IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) CR. NO. 2:21-CR-49-MHT-JTA
)
WILLIAM LEE HOLLADAY, III, )
WILLIAM RICHARD CARTER, JR., )
GREGORY EARL CORKREN, )
DAVID WEBB TUTT, and )
THOMAS MICHAEL SISK )

JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING THE STATUS OF RESTITUTION

NEGOTIATIONS

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Alice S. LaCour, Attorney for

the United States acting under authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 515, along with the attorneys

representing Defendants William Lee Holladay, III; William Richard Carter, Jr.; Gregory Earl

Corkren; David Webb Tutt; and Thomas Michael Sisk and, pursuant to the Court’s order of April

25, 2022, see Doc. 326, submit this joint statement regarding the status of restitution

negotiations. The parties, with the exception of Carter, have reached an agreement as to

restitution, as explained below.

On May 6, 2022, the parties, as well as the United States Probation Office (USPO),

received from the Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) a written request for

restitution. That request is attached to this filing. See Ex. (ALSDE Restitution Request). 1 The

ALSDE seeks restitution in the amount of $5,731,897.20. Id. This number reflects the amount

of Foundation Program payments improperly paid to Athens City Schools (ACS) as a result of

the fraudulent scheme executed by the defendants. Id. In the request, the ALSDE allocates these

payments between the two relevant school years. For the 2016-2017 school year, the ALSDE

1
As far as the parties are aware, that request constitutes the only restitution request received in the case.
caused ACS to be paid $3,142,696.80 for what were in fact private school students. For the next

school year, the ALSDE caused ACS to be paid $2,589,200.40 for private school students. Id.

No party, except for possibly Carter, disputes these calculations. Moreover, no party,

except for possibly Carter, contests the ALSDE’s status as a victim and entitlement under the

Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) to recover from the defendants monies paid to ACS

for the education of students who were in fact full-time private school students. See 18 U.S.C. §

3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). The only remaining issue, then, is the respective liabilities of each

defendant.

As a threshold matter, the parties, except for possibly Carter, agree that Defendant Sisk is

not liable for any portion of the amount owed to the ALSDE. During the scheme, Sisk was the

superintendent of the Limestone County School System (LCS). Although Sisk caused LCS to

fraudulently report to the ALSDE the number of students enrolled in the system, the ALSDE did

not make any payments to LCS based on these false reports. Moreover, the government did not

obtain any evidence indicating that Sisk played any role in facilitating ACS’s submission of false

information to the ALSDE. Because LCS’s false submissions did not result in loss and Sisk did

not cause ACS to send false information, Sisk should not be liable for any amount of restitution.

As for the remaining defendants—Holladay, Carter, Corkren, and Tutt—the parties, other

than Carter, agree that each defendant should be liable for a portion of the restitution judgment.

In circumstances such as this one, when “more than 1 defendant has contributed to the loss of a

victim, the court may make each defendant liable for payment of the full amount of restitution or

may apportion liability among the defendants to reflect the level of contribution to the victim’s

loss and economic circumstances of each defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h). The parties, other

2
than Carter, agree that, due to each defendant’s varying culpability, the Court should apportion

liability.

In apportioning liability, it is important to consider that only Holladay, Carter, and

Corkren participated in the submission of false information during the 2016-2017 school year.

Tutt did not become involved until later. As such, the parties, other than Carter, agree that only

those three defendants should be ordered to repay the restitution amount resulting from that

school year. The parties, other than Carter, agree that based on each defendant’s culpability:

(1) Holladay should be liable for 50 percent of the 2016-2017 amount, totaling $1,571,348.40;

(2) Carter should be liable for 25 percent of the 2016-2017 amount, totaling $785,674.20; and

(3) Corkren should be liable for 25 percent of the 2016-2017 amount, totaling $785,674.20.

As for the 2017-2018 school year, the parties, other than Carter, agree that all four

defendants—Holladay, Carter, Corkren, and Tutt—should be ordered to repay some portion of

the restitution amount. The parties, other than Carter, agree that based on each defendant’s

culpability: (1) Holladay should be liable for 50 percent of the 2017-2018 amount, totaling

$1,294,600.20; (2) Carter should be liable for 20 percent of the 2017-2018 amount, totaling

$517,840.08; (3) Corkren should be liable for 20 percent of the 2017-2018 amount, totaling

$517,840.08; and (4) Tutt should be liable for 10 percent of the 2017-2018 amount, totaling

$258,920.04.

Based on these amounts, the parties, other than Carter, agree that each defendant should

be ordered to pay restitution to the ALSDE in the following amounts:

DEFENDANT 2016-2017 2016-2017 2017-2018 2017-2018 TOTAL

LIABILITY AMOUNT LIABILITY AMOUNT RESTITUTION
AMOUNT

Holladay 50 percent $1,571,348.40 50 percent $1,294,600.20 $2,865,948.60

3
 Carter 25 percent $785,674.20 20 percent $517,840.08 $1,303,514.28

Corkren 25 percent $785,674.20 20 percent $517,840.08 $1,303,514.28

Tutt 0 percent N/A 10 percent $258,920.04 $258,920.04

TOTAL $5,731,897.20

As noted throughout this filing, Carter has not yet agreed to the above. The government

understands that this is because he has not yet received a draft copy of his presentence

investigation report (PSR) and considers it imprudent to enter into any agreement on restitution

without having first reviewed a draft PSR. The government is hopeful that, once Carter receives

a draft PSR, he will join in the above agreement.

In any event, some or all of the parties will execute a written restitution agreement signed

by each attorney and each defendant and will submit that signed agreement to the Court before

July 12, 2022—the date of the restitution hearing. See Doc. 326.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of May, 2022.

ALICE S. LACOUR
ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES
ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY
CONFERRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 515

/s/Jonathan S. Ross
Jonathan S. Ross
Assistant United States Attorney
131 Clayton Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Phone: (334) 223-7280
Fax: (334) 223-7135
E-mail: jonathan.ross@usdoj.gov

4
/s/Brett J. Talley
Brett J. Talley
Assistant United States Attorney
131 Clayton Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Phone: (334) 223-7280
Fax: (334) 223-7135
E-mail: brett.talley@usdoj.gov

/s/William M. Espy
William Martin Espy
Counsel for Defendant William Lee
Holladay, III
Melton Espy & Williams, PC
PO Drawer 5130
Montgomery, AL 36103-5130
334-263-6621
Fax: 334-262-7252
Email: wespy@mewlegal.com

/s/Maxwell H. Pulliam
Maxwell H. Pulliam (PUL001)
Counsel for Defendant, Gregory Earl
Corkren
OF COUNSEL:
MAXWELL H. PULLIAM, LLC
301 North 19th Street
The Kress Building, Suite 519
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 314-0620
(205) 314-0621 (fax)
max@mpulliam.com

/s/Jason Neff
Jason Neff
Counsel for Defendant David Webb Tutt

/s/Russell Crumbley
Russell Crumbley
Counsel for Defendant Thomas Michael
Sisk

/s/Alan S. Diamond
Alan S. Diamond
Funk, Szachacz & Diamond, LLC
3962 W Eau Gallie Blvd, Suite B
Melbourne, Florida 32934
Counsel for Defendant William Richard
Carter, Jr.
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) CR. NO. 2:21-CR-49-MHT-JTA
)
WILLIAM LEE HOLLADAY, III, )
WILLIAM RICHARD CARTER, JR., )
GREGORY EARL CORKREN, )
DAVID WEBB TUTT, and )
THOMAS MICHAEL SISK )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 13, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of

the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of

record.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Jonathan S. Ross
Jonathan S. Ross
Assistant United States Attorney
131 Clayton Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36104
Phone: (334) 223-7280
Fax: (334) 223-7135
E-mail: jonathan.ross@usdoj.gov

6
From: Penhale Ashley
To: Brandy Brendle; Ross, Jonathan (USAALM)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ALSDE Restitution Calculation
Date: Friday, May 6, 2022 3:34:39 PM

Brandy and Jonathan,

 
Thank you for your patience as we worked through the figures and calculations below. First, there is
no restitution owed for the “Current Units” funds Athens improperly received based on its increased
enrollment of private school students.
ALSDE withheld all Current Units funding from Athens in both
2018 and 2019 to recoup the Current Unit funds Athens improperly received.
 
Second, there is no restitution owed for the Foundation Program funds or Current Unit funds paid to
Limestone County based on its ADM/enrollment that improperly included private school students.
ALSDE withheld or reduced both Foundation
Program funds and Current Unit funds from Limestone
County in FY2017 and FY 2018 to recoup the funds Limestone County improperly received. In
addition, ALSDE withheld or reduced payments to Conecuh County as well to recoup the funds it
improperly received.
 
All of that to say, the only restitution owed to ALSDE is the Foundation Program funds improperly
received by Athens City Schools. Based on our calculations, the total amount of restitution owed is
$5,731,897. We arrived at that figure as I have outlined below. First, we took the ADM figure
reported by Athens in October of 2016 and subtracted the 894 private school students who should
not have been included
in the count. The result is what we referred to below as the “corrected
ADM”—what the ADM figure would have been had Athens not improperly included private school
students. We then took the corrected ADM and multiplied it by the per pupil amount of funding
for
each year to calculate the amount of Foundation Program funding that Athens was legitimately
entitled to receive. 
 
Below that, we took the amount of Foundation Program funding that Athens actually received
(taking into account any funds that ALSDE withheld) and subtracted from that the amount of
Foundation Program funding that Athens was legitimately
entitled to receive to calculate the
amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received each year.
 
As an aside, in calculating the FY18 figure, we did not use the number of private school students
EdOp invoiced Athens City Schools for because we believe some of those students were discovered
and removed before the close of the ADM period.
We used 573, which is the figure ALSDE was able
to verify and which has since been confirmed by Athens City Schools.  Also, we did not include a
calculation of accrued interest. I am open to suggestions on how to calculate accrued interest.
 
FY17 Foundation Program:
5,107.35 ACS reported ADM in 10/16
894 private school students that should not have been included in the ADM count
= 4,213.35 corrected ADM for ACS
 
4,213.35 (corrected ADM)   X   $5,032 (per pupil amount of funding) = $21,201,577.20  (amount of
Foundation Program funding that ACS was actually entitled to receive in FY17)
 
$24,344,274 Amount of Foundation Program funding ACS received for FY17
$21,201,577.20 Amount of Foundation Program funding that ACS was entitled to receive for
FY17
= $3,142,696.8 Amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received by ACS in
FY17
 
FY18 Foundation Program:
4,517.9 ACS Reported ADM in 10/17
573 private school students that should not have been included in the ADM count
= 3,944.9 corrected ADM for ACS
 
3,944.9 (corrected ADM)  x  $5,084 (per pupil amount of funding)  = $20,055,871.60  (amount of
Foundation Program funding that ACS was actually entitled to receive in FY18)
 
$22,645,072 Amount of Foundation Program funding ACS received for FY18
$20,055,871.60 Amount of Foundation Program funding that ACS was entitled to receive for
FY18
= $2,589,200.4 Amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received by ACS in
FY18
 
 
$3,142,696.8  Amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received by ACS in FY17
+            $2,589,200.4  Amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received by ACS in FY18
= $5,731,897 Total Amount of Foundation Program funding improperly received by
ACS in FY17 and FY18
 
 
 
Should you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
 
Thanks,
 
Ashley
 
 
Ashley Penhale
Associate General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Alabama State Department of Education
Phone: 334-694-4699
 
This transmission, including any attachments thereof, may contain confidential  or legally privileged
information which is intended only for use by this Department or
the individual to whom the
transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, dissemination, copying or distribution of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be
a violation of law. If you
receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately. Further
distribution of this document is restricted and is not for public consumption and may not be released as
provided by law.