Government's Position re Sentencing — United States v. Bonifacio Jastilana Marinas (Document 31)
Summary
Government's Combined (1) Concurrence in the Findings of the Presentence Report; and (2) Position re Sentencing for Bonifacio Jastilana Marinas, filed January 5, 2022 as Document 31 in No. CR 20-587-FMO, with a hearing date of Jan. 13, 2022. The government says he stole over $500,000 from California in less than four months, through fraudulent unemployment insurance claims under the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance provision of the CARES Act, and rejects his request for a sentence without custody. It asks for 33 months, the low end of the 33-41 month range, followed by three years of supervised release, and restitution of $516,244 to the Employment Development Department.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Government's Position re Sentencing — United States v. Bonifacio Jastilana Marinas (Document 31).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-c-d-cal-no-2-20-cr-00587-dkt-31-c-d-cal-74e978b0d5/
, SHA-256 7b61c7875d19e003ad65c1d186739299a339f64da4e1946b8c8d47d3f7587d72.Full text
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:182
1 TRACY L. WILKISON
United States Attorney
2 SCOTT M. GARRINGER
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
RANEE A. KATZENSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 187111)
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Major Frauds Section
5 1100 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
6 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-2432
7 Facsimile: (213) 894-6269
E-mail: ranee.katzenstein@usdoj.gov
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 20-587-FMO
12
Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S COMBINED
13 (1) CONCURRENCE IN THE FINDINGS
v. OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT; AND
14 (2) POSITION RE SENTENCING
BONIFACIO JASTILANA MARINAS,
15 Hearing Date: Jan. 13, 2022
Defendant. Hearing Time: 3:00 p.m.
16 Location: Courtroom of the
Hon. Fernando M.
17 Olguin
18
19 Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel
20 of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
21 California and Assistant United States Attorney Ranee A. Katzenstein,
22 hereby files its Combined (1) Concurrence in the Findings of the
23 Presentence Report; and (2) Position re Sentencing (“Sentencing
24 Position”).
25 This Sentencing Position is based upon the attached memorandum
26 of points and authorities, the files and records in this case, and
27 such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit.
28
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:183
1 Dated: January 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
2 TRACY L. WILKISON
United States Attorney
3
SCOTT M. GARRINGER
4 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
5
6 /s/Ranee A. Katzenstein
RANEE A. KATZENSTEIN
7 Assistant United States Attorney
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:184
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 In less than four months, Bonifacio Jastilana Marinas
4 (“defendant”) stole over $500,000 from California – money that was
5 meant for state residents who were truly in need because they had
6 lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike those needy
7 persons, defendant is a college-educated professional who lives in a
8 large home with a pool (and in which he may hold an interest through
9 his wife and/or a trust), who receives financial support from his
10 family and who “appears [to] ha[ve] undisclosed financial resources
from which his family pays the household mortgage and bills, as well
11
as [an] undisclosed interest in a California corporation.” (Dkt. No.
12
25 (Presentence Report (“PSR”)) ¶¶ 61, 84-85.)
13
Although he stole over half a million dollars of the public’s
14
money, defendant asks this Court for a sentence so lenient that it
15
does not include any custody. (Dkt. No.30 (Defendant’s Sentencing
16
Memorandum) at 4, 9.) Defendant bases this request on his
17
explanation for his crime. He claims he engaged in his fraud scheme
18
not because of greed but because he feared the economic consequences
19
that might flow from the COVID crisis and wanted to be able to
20
support his family. (Dkt. No. 30 at 3.) Defendant’s effort to
21
justify his crime is ironic because the money he stole was intended
22
for families that were actually suffering from hardships caused by
23
the pandemic, which his family was not. At a time when communities
24
needed to look out for one another as we all faced a national crisis,
25
defendant put his own interests before those of anyone else,
26
including people far more needy than he was, and took for himself –
27
through criminal acts – money that was desperately needed by others.
28
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:185
1 Defendant says he was not motivated by greed but, at the very least,
2 even his own explanation shows that he acted out of selfishness.
3 Defendant’s crime was serious. The public counts on the Courts
4 to help deter such crimes by imposing significant consequences on
5 people who commit them. The Court should do so in this case. The
6 government respectfully submits that a 33-month sentence, which is
7 the low end of the sentencing guidelines range to which the parties
8 stipulated in the plea agreement and is the sentence recommended by
9 the Probation Officer, appropriately balances the aggravating and
10 mitigating factors in this case.
11
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant admitted the following facts, among others, in his
12
written plea agreement and under oath in open court at the hearing on
13
his change of plea:
14
Defendant filed and caused the filing with California's
15
Employment Development Department (“EDD”) of fraudulent
16
unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefit claims that falsely
17
asserted the named claimants were self-employed real estate
18
agents who had been negatively affected by the COVID-19
19
pandemic, thereby triggering eligibility for UI benefits under
20
the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) provision of the
21
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES
22
Act"). The UI claims submitted in furtherance of defendant’s
23
scheme falsely reported to EDD that the named claimants resided
24
and worked as real estate agents in Los Angeles County. To the
25
contrary, and as defendant then well knew, many of the persons
26
named as the claimants had no residential history in Los Angeles
27
County or, indeed, anywhere in the State of California, but
28
2
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:186
1 rather resided in Saipan or the Philippines; had no employment
2 history in Los Angeles County or anywhere in the State of
3 California; and were not registered with California as real
4 estate agents. By falsely asserting that the claimants worked
5 in the State of California, defendant falsely represented that
6 the named claimants were entitled to UI benefits administered by
7 EDD when, as defendant then new, they were not.
8 As a result of the fraudulent UI benefit claims that
9 defendant filed and caused to be filed, the EDD authorized Bank
10 of America (“BofA”) to issue Electronic Bill Payment (“EBP
cards”) in the names of the named claimants. To ensure that he
11
received the UI benefits, defendant listed and caused to be
12
listed on the fraudulent claim applications his home address as
13
the address for each of the named claimants. Defendant knew
14
that, by doing so, defendant would cause BofA to mail the EBP
15
cards issued to the named claimants to defendant's home
16
address.
17
After he received the EPB cards issued as a result of the
18
fraudulent UI benefits claims that he submitted and caused to be
19
submitted to EDD, defendant used the cards and caused the cards
20
to be used to withdraw the UI benefits funds that were provided
21
based on the fraudulent applications.
22
Through this scheme, defendant caused approximately 85
23
fraudulent PUA claims to be filed with EDD resulting in losses
24
to EDD and the United States Treasury of at least $516,244.
25
(CR 6 (Plea Agreement (Exhibit B: Statement of Facts); see also PSR
26
¶¶ 10-23.)
27
28
3
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:187
1 III. CONCURRENCE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT
2 The government concurs in the findings of the Presentence Report
3 prepared by the Probation Office in this case and disclosed on May
4 13, 2021. (Dkt. No. 25.)
5 IV. GOVERNMENT’S POSITION RE SENTENCING
6 As explained in the following discussion, the government’s
7 recommendation that defendant be sentenced to 33 months in custody is
8 based on an evaluation of the advisory sentencing guidelines and the
9 other § 3553(a) factors.
10 A. Advisory Sentencing Guidelines
Defendant and the government stipulated in the plea agreement
11
that the following advisory sentencing guidelines apply:
12
Base Offense Level: 7 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)
13
Specific Offense +12 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G)
14
Characteristics
15 Loss greater than $250,000
but less than $550,000
16
Unauthorized use of means of +2 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)
17 ID to obtain other means of
ID and/or possession of means
18 of ID that were unlawfully
produced by use of another
19 means of ID
20 Offense involves conduct +2 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(12)
described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040
21
Acceptance of Responsibility -3 U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), (b)
22
TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL 20
23
24
(Dkt. No. 6 at ¶ 13.)
25
Accordingly, the parties stipulated that defendant’s total
26
offense level is 20. (Id.) The Probation Officer agrees with this
27
calculation. (PSR ¶¶ 30-43.) The parties agreed not to seek the
28
4
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:188
1 imposition of any other specific offense characteristics (CR 6
2 ¶ 13.), and the Probation Officer agrees that no other adjustments
3 apply (see PSR ¶¶ 36-46).
4 B. Analysis of the § 3553(a) Factors
5 The factors to be considered when imposing sentence, as set
6 forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), include:
7 (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
8 and characteristics of the defendant;
9 (2) The need for the sentence imposed –
10 (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
11
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
12
[and]
13
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the
14
defendant . . .
15
(3) The kinds of sentences available;
16
(4) [the applicable sentencing guidelines];
17
(5) [the applicable sentencing guidelines policy statement];
18
(6) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
19
defendants who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
20
(7) The need to provide restitution to the victims of the
21
offense.
22
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
23
Factor 4 (the applicable sentencing guidelines) was discussed
24
above. The remaining § 3553(a) factors are discussed below.
25
1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
26
Defendant perpetrated a scheme to defraud the state of
27
California of monies that were intended to be used to help persons
28
5
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:189
1 who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. The scheme
2 also exploited for criminal purposes the mechanisms put in place by
3 EDD to help unemployed workers more easily apply for these benefits –
4 for example, on-line applications and rapid processing of
5 applications. Because these mechanisms make it easy to obtain UI
6 benefits fraudulently, and make it hard to determine who has actually
7 committed the fraud, imposing a sentence that will deter others from
8 perpetrating similar crimes is especially important in cases
9 involving UI benefits fraud.
10 2. History and Characteristics of Defendant
Defendant, 51, is a college graduate and a licensed real estate
11
agent/broker. (PSR ¶¶ 70-71.) He has been married for 25 years and
12
has three adult sons. (PSR ¶ 59.)
13
Defendant claims that he committed his offense because he wanted
14
to have money to spend on his family. (Dkt. No.30 at 4, 9.)
15
According to defendant, this is somehow not only “not greed” but — to
16
the contrary — is a mitigating factor. The Court should reject
17
defendant’s spin on his crime. Defendant’s motive in committing his
18
crime was no different than the motive of every person who commits a
19
financial fraud, namely, to take money that doesn’t belong to him and
20
use it as he chooses. 1 Far from being mitigating, defendant’s theft
21
of public money earmarked to help persons truly suffering from the
22
economic downturn caused by the COVID pandemic shows a selfishness
23
that is a significant aggravating factor.
24
25
26
1 Even defendant admits that “this is not an excuse for his
27
behavior, as many people were experiencing the same dire
28 circumstances . . . .” (Dkt No. 30 at 4.)
6
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:190
1 3. Goals of Sentencing
2 Defendant has accepted responsibility for his offense conduct.
3 Defendant did so early, although that was undoubtedly due to the
4 overwhelming nature of the evidence against him. Still, these facts
5 and defendant’s age and lack of any other criminal history suggest
6 that defendant presents a reduced risk of recidivism.
7 But addressing the risk of recidivism is only one of the goals
8 that Congress, through Section 3553(a)(2), has required this Court to
9 consider when determining the sentence to be imposed. In addition,
10 Section 3553(a)(2) requires the Court to consider the seriousness of
the offense, the need to promote respect for the law and provide just
11
punishment for the offense, and the need for general deterrence of
12
criminal conduct.
13
These additional factors support the imposition of a custodial
14
sentence in this case. As noted above, defendant’s offense was
15
serious, resulting in substantial financial harm to EDD and the
16
United States Treasury. More significantly, the need for general
17
deterrence is particularly pronounced in this case to discourage
18
persons from fraudulently applying for UI benefits. The incentive to
19
engage in UI benefits fraud has increased since March 2020, when
20
programs were enacted that expanded eligibility for UI benefits to
21
address the economic harms caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
22
Deterrence depends on a strong message from the justice system that
23
exploiting these expanded programs by cheating state unemployment
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:191
1 agencies out of the monies set aside to help persons truly in need
2 will result in a significant prison sentence. 2
3 C. Government’s Sentencing Recommendation
4 Defendant’s post-acceptance advisory guideline offense level is
5 20. The fact that he has no prior criminal history is already taken
6 into account by his being in Criminal History Category I. See
7 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(2)(A) p.s. (“A departure below the lower limit of
8 the applicable guideline range for Criminal History Category I is
9 prohibited.”) (addressing “Standards for Downward Departure” based on
10 “over-represent[ation] of the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal
history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other
11
crimes”). Accordingly, defendant’s advisory sentencing guideline
12
range is 33-41 months.
13
The government submits that a sentence at the low end of the
14
advisory sentencing range will appropriately balance the mitigating
15
and aggravating factors discussed above. 3 In compliance with its
16
obligations under the plea agreement, and in accord with the
17
recommendation of the Probation Officer, the government recommends
18
19
20
2 Judge Snyder recently highlighted the seriousness of frauds
21
causing losses to EDD and the need to deter such crimes when she
imposed sentence on three defendants who, like defendant Marinas,
22
pleaded guilty to mail fraud arising from a scheme to submit false UI
benefits claims. See United States v. Bon et al., CR 19-403-CAS. The
23 Bon defendants’ scheme caused losses ($104,570) that were a small
fraction of the loss ($516,244) caused by defendant Marinas; each of
24 the Bon defendants received only a small portion of that reduced
amount; and two of the Bon defendants had no criminal history.
25 Nonetheless, because of the seriousness of the offense, on November
15, 2021, Judge Snyder sentenced each of the Bon defendants to a year
26 and a day in custody.
3 The Probation Officer “has not identified any factors that
27
would warrant a recommendation for a variance outside the advisory
28 guideline system.” (PSR ¶ 104.)
8
Case 2:20-cr-00587-FMO Document 31 Filed 01/05/22 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:192
1 that defendant be sentenced to 33 months, the low end of applicable
2 guidelines range.
3 V. RESTITUTION
4 The government concurs in the Probation Office’s finding that
5 restitution is mandatory in this case and defendant should be ordered
6 to pay restitution in the amount of $516,244 to EDD. (PSR ¶¶ 100-
7 102.)
8 VI. CONCLUSION
9 For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests
10 that this Court:
• Find that defendant’s post-acceptance advisory sentencing
11
guidelines offense level is 20;
12
• Sentence defendant to 33 months in custody, the low end of the
13
applicable post-acceptance guidelines range, to be followed by three
14
years of supervised release; and
15
• Order that defendant pay restitution in the amount of $516,244
16
to EDD.
17
Dated: January 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
18
TRACY L. WILKISON
19 United States Attorney
20 SCOTT M. GARRINGER
Assistant United States Attorney
21 Chief, Criminal Division
22
23 /s/Ranee A. Katzenstein
RANEE A. KATZENSTEIN
24 Assistant United States Attorney
25 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
26
27
28
9
File and source
- File
- 31.pdf
- Size
- 56,721 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7b61c7875d19e003ad65c1d186739299a339f64da4e1946b8c8d47d3f7587d72
- Our copy
- 31.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.