IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 17-04062-01-CR-C-SRB

BURT LOUIS BEARD,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through Timothy A. Garrison, the

United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, and respectfully submits this

sentencing memorandum in the above captioned matter, set for a sentencing hearing on January

22, 2018. For the reasons set forth below, the Government recommends that the Court sentence

the Defendant, Burt Louis Beard, to 33 months’ incarceration and three years’ supervised release.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2017, Beard pled guilty to a single-count Information, charging bank

fraud. In the written plea agreement, Beard admitted the following facts:

During the period between March 2008 and August 2014, BURT LOUIS BEARD
defrauded the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity of over $380,000. BEARD
was the volunteer treasurer during that time, and wrote himself in excess of 150
checks during that period. BEARD indicated that the checks to himself were for
reimbursement of personal loans to SAE for direct payment to venders by himself.
When asked for copies of his personal checks, BEARD supplied copies of checks
to fictitious vendors or existing vendors that did not have an account receivable for
that amount or during that period. In cases where BEARD supplied vendor invoices
for his reimbursements, vendors responded that the invoices were not theirs.

BEARD served as a volunteer treasurer for SAE from 2000 to 2014. During that
time, BEARD was responsible for all financial duties related to maintaining the
house, paying various vendors and collecting rent checks. SAE maintained a

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 1 of 7

checking account and mortgage at Landmark Bank. BEARD collected and
deposited rent, selected and paid all vendor invoices, made most of the decisions
about repair work on the house, and made recommendations to the SAE board about
borrowing money from Landmark Bank.

In the Fall of 2014, SAE elected a new slate of officers for the fraternity. During
the transition of financial responsibilities from BEARD to the new treasurer,
numerous red flags began to appear. BEARD would not grant the new treasurer
access to the SAE checking account. When pressed to give access to the accounts
and statements, BEARD opened a new account and transferred $50,000 from the
existing account to a new account that he had set up. The new treasurer gained
administrative rights to the old account after requesting access from Landmark
Bank. Upon review of the old account, the new treasurer noticed that BEARD had
written a number of checks to himself.

In September 2014, the new treasurer asked BEARD to forward the 2014 fiscal
year to date back up so he could generate a monthly profit and loss statement. In
November 2014, BEARD provided a packet of the fiscal year to date including
invoices, check stubs and canceled checks. BEARD had mailed vendor invoices
for these seven checks with the check stubs. The check and stubs indicated four
payments to J. Louis Crum. The new treasurer called this vendor to ask for the
information on billing to SAE for the period of the checks. The Crum SAE
customer reports indicated there were no actual Crum invoices for the checks
written.

After discovering this, SAE hired RGL Forensics, a forensic accounting company,
to investigate BEARD’s wrongdoing. RGL examined SAE’s bank statements and
check copies from 2008 forward. Through their investigation, RGL found that SAE
had issued checks payable to BEARD and his credit card company from March
2008 through June 30, 2014. The checks had no supporting documentation.
BEARD told RGL investigators that the money was repayment for loans he made
to SAE. BEARD was unable substantiate any loans to SAE.

BEARD provided canceled check copies in an attempt to prove he paid all of the
vendors that he received reimbursement for from SAE. The checks are dated from
June 2013 through June 2014 and total $115,886. BEARD did not provide the
actual canceled checks or personal bank statements, so SAE was unable to prove
whether they were actually cashed. RGL researched the vendors and was unable
to find most of them. The few it did find were out of state or did not sell products
or services SAE would have used.

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 7

RGL contacted Highland Supply Corporation in Highland, Illinois, and determined
that they sell items related to floristry. BEARD categorized Highland Supply
expenses as house and cleaning supplies. RGL contacted R&S Masonry LTD in
Kirksville, Missouri. R&S Masonry LTD informed RGL that they had never done
any work for SAE, and had not done any work in Columbia, Missouri. BEARD
listed personal checks payable to R&S Masonry in July 2013 and June 2014. J.
Louis Crum maintained SAE’s boiler, and provided an invoice history that was
inconsistent with the $21,079 that BEARD indicated he had paid. Ford Restaurant
supply was shown invoices that BEARD provided. Ford Restaurant supply
indicated that the invoice numbers on BEARD’s invoices were issued to other
customers for different amounts, and that BEARD’s invoices were forged. Finally,
RGL reviewed the Specialized Mechanical Services invoice of $6,750.55 that
BEARD claimed he paid with an SAE check on August 13, 2014. RGL spoke with
a Specialized Mechanical Services representative, who stated that the invoice
number related to another customer for service performed in 2015. The
representative confirmed the invoice was forged, and was able to point out the
differences.

Based on the documentation provided and reviewed, RGL calculated $380,502 as

the entire loss from March 2008 through September 2014. The calculated loss
consisted of $414,979 in checks issued to BEARD from March 2008 through
September 2014, less $34,477 in payments that BEARD issued to or on behalf of
SAE. The payments credited include a $22,033 check BEARD issued to SAE to
repay some of the CPM checks, a $7,089 check BEARD issued to an SAE vendor
in 2013 and a $5,355 deposit from BEARD’s account in October 2010 for which
there was no stated purpose.

RGL analysts spoke with BEARD, who stated that the reason for the large number
of SAE checks issued payable to BEARD was because, vendors did not trust that
SAE had the funds to pay them. BEARD stated he would pay vendors with
personal checks and then reimburse himself. He explained that SAE had lost its
charter at the University of Missouri, that money was extremely tight for SAE, and
that he frequently paid the mortgage payment/bank loan with personal checks.
BEARD claimed he was a sloppy bookkeeper, and did not keep track of the
amounts he paid on behalf of SAE.

After the private forensic evaluation was completed, the case was referred to the
FBI for criminal investigation. Through their investigation, BEARD’s personal
bank records were obtained, and it was verified that none of the checks BEARD
provided as proof of payment were ever cashed. FBI forensic analysts confirmed
3

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 7

 that the total loss was consistent with what RGL had found. BEARD was
interviewed by an FBI agent on December 1, 2016. During that interview, BEARD
maintained that the checks issued by SAE were for reimbursement for loans and
expenses he had paid out of his personal account. When confronted with the fact
that the checks BEARD provided to the new treasurer were never deposited and the
numbers did not match up with cleared checks written from his bank he stated, “I
haven’t done anything illegal to my knowledge.” BEARD also denied fabricating
invoices.

(D.E. 4 at 2-4, ¶ 3.) As of the date of this filing, the district court has not accepted the plea.

As set forth above, Beard executed a lengthy scheme over a period of several years to

defraud a college fraternity and embezzled almost $400,000.

The United States Probation Office calculated the Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

Base Offense Level: § 2B1.1 7

Specific Offense Characteristic: § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) +12
Specific Offense Characteristic: § 3B1.3 +2
Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice §3C1.1 +2
Acceptance of Responsibility: §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b) -3
Total Offense Level 20

Criminal History Level (12 points) I

Guidelines Range 33-41 months

An analysis of the § 3553(a) factors confirms that Beard should be sentenced to 33 months’

incarceration followed by three years’ supervised release in order to protect the public, promote

respect for the law, and deter Beard from continuing his criminal conduct.

II. DISCUSSION

Although the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), sentencing still begins with a properly calculated advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007); Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456,

2464-65 (2007); Booker, 543 U.S. at 245-46; United States v. Plaza, 471 F.3d 928, 930 (8th Cir.

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 7

2006); and United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.1(a). Next, the Court

must decide if a traditional departure under the Guidelines is appropriate, thus creating an advisory

Guidelines sentencing range. Plaza, 471 F.3d at 930; and USSG § 1B1.1(b). After calculating the

advisory Guidelines range, the Court must consider that range, along with all the factors listed in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in arriving at the final sentence. Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558,

564 (2007); Plaza, 471 F.3d at 930; and USSG § 1.1B1(c).

A. Application of the § 3553(a) Factors

Prior to imposing sentence, the Court is required to consider Beard’s history and

characteristics, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), whether a particular sentence is necessary to protect the

public from his further crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)(C), the nature and circumstances of Beard’s

offense of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), the type of sentence called for by statute and the

advisory Guidelines, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(3) and (a)(4), the need for the sentence to reflect the

seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the

offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), and the type of sentence needed to afford adequate deterrence

to criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B).

In this case, the Court should impose a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range to

protect the public and promote respect for the law. Upon consideration of Beard’s history and

characteristics and the nature and circumstances of his offenses, a sentence of 33 months’

incarceration and three years’ supervised release will also provide just punishment for his offenses.

1. Beard’s History and Characteristics

Beard has no criminal history. However, the current offense took place over at least seven

years, which was as far back of an inquiry as the bank records allowed.

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 7

 Additionally, Beard’s personal history and characteristics do not support any mitigating

factors.

2. The Nature and Circumstances of Beard’s Offense

Mr. Beard was in a unique position to carry out his scheme. Due to his long-term

relationship with the fraternity and treasurer position, Beard was able to take advantage of a non-

profit organization, which benefited University of Missouri students. Beard misrepresented the

fraternity’s financial status to board members in order to conceal his crime, and when his crimes

were discovered, he fabricated invoices in order to obstruct justice. Beard’s scheme was extensive,

resulted in almost $400,000 in loss to a non-profit organization and took advantage of alumni

benefactors as well as current students. This created a severe hardship on the organization, and a

33 month sentence is appropriate.

3. The Need to Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct

This Court has the authority to impose a sentence that specifically deters Beard from

continuing to engage in theft and committing other criminal violations. The Government believes

that a sentence of 33 months will deter Beard from embezzlement or theft in the future.

4. Balancing of All § 3553(a) Factors

On balance, after weighing the relevant § 3553(a) factors the Government recommends

that the Court impose a sentence of 33 months followed by three years’ supervised release.

B. Recommended Sentence for Monetary Penalties

1. Fine

In light of Beard’s limited financial resources, the Government recommends that the Court

waive imposition of a fine, so that any resources could go toward restitution to the victim.

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 6 of 7

 2. Special Assessment

The $100 Special Assessment is mandatory, and is due in full no later than the date of

sentencing.

III. CONCLUSION

The Government respectfully submits that a sentence of 33 months followed by three years’

supervised release constitutes a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve

justice. The Government requests that the Court impose this sentence irrespective of its Sentencing

Guidelines range determination in this case.

Respectfully submitted,

Timothy A. Garrison
United States Attorney

By /S/

Ashley S. Turner
Assistant United States Attorney
Missouri Bar No. 62314

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on January 11,

2018, to the CM-ECF system of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Missouri for electronic delivery to all counsel of record.

/S/
Ashley S. Turner
Assistant United States Attorney

Case 2:17-cr-04062-SRB Document 13 Filed 01/11/18 Page 7 of 7