MEMORANDUM

Jana Ortiz respectfully asks this Court to impose a sentence of **12 months and one day in custody**, followed by supervised release with a realistic restitution condition. We do not dispute the correctly calculated advisory range of 24 to 30 months, and we do not minimize what Ms. Ortiz did.

**Acknowledgment of offense and harm**

For three years, Ms. Ortiz used her position as finance manager to approve 48 false vendor reimbursements totaling $180,000. She did not merely take advantage of an opportunity; she concealed it. In one email she directed a junior bookkeeper to code a transfer as “program supplies” while knowing the vendor account belonged to her. This was repeated, planned, and an abuse of trust. The harm was concrete: Harbor Youth Arts suspended its after-school music program for six months, laid off staff, and 70 children lost services. The organization does not forgive the offense, and we do not ask the Court to treat it as forgiven. This sentence must reflect that seriousness.

**History, acceptance, and repayment**

Ms. Ortiz is 52 years old, has no prior criminal record, and worked continuously for 27 years. Twelve letters describe her as reliable, remorseful, and supportive of coworkers. Before the audit began, she repaid $70,000 from an inheritance. That pre-detection restitution is especially significant because it was not prompted by an investigation. After pleading guilty, she paid another $30,000. The remaining balance is $80,000. None of that erases the victim’s loss, but her early repayment and guilty plea demonstrate genuine acceptance of responsibility.

**Matters not advanced**

The defense does not ask this Court to consider gambling addiction or childhood abuse. The record contains no medical, treatment, or personal documentation supporting either claim, and it would be improper to present them as mitigation. We also do not claim that Ms. Ortiz’s diabetes or family care obligations justify a major variance. Her diabetes is controlled, and the correctional system can provide the required medication and diet. We ask only that the Bureau of Prisons take her medical needs into account for placement and care. Ms. Ortiz provides evening care for her father, who has Parkinson’s disease, and her sister already provides care two days per week. But the record does not establish that no other arrangement is available, so we present this as context, not as an extraordinary ground for leniency.

**Why 12 months and one day is sufficient**

A sentence of 12 months and one day is a substantial custodial sentence. It is not probation, and it would not be a discharge of the offense. It is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the conduct, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and deter similar abuse by someone in a position of trust. It also protects the public: Ms. Ortiz has no criminal record, has maintained stable employment, and has shown by repayment and early acceptance that she is unlikely to reoffend. The one-day increment is not to minimize the offense; it preserves ordinary good-time eligibility.

A 24-month sentence would be greater than necessary in this particular case because of the combination of no prior record, 27 years of work, $100,000 repaid, and pre-detection acceptance. The requested variance is based on those record-specific facts, not generic sympathy, and therefore does not create unwarranted disparity.

**Restitution**

Because Ms. Ortiz will be incarcerated, restitution payments should begin when she resumes employment after release. Her verified monthly disposable income is about $1,700. A supervised-release condition of **$500 per month** is realistic, leaves $1,200 for necessities and contingencies, and can be adjusted if her income changes. The remaining balance should remain enforceable.

For these reasons, Ms. Ortiz requests a sentence of 12 months and one day, with restitution paid as set forth above.