USA v. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
DARNEL DAVIS,
Defendant.
--------------------------------- -----X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Jndge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
24-CR-246 (WFK)
On July 9, 2025, Defendant waived indictment and pied guilty to a two-count Superseding
Information, charging him with: (1) Misuse of Government Seals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1017
("Count One"); and (2) Conspiracy to Steal Government Funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371
("Count Two"). Plea Agreement ,r 1, ECF No. 35. The Court now sentences Defendant and
provides a complete statement of reasons, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), of those factors set
forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant is sentenced
to: twenty-one (21) months' imprisonment; two years' supervised release with the standard
conditions of supervision, excepting the mandatory drug-testing provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3563(a)(5) and 3583(d); a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of $16,763.28, as set forth
in the Order of Forfeiture; restitution in the amount of $13,449.56, as agreed to by the parties on
the record at sentencing; and a $200.00 mandatory special assessment.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Misuse of Government Seals
Beginning in June 2015, Defendant worked as an employee of an international airline
(the "Airline") at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York. Sealed
Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ,r 4. At the same time, Defendant served as a soldier
in the United States Army Reserve based in Staten Island, New York. Id On October 16, 2019,
Defendant notified the Airline he had been ordered to report for active-duty training with the
Army Reserve from February 20, 2020, to March 28, 2021. Id. ,r 5. Defendant's last known day
working for the Airline in person was January 26, 2020. Id.
From March 24, 2021, until his suspension on June 6, 2023, Defendant engaged in a
scheme to defraud the Airline by submitting fictitious military orders purporting to extend his
1
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

active-duty training. See id. ,r,r 5-13. On March 24, 2021, Defendant provided the Airline his
first fake military order purporting to extend his military leave to September 2, 2021. Id. ,r 6.
On September 2, 2021, Defendant provided the Airline a second fake military order purporting to
extend his military leave to October 15, 2021. Id. ,r 7. On October 17, 2021, Defendant
provided the Airline a third fake military order purporting to extend his military leave to March
1, 2022. Id. ,r 8. On Febrnary 28, 2022, Defendant provided the Airline a fourth fake military
order purporting to extend his military leave to September 15, 2022. Id. ,r 9. On September 13,
2022, Defendant provided the Airline a fifth fake military order purporting to extend his military
leave to May 2, 2023. Id. ,r 10. And on April 30, 2023, Defendant provided the Airline a sixth
fake military order purporting to extend his military leave to December 2, 2023. Id. ,r 11.
These fictitious orders enabled Defendant to maintain his employment with the Airline
and to continue receiving employee benefits. Id. ,r 12. Defendant used his employee benefits to
obtain free or discounted flight rates for himself and others, resulting in a loss to the Airline of
nearly $3,000.00. Sealed Addendum to the PSR ("Addendum to PSR") at 1, ECF No. 50.
Defendant himself travelled on nearly 250 flights operated by the Airline at these employee
exclusive discounted rates. PSR ,r 13.
B. Conspiracy to Steal Government Funds
In addition to the foregoing, between June 2022 and March 2023, Defendant, together
with others, participated in a scheme to steal checks issued by the United States Treasmy and
intended for delive1y in the Eastern District of New York. Id. ,r,r 14-15. Defendant and his co
conspirator cashed, or attempted to cash, at least ten Treasmy checks, the aggregate value of
which was approximately $48,477.61. Id. ,r 16. To cash these checks, Defendant and his co
conspirator travelled to multiple branches of a check-cashing business in Colorado and
2
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Washington, including boarding a flight operated by the Airline to return from Seattle,
Washington, to Queens,New York. Id. ,r,r 15, 20. Defendant and his co-conspirator presented to
the check-cashing business fake New York State driver's licenses featuring the real names and
addresses of the checks' intended recipients but including photographs of Defendant or his co
conspirator. Id. ,r 15. Although the individual victims were reimbursed so as not to incur any
personal losses, the illegal check-cashing scheme resulted in actual losses to the check-cashing
business or its bank of$17,103.64. Addendum to PSR at 1.
C. Procedural History
On May 17, 2024, Defendant was arrested. PSR ,r 24. On June 11, 2024, a United States
grand jury sitting in the Eastern District ofNew York returned an Indictment charging Defendant
with six counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Indictment, ECF No. 9.
On July 9, 2025, Defendant waived indictment and pled guilty to a two-count
Superseding Information, charging him with: (1) Misuse of Government Seals, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1017 ("Count One"); and (2) Conspiracy to Steal Government Funds, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371 ("Count Two"). On July 18, 2025, consistent with Defendant's plea agreement, the
Court ordered a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of$16,763.28. Order of Forfeiture,
ECFNo. 40; see also Plea Agreement ,r 6, ECFNo. 35.
II. LEGALSTANDARD
Congress set forth the procedures for imposing a sentence in a criminal case in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553. Together with 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
operate as the "starting point and the initial benchmark" for a court evaluating a criminal
sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). If and when a district court chooses to
impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing Guidelines range, the court "shall state in open court
3
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and ... the specific reason for the
imposition of a sentence different from that described" in the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c)(2). The court must also "state[] with specificity" its reasons for so departing "in a
statement of reasons form." Id. The court's statement ofreasons "shall be a simple, fact-specific
statement explaining why the guidelines range did not account for a specific factor or factors
under§ 3553(a)." United States v. Davis, 08-CR-0332, 2010 WL 1221709, at* I (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 29, 2010) (Weinstein, J.) (internal citation omitted).
When determining the appropriate sentence, the comi must consider seven different
factors:(!) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the
kinds of sentence and the sentence range established by the Guidelines; (5) any pe1iinent policy
statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among similar defendants found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a). The Court
now addresses each factor in turn.
III. ANALYSIS
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and
Characteristics of Defendant
The first Section 3553(a) factor requires the Comito evaluate "the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(l).
1. Family and Personal Background
Defendant was born on July 2, 1990, in Brooklyn, New York. PSR ,i 53. Defendant's
parents separated when Defendant was two or three years old. Id ,i 55. Defendant's father is a
4
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

retired superintendent and electrician in his seventies; he lives in Brooklyn and is in good health.
Id ,i 53. Although Defendant has a good relationship with his father, his father is unaware of the
instant offense. Id Defendant's mother is sixty years old and receives social security disability
income. Id. She lives in Queens, New York, and is in relatively good health, having underwent
a kidney transplant approximately two decades ago. Id. Defendant has a close relationship with
his mother, who is aware of the instant offense and supportive of him. Id
Defendant grew up in Brooklyn and was raised primarily by his mother and stepfather,
who is a retired truck driver. Id ,i 55. Like his father, Defendant's stepfather is unaware of the
instant offense. Id Defendant reports having a good childhood: his basic needs were met, and
he did not experience any physical abuse, emotional abuse, or substance abuse at home. Id.
Defendant grew up with two maternal half-brothers and remains close to both. Id. ,i,i 55-56.
Defendant has been in a long-term relationship with his current romantic pminer, with
whom he shares a young son. Id. ,i 56. Defendant's romantic partner has three children from a
prior relationship; Defendant played a role in raising his partner's children and has a good
relationship with each of them. Id. Defendant's romantic pminer is aware of the instant offense
and supportive of him. Id.
2. Educational and Employment History
In 2008, Defendant graduated from Queens Vocational Technical High School in Long
Island City, New York. Id ,i 67. In 2024, Defendant attended virtual classes at South College in
Knoxville, Tennessee, and completed two to three semesters before disenrolling due to financial
aid issues. Id. Defendant is currently attending the American Academy McAllister Institute in
New York, New York, and majoring in mortuaiy science. Upon graduating, Defendant plans to
5
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

work in a funeral home, aspiring to own and operate his own funeral home one day. Id.; see also
Sealed Def. Sent'g Mem. at 5, ECF No. 48.
In 2013, Defendant joined the U.S. Army, achieving the rank of Sergeant and receiving
the following awards: Army Achievement Medal, Army Reserve Component Achievement
Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Te!Torism Expeditionmy Medal, Global
Wm· on Te1Torism Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and Armed Forces Reserve Medal. Id.
'if 77. From February 2020 to March 2021, Defendant was deployed to Kuwait as a mortuary
specialist, preparing the bodies of fallen soldiers for their burials at home. Def. Sent' g Mem. at
4. Apart from his militmy service, Defendant has worked various jobs, including as an EMT, a
city mortumy technician, a dietmy assistant, an independent contractor, and an airport ramp
agent. Id. ,r,r 69-77.
3. Prior Convictions
Defendant has two prior convictions for fraud-related offenses. On January 17, 2023,
Defendant was sentenced by a Pennsylvania state court to one year of probation for committing
access device fraud. Id. ,r 45. On January 16, 2024, Defendant was sentenced by a California
state court to one year of probation for identity theft. Id. ,r 46. These convictions generate a
criminal history score of two, resulting in a criminal history category of II. Id. 'if 47.
4. Physical and Mental Health
Defendant suffers from scoliosis and plantar fasciitis. Id. ,r 60. In 2004, he underwent an
appendectomy. Id. ,r 61. In 2023, Defendant was diagnosed by the United States Army with
post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he is prescribed trazadone, and for which he also
received mental health treatment from December 2024 to February 2025. Id. ,r 63. In 2024, he
underwent a thyroidectomy. Id. ,r 61.
6
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5. Substance Abuse
Defendant only consumes alcohol socially and denies any history of drug use. Id. ,i,i 65-
66. Probation recommends excusing Defendant from the mandatory drug-testing provisions of
18 U.S,C, §§ 3563(a)(5) and 3583(d). Sealed Prob. Sent'g Rec. at 3, ECF No. 42-1.
6. Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The Court's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Part I.
B. The Need for the Sentence Imposed
The second Section 3553(a) factor instructs the Court to consider "the need for the
sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
The Court's sentence recognizes the seriousness of Defendant's offense, which involved
creating fake documents bearing the seal of the United States Army to fraudulently extend his
military leave and to maintain access to his employee benefits. With these benefits, Defendant
travelled for free or at discounted rates on nearly 250 flights to various destinations. In some of
these destinations, Defendant cashed or attempted to cash stolen Treasury checks intended for
victims whose identities Defendant also stole. See supra Part I. The Court's sentence will deter
others from engaging in similar acts and justly punish Defendant for his crimes, The Court's
sentence is "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to comply with the purposes set forth in
this factor. 18 U.S.C, § 3553(a).
7
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
The third Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to detail "the kinds of sentences
available" for Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3).
Defendant pied guilty to Misuse of Government Seals, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1017,
and to Conspiracy to Steal Government Funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Plea Agreement
,r 1. For each count, he faces a statutory maximum term of five years' imprisonment and no
minimum term. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1017. He also faces a statutory maximum term of
three years' supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). If he violates a condition of
supervision, he may be sentenced to up to two years' imprisonment without credit for pre-release
imprisonment or time previously served on post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b) and
(e). Additionally, for each count, Defendant is eligible for between one- and five-years'
probation. 18 U.S.C. § 356l(c)(l). Unless extraordinary circumstances exist, one of the
following must be imposed as a condition of probation: a fine, restitution, or community service.
18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(2).
As to monetary sanctions, Defendant faces a maximum fine of $250,000.00 for each
count. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b). He owes a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of$16,763.28,
as set forth in his plea agreement and in the Order of Forfeiture. See supra Part I. Finally, the
Court is required to impose a mandatory special assessment of$100.00 per count, for a total of
$200.00 in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for
Defendant's Offense
The fomih Section 3553(a) factor requires the Comito discuss "the kinds of sentence and
the sentencing range established for ... [t]he applicable category of offense committed by the
applicable category of defendant as set fo1ih in the guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A).
8
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

Defendant pied guilty to Count One (Misuse of Government Seals) and Co1mt Two
(Conspiracy to Steal Government Funds) of the Superseding Infonnation. PSR ,r 1. Under
U.S.S.G. §3Dl.2(d), these counts are grouped because "the offense level [of each] is determined
largely on the basis of the total amount of harm or loss." Because the applicable Guideline for
Count One is U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l and the applicable Guideline for Count Two is U.S.S.G.
§2Xl.1-which directs the Court to U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l-the applicable Guideline for the grouped
counts is U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l. The ultimate offense level corresponds to the aggregate hann of the
grouped conduct. U.S.S.G. §3Dl.3(b).
Applying U.S.S.G. §2Bl.1, Defendant has a base offense level of six because neither
Count One nor Count Two cmTies a statutory maximum term of 20 or more years' imprisonment.
U.S.S.G. §2B I. I (a). Six offense levels are added because Defendant's conduct resulted in losses
greater than $40,000.00 but less than $95,000.00. U.S.S.G. §2B 1.1 (b)(I )(D). Two offense
levels are added because Defendant's conduct involved ten or more victims. U.S.S.G.
§2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i). Two more offense levels are added because Defendant's conduct involved
the production of an "authentication feature" and "the possession of 5 or more means of
identification that unlawfully were produced from, or obtained by the use of, another means of
identification." U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l(b)(l l)(B)(ii) and (C)(ii). Three offense levels are subtracted
because Defendant timely accepted responsibility. U.S.S.G. §3El.l(a)-(b). These adjustments
result in a total offense level of 13.
A total offense level of 13 and a criminal history category of II results in a Guidelines
range of 15-21 months' imprisonment. U.S.S.G. §5A. Probation recommends a bottom-of-the
Guidelines sentence of 15 months' imprisonment; two yem·s' supervised release; and a $200.00
mandatory special assessment. Sealed Prob. Sent'g Rec. at I, ECF No. 174-1.
9
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

The Government recommends a top-of-the-Guidelines sentence of21 months'
imprisonment and restitution in the amount of$13,449.56. Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 1, 8-9, ECF
No. 49. Although the Government recognizes Defendant's "prior military service, including his
deployment to Kuwait as a mortuary specialist, as well as the mental and physical injuries he
incurred from these experiences," it considers "this no excuse for taking advantage of his
position in the militaiy and cashing checks that did not belong to him." Id at 8.
Defense counsel recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of three years' probation,
including six months' home confinement and restitution. Def. Sent'g Mem. at 1, 7. Defense
counsel argues the "applicable fraud guideline, U.S.S.G. §2Bl.1, is empirically unfounded and
routinely generates advisory sentencing ranges that exceed what is necessaiy to punish a
defendant." Id. at 2. Defense counsel further argues that, since becoming a parent, Defendant is
"dealing with his past traumas and new responsibilities in a more productive way[,]. ..
[including] start[ing] therapy for his PTSD, enroll[ing] in school, work[ing] at a nursing home,
and embrac[ing] his responsibilities as a new father." Id. at 4-5, 7. Defense counsel submits
letters of support from Defendant's romantic patiner, mother, and various family, friends,
coworkers, and fellow soldiers. See Exs. to Def. Sent' g Mem., ECF No. 48-1.
The Court appreciates the sentencing arguments raised by all parties and has thoroughly
considered each in turn.
E. Pertinent Policy Statement(s) of the Sentencing Commission
The fifth Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "any pe1iinent policy
statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5). The parties have
not drawn the Cami's attention to ai1y pertinent policy statements. Finding none on its own, the
Cami proceeds to the next Section 3553(a) factor.
10
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

F. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
The sixth Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to consider "the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found
guilty ofsimilar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). For the reasons stated in this Memorandum
and Order, and considering the other Section 3553(a) factors, Defendant's sentence avoids
unwarranted sentence disparities.
G. The Need to Provide Restitution
The seventh and final Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to touch upon "the need
to provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). Restitution is
mandatmy in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. As to Count One, the Government states
the Airline has declined to file a financial affidavit requesting restitution. Gov'! Sent' g Mem. at
8. As to Count Two, the Government states the check-cashing business has filed a financial
affidavit specifying losses in the amount of$13,449.56. Id Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5),
the Court reserves its right to hold an evidentiary hearing within ninety (90) days of this
sentencing to determine the specific amounts owed to Defendant's victims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court sentences Defendant to: twenty-one (21)
months' imprisonment; two years' supervised release with the standard conditions of
supervision, excepting the mandato1y drug-testing provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(a)(5) and
3583(d); a forfeiture money judgment in the amount of$16,763.28, as set forth in the Order of
Forfeiture; restitution in the amount of$13,449.56, as agreed to by the parties on the record at
sentencing; and a $200.00 mandatory special assessment. This sentence is sufficient but not
11
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of Section 3553(a)(2). The Comt does not
impose a fine considering Defendant's apparent inability to pay.
The Comt expressly adopts the factual findings of the Sealed Presentence Investigation
Repo1t and Addendum thereto, as conected herein, to the extent those findings are not
inconsistent with this opinion.
Dated: December 10, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
12
SO ORDERED.
HON. WILLIAM F. k.iJ:w:r!II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE
s/WFK
Case 1:24-cr-00246-WFK Document 51 Filed 12/10/25 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>