Sentencing Memorandum — USA v. Ulloa et al (Dkt. 142, S.D. Fla.)
Summary
A Sentencing Memorandum for Max Alberto Mera Ulloa in United States of America v. Max Alberto Mera Ulloa, Case No. 25-20178-CR-ARTAU, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket February 20, 2026 as Document 142 and signed by Assistant Federal Public Defender Leticia M. Olivera. It states that Mera Ulloa pled guilty on October 15, 2025 to wire fraud conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, notes a guideline range of 27 to 33 months, and asks for five years' probation. It cites pre-indictment cooperation including a January 31, 2025 meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office, possible immigration consequences, and a pledge of home sale proceeds, with approximately $824,189 of equity, toward forfeiture and restitution. It argues against disparity with the 22-month sentence it says co-defendant Lopez Carranza received.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Sentencing Memorandum — USA v. Ulloa et al (Dkt. 142, S.D. Fla.).”
Original at ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/sentencing-memorandum-usa-v-ulloa-et-al-dkt-142-s-d-fla-4b9954d8c1/
, SHA-256 22c7c3defbe43821ceddeb2bf05686c5ea4f7cf529bfb253511c8aff3c7ea282.Full text
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 1 of 13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 25-20178-CR-ARTAU
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAX ALBERTO MERA ULLOA,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Max Alberto Mera Ulloa, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits
this memorandum in connection with his sentencing on February 25, 2026. On
October 15, 2025, Mr. Mera pled guilty to wire fraud conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
Presentence Investigation Report, ECF No. 140 (PSR) ¶ 1. He admitted to working
with Guillermo Lopez Carranza, his co-defendant, to secure fraudulent government
loans during the COVID-19 pandemic for his own companies and then referred other
individuals to Lopez Carranza to do the same.
As set forth below, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warrant a significant
variance from the guideline range of 27 to 33 months, PSR ¶ 113, based on Mr. Mera’s
(i) unique family circumstances and the potential immigration consequences of his
offense, (ii) early cooperation with the government, (iv) agreement to pledge his home
to pay forfeiture and restitution, and (iv) to avoid unwarranted disparity with the 22-
month sentence given to Lopez Carranza, who played a much larger role in the
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 2 of 13
conspiracy, ECF No. 117. Together, these factors demonstrate that just punishment
can be achieved with a sentence of five years’ probation.
I. The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warrant a downward variance to
probation.
Section 3553(a) requires a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than
necessary” to satisfy specific sentencing goals, including just punishment, deterrence
of future criminal conduct, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and
provide restitution to any victims of the offense. See § 3553(a). In determining the
appropriate sentence, the Court must weigh several factors, including Mr. Mera’s
personal history and characteristics, the unique nature and circumstances of the
offense, and any mitigating factors that may exist.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed a federal judge’s ability to grant
a variance from the advisory guideline range based on the § 3553(a) factors. See, e.g.,
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886, 892 (2017). The Supreme Court has also made
clear that granting a variance does not require a showing of extraordinary or special
circumstances. To the contrary, “courts are entitled to vary from the . . . guidelines in
a mine-run case where there are no ‘particular circumstances’ that would otherwise
justify a variance from the guidelines’ sentencing range.” Spears v. United States, 555
U.S. 261, 267 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). This case, however, does present
several significant and unique factors that show just punishment can be achieved
with a sentence significantly below the advisory guideline range.
2
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 3 of 13
A. Mr. Mera’s status as a first offender, family circumstances, and
potential deportation warrant leniency.
Max Mera Ulloa is not a typical federal criminal defendant: he is an educated,
41-year-old father of four with another child on the way, who has spent his entire life
working hard to build a successful business and support his family. PSR ¶ 75. He has
no history of criminal conduct, substance abuse, or violence whatsoever. As set forth
in the attached letters from his family, friends, and business associate, Mr. Mera is a
fundamentally good person whose presence in the community clearly benefits those
around him. Exhibit A (Letters of Support). He has shown sincere remorse for his
offenses and done everything possible to mitigate the harm he has caused. Id. Mr.
Mera’s commitment to his family and making things right shows he understands the
seriousness of his crimes and will never find himself in this situation again.
Mr. Mera was born in Ecuador and lived there until he was 16 years old. PSR
¶ 79. He came to New Jersey for high school, graduated from college in New York,
and then returned to Ecuador to start a construction business. PSR ¶ 96. In 2016,
Mr. Mera returned to the United States as a legal permanent resident. He mounted
a successful business selling commercial and home appliances that at one point had
five locations. PSR ¶ 96. He has continued to operate this business while out on bond.
Mr. Mera, Rita Sofia, and his three daughters, currently reside in an apartment in
Key Biscayne that Mr. Mera purchased in 2022. PSR ¶ 79.
This case has upended every part of Mr. Mera’s life, he stands to lose his home,
his legal status, and the business he worked hard to build. These collateral
consequences underscore that a term of imprisonment is not necessary to ensure Mr.
3
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 4 of 13
Mera is adequately punished. It is also not necessary to protect the community or
deter Mr. Mera from committing further crimes. Even before his arrest, Mr. Mera
confessed his crimes and accepted responsibility for them. During the nine months
he has spent in the community on bond, he has been working and taking care of his
wife and children. Sending him to prison next week will leave his wife on her own to
care for three kids while pregnant without her primary source of financial support.
These extenuating circumstances, coupled with the myriad other ways Mr.
Mera has been and will be punished for his crimes, show his imprisonment is
unnecessary. Society would be far better served by allowing Mr. Mera to remain in
the community under strict supervision as a productive citizen taking care of his
minor children and pregnant wife.
B. Mr. Mera should be credited for his early cooperation.
On January 31, 2025, Mr. Mera met with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and Special
Agents from the Internal Revenue Service. 1 He gave a truthful and complete account
of his involvement in the instant offense.
Mr. Mera explained that he met Guillermo Lopez Carranza though work and
purchased about $30,000 worth of appliances from him. During the pandemic, Mr.
Mera fell behind on his payments to Lopez Carranza. That was when Lopez Carranza
suggested that he apply for government loans for small businesses. Lopez Carranza
offered to apply for the loans on Mr. Mera’s behalf for a 15% fee. Mr. Mera accepted
1 The facts in this section are derived from a summary of Mr. Mera’s proffer
interview provided by the Government in discovery. A copy of this report can be
furnished to the Court upon request.
4
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 5 of 13
and provided Lopez Carranza with his personal identifying information and
information regarding his businesses and bank accounts. Lopez then applied for a
loan on Mr. Mera’s behalf using fraudulent information.
During the meeting, Mr. Mera was shown documents regarding all the
fraudulent loans he was associated with. He admitted to having provided Lopez
Carranza with the information necessary to apply for the loans and sign them. Mr.
Mera explained that Lopez Carranza would fill out and submit the loan applications
and create the email addresses associated with the applications so that Lopez could
sign them himself. Lopez Carranza also decided what information to falsify to ensure
the loan was processed. In exchange, Lopez Carranza required Mr. Mera to pay him
15% of the loan proceeds in cash. Mr. Mera admitted that Lopez Carranza applied for
multiple fraudulent loans on behalf of his and his families’ businesses.
Thereafter, Mr. Mera began referring friends and associates to Lopez Carranza
for fraudulent loans. He explained to them that Lopez Carranza required a payment
of 15% of the loan proceeds as commission. Lopez allowed Mr. Mera to keep a portion
of his commission (2.5% of the loan proceeds) as a payment for referring him the
loans. Mr. Mera provided the government with a handwritten ledger with a list of the
loans he referred to Lopez Carranza.
On May 6, 2025, Lopez Carranza and Mendoza were arrested. Mr. Mera was
arrested on May 15, 2025 and released on bond, ECF No. 27.
Mr. Mera was represented by private counsel at the time of the pre-indictment
proffer interview and his arrest. See id. Consistent with his cooperation, Mr. Mera
5
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 6 of 13
agreed to plead guilty and was scheduled for a plea hearing on August 18, 2025. ECF
No. 46. Shortly before the hearing, Mr. Mera received a written plea agreement
requiring him to cooperate and agree “to plead guilty regardless of any immigration
consequences that his plea may entail, even if the consequence is the defendant’s
automatic removal from the United States.” According to Mr. Mera, he had not
previously been informed that he could lose his immigration status and be deported
because of this case.
Mr. Mera panicked after learning of his potential deportation and fired his
private counsel. Thereafter, he made the uncounseled decision to file several pro se
motions. See ECF Nos. 49–56. He was not aware that filing these motions was
inconsistent with his cooperation and might result in the government declining to file
a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion based on his cooperation. Judge Altman struck the motions
from the record without requiring the government to respond. ECF No. 59. Mr. Mera
was then given court-appointed counsel, ECF No. 64, and pled guilty after having the
opportunity to consult with the undersigned and immigration counsel, ECF No. 93.
The Court should reduce Mr. Mera’s sentence based on his pre-indictment
cooperation that led to the arrest and conviction of Lopez Carranza and Mendoza even
without a 5K1.1 motion. To be clear, Mr. Mera is not arguing that he should have
received a 5K1.1 motion from the government. He understands that he is not entitled
to a 5K1.1 motion as he did not agree to cooperate by way of a plea agreement. He
further understands that the government rescinded its offer of a cooperation plea
because of his uncounseled decision to file multiple pro se motions was inconsistent
6
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 7 of 13
with his cooperation.
The Court should nevertheless reduce Mr. Mera’s sentence based on his timely
and complete cooperation. The Eleventh Circuit has unequivocally stated that “a
judge basing a sentence under the considerations outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 may
take a defendant’s substantial assistance into account even if a prosecutor withdraws
(or does not file) a § 5K1.1 motion.” United States v. Barner, 572 F.3d 1239, 1250 (11th
Cir. 2009). Mr. Mera’s substantial assistance to the government’s investigation and
prosecution of his codefendants prior to his arrest merits a significant downward
variance. To deny him that would send the wrong message to other would-be
government cooperators: that their efforts to truthfully confess and try to assist the
government are futile without a 5K1.1 motion.
C. Mr. Mera has agreed to commit the proceeds from the sale of his
apartment towards forfeiture and restitution.
Mr. Mera’s agreement to commit the proceeds from the sale of his home
towards forfeiture and restitution is strong evidence of his remorse and rehabilitation
that warrants a significant variance. See ECF No. 141-1 (Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement).
In sentencing Mr. Mera, the Court must consider “the need to provide
restitution to any victims of the offense.” § 3553(a)(7). The Eleventh Circuit has
recognized that “extraordinary restitution, whether paid before or after adjudication
of guilt, may, in the unusual case, support a departure from the guidelines.” United
States v. Kim, 364 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). To determine whether a
restitution payment is extraordinary enough to warrant a lesser sentence, courts look
7
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 8 of 13
to several factors “such as the degree of voluntariness, the efforts to which a
defendant went to make restitution, the percentage of funds restored, the timing of
the restitution, and whether the defendant's motive demonstrates sincere remorse
and acceptance of responsibility.” Id. at 1244. All of these factors weigh in favor of a
significant variance here.
For one, Mr. Mera’s decision to pledge the proceeds from the sale of his home
towards forfeiture and restitution was completely voluntary. Undersigned counsel
advised the government of his interest in forfeiting the home and Mr. Mera readily
agreed to execute a stipulation and settlement agreement pledging the proceeds of
the sale of the property to the government. ECF No. 141. As set forth in the PSR, Mr.
Mera has approximately $824,189 of equity in the home. PSR ¶ 103. This amount is
more than twice the forfeiture order, ECF No. 135, and significantly higher than Mr.
Mera’s proceeds from the fraud.
Earlier this year, Mr. Mera filed for bankruptcy after falling significantly
behind on his mortgage payments and other debts. See 26-10280-RAM Max Alberto
Mera Ulloa (S.D.F.L. Bankruptcy Court). He is currently working and making
payments towards his apartment to avoid foreclosure and has agreed to sell his home.
He has advised the bankruptcy court and his assigned trustee of his agreement to
forfeit the proceeds of the sale. Id. at ECF No. 39. The Bankruptcy court has
scheduled a hearing on this matter on February 26, 2026. Id. at ECF No. 40.
Undersigned counsel has conferred with the assigned trustee to determine whether
Mr. Mera can proceed with the sale of the apartment and bankruptcy proceedings if
8
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 9 of 13
he is incarcerated. The uncertainty surrounding this issue provides further support
for allowing Mr. Mera to remain in the community to resolve his affairs.
D. A significant variance is required to avoid unwarranted disparity
with Guillermo Lopez Carranza’s 22-month sentence.
The downward variance and 22-month sentence received by Lopez Carranza,
Mr. Mera’s co-defendant, also warrants a significant variance here. Under §
3553(a)(6), the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” This
requires the Court to ensure that Mr. Mera’s sentence is reasonable considering the
sentence received by Lopez, a member of the same conspiracy.
As set forth in the PSR, Lopez Carranza played a much larger role in the
conspiracy. PSR ¶ 36. He was the “the leader/organizer of the scheme, and submitted
all of the loan applications from his home computer, while Mendoza and Mera Ulloa
acted as PPP loan brokers for their respective clients.” Id. “Lopez Carrazana
submitted the loan applications with falsified supporting documents that he created.”
PSR ¶ 37. Because Lopez Carranza was involved in a separate conspiracy with
Mendoza, his offense conduct was far more widespread, and his loss amount was
twice as high as $5,948,423 as Mr. Mera’s ($2,384,105). PSR ¶ 43.
At sentencing, the government recommended a sentence of 22 months after
filing a 5K1.1 motion on his behalf. Like Mr. Mera, Lopez Carranza met with the
government for a proffer. But unlike Mr. Mera, Lopez Carranza did not agree to
cooperate pre-indictment. He only agreed to cooperate and plead guilty after learning
of Mr. Mera’s meeting with the government and willingness to cooperate. As a result,
9
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 10 of 13
Mr. Mera’s cooperation at an early stage in the proceedings was far more valuable
than Lopez Carranza’s cooperation and showed a greater acceptance of responsibility.
Thus, Mr. Mera’s cooperation should result in a greater reduction than Lopez
Carranza’s who was the leader of the fraud, which went far beyond his dealings with
Mr. Mera. This, in addition to the other mitigating factors set forth herein, support a
sentence of probation, or, at a minimum, far below 22 months.
II. Just punishment can be achieved in this case with a sentence of
probation.
Federal statutes recognize the appropriateness of a probationary sentence for
first offenders like Mr. Mera. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(j) (directing that alternatives to
incarceration are generally appropriate for first offenders not convicted of a violent
or otherwise serious offense); 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a) (authorizing sentences of probation
unless the defendant was convicted of a Class A or B felony, probation was otherwise
precluded, or the defendant is sentenced at the same time to a term of imprisonment).
Furthermore, by setting the range of penalties for wire fraud from zero to twenty
years, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, Congress explicitly authorized sentences of probation for this
type of offense.
Although sentences of probation are rare in federal court, this case is atypical
for several reasons given Mr. Mera’s preindictment cooperation, the potential
immigration consequences of his offense, and pledge to forfeit hundreds of thousands
of dollars to the government. This is therefore the rare case where probation would
satisfy the purposes of punishment.
10
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 11 of 13
To be certain, probation “is not a ‘get-out-of-jail free card.’” See United States
v. Pyles, 272 F. App’x 258, 262 (4th Cir. 2008) (affirming sentence of 36 months’
probation for aiding and abetting the distribution of crack cocaine). The reality is that
while sentences of incarceration are “qualitatively more severe than probationary
sentences of equivalent terms,” a sentence of probation can be quite punitive. Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48-49 (2007). Probation is a severe punishment: it places
substantial restrictions on a person’s liberty; may require home detention,
community confinement, and community service; and places the person at risk of
imprisonment for a minor technical violation. Indeed, with a 60-month sentence of
probation, Mr. Mera will be under the supervision of this Court for far longer than
Lopez Carranza (22 months custody and 18 months supervised release) or Mendoza
(33 months custody and 12 months supervised release).
That, of course, depends on whether or for how long Mr. Mera is allowed to
remain in the Unites States. As a legal permanent resident, his conviction in this
matter subjects him to removal proceedings. PSR ¶ 80. If he is sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, he will likely be transferred to ICE custody at the end of his federal
sentence and remain there until an immigration judge determines whether he will
lose his legal permanent resident status and be deported.
Sentencing Mr. Mera is not just warranted by the § 3553(a) factors, but also
beneficial to the community. It provides sufficient punishment for his crimes, while
allowing him to remain in the community to take care of his family, sell his home to
pay forfeiture and restitution, and gives him an opportunity to continue working and
11
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 12 of 13
being productive while his immigration case is decided.
For all these reasons, we ask that the Court consider sentencing Mr. Mera to
a term of probation.
Respectfully submitted,
HECTOR DOPICO
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
By: /s/Leticia M. Olivera
Leticia M. Olivera
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Special A. No.: A5503215
150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 1700
Miami, Florida 33130
Tel: 305-530-7000
E-Mail Address: Leticia_olivera@fd.org
12
Case 1:25-cr-20178-EA Document 142 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/20/2026 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY certify that on February 20, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified
in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing
generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.
By: /s/ Leticia M. Olivera
13
File and source
- File
- 142-sentencing-memorandum-by-max-alberto-mera-ulloa.pdf
- Size
- 203,193 bytes
- SHA-256
- 22c7c3defbe43821ceddeb2bf05686c5ea4f7cf529bfb253511c8aff3c7ea282
- Original
- PACER (login required)