Sentencing Memorandum and PSR Objections, United States v. Steven Goldstein (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2021)

Summary

Defendant Steven Goldstein Sentencing Memorandum and PSR Objections in United States v. Steven Robert Goldstein, No. CR 20-00597-SB, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, filed May 5, 2021 as Document 48. It states that the defendant pled guilty to Count I, Covid-19 related false statements on a PPP loan application to obtain benefits in the sum of $655,000, and asks the Court to grant a variance to avoid incarceration. It states that Goldstein paid $500,000 for contractors and laborers and $130,000 for mortgage payments, and that Goldstein will have paid $355,000 in restitution (to the Court) by the time of sentencing. Under PSR Objections, the defendant disagrees with the PSR's reference to $1.23MM as "intended loss"; it also summarizes character letters.

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

“Sentencing Memorandum and PSR Objections, United States v. Steven Goldstein (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2021).” Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/sentencing-memorandum-no-2-20-cr-00597-dkt-48-c-d-cal-017fe12ac0/, SHA-256 0f7173be8e2e2aa04fbe1120b463b720abb683a5f60572b18370e41a79ebbb41.

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:326

1 Dana M. Cole, Esq. (SBN 89105)
COLE & LOETERMAN
2 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2000
3 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (310) 556-8300 / Fax: (310) 772-0807
4 email: dana@danacolelaw.com

5 Attorney for Defendant,
STEVEN R. GOLDSTEIN
6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 20-00597-SB
12
Plaintiff, DEFEDANT STEVEN GOLDSTEIN
13 vs. SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND PSR
OBJECTIONS
14 STEVEN ROBERT GOLDSTEIN,
DATE: June 8, 2021
15 Defendant. TIME: 8:00 a.m.
16

19 DEFENDANT STEVEN R. GOLDSTEIN SENTENCING MEMO

20 Defendant Steven R. Goldstein submits the following:

21 I.
22 INTRODUCTION
23
At the earliest possible stage and after full cooperation, the defendant accepted
24
responsibility and pled guilty to Count I, 18 U.S.C. 1040 (a)(1), Covid-19 related false statements
25
on a PPP loan application to obtain benefits in the sum of $655,000. Unlike virtually all other
26

27 PPP false statement cases, this defendant used his loan proceeds exactly for what the Cares Act

28 intended – to pay mortgages and keep laborers working to avoid his residential remodels from
1
DEFT GOLDSTEIN SENTENCING MEMO
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:327

1 going into default. There were no personal luxury items purchased with the unlawfully obtained
2 funds. 1 Most importantly, to demonstrate true remorse, contrition, and acceptance of
3
responsibility – unlike virtually all other similarly situated defendants – Mr. Goldstein has already
4
paid back a substantial portion of the borrowed funds to the Government (by depositing same
5
with the Court clerk per instruction from the assigned AUSA). This combination of factors –
6

7 formal cooperation (see 5K1.1 motion), legitimate intended purpose for the loan proceeds,

8 conservation of prosecution and judicial resources by indictment waiver and payment of

9 substantial restitution all constitute compelling reasons to grant a variance to avoid incarceration,
10
particularly when compared with other PPP-related sentencings. As will be shown, Goldstein has
11
done everything humanly possible to mitigate consequences of the offense.
12
II.
13
STATEMENT OF FACTS
14

15 Steven Goldstein, age 36, has been self-employed purchasing, renovating, and ‘flipping’

16 houses since 2014, primarily through his company Beagle Real Estate Investments, LLC.
17 Additionally, he formed Antelope Valley Residential Development, LLC, with a partner, Ray
18
Magana (who was separately indicted, case no. 21-CR-00007-SB), in 2018 to do the same thing;
19
purchase, renovate and flip houses in an expedited manner. 2 Both entities primarily obtained its
20
financing from banks, friends, and relatives. Once the pandemic hit, housing sales ceased for a
21

23
1
Most such cases involve alleged fraudsters who used the money to buy Lamborghini sports cars, go to
strip clubs, take gambling trips to Las Vegas, invest money in a cryptocurrency account, make risky stock
24 market bets, purchase a 40-foot yacht and a $1 million rowhouse in Washington, DC, and other expenses
not allowed by law, according to the Justice Department.
25
2
It is important to note that Goldstein was not involved in Magana’s other business entity, Forward
26 Builders, even though the agents wrongly concluded that Goldstein and Magana were partners in it – just
like Magana was not involved in Goldstein’s Beagle Real Est. Inv. entity, which predated Goldstein ever
27 meeting Magana. Even though Magana had his illegitimate PPP funds deposited into a joint account he
held with Goldstein, Goldstein was not involved in that loan application and Magana immediately
28 removed the entirety of funds once deposited for his own use.
2
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:328

1 three-to-four-month period, causing financial panic to Goldstein, who had on-going loan
2 payments, construction costs, and labor expenses. At that time, four houses immediately fell out
3
of escrow. Both Beagle and Antelope Valley entities regularly used contractors, who used
4
numerous construction laborers, but those individuals were not true employees as most were
5
construction workers, although supporting families, nonetheless.
6

7 The intent of The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act is a

8 federal law enacted in or around March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial

9 assistance to the millions of Americans who are suffering the economic effects caused by the
10
COVID-19 pandemic. One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of
11
forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other expenses through a
12
program referred to as the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). PPP loans were obtained by
13
applying to a financial institution along with supporting documentation as to the business’ payroll
14

15 expenses. PPP loan proceeds must be used by the business for certain permissible expenses—

16 payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities.
17 As a result, Goldstein on behalf of Beagle and both Goldstein and Magana on behalf of
18
Antelope Valley applied for PPP funds in May 2020 by uploading falsified payroll records, rent
19
and other business expenses to Bank of America’s PPP platform, claiming that their full-time
20
laborers were actual employees. As a result, Beagle received $355,000 3 and Antelope Valley
21

22 received $300,000 in PPP funds; total actual loss $655,000, with which the PSR concurs. (PSR ¶

23 8). Upon receipt of this financial lifeline during the pandemic, Goldstein used all the funds to pay

25
3
It is also important to note that at the time of the investigation and his arrest, agents believed that Beagle
26 applied for $930,000 in PPP loans. This is false. Technically unsavvy, Goldstein attempted to upload the
same documents three times while applying for his $355,000 loan. The agents misinterpreted this as an
27 attempt to obtain far more money than he intended and received. The plea agreement also mistakenly
references a loss of $725,000, instead of $655,000, consisting of $355,000 for Beagle and $300,000 for
28 Antelope Valley. (¶ 8, p. 9:13).
3
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:329

1 laborers, business expenses and loan payments – the exact expenses that the Cares Act allowed.
2 None of the money was used by Goldstein for personal items, luxury items and/or freewheeling
3
spending, although a small fraction, approximately $25,000 was used to pay personal credit card
4
expenses. The vast majority of the credit card payments were for work related expenses, such as
5
construction materials and cash advances for mortgage payments on Beagle’s properties. The
6

7 money was used for its intended purpose, e.g., to directly support laborers (and their families) and

8 to keep loans from defaulting. All vendors, contractors, laborers, and lenders were fully repaid

9 with the PPP funds. Specifically, Goldstein paid the following:
10
$500,000 for contractors and laborers;
11
$ 25,000 (credit card purchases) for construction materials; and
12
$130,000 for mortgage payments.
13
Arguably, Goldstein would have been legitimately entitled to a large portion of the PPP
14

15 funds to cover the aforementioned loan payments, office expense and his personal income losses,

16 just not the employee costs. (United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367, 379 (5th Cir. 2006),
17 calculating the amount of loss based on the excess benefits received as a result of fraud).
18
Regardless, despite being over-extended, Goldstein knew what he did was wrong by acting
19
illegally out of desperation.
20
To demonstrate contrition, upon his first contact with federal agents, the defendant fully
21

22 confessed, provided all requested paperwork, and fully debriefed. Subsequently, upon the

23 Government’s request, the defendant provided more detailed cooperation by submitting to a

24 follow up interview with agents and providing detailed information to bolster the case against
25 Magana.
26
As referenced above, Goldstein will have already paid $355,000 in restitution to the Court
27
by time of sentencing for the full amount of funds received by Beagle, even though, technically,
28
4
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:330

1 the Cares Act allows for two-year repayment if the loan is not entirely forgiven.
2 Notable personal information: Goldstein was raised by a single mother when his father
3
suddenly died when Goldstein was 13 years old. Goldstein now supports his mother. Goldstein
4
is married to a LAUSD public school history teacher. Goldstein’s grandmother was raped and
5
beaten at age 82. She died thereafter from the inflicted trauma. The perpetrator was never
6

7 apprehended.

8 The defendant has submitted several character letters, briefly summarized as follows:

9 - Mike Lane, MFT, the defendant’s therapist, who states: “Steve describes feeling
genuinely trapped between professional and financial ruin and doing something that
10
was clearly improper. The PPP assistance would likely protect his family and the
11 career that he loved, while satisfying Steve’s financial obligation to those he
employed . . . . This entire experience has been nothing short of earth-shattering for
12 Steve and his wife Gaby along with their extended families. The emotional toll
however self-inflicted has been severe and the repercussions will likely be felt for
13 years to come”;
14
- Dorothy Goldstein, the defendant’s mother, who indicates the devastation that Steve
15 experienced in losing his father right after his bar mitzvah and the overwhelming
remorse Steve feels for his current legal troubles. She also explains how attentive
16 Steve has been and continues to be for her weekly needs, including all shopping
during the pandemic so that she would not risk virus exposure;
17

18 - Pamela Goldstein, the defendant’s sister-in-law, who comments on how caring a
person he is. She states, “Although the funds were dishonestly obtained, Steve used
19 the money for business expenses to make sure his laborers and mortgage lenders were
paid. He regrets his poor decision and has expressed that a better route would have to
20 declare bankruptcy”;
21
- Andy Cole (no relation to defendant’s counsel), who mentored Goldstein after his
22 father died. He states: “I believe Steven is a capable and honorable person who, when
faced with unexpected financial burdens caused by the growth of his business, made a
23 bad decision to take advantage of the PPP government assistance program”;
24 - Jason Branch, a friend since college, who states: “Steve pled guilty to fraudulently
25 obtaining funds from the Payroll Protection Program, in order to keep his business
afloat and meet his business obligations to creditors, employees, and vendors. This is
26 not the Steve I know, and this lone illegal act is not representative of who he is as a
person. The Steve I know has always been a model citizen: Respectful of others,
27 generous, financially responsible, respectful of the law, and patient and dedicated in
28
5
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:331

1 slowly building his real estate rehabilitation business from scratch despite formal
education in the field”;
2

3 - Gabriela Goldstein, the defendant’s spouse, who states: “It has taken many therapy
sessions and a lot of thinking on my part to forgive my husband because I am very
4 clear on what my values are, but I am able to forgive him because of who he is. At the
end of the day, he is a good man that made a mistake. A lifetime sentence of a felony
5 conviction for paying workers and saving investors funds is an extremely high price to
pay and will forever hurt a good man that made a mistake”;
6

7 - Jordan Davies, a friend in the real estate business, who states: “Over the course of the
last 3 – 4 month’s Steve has been living in a state of regret and sadness about what
8 transpired, a valuable life lesson was learned and a mistake like this will never happen
again. He truly regrets his decision at the time and if he could go back and change
9 what happened he would, even if this resulted in the end of his business. I know my
10 friend and he is a good person, COVID was a year like no other and the societal
pressures and outcome will take years to heal”; and
11
- David Goldstein, the defendant’s brother and a government auditor, states: “Steven
12 was born into a difficult circumstance as his parents had a deeply challenged and
abusive relationship. Steven was also born with a learning disability which impacted
13
his ability to succeed academically. Steven repeated the 1st grade and continued to
14 struggle throughout school. Steven’s Dad died suddenly when Steven was just 13
years old. Steven was largely raised by his Mother, who has had extensive
15 relationship issues, and set a tone for the household lacking wisdom and common
sense. When Steven was 12 years old his Grandma, who he was very close to, was
16 brutally attacked and raped. This affected Steven tremendously.” In explaining the
circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s brother states, “When the pandemic
17
arrived, Steven was leveraged financially and not prepared for an economic slowdown
18 in the real estate market. He decided rashly to falsify payroll protection loan
applications rather than lose properties and fail financially.”
19
III.
20
PSR OBJECTIONS
21

22 The defendant disagrees with the PSR calculation to the extent that it references the sum

23 of $1.23MM as “intended loss.” (PSR ¶ 40). The USSG defines intended loss as "pecuniary

24 harm that the defendant purposely sought to inflict." (USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.3(A)(ii)). A

25 recent amendment enables courts to consider a defendant's subjective intent as a relevant factor.

26 (USSG App. C, amend. 792). The defendant never intended this loss because he had nothing to

27 do with Magana’s other entities to which this sum applies. As such, if the defendant never

28 “intended” such pecuniary harm, an “intended loss” cannot be attributed to him. (USSG §2B1.1,
6
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:332

1
comment. (n.3(A)(ii)). “When calculating intended loss, the appropriate inquiry is what the loss
2
would have been if the defendant had not been caught.” (United States v. Frisch, 704 F.3d 541,
3
544 (8th Cir. 2013)). In the present case, Bank of American funded the sum of $655,000 for both
4
entities. The remaining sums were the result of multiple attempts by Goldstein to upload
5
documents for one loan and/or loans for which Magana applied that had nothing to do with the
6
defendant and the defendant had no shared interest in Magana’s other entity.
7
The Probation Officer’s recommendation letter does not address how the money was
8
spent, e.g., to pay construction workers and for business related expenses instead of personal
9
and/or luxury items. When compared to other PPP loan fraud cases, this is a critical distinction
10
worthy of a sentencing variance.
11
Accordingly, a fairer Guideline calculation should include an additional departure per
12
Government’s 5K1.1 motion for cooperation and variance consideration based on reasonably
13
legitimate use of the funds and early substantial restitution payment.
14 IV.
15 COMPARISON WITH OTHER PPP MISSTATEMENT OR FRAUD CASES
16
While there have been numerous arrest and indictments for PPP loan fraud, few have been
17
sentenced. It is instructive to note the salient facts and sentences that other District Court judges
18
have imposed in cases involving much more financial loss than in the present case:
19

20 - USA v. Jaafar, E.D. Virginia, 18 fraudulent PPP applications, $1.4MM proceeds used

21 for personal expenses; sentenced to 12 months;

22 - USA v. Hayford, N.D. Oklahoma, fraudulent PPP application, $8MM proceeds used for
23
personal expenses; sentenced to 24 months; and
24
- USA v. Jackson, S.D. Ohio, fraudulent PPP application, $2.5MM proceeds used for
25
personal expenses; sentenced to 24 months. In a press release, the AUSA stated: “Jackson
26
defrauded programs that were meant to keep workers on the job at businesses suffering because
27

28 of the pandemic.”
7
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:333

1 V.
2 LEGAL DISCUSSION
3
As a result of U.S. vs. Booker 543 U.S. 220, 245, the Sentencing Guidelines are now
4
advisory instead of mandatory. Accordingly, the district courts should “impose a sentence
5
sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to accomplish the goals of sentencing, including “to
6

7 reflect the seriousness of the offense.”

8 Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), describes the factors that a court should

9 consider in imposing sentence. A district court may impose a variance if the case at hand falls
10
outside the “heartland” to which the Commission intends individual Guidelines to apply, perhaps
11
because the Guidelines sentence itself fails properly to reflect § 3553(a) considerations, or
12
perhaps because the case warrants a different sentence regardless. (Rita v. United States, 551 U.S.
13
338, 351 (2007)).
14

15 The statute further provides that, in determining the appropriate sentence, the court should

16 consider a number of factors, including “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” “the history
17 and characteristics of the defendant,” “the sentencing range established” by the Guidelines, “any
18
pertinent policy statement” issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to its statutory authority,
19
and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who
20
have been found guilty of similar conduct.” Ibid. In sum, while the statute still requires a court to
21

22 consider the Guidelines, see Gall v. United States (2007) 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, at 594), Booker

23 “permits the court to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns as well,” 543 U.S., at

24 245-246, 125 S.Ct. 738. (Kimbrough v. U.S. (2007) 552 U.S. 85, 108-109).
25 Accordingly, district courts must treat the Guidelines as the “starting point and the initial
26
benchmark,” (Gall, supra), and then apply appropriate departures (5K1.1 considerations) and
27
variances. As defined in Irizarry vs. U.S. (2008) 553 U.S. 708, 714, a “[d]eparture is a term of art
28
8
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:334

1 under the Guidelines and refers only to non-Guidelines sentences imposed under the framework
2 set out in the Guidelines”; while in contrast, a “variance” refers to a non-Guidelines sentence
3
outside the Guidelines framework. (Id.)
4
The Guidelines permit a court to depart from the Guideline range in atypical cases. “The
5
Commission intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out a ‘heartland,’ a
6

7 set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. When a court finds an

8 atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but where conduct

9 significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted.”
10
U.S.S.G. Manual, Introductory Comments, 4(b).
11
This is precisely one of those cases that falls outside the heartland, thereby warranting a
12
variance. A guideline sentence in this case would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the
13
defendant’s conduct with respect to the underlying criminal conduct because Goldstein used the
14

15 money unlawfully obtained for a true, legitimate purpose – keeping people working and paying

16 recurring, reasonable business-related expenses. Additionally, Goldstein has already repaid most
17 funds received by his entity, Beagle Real Estate Inv., although funds received jointly with
18
Magana, who awaits sentencing, have not been repaid. In numerous public advisories, the
19
Government has repeatedly commented that it is exceedingly rare for the defendant to use
20
unlawfully obtained PPP funds for anything other than personal and/or luxury items. It is even
21

22 rarer for the defendant to make substantial restitution prior to sentencing, which can constitute a

23 variance or downward departure. (United States v. Brown, 985 F.2d 478, 482–83 (9th Cir.1993);

24 United States v. Lieberman, 971 F.2d 989, 996 (3rd Cir.1992); United States v. Garlich, 951 F.2d
25 161, 163 (8th Cir.1991)). 4 Perhaps, it is also worth noting that pursuant to FIRREA civil penalty
26

27 4
Conversely, many courts have held that a payment of restitution prior to sentencing should not constitute
a departure or variance so as not to favor the wealthy over the poor. Goldstein is neither wealthy nor poor
28 but simply trying to ‘do the right thing’ by an early substantial repayment of the PPP loan funds obtained.
9
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:335

1 provision, 12 U.S.C. Section 1833a, DOJ is permitted to civilly prosecute bank and loan fraud
2 cases with a lower burden of proof and no resulting criminal conviction.
3
VI.
4
SEC. 3553(a) SENTENCING FACTORS
5
The primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for sentencing courts to “impose a sentence
6

7 sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” which include:

8 (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and

9 to provide just punishment for the offense;
10
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
11
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
12
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical
13
care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
14

15 In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, sec. 3553(a) further directs sentencing

16 courts to consider the following factors:
17 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
18
defendant;
19
2) the kinds of sentences available;
20
3) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
21

22 records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

23 4) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

24 In the present case, the cautionary language in 2B1.1, applies here – that “there may be
25 cases in which the offense level determined under this guideline substantially overstates the
26
seriousness of the offense. In such cases, a downward departure may be warranted.”
27
“Atypical” for the following reasons: The wrongfully obtained PPP funds were in fact
28
10
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:336

1 used for a legitimate purpose as referenced above. The money was spent to support workers,
2 their families, and pay legitimate business expenses, such as construction costs and mortgage
3
payments – exactly what the CARES Act was designed to do. This is one of degree not
4
adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Guidelines and a downward departure or
5
variance can be made to avoid the overstatement of the seriousness of the offense and when the
6

7 Court considers “an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline linguistically applies but

8 where conduct significantly differs from the norm.” (§1A1.4).

9 It is hoped that the Court might exercise its discretion to depart downward to considerable
10
extent when rendering a sentence which is "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to achieve
11
the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). (See attached Character Letters describing
12
defendant as a good-hearted, decent person whose serious judgment error would never be
13
repeated).
14

15 Given the highly unusual factual scenario recited above, the instant case does not fit the

16 “heartland” of cases related to loan application misstatements, especially because the total funds
17 were used for legitimate purposes with no funds expended for personal use and/or to acquire
18
luxury items. In addition, substantial restitution has already been paid.
19
VII.
20
RECOMMENDED SENTENCE
21
The Probation Officer has recommended 24 months and the Government has
22
recommended 21 months with an additional two levels for cooperation landing in the 15-month
23

24 range. The defendant respectfully asks the Court to consider a sentence of six months home

25 confinement with 250 hours of community service. This suggested sentence is sufficient, but not

26 greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and is
27
substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. (See Gall v. United States, 552
28
11
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:337

1 U.S. 38 (2007)). Based on immediate acceptance of responsibility, the defendant’s Government
2 cooperation, the defendant’s business-related use of the funds received, lack of criminal history
3
and substantial payment of restitution.
4
VIII.
5
CONCLUSION
6

7 The defendant has demonstrated the earlies possible acceptance of responsibility by

8 pleading to Count I as it relates to false statement on a PPP loan application and by fully

9 cooperating with the Government, which likely resulted in a plea by Raymond Magana. The
10
defendant presents as an otherwise responsible and caring person, who has disappointed family,
11
friends and most importantly, himself by committing serious errors in judgment. As a result, he
12
has done everything possible to mitigate those errors, by using the funds for a legitimate purpose
13
and by pre-sentence payment of significant restitution. Regardless, he has tarnished his good
14

15 name that will carry the lifelong sting of a felony conviction. The impact of that lifetime con-

16 viction alone constitutes significant punishment. But numerous friends and family paint a very
17 different picture – a financially stressed individual who committed a terrible error in judgment in
18
order to keep his business (and those working for him) afloat.
19
For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests a sentence consistent with the
20
comments expressed herein, including the referenced variance, which hopefully qualifies the
21

22 defendant for home detention in lieu of a custodial sentence. Of course, additional community

23 service would also seem appropriate.

24 Dated: May 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted:
25 /s/ Dana M. Cole
26 ______________________________
Dana M. Cole, Esq.
27 Attorney for Defendant GOLDSTEIN

28
12
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:338
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:339
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:340

March 26, 2021

Dear Judge Blumenfeld,

I have known Steven Goldstein for 30 years since he was 6 years old. I am his sister-in-law.

Steve is a good person, who made a terrible mistake. I believe his poor judgment was out of character
because of the additional financial stress he was under due to the pandemic.

Steve came to visit us after he was arrested and charged with PPP loan fraud. It was apparent to me that
Steve was taking full responsibility for his mistake and working extremely hard to come up with the
restitution payment. I believe he learned his lesson, and this will be his first and last time breaking the
law. He has expressed to me his remorse and desire to learn from this experience so it will never happen
again. His genuine sincerity is why my husband and I agreed to lend him some money to use for the
restitution payment.

I know he will continue to work hard to right this wrong. Steve has been working weekly with a therapist
to identify and correct the faulty logic that caused him to be in this situation.

Steve has been an excellent brother-in-law to me and wonderful uncle to my Children. He has also been
a great son to his mother. During the pandemic he stepped up and did all the shopping for his mother so
she would not be exposed to the virus. He also helps her with errands, fixing stuff and doctor
appointments. He provides her with emotional support, and she relies on him greatly.

I hope you will consider leniency when sentencing Steve. Although the funds were dishonestly obtained,
Steve used the money for business expenses to make sure his laborers and mortgage lenders were paid.
He regrets his poor decision and has expressed that a better route would have to declare bankruptcy. I
believe he can create the most value for society in house arrest. This will allow him to continue working
so he can pay back all the restitution money he owes to the Government as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Pamela Goldstein
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:341

March 27, 2021

Andy Cole
20219 Gault St.
Winnetka, CA 91306

Dear Judge Blumenfeld:

My name is Andy Cole and I am writing you concerning a friend of mine, Steven
Goldstein. I am a graduate of CSUN and have been the CFO of a property management
company for the last 20 years. I contribute to the school annually and participate in their
professor for a day program.

I have known Steven Goldstein since he was 13 years old; his father was a
neighbor and friend and when Rick passed away at a fairly young age, his mother asked
that I spend some time with him as he had no other male role model in his life. I have
seen his growth from a teenager to a responsible adult, one who provides for his family
and cares about his elders. I watched him learn that he was not the quality hockey goalie
he hoped to be, and make the decision to pursue a college degree elsewhere. For several
years he struggled as a teacher, a job he did not enjoy but continued with it because, like
most of us, work was an essential part of his sense of well being in society.

As a financial professional, it was painful to hear of the trouble Steven got into
because of his business obligations. I wish I had spent more time with him discussing
integrity in business. I believe Steven is a capable and honorable person who, when faced
with unexpected financial burdens caused by the growth of his business, made a bad
decision to take advantage of the PPP government assistance program.

I know Steven regrets his actions and feels significant guilt in knowing that he
disappointed his family, friends, and most importantly, himself. He knows that his
fraudulent actions will stay with him for the rest of his life I do believe Steven is and can
be a productive member of society. His actions concerning the PPP loan were of course
wrong and he should have known better, but I also believe that, given a chance, his
character will shine through. I do not believe he will ever do anything like this again. I
hope you will consider leniency in his sentencing.

Sincerely,

Andy Cole
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 17 of 21 Page ID #:342

Jason Branch
3711 W 230th St #236
Torrance, CA 90505

Honorable Stanley Blumenfeld Jr
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the Central District of California
350 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: Steven Goldstein

February 11, 2021

Dear Judge Blumenfeld,

I write this letter in support of my friend Steve Goldstein. I have known Steve since 2005 when we were
both students at UCLA, and became very close friends with him in 2008 after attending a mutual friend’s
birthday party. We connected on a variety of topics, including hockey, current events, history, capital
markets, and physical fitness. We maintain these connections to this day. I was a Groomsman at his
wedding in 2010, he was a Groomsman at my wedding in 2017, and is a Godfather to my daughter born
in 2019.

Over the past few months, I have come to understand that in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and its
economic impact, Steve pled guilty to fraudulently obtaining funds from the Payroll Protection Program,
in order to keep his business afloat and meet his business obligations to creditors, employees, and
vendors. This is not the Steve I know, and this lone illegal act is not representative of who he is as a
person. The Steve I know has always been a model citizen: Respectful of others, generous, financially
responsible, respectful of the law, and patient and dedicated in slowly building his real estate
rehabilitation business from scratch despite formal education in the field.

Although Steve has pled guilty to the charge, I am still proud to call Steve a very close friend and the
Godfather to my daughter. Our families have seen each other a several times since (while following safe
COVID-19 guidelines) and I continue to regularly talk to Steve. I am confident that he has learned from
his mistake in using the Payroll Protection Program, and understands that it was not the proper course
of action to address the economic desperation of his business due to dramatic unforeseen
circumstances. In light of these factors and my support on behalf of Steve, I respectfully request your
consideration of leniency in sentencing of my friend.

I can be reached by phone anytime at 310-903-1588, if there are any questions or additional information
requested of myself.

Sincerely,

Jason Branch
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:343

Gabriela Goldstein
18624 Calahan St.
Northridge, CA. 91324

Dear Judge Blumenfeld,

My name is Gabriela Goldstein, and I have known Steven Goldstein since I was 18 years
old and have been married to him for the past 10 years. He has never gotten in trouble in all of
those years and has nobly led his life. I am a public-school teacher and have been an educator for
the past 7 years. I have received several awards during my career, including; 2020 Outstanding
Social Studies Teacher of the Year by the California Council for Social Studies, selected as the
Los Angeles county Teacher to attend the Supreme Court Summer Institute for Teachers by
Street Law, and received the Humanitarian Award 2017-208 by the Los Angeles Education
Board. Any listing of my accolades is solely to make the point that Steven chose to marry
someone who has dedicated their life to public service. In all of those years, he has always been
supportive of all my teaching efforts and dedication. The current charges Steven is facing are
utterly contradictory to any of his previous actions and are entirely out of character for as long as
I have known him. I was always very proud of my husband throughout the years because of all
the personal challenges he had overcome and because I found his dedication to a very difficult
mother admirable. Out of both him and his older brother, it has been my husband that helps take
care of his mother. I honestly think that my husband put himself in an impossible situation. In his
attempt to pay workers, save his investors funds, and not foreclose on properties in the middle of
an unprecedented pandemic, his one action turned his world upside down.
We met at the end of freshman year of college, and this event has been the most
traumatizing experience in both of our lives. Please know that this event has been absolutely
detrimental to us, heartbreaking and emotionally draining. We sold our home, Steven sold his
car, and we have cut our expenses as much as possible to pay back his debt and because it is the
right thing to do. We have always been very responsible; we limited our expenses as student
loans were paid off and delayed having children.
After this first happened and after moving forward from complete shock, I began to
research the kind of trouble Steven was in. I read everything I could find on the internet, listened
to every podcast, and read every blog. Judge Blumenfeld, this is the only case I found of a person
that used the funds he accessed to pay other people. He did not use his funds to gamble it away,
buy a Lamborghini, or any other frivolous items, unlike other defendants.
I can tell you that this event has completely changed our lives and has been
transformational for Steven Goldstein. I know you will never hear his name again in a future
case and that he has learned more lessons than I can list in this one letter to you. He could have
filed for bankruptcy, and many families and banks would have lost money in the middle of an
unprecedented pandemic and tragic year for so many. I think he was poorly influenced because
he felt so much pressure that he took the action that put him before your chambers.
It has taken many therapy sessions and a lot of thinking on my part to forgive my
husband because I am very clear on what my values are, but I am able to forgive him because of
who he is. At the end of the day, he is a good man that made a mistake. A lifetime sentence of a
felony conviction for paying workers and saving investors funds is an extremely high price to
pay and will forever hurt a good man that made a mistake. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 19 of 21 Page ID #:344

March 31, 2021

To the honorable judge Stanley Blumenfeld,

I have known Steven Goldstein since he was a young lad in 1992 when we moved in next door to
where he was then living. Over the years I have seen him grow up dedicated to family, working
hard at school, working even harder at learning to drum, finishing college, getting married, and
following his passion of real estate improvements. He has been able to be very focused, and has
accomplished a lot as a young man.

Steven is a very caring person and is always willing to help, or even offer help without being
asked. He visits his mother regularly and assists her with a variety of tasks, and often visits my
family as well after he leaves his mother who still lives in the same town as we do. He and his
wife have plans to start a family and have children of their own who they can shower with the
love and care they are used to.

Steven had mentioned to me about the PPP program and that he was thinking of taking out a loan
to help keep the seven to eight projects he was running at the time moving forward during
COVID, and to make sure he had enough funds to pay the employees and lenders, which was the
goal of the program, and his foremost concern. After those conversations I had no doubt that
Steven would be using those funds for the intended purpose.

Steven came to my house early the next morning scared and distraught after he has been released
from jail. He knew I was worried since I have been trying to get hold of him several times the
previous day. We have had many long conversations since that day, and I can sense and see
nothing but remorse and disappointment about what he has done and the people he has let down.
He is especially upset about the fact that even though he had the right intentions in taking the
loan, he did not go about it the right way. He has mentioned to me several time that he will never
ever take a penny from anyone unless it can be given to him in a completely kosher way.

I think that Steven Goldstein has already paid his price. He has a completely different mind set
about moving forward. Steven is trying everything he can do to make this right by paying back
as much as he can right now, cooperating with the district attorney with whatever useful
information he can offer, and most importantly, learning from what has happened to live a
completely different life style in the future.

I beg your honor to look at the fact that unlike other criminals who did not have legit companies,
took out much much larger sums of money, and did not use the funds for the intended purpose,
Steven has done with the money what he said he would from the beginning - keep people
working, lenders paid, and move things forward during the very difficult times we have recently
been through. Thank you for your time your honor.

Fred Wohlfarth
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 20 of 21 Page ID #:345

January 27, 2021

Honorable Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the Central District of California
350 West 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Judge Blumenfeld:

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you some details regarding the life and experiences of my
younger brother, Steven R. Goldstein. I understand that Steven has plead guilty to a felony due to his
misuse of a federal loan program designed for payroll protection amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite
Steven’s lack of judgement regarding this loan, I believe that his life circumstance provides insight to his
regretful decision. Also, Steven has demonstrated strong character and the ability to perform good
deeds throughout his life. Further, I believe Steven recognizes his mistake, is truly remorseful, and has
learned and grown from this experience. Thus, I hope the court will consider leniency for Steven.

Steven was born into a difficult circumstance as his parents had a deeply challenged and abusive
relationship. Steven was also born with a learning disability which impacted his ability to succeed
academically. Steven repeated the 1st grade and continued to struggle throughout school. Steven’s Dad
died suddenly when Steven was just 13 years old. Steven was largely raised by his Mother, who has had
extensive relationship issues, and set a tone for the household lacking wisdom and common sense.
When Steven was 12 years old his Grandma, who he was very close to, was brutally attacked and raped.
This affected Steven tremendously. Three years later that Grandma died. She had never been the same
since her attack. When Steven was 19 years old his other Grandma died. During Steven’s teenage years
he lost his Father and both Grandmothers. He never met his Grandfathers.

Regarding Steven’s good deeds, he is a devoted son to his aging Mother. Steven has gone grocery
shopping weekly for his Mother (73) since the pandemic began, so she can safely shelter in place.
Steven is the primary caregiver for his Mother, arranging her medical care and visiting her daily during
two major recent medical operations. Steven’s Mother had total knee replacement surgeries in 2017
and 2019, leaving her in great need of his daily presence, including administrative and emotional
support over the course of several months. Steven has also been a very mature and responsible uncle
to my two children, ages 11 and 13. Steven has hosted them for weekend visits, offering site seeing
tours of Los Angeles, including taking them took them to Disneyland several years ago. Steven has
always been a positive influence on my kids.

Steven’s regretful decision to misuse a federal loan program has impacted him greatly and changed his
outlook on life. Steven is remorseful and has grown and changed from this experience. When the
pandemic arrived, Steven was leveraged financially and not prepared for an economic slowdown in the
real estate market. He decided rashly to falsify payroll protection loan applications rather than lose
properties and fail financially. Steven went along with his business partner’s bad idea and he deeply
Case 2:20-cr-00597-SB Document 48 Filed 05/05/21 Page 21 of 21 Page ID #:346

regrets that. Steven knows that he was wrong and that he should have filed for bankruptcy instead.
However, had Steven declared bankruptcy, over $500,000 in labor payments would not have been made
to contractors and many employees would have lost income during an acutely financially challenging
time. Had Steven received better guidance during his formative years, perhaps he would have exercised
better judgement. Nevertheless, Steven has learned his lesson and is remorseful. He is ready to start a
new chapter in his life where he will never make a mistake like this again. Given all the circumstances
mentioned here, I hope the court will consider leniency for Steven Goldstein.

Sincerely,

David M. Goldstein
P.O Box 10240
Zephyr Cove, Nevada 89448

File and source

File: 48.pdf
Size: 1,800,854 bytes
SHA-256: 0f7173be8e2e2aa04fbe1120b463b720abb683a5f60572b18370e41a79ebbb41
Our copy: 48.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com