Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Marguerite D. Fonseca, through undersigned counsel Conrad Ashby of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, California 90067, respectfully submits these objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") prepared by United States Probation Officer Michael T. Brennan and disclosed to the parties on November 3, 2025. These objections are filed pursuan

II. SUMMARY OF THE PSR'S GUIDELINES CALCULATION For the Court's reference, the defense sets forth the PSR's Guidelines calculation in full, as reflected in paragraphs 97 through 112 of the PSR: Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)): 7 The PSR applies a base offense level of 7 because the offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of twenty years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud, maximum

III. OBJECTION NO. 1: THE PSR'S LOSS CALCULATION OF $14.7 MILLION IS MATERIALLY OVERSTATED The most significant error in the PSR is its adoption of the government's total alleged loss figure of $14.7 million. As set forth below, the actual intended loss attributable to Ms. Fonseca's offense conduct is $8.3 million — a figure that, while still substantial, is $6.4 million less than the figure relied upon by the PSR. T

IV. OBJECTION NO. 2: THE LOSS ENHANCEMENT SHOULD BE +16, NOT +18 The PSR applied a +18 loss enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), which corresponds to a loss amount of more than $9,500,000 but not more than $25,000,000. This enhancement was based on the PSR's adoption of the government's total loss figure of $14.7 million. As demonstrated in Section III above, the correct intended loss figure is $8.3 million,

V. OBJECTION NO. 3: THE SOPHISTICATED MEANS ENHANCEMENT IS UNWARRANTED A. Legal Standard Under § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) The sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) adds two levels to the offense level "[i]f the offense otherwise involved sophisticated means." Application Note 9(B) to § 2B1.1 defines "sophisticated means" as "especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to th

VI. OBJECTION NO. 4: FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN THE PSR In addition to the Guidelines calculation errors addressed above, the PSR contains several factual inaccuracies in its narrative that, if left uncorrected, may prejudice Ms. Fonseca at sentencing. The defense respectfully requests that the Court direct the Probation Office to correct these inaccuracies or, in the alternative, that the Court make findings under Fede

VII. THE CORRECTED GUIDELINES CALCULATION Based on the objections set forth above, the defense submits that the correct Guidelines calculation for Ms. Fonseca is as follows: The defense's corrected calculation reduces the Total Offense Level by 4 levels — from 31 to 27 — resulting in a corresponding reduction in the advisory Guidelines range of 38 to 48 months. The corrected advisory range of 70 to 87 months, while s

VIII. IMPACT ON RESTITUTION While the amount of restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act ("MVRA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, is not governed by the same loss calculation methodology as the Sentencing Guidelines, the defense's position on the actual loss attributable to Ms. Fonseca's offense conduct is relevant to the restitution determination. The MVRA requires the sentencing court to order restitution "in th

IX. REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B), the defendant respectfully requests an evidentiary hearing on her objections to the PSR. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) provides that, for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted matter, the Court "must — for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other controverted m

X. REQUEST FOR ADDENDUM TO THE PSR The defense respectfully requests that the Court direct the United States Probation Office, through Probation Officer Michael T. Brennan, to prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing each of the objections set forth in this filing. Specifically, the defense requests that the addendum address: (1) the Probation Office's revised position, if any, on the loss calculation in light of th

XI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Marguerite D. Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Sustain her objections to the PSR's loss calculation and find that the correct intended loss figure attributable to her offense conduct is $8,300,000, not $14,700,000;

2. Apply a +16 loss enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) rather than the +18 enhancement applied in the PSR under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J);

3. Decline to apply the +2 sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C);

4. Direct the Probation Office to correct the factual inaccuracies identified in Section VI of this filing, or, in the alternative, make findings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) resolving the identified factual disputes;

5. Determine that the correct Total Offense Level is 27, Criminal History Category I, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months of imprisonment;

6. Grant the defense's request for an evidentiary hearing on these objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B); and

7. Direct the Probation Office to prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing the defense's objections. Respectfully submitted, CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Conrad Ashby (CA State Bar No. 198742) Victoria Chambers (CA State Bar No. 246819) Lisa Morrow (CA State Bar No. 271053) 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-4400 Facsimile: (310) 553-4401 Counsel for Defen