United States v. Snipes
| Decision Date | 25 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION ELH-19-0034,Civil ELH-20-3441 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DENISE WHITE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
This Memorandum Opinion resolves several motions filed by defendant Denise White. The motions are rooted in defendant's convictions in 2019 for the offenses of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and aggravated identify theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
On August 28, 2019, White entered a plea of guilty to the crimes of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. ECF 69. She is currently serving a sentence of 96 months of imprisonment dating from April 3, 2019. ECF 108 (Judgment). At sentencing the Court also ordered restitution in the sum of $543,163.42 jointly and severally with codefendant John O'Day. Id. at 5-6.
White submitted a pro se motion for compassionate release in May of 2020. ECF 114. By Memorandum (ECF 130) and Order (ECF 131) of October 30, 2020, I denied that motion, without prejudice because White had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
White, pro se, renewed her motion for compassionate release (ECF 140), supported by an exhibit. ECF 140-1. Thereafter, through appointed counsel, White filed a supplement to the motion (ECF 160), supported by several exhibits. ECF 160-1 to ECF 160-4. I shall refer to ECF 140 and ECF 160 collectively as the “Motion.” The government opposes the Motion (ECF 163), supported by several exhibits. ECF 163-1 to ECF 163-4. White has replied. ECF 166.
In addition, White has filed a pro se motion for post conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF 135. Initially, she alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, on two grounds. Id. at 4, 5. In particular, she complained that her lawyer failed to address “factual inadequecies in the governments [sic] loss calculation ....”, which impacted “the sentencing range,” in violation of the “6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment[s].” Id. at 4. Further, she complained that her attorney “failed to consult” with her about an appeal. Id. at 5. However, White subsequently moved to withdraw those grounds for relief. ECF 154. Instead, she seeks a “complete forensic audit account pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692(g) [sic][.]” Id.
I shall refer to ECF 135 and ECF 154 collectively as the “Restitution Motion.” The government opposes the Restitution Motion (ECF 175), supported by an exhibit. ECF 175-1. White has replied. ECF 177.
No hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny the Motion, without prejudice, and I shall deny the Restitution Motion.
On April 10, 2019, White and two codefendants were charged in a fourteen count Superseding Indictment in connection with a bank fraud conspiracy scheme. ECF 22. In particular, defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One); bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Counts Seven through Thirteen); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (Count Fourteen).
Pursuant to a Plea Agreement (ECF 70), White entered a plea of guilty on August 28, 2019, to Counts Thirteen and Fourteen of the Superseding Indictment. ECF 69. She also agreed to pay restitution, not to exceed $552,192, jointly and severally with O'Day. Id. ¶ 11.
The Plea Agreement contains a lengthy Stipulation of Facts. ECF 70 at 11-14. It provides, in part, that White was “appointed and sworn a notary public by the Superior Court of Georgia for Fulton County for a term beginning in January 2015 and expiring in January 2019.” Id. at 11. During that time period, White engaged in various fraud schemes, often involving the use of aliases and “the fabrication of documents,” several of which contained “fake notary public stamps and forged signatures.”
Between January 2017 and January 2018, White knowingly and intentionally participated in schemes to defraud at least six federally insured financial institutions and several individuals to obtain money owned by or under the control of the victim financial institutions. Among other things, in collaboration with O'Day, a resident of Maryland, White submitted and secured approval for a series of fraudulent auto loan applications. In connection with these schemes, White used false names, including “Lisa Young” and “Lisa White.” Id.
Specifically, White and her coconspirators submitted at least fifteen fraudulent applications for auto loans to the victim financial institutions, falsely identifying O'Day as the seller of various motor vehicles, which were falsely listed as collateral. At least twelve of the fraudulent applications were successful and resulted in the disbursement of loan checks totaling approximately $553,192. Id.
White and O'Day also used personal identifying information belonging to at least three individuals (including their names, dates of birth, and social security numbers) in fraudulent auto loan applications, without their permission. Id. at 13. Additionally, between 2017 and 2019, White sent and received emails in which she procured, produced, and distributed copies of fake social security cards, driver's licenses, bank statements, earning statements, IRS Forms W-2, utility bills, home loan preapproval letters, insurance documents, and correspondence. ECF 70 at 14.
By statute, Count Thirteen carries a maximum penalty of thirty years of imprisonment. Id. ¶ 3. Count Fourteen carries a mandatory term of imprisonment of two years, consecutive to any sentence imposed as to Count Thirteen. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1344; 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.
In the Plea Agreement (ECF 70), with respect to Count Thirteen, the parties agreed to a base offense level of 7 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G” or “Guidelines”), as well as the following enhancements: 14 levels because the loss exceeded $550,000 but did not exceed $1,500,000; 4 levels because the offense involved five or more victims; and 2 levels because the offense involved the possession of device-making equipment. Id. ¶ 6. The parties also contemplated a three-level deduction for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. As a result, the Plea Agreement contemplated a final offense level of 24 for Count Thirteen. Id. ¶ 6(f). The calculations in the Presentence Report (“PSR”) are consistent with the Plea Agreement. See ECF 83, ¶¶ 36-46.
Sentencing was held on November 15, 2019. At the time of sentencing, White was 32 years old. Id. at 2. She stood five feet, eight inches tall and weighed 363 pounds. Id. ¶ 68. The PSR also detailed various health conditions of the defendant, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Id.
The PSR reflected that White had seven prior adult criminal convictions in Georgia, of which five scored points. In particular, in 2005, at the age of 17, White was convicted of eleven counts of financial transaction card fraud. Id. ¶ 52. In August 2011, White was convicted of first-degree forgery for crimes she committed in 2008. Id. ¶ 53. A week later, White was convicted for crimes she committed in 2010, which included financial transaction card fraud, giving false information to law enforcement, and several counts of identity theft fraud. ECF 83, ¶ 54. In 2013, White was again convicted for identity theft fraud. Id. ¶ 55. And, in 2016, White was convicted of financial transaction fraud for a third time for crimes she committed in 2015. Id. ¶ 56.
White's criminal history yielded a subtotal criminal history score of 11. Two points were added because, at the time the instant offenses were committed, White was on probation. Id. ¶ 58. Thus, as calculated by the PSR, White had a total criminal history score of 13 points, yielding a criminal history category of VI. Id. ¶ 59. However, at sentencing, the Court granted a downward departure to a criminal history category of V. ECF 119 (Sentencing Transcript) at 21.
With a final offense level of 24 and a criminal history category of VI, the Guidelines for Count Thirteen called for a period of incarceration ranging from 100 to 125 months. But, with a criminal history category of V, the defendant's Guidelines range was 92 to 115 months. And, as noted, Count Fourteen required mandatory a term of 24 months, consecutive to Count Thirteen. ECF 83, ¶ 76. Thus, with a criminal history category of VI, the total Guidelines range called for a period of incarceration between 124 and 149 months. And, with a criminal history category of VI, the range was 116 to 139 months of imprisonment.
The Court imposed a sentence of 72 months of incarceration for Count Thirteen, which was well below the reduced Guidelines range. And, as required, the Court sentenced White to a consecutive term of 24 months as to Count Fourteen. This yielded a total term of 96 months of incarceration, followed by five years of supervised release. ECF 108. In addition, consistent with the Plea Agreement, the Court ordered restitution in the amount of $543,163.42, jointly and severally with codefendant O'Day. Id. at 5-6.
Of import here, the Judgment specified, id. at 6 (emphasis added):
If the entire amount of criminal monetary penalties is not paid prior to the commencement of supervision, the balance shall be paid: on a nominal payment schedule of $100.00 per month during the term of supervision, to commence sixty (60) days upon release from imprisonment. However, the U.S. probation officer may recommend a modification to adjust the payment schedule if the defendant's financial circumstances warrant an adjustment. The defendant is to pay interest on the restitution amount. It is also recommended that the defendant participate in the Bureau of...
To continue reading
Request your trial