Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Christnel Orisca (Document 42, filed March 4, 2026)

Summary

This is the Government's Sentencing Memorandum filed 03/04/26 in the District of Massachusetts in United States v. Christnel Orisca, Crim. No. 24-10378-JEK, signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Chao. It asks the Court to sentence Orisca at the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range (4 months), with 24 months of supervised release, restitution and forfeiture, as per the terms of the Plea Agreement. It states that the total offense level is 9 and the criminal history category is I, resulting in a range of 4 to 10 months' imprisonment. It states that he filed false unemployment benefit forms for two periods in 2020 and 2021, and a false PPP loan to collect another $20,000, in a theft of approximately $54,700.

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

Full text

        Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK          Document 42         Filed 03/04/26      Page 1 of 5




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                              )
                                                      )        Crim. No. 24-10378-JEK
                v.                                    )
                                                      )
CHRISTNEL ORISCA,                                     )
                               Defendant.             )

                     GOVERNMENT=S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney,

requests that the Court sentence defendant, Christnel Orisca (hereinafter, “defendant” or “Orisca”)

at the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range (4 months), 24 months of supervised release,

restitution, and forfeiture (see Gov’t Mot. for Forfeiture, Dkt. No. 41), as per the terms of the Plea

Agreement between the parties (Dkt. No. 30).

       I.       Advisory Sentencing Guidelines

       The government’s position with respect to the Sentencing Guidelines, which is set forth on

page 2 of the Plea Agreement, is that the defendant’s total “offense level” under the Guidelines is

9:

        (i)     in accordance with USSG § 2B1.1(a)(1), defendant’s base offense level is 7,
                because the offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment
                of 20 years or more;

        (ii)    in accordance with USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D), defendant’s offense level is increased
                by 6 levels, because the loss amount is more than $40,000 but less than $85,000;

        (iii)   in accordance with USSG § 3E1.1, defendant’s offense level decreased by 2 levels
                because the defendant has accepted responsibility for defendant’s crime; and

        (iv)    in accordance with USSG § 4C1.1, defendant’s base level is decreased by 2 levels
                because the defendant meets the criteria for a zero-point offender.

                                                  1
        Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK         Document 42        Filed 03/04/26      Page 2 of 5




       Accordingly, the total offense level is 9. Mr. Orisca’s criminal history category is I, which

results in a GSR of 4 to 10 months’ imprisonment. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) at ¶

91.

       II.     Factual Background

        “Based on statistical sampling and imputation techniques, GAO estimates that the amount

of fraud in unemployment insurance (UI) programs during the COVID-19 pandemic was likely

between $100 billion and $135 billion.” (U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, GAO-23-106696,

Sept. 12, 2023.) To be sure, Mr. Orisca’s theft of pandemic unemployment funds and pandemic-

related economic recovery loans could be characterized as a drop in the proverbial bucket. But the

sheer ubiquity of pandemic unemployment fraud (GAO estimates approximately 1 in every 10

claims were fraudulent, see id.) explains how the fraud numbers reached such astronomical figures

in the first place. Every fraudster that stole during the pandemic played their part, including the

defendant.

       Indeed, even in Mr. Orisca’s case (theft of approximately $54,700) it required the

defendant’s dedication to that role. For the periods of May 2020 to October 2020 and January

2021 to September 2021, Mr. Orisca filed false unemployment benefit forms, making false

certifications to the Department of Unemployment Assistance, week after week after week. PSR

¶¶ 21-26. And despite collecting this pandemic aid while gainfully employed, Mr. Orisca doubled

down on committing fraud by submitting all the paperwork necessary to complete a false PPP loan

to collect another $20,000 in pandemic aid. PSR ¶¶ 27-33.




                                                2
        Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK          Document 42       Filed 03/04/26      Page 3 of 5




        Consistent with the fraud loss numbers, pandemic thieves have included defendants from

all walks of life. In this courthouse, defendants have included a former state senator (U.S. v. Dean

Tran, 23-cr-10299), a sober-home operator (U.S. v. Daniel Cleggett, 23-cr-10138), and a

community activist (U.S. v. Monica Cannon-Grant, 22-cr-10057), among the approximately

dozens of other defendants federally charged with committing pandemic fraud in the District.

       Yet, still, Mr. Orisca remains an unusual candidate among these convicted fraudsters. The

defendant overcame challenges from an early age, learning to live without his parents from the age

of 12 after his parents emigrated to the U.S. from Haiti and left Mr. Orisca behind with his older

siblings for a few years. PSR ¶ 59. Upon arriving in America in October 2014, Mr. Orisca had to

learn a new language, a new culture, and how to navigate getting an education, all while

consistently working at a young age. See PSR ¶ 60. Records from Mr. Orisca’s prior employment

at the Security Company showed that, from approximately September 2015 to 2018, Mr. Orisca

worked as an hourly employee at a combination of jobs, including at Star Market as a cashier, at

Boston College as a cafeteria server, at Fenway Park as a concession worker, and at a restaurant

in Watertown, working as a busser.

       And while it is disappointing that Mr. Orisca began committing fraud so soon after

becoming an American citizen (January 2020, PSR ¶ 59), the defendant’s age when committing

the instant crimes also cannot be ignored. The defendant was approximately 20 to 21 years of age

when he submitted fraudulent documents to the Department of Unemployment Assistance and the

SBA. The PPP loan fraud was accomplished in no small part with Mr. Orisca’s older brother’s

apparent influence and direction. PSR ¶ 27-32. And instead of positive role models to steer Mr.

Orisca away from this criminal conduct, another family member participated in the PPP loan fraud


                                                 3
        Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK          Document 42         Filed 03/04/26     Page 4 of 5




as well. Id. Even with the setback of this criminal case, however, it is encouraging to see that the

defendant has gone back to doing what he has always been doing – being gainfully employed.

PSR ¶ 78.

       III.    18 U.S.C. § 3553 Factors

       The defendant’s admission of his conduct has already resulted in the loss of his job and the

premature termination of his budding career in law enforcement.

       Although Mr. Orisca committed a serious offense, since being contacted by the federal

justice system, he has admitted his conduct and he has accepted responsibility for his conduct.

Under these circumstances, and given Mr. Orisca’s own personal history and characteristics,

specific deterrence will be served by a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines. General

deterrence will also be served by this sentence, given the permanence of a federal conviction.

       The government believes that a sentence at the low end of the Guidelines, supervised

release, and restitution and forfeiture as per the Plea Agreement is thus sufficient but not greater

than necessary to acknowledge the seriousness of the offense, justly punish the defendant, protect

the public, and promote respect for the law. Accordingly, the government respectfully requests

that the Court impose at the low end of the Guidelines sentencing range (4 months), 24 months of

supervised release, restitution, and forfeiture, as per the terms of the Plea Agreement.

                                                              Respectfully submitted,


                                                              LEAH B. FOLEY
                                                              United States Attorney

                                                      By:     /s/ Dustin Chao
                                                              DUSTIN CHAO
                                                              Assistant U.S. Attorney


                                                 4
        Case 1:24-cr-10378-JEK        Document 42        Filed 03/04/26     Page 5 of 5




                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I, Dustin Chao, certify that I caused a copy of this memorandum to be served electronically
via ECF on defense counsel and by e-mail to U.S. Probation.


                                                           /s/ Dustin Chao
                                                           DUSTIN CHAO
                                                           Assistant U.S. Attorney



Date: March 4, 2026




                                               5


File and source

File

42.pdf

Size

156,783 bytes

SHA-256

aaf4e516bc77607f26940d31a60ed5cb371dbc240e601702e42c9a634d3123d3

Our copy

42.pdf

Original

No public link identified.