Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hannah

United States District Court, S.D. California

May 28, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALISON K. HANNAH (1), Defendant.

ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is the Petition alleging that the Defendant violated the conditions of her supervised release. (ECF No. 141).

BACKGROUND FACTS

On March 28, 2011, Defendant Alison Hannah entered pleas of guilty to the following six counts in the Indictment: Count 2 Bankruptcy Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 157(1); Count 3 Bank Fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 2; Count 4 Concealment of Assets and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(1) and 2; Counts 7 and 8 False Statement under Penalty of Perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 152(3) and 2; and Count 11 Fraudulent Transfer of Assets and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(7) and 2. In the Plea Agreement, Defendant Alison Hannah admitted that she "knowingly made up and participated in a scheme to defraud by filing for bankruptcy in order to (1) stop collection of a state court civil judgment against her, her husband, and Millhouse One, LLC and (2) fraudulently obtain money from Union Bank of California that was lawfully ordered to be used to satisfy the civil judgment." (ECF No. 93 at 4). Defendant admitted that the following fact was true and undisputed:

On or about March 24, 2005, Defendant went to the Temecula Branch of the Union Bank of California and presented a fraudulent document titled "Order on Voluntary Petition Chapter 7 - United States Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C. 362(a)" ("the Order"). Defendant falsely represented to Union Bank and its employees that the Order was a lawfully issued court order and demanded release of $60, 000 from the bank account in the name of Millhouse One, LLC, ....
Defendant's statement to Union Bank that the Order was a legitimate bankruptcy court order was material in that it had the natural tendency to influence and did influence Union Bank to part with its money.

Id. Defendant further admitted that she fraudulently concealed specific items in her bankruptcy filings and willfully transferred specific items to another party with the intent to defeat the bankruptcy laws. Id. at 4-5.

On October 3, 2011, the Court sentenced the Defendant to serve a term of imprisonment of 24 months and a three year term of supervised release subject to the standard conditions of supervision and a number of special conditions of supervision. (ECF No. 135). The Judgment ordered that the Defendant shall pay restitution in the amount of $32, 437.26 to the Union Bank "with the payment of any remaining balance to be made following the defendant's release from prison at the rate of $500.00 per month." Id. at 5. The Judgment further ordered Defendant to pay $600 in special penalty assessments.

Defendant was released from custody in April 2013 and began her term of supervised release.

On February 12, 2014, the Probation Officer submitted a Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision which alleged that Defendant violated three conditions of her supervised release in that Defendant 1) refused to make any restitution payments; 2) failed to maintain regular employment; and 3) reported to the probation officer she has an active Washington State contractor's license. (ECF No. 141).

On February 18, 2014, the Court ordered that a "no-bail bench warrant be issued based upon a finding of probable cause to bring the offender before the court to show cause why supervised release should not be revoked for the alleged violations." Id. at

8. A warrant for Defendant's arrest was issued the following day. (ECF No. 142).

On April 28, 2014, Defendant was arrested.

On April 29, 2014, Defendant appeared before the United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge found that there was probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed and ordered the Defendant held pending an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.