MOTION FOR ORDER PROHIBITING DISSEMINATION OFPRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT CASE NO. 3:21-cr-22 (S4) - MMH-MCR
MOTION FOR ORDER PROHIBITING DISSEMINATION OFPRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT CASE NO. 3:21-cr-22 (S4) - MMH-MCR
United States Attorney, hereby notifies this Court that there is cause to believe that
defendant Hoover, via his wife, has transmitted a copy of his Presentence
Investigation Report (PSR) to certain YouTube personalities with the intention that
I. Factual Background
On August 1, 2023, the initial PSRs were disclosed in this case by the U.S.
Probation Office (Docs. 294, 295). The PSRs are sealed and intended only to be
available to the parties to the case and Court personnel. Each of the PSRs warns on
the third page that “[i]t is the policy of the federal judiciary and the Department of
without the consent of the sentencing judge.” Doc. 294 at 3; Doc. 295 at 3.
On August 3, 2023, at 8:23 pm, Hoover placed a recorded phone call to John
Crump, who operates the YouTube channel John Crump News. Hoover informed
Crump that he had received his PSR and proceeded to discuss his sentencing
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID 6290
potential upward departures. Crump informed Hoover that he had received many
inquiries about the sentencing, and asked if he could make a video about the
information Hoover had told him about the sentencing guidelines. Hoover said
“you can do whatever you want man.” Hoover stated that he did not believe he
was going to have his wife cover the PSR on his own channel (CRS Firearms).
Richard Hughes, who operates the YouTube channel FlyingRich. Hoover informed
Hughes of the sentencing guidelines recommendations in both his and Ervin’s PSRs.
Hughes asked Hoover “should I talk about this, or not talk about this?” Hoover
stated that it was “a little bit too close to home” for him, “so you and Crump can run
with this one.” Hoover indicated that he believed that Crump would be able to
obtain a copy of the PSR online. Hughes and Hoover continued to discuss
information in the PSR. Later, Hughes added Crump to the call. Hoover said that
Crump should obtain a copy of the PSR, or Hoover’s “girl” had a copy and could
send it to Crump. Crump stated that he would do a video on it the next day.
Hoover, Crump, and Hughes then discussed logistics for publishing the videos in
order to get the most views, and Hoover stated that he would have his wife send the
PSR to Hughes who could then send it to Crump. Hoover stated that his wife did
not have Ervin’s PSR, but she could “text you the rough ins and outs of what it’s
about.” Toward the end of the call, Hoover’s wife, Erica Hoover, joined the call.
Hoover told her “babe I need you to send my PSI to Rich cuz he’s going to cover the
2
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID 6291
story [unintelligible] cover direct because it’s a little too close to home and I don’t
want the prosecutor to try using it. So send my PSI to Rich – he’s going to cover the
story, they’re going to talk about the shit – let me call you right back.”
On August 3, 2023, at 9:01 pm, Hoover again called Hughes, who joined
Crump and Erica Hoover to the call. Hoover again discussed that he did not want
to discuss the PSR on his own channel, and he wanted Crump and Hughes to do it.
Crump stated he would give Erica Hoover a “heads up on some stories that are
coming out that’ll be, uh, big.” Hoover again stated he did not want the PSR
covered on his own channel “because the prosecutor’ll show it and be like, you know
– babe, I dunno babe.” Hoover indicated he wanted Crump and Hughes to have
this story due to all of the help that they have provided to him.
On August 3, 2023, at 9:04 pm, Hoover called his wife and told her to “get
them the PSI right away” and stated “they deserve this story” because Crump had set
up fundraisers for Hoover and Hughes had done “thousands of dollars worth of
work” for them. Erica Hoover stated she was unsure because she did not want
Hoover’s attorney to yell at her, and Hoover stated “for what? Just send them the –
if there is a problem, tell him to talk to me.” Erica Hoover asked “is that public
information?” and Hoover stated that it was, although it was not on PACER.
3
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID 6292
contained in the PSRs for Ervin and Hoover. 1 The United States has preserved
and Hughes, who confirmed that they had made videos about the PSR. Hughes
1
These videos prompted a deluge of inflammatory and threatening comments directed primarily to
the undersigned and also to this Court, including:
• “as long as there are no lethal consequences for that prosecutor, you can expect this to
happen again and again” and a reply to that comment reading “That ‘persecutor’ having to
deal with cancer is just the beginning of his [sic] karma. The whole matter is a travesty, and
the evil pricks are loading up on bad karma big time… and they deserve every bit of it.
Waiting for that ‘judge’ to get some bad news, too.”
• “Be a shame if prosecutor’s cancer was complimented with Lead Poisoning. God speed
suffering ends at terminal velocity.”
• “I would hate to have the Karma that the Prosecutor has earned for herself. Then again I
wouldn’t want her job, I enjoy sleeping at night.”
• “Some times cancer can be [a] good thing.” With a reply: “the body’s side reaction to cancer
treatment I would not wish on anyone….. but the likes of this EVIL prosecutor, an exception
is granted.”
• “’Prosecutor had to have cancer treatment.’ Couldn’t have happened to a more worthy girl.
[dabbing emoji] Hope it’s pancreatic.” And a reply “Nah God willing its upgraded to
terminal cancer” and another reply: “Hope it spreads.”
• A comment to the effect that arresting Hoover was done to send a message, and a reply
stating “Its [sic] a message that will get them killed.”
• “Court system is really only good at breaking up the family unit” and a reply reading
“Should’ve never gotten to that point. These men should’ve just started dropping cops.”
• “I’m glad the prosecutor isn’t happy. In fact I hope cancer is happily doing it’s [sic] work.”
• “He shouldn’t get any time at all. The judge and prosecutor should be locked up for their
obvious lack of a brain and being a danger to society.”
Several of these comments that were left on Crump’s video were “liked” by Crump.
4
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID 6293
stated that he had received the PSR from Erica Hoover, but he did not see it until
“Presentence reports are not public records but rather confidential reports to
the trial judge for use in his effort to arrive at a fair sentence.” United States v.
Martinello, 556 Fl.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1977). 2 There is a “general presumption
that courts will not grant third parties access to the presentence reports of other
individuals.” United States v. Huckaby, 43 F.3d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal
quotation and citation omitted). Additionally, the local rules of the Middle District
information that are contained in the PSR. Local Rule 3.11. Disclosure of the PSR
individuals who contribute to such reports to assist in the report’s creation.” Doc.
103 at 5 in United States v. Phillips, Case No. 3:18-cr-142-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla. Apr.
28, 2022).
As described above, the PSRs for both defendants contain warnings that it is
against the policy of the federal judiciary and the Department of Justice to
disseminate the PSR without the consent of the Court. Doc. 294 at 3; Doc. 295 at 3.
2
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit
adopted as binding precedent all the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the
close of business on September 30, 1981.
5
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6294
No such consent has been granted in this case. Moreover, the initial PSR that
calculations and statements of fact that routinely are amended before the sentencing
hearing via the process outlined in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and as
overseen by the probation officer – which process is generally not public. Finally,
the publication of non-final and non-public information about this case serves no
legitimate purpose and rather appears to be aimed at generating vitriol against the
undersigned and this Court with the intent to intimidate and obstruct these
proceedings while generating views and profits for Hoover, Crump, and Hughes.
CONCLUSION
reiterating that the PSRs are non-public documents and may not be disseminated
beyond court personnel, the defense teams, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and order
that any individuals who possess a copy of the PSR without authority (including
Crump, Hughes, and Erica Hoover) destroy it and confirm its destruction in writing,
6
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID 6295
and any other relief this Court deems necessary to protect the sentencing process in
this case.
Respectfully submitted,
ROGER B. HANDBERG
United States Attorney
7
Case 3:21-cr-00022-MMH-MCR Document 296 Filed 08/07/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID 6296
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 7, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with
the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of
Zachary Z. Zermay
Matthew LaRosiere
Counsel for defendant MATTHEW RAYMOND HOOVER