

4. There is no reason or basis for this Court to appoint Mr. Moller further counsel.

An evidentiary hearing on his § 2255 Petition was not needed or required,

therefore there is no obligation for the Court to appoint counsel. The two

Motions to Appoint Counsel are DENIED. ECF Nos. 206, 221.

5. Motion to Reconsider the Denial of the 2255 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

a. Lack of evidentiary hearing: see # 2 above.

b. Dubin v. United States: This Court has ruled that “Dubin does nothing

to disturb the applicability of § 1028A to Mr. Moller’s conduct because

his fraudulent use of other individuals means of identification was at

the crux of what made his PPP loan criminal.” ECF No. 195 at 10.

Nothing in Mr. Moller’s Motion to reconsider changes the courts analysis

or opinion in that regard. Mr. Moller’s repeated use of the identity

information of others was at the “crux” of his fraud scheme and that he

could have been charged with the commission of aggravated identity

theft

c. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel–Aggregation of Sentences: Mr. Moller

argues that his counsel was ineffective because he did not request that

the Court aggregate his sentence for violating his supervised release (20-

cr-81) with his bank fraud sentence (20-cr-88). Seeking this aggregation

was never an option for Mr. Moller’s counsel at sentencing. The plea

agreement provides that Mr. Moller be sentenced for both the

supervised release violation and the bank fraud offense and that he

3
Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
2716

receives a 12-month sentence for violating his supervised release that

was to run consecutively to his bank fraud sentence. Because of the

terms of the plea agreement, counsel was not ineffective for failing to

argue for a sentence that would have violated the terms of the plea

agreement. Furthermore, Mr. Moller suffered no prejudice because of

the way the sentences were sequenced. The Motion to Reconsider the

Denial of the § 2255 is DENIED. ECF No. 209.

6. Motion to Reconsider the Certificate of Appealability. ECF No. 213. Mr.

Moller request that the Court issue a Certificate of Appealability as to the

following claim: “Whether 3584 (c) thwarted the courts intent for Mr. Moller’s

sentence in BOP custody to be a single sentence for fraud.” The Government

did not file an objection. The Motion is GRANTED. ECF No. 213.

7. Motion for a Reduction in Sentence (so-called “Compassionate Release”). ECF

No. 224. Mr. Moller asks this Court to reduce his sentence, citing the following

reasons: (a) he has not received adequate care from the BOP; (b) care for his

ailing mother (“In November 2022, my brother Richard died at age 39 . . . [He]

was providing substantial daily care to my mother, since his passing her

situation has only gotten worse. She requires a major surgery in the very near

future and her recovery will be substantial.”) ECF No. 224 at 4. Mr. Moller

captioned this Motion as his “Opening Memorandum” because he had not yet

obtained his medical records, and therefore the Government did not respond.

See ECF No. 229 at 3. Thus, the Court will DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE

4
Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
2717

this Motion, to allow Mr. Moller to file a complete and supported Motion and

allow the Government to respond. ECF No. 224.

8. Motion for an Order to the Government to Obtain Records. Mr. Moller seeks

the Court to order to the Government to obtain the following his medical and

commissary records. The Government has agreed to provide the requested

records (ECF No. 229); therefore, this Motion is DENIED as moot. ECF

No. 226.

9. Mr. Moller asks the Court to pay the expenses for a medical expert to review

his medical records and those of his mother. While Mr. Moller can hire an

expert with his own money, there is no basis in law for the Court to order the

payment of the expenses for an expert. The Motion is DENIED. ECF No. 227.

10. Mr. Moller filed Motions to Stay which he subsequently withdrew (ECF

No. 232) and therefore the Motion is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 230.

11. Mr. Moller filed a Motion for a Writ, seeking to be returned to the Wyatt

Detention Facility in Central Falls, Rhode Island. ECF No. 232. Mr. Moller

has still not provided any legal basis to be returned to a pretrial detention

facility while he is in BOP custody; therefore, this Motion is DENIED. ECF

No. 232.

12. Mr. Moller’s Motion for a Telephonic Hearing on the Writ Request is DENIED

as moot. As Mr. Moller knows, the Court has tried mightily to get Mr. Moller

a remote hearing, but the BOP has not had the facilities to accommodate it.

ECF No. 233.

5
Case 1:20-cr-00088-JJM-LDA Document 243 Filed 07/28/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
2718

13. Mr. Moller has filed a Motion To Amend The Judgment And Or For A Letter

Of Recommendation To The BOP. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(1) governs the transfer of

inmate into a so-called half-way house at the end of their term of imprisonment

and provides discretion to the Director of the BOP to make those decisions.

The Court has no role while Mr. Moller is in BOP custody. Thus, the Motion

is DENIED. ECF No. 235.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/John J. McConnell, Jr.

_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

July 28, 2025

File and source

File: 243.pdf
Size: 77,453 bytes
SHA-256: 867ed2d68a44e00c6565573bcd84407bed2a893917f2277aae28d783c5b25722
Our copy: 243.pdf
Original: No public link identified.