letter-to-probation-officer-brennan.docx

1035-00001 · Client 1035 · Correspondence

letter-to-probation-officer-brennan.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

2 / 12 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8400 Facsimile: (310) 556-8401 cashby@calderwoodharkness.com

January 15, 2026

Michael T. Brennan United States Probation Officer United States Probation Office Central District of California 350 West 1st Street Los Angeles, California 90012

Re: United States v. Marguerite D. Fonseca, Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD Defense Sentencing Submissions and Request for PSR Addendum Sentencing Hearing: March 6, 2026 Before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge

Dear Mr. Brennan:

I. Introduction and Purpose of Letter

I am Conrad Ashby, a Partner in the White Collar & Investigations practice of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. I write on behalf of our client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, the defendant in the above-referenced matter. This firm was retained on November 12, 2025, to represent Ms. Fonseca in connection with her sentencing proceedings following her conviction at trial. We succeeded prior trial counsel, Harrison J. Kerrigan of Kerrigan & Wolfe LLP, 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90071, who represented Ms. Fonseca through the trial phase of this matter.

The Calderwood & Harkness LLP engagement team for this matter consists of Conrad Ashby (Responsible Partner), Victoria Chambers (Billing Partner), Lisa Morrow (Lead Associate), and Peter Vassiliev (Working Associate). Ms. Morrow and Mr. Vassiliev have been principally responsible for the detailed analytical work described herein, under my direct supervision and that of Ms. Chambers.

As you know, the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was disclosed to the parties on November 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing in this matter is currently scheduled for March 6, 2026, before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge. The purpose of this letter is fivefold:

(1) To transmit to the Probation Office a courtesy copy of the Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, which were previously filed with the Court on January 10, 2026;

(2) To provide a summary of the defense's loss calculation analysis, which the defense believes demonstrates that the actual and intended loss attributable to Ms. Fonseca is materially lower than the figure set forth in the PSR;

(3) To submit preliminary materials regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history and mitigating circumstances for the Probation Office's consideration in connection with its sentencing recommendation;

(4) To respectfully request that the Probation Office prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing the defense's positions on the contested issues; and

(5) To request a meeting with you and any other members of the Probation Office at your earliest convenience to discuss factual corrections, the defense's United States Sentencing Guidelines position, and matters pertinent to the Probation Office's ultimate recommendation to the Court.

We appreciate the thorough and professional work reflected in the PSR and recognize the considerable effort required to prepare a presentence report in a case of this complexity. We respectfully submit, however, that certain aspects of the PSR warrant correction and further analysis, and we look forward to working cooperatively with the Probation Office to ensure that the sentencing record is as complete and accurate as possible.

II. Enclosed Materials

Together with this letter, we are transmitting several categories of materials for the Probation Office's review and consideration. Each category is summarized below.

A. Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report

The Defendant's formal written Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report were filed with the Court on January 10, 2026. A courtesy copy of the filed objections is enclosed herewith for the Probation Office's convenience and reference. The objections address three principal areas of concern:

First, the loss calculation used in the PSR. As discussed in greater detail in Section III of this letter and in the enclosed summary memorandum, the defense contends that the PSR's adoption of the government's total alleged loss figure of $14.7 million is materially overstated due to double-counting of certain loss components and the failure to account for funds that were reinvested into legitimate production activities. The defense's corrected loss figure is $8.3 million, which would result in a lower specific offense characteristic enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 2B1.1(b)(1).

Second, the application of the sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). The defense submits that the conduct underlying the offenses of conviction, while undeniably serious, did not involve the level of planning, concealment, or complexity that warrants application of the two-level sophisticated means enhancement. The defense's objections set forth the factual and legal basis for this position in detail.

Third, certain factual inaccuracies in the PSR narrative. The objections identify specific paragraphs of the PSR narrative that contain factual errors, omissions, or characterizations that are unsupported by the trial record or the Probation Office's own investigation. While some of these inaccuracies may not directly affect the Guidelines calculation, they bear on the overall picture presented to the sentencing court, and the defense respectfully requests that they be corrected in any addendum or revised report.

B. Summary of Defense Loss Calculation Analysis

Enclosed is a summary memorandum prepared by Lisa Morrow, Lead Associate, analyzing the loss figures set forth in the PSR and presenting the defense's position regarding the correct loss amount for Guidelines purposes. The key points of the defense position are as follows:

The PSR adopted the government's total alleged loss figure of $14.7 million. According to the PSR, this figure is composed of three components:

(i) $6.1 million in inflated budget diversions across five film and television productions produced by Aurelia Pictures, Inc. ("Aurelia Pictures");

(ii) $2.8 million in fraudulent California Film Commission tax credits across three productions; and

(iii) $5.8 million in diverted investor funds.

The defense contends that this total is materially overstated for two independent reasons.

First, the defense has identified $4.3 million in double-counting between the investor fund diversion category and the inflated budget diversion category. Specifically, a substantial portion of the funds characterized as "diverted investor funds" in component (iii) above are the very same funds that were inflated or misallocated within the production budgets reflected in component (i). The government's methodology, as implemented by its forensic accounting expert at trial, Dr. Ramesh Patel of Hargrove, Patel & Sullivan LLP, 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 3100, New York, New York 10003, failed to reconcile these overlapping categories. The defense's analysis traces specific tranches of investor capital through Aurelia Pictures' accounts to their ultimate disposition and demonstrates that a significant portion of funds were counted once as "inflated budget diversions" and again as "diverted investor funds," resulting in aggregate double-counting of approximately $4.3 million. Correcting for this overlap yields an actual loss figure of approximately $10.4 million.

Second, the defense has further identified $2.1 million in funds that were characterized by the government as "diverted" but that were, in fact, reinvested into legitimate production activities. These funds were used for purposes including post-production costs, distribution expenses, and marketing activities that directly benefited the productions and their investors. Because these funds were ultimately deployed for their intended purpose — albeit through irregular accounting channels — they should not be counted as "loss" for Guidelines purposes under the definition set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 3. Subtracting this $2.1 million from the corrected total of $10.4 million yields a defense-calculated intended loss of $8.3 million.

At a loss amount of $8.3 million, the applicable specific offense characteristic enhancement falls within the range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) (covering losses of more than $6,500,000 but not more than $9,500,000), which warrants a 16-level enhancement. By contrast, the PSR applied the enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) (covering losses of more than $9,500,000 but not more than $25,000,000), resulting in an 18-level enhancement. The two-level difference between these enhancements is significant and has a material impact on the advisory Guidelines range.

In connection with this issue, the defense has retained Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, Department of Economics, Westbridge University, 4500 University Drive, Pasadena, California 91107, to conduct an independent analysis of the actual and intended financial loss in this case. Dr. Chandrasekaran is a recognized expert in financial economics with particular expertise in forensic loss calculations in complex fraud cases. Her expert report, which is currently in preparation, will set forth her independent findings and opinions regarding the correct loss figure and will address the specific methodological shortcomings in the government's analysis as presented at trial through Dr. Patel's testimony. Dr. Chandrasekaran's report will be submitted to both the Court and the Probation Office upon completion, in advance of the sentencing hearing.

C. Preliminary Mitigation Materials

Enclosed with this letter are preliminary materials regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history and mitigating circumstances. These materials are offered to supplement the personal history information set forth in the PSR and to provide additional context that the defense respectfully submits is relevant to the Probation Office's sentencing recommendation and, ultimately, to the Court's sentencing determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The enclosed materials address the following areas:

Personal and Family Background. Marguerite D. Fonseca is a first-generation Filipino-American, born on June 7, 1973, in Sacramento, California. She was raised in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento, one of the city's most economically disadvantaged communities, in a household that frequently lived below the federal poverty line. Her parents, Renato Fonseca (deceased 2016) and Corazon Fonseca (age 79), emigrated from the Philippines in the late 1960s. Her father worked two jobs — as a janitor at a downtown office building and as a weekend laborer at a produce packing facility — to provide for the family. Her mother suffered from chronic illness throughout Ms. Fonseca's childhood, including severe rheumatoid arthritis that limited her mobility and her ability to work outside the home. Beginning at approximately age 12, Ms. Fonseca assumed significant caretaking responsibilities for her mother, including managing household duties, preparing meals, and accompanying her mother to medical appointments. Ms. Fonseca was the first member of her family to attend college.

Educational History. Ms. Fonseca earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film and Digital Media from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1995. She subsequently earned a Master of Fine Arts degree in Film Production from the American Film Institute in 1998. Her academic record at both institutions was distinguished, and she has been recognized by both as a notable alumna.

Professional History. Following several years of work in various production capacities at studios and independent production companies in Los Angeles, Ms. Fonseca founded Aurelia Pictures, Inc. on March 14, 2009 (California Secretary of State Entity Number C3276451). The company was headquartered at 8950 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. Ms. Fonseca built Aurelia Pictures from a one-person operation into a significant independent production company. Over the course of its operations, Aurelia Pictures produced 23 feature films and 6 limited television series, generating approximately $312 million in cumulative gross revenues. At its peak in 2022, the company employed approximately 45 full-time staff members, in addition to the hundreds of production crew, cast, and other personnel engaged on a per-project basis. Ms. Fonseca's work was recognized with multiple industry awards and nominations, and she was widely regarded as one of the most successful Filipina-American producers in the entertainment industry.

Mental Health History. Ms. Fonseca was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder in 2017 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2019 by her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elaine Varma of Pacific Mind Health Associates, 1200 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90017. Her treatment has included sertraline 100mg and weekly psychotherapy sessions. Significantly, the onset of the charged conduct in this case (January 2018) coincided with a period of severe deterioration in Ms. Fonseca's mental health following the death of her father, Renato Fonseca, in 2016, and the commencement of what became a contentious and protracted divorce from her then-husband, Alejandro Fonseca, which was finalized in 2019. While the defense does not offer Ms. Fonseca's mental health conditions as an excuse for her conduct, they provide important context for understanding the circumstances under which the offenses occurred and are relevant to the Court's consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

In connection with the defense's mitigation presentation, a comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Fonseca is currently being conducted by Dr. Kenneth Whitmore, a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, whose offices are located at 9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 760, Beverly Hills, California 90212. Dr. Whitmore's evaluation will address Ms. Fonseca's psychiatric diagnoses, the relationship between her mental health conditions and the charged conduct, her current mental health status, and her amenability to treatment and rehabilitation. Dr. Whitmore's report will be submitted to the Court and the Probation Office upon completion.

Additionally, a comprehensive social history investigation and mitigation report is being prepared by Dr. Sandra Oleander, Ph.D., Lead Mitigation Specialist at Thornfield Mitigation Consulting LLC, 1520 Blake Street, Suite 400, Denver, Colorado 80202. Dr. Oleander is a nationally recognized mitigation specialist who has prepared over 280 federal sentencing mitigation reports. Her investigation includes extensive interviews with Ms. Fonseca, her family members, friends, colleagues, and community members, as well as a thorough review of educational, medical, employment, and other records spanning Ms. Fonseca's entire life. Dr. Oleander's report will also be submitted upon completion.

Caregiving Responsibilities. Ms. Fonseca is the sole caretaker for her elderly mother, Corazon Fonseca, age 79, who was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease in 2024. Mrs. Fonseca's condition requires daily supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, and her care needs are expected to increase as the disease progresses. Ms. Fonseca is also the primary custodial parent of two minor children: Elena Fonseca, age 17, and Marco Fonseca, age 14. All three individuals reside with Ms. Fonseca at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068. Ms. Fonseca was divorced from Alejandro Fonseca in 2019, and Mr. Fonseca has had limited involvement in the children's daily lives. No other family members in the Los Angeles area are capable of assuming the caregiving responsibilities that Ms. Fonseca currently fulfills for her mother and her children. The enclosed materials provide additional detail regarding these family circumstances and the impact that Ms. Fonseca's incarceration would have on these dependents.

Charitable and Community Contributions. Ms. Fonseca founded the Aurelia Foundation in 2014, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to supporting underrepresented filmmakers. Between 2014 and 2023, the Aurelia Foundation provided approximately $1.8 million in scholarships and grants to aspiring filmmakers from historically underrepresented communities, with a particular focus on Filipino-American and other Asian-American artists. In addition, Ms. Fonseca personally mentored over 60 young filmmakers through the Filipino-American Arts Coalition, providing career guidance, professional networking opportunities, and, in many cases, direct employment opportunities at Aurelia Pictures. Ms. Fonseca also served on the board of the Los Angeles Youth Media Project from 2016 to 2023, an organization that provides media education and production training to at-risk youth in Los Angeles.

Criminal History. Ms. Fonseca has no prior criminal history of any kind. Across a 25-year career in the entertainment industry, she has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense. The instant case represents the first and only time Ms. Fonseca has come into contact with the criminal justice system.

Character Reference Letters. The defense is currently collecting character reference letters from industry colleagues, community members, and family members who can speak to Ms. Fonseca's character, contributions, and the impact of this case on her life and the lives of those around her. More than 40 such letters are anticipated and will be submitted with the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum. We expect these letters to provide a comprehensive and compelling portrait of a person whose life, taken as a whole, is defined by hard work, generosity, and service to others.

Remorse and Cooperation. Although Ms. Fonseca exercised her constitutional right to trial, she has expressed genuine remorse for the harm caused by her conduct. Since her conviction, Ms. Fonseca has cooperated fully with the court-appointed receivership under Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC, which is administering the assets of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. for the benefit of creditors and victims. Ms. Fonseca has not attempted to conceal or dissipate any assets, has provided full and candid financial disclosures to the receiver, and has complied with all conditions of her pretrial release. The defense respectfully submits that Ms. Fonseca's post-conviction conduct is consistent with her expressed remorse and demonstrates her willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions.

III. Defense Position on the Guidelines Calculation

The PSR calculates Ms. Fonseca's Total Offense Level at 31, with a Criminal History Category of I, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months of imprisonment. The PSR's Guidelines calculation is set forth as follows:

Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1): 7

Specific Offense Characteristic — Loss Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), based on a loss amount of $14.7 million): +18

Specific Offense Characteristic — Sophisticated Means (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)): +2

Specific Offense Characteristic — Number of Victims, 10 or more but fewer than 50 (§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)): +2

Chapter Three Adjustment — Abuse of Position of Trust (§ 3B1.3): +2

Chapter Three Adjustment — Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 3E1.1): Not applied (case proceeded to trial)

Total Offense Level: 31

Criminal History Category: I

Advisory Guidelines Range: 108–135 months

The defense respectfully submits that the correct Guidelines calculation, after correction for the errors identified in the Defendant's Objections and the enclosed materials, is as follows:

Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1): 7

Specific Offense Characteristic — Loss Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), based on a corrected intended loss amount of $8.3 million, falling within the $6,500,000 to $9,500,000 range): +16

Specific Offense Characteristic — Sophisticated Means (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)): Not applied (the defense contends this enhancement is unwarranted)

Specific Offense Characteristic — Number of Victims, 10 or more but fewer than 50 (§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)): +2 (not contested)

Chapter Three Adjustment — Abuse of Position of Trust (§ 3B1.3): +2 (not contested in this submission, although the defense reserves the right to address this enhancement in subsequent filings)

Chapter Three Adjustment — Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 3E1.1): Not applied

Corrected Total Offense Level: 27 (7 + 16 + 2 + 2 = 27)

Criminal History Category: I

Advisory Guidelines Range: 70–87 months

The difference between the PSR's calculation and the defense's corrected calculation is significant — the defense's position results in an advisory Guidelines range that is 38 to 48 months lower than the range set forth in the PSR. The defense contends that this corrected calculation more accurately reflects the seriousness of the offense and the actual harm caused.

Moreover, the defense intends to seek a further downward variance below the corrected advisory Guidelines range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The basis for this request will be set forth in detail in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance, which the defense anticipates filing on or about February 14, 2026. The defense's variance argument will address, among other factors, Ms. Fonseca's personal history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense while also providing just punishment, adequate deterrence, and protection of the public, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

IV. Request for PSR Addendum

Pursuant to the standard practice in the Central District of California, we respectfully request that the Probation Office prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing the defense's objections and the supplemental information submitted herewith. Specifically, we request that the addendum address the following matters:

(1) The Probation Office's response to the defense's position on the loss calculation, including the defense's contention that the correct intended loss figure is $8.3 million rather than the $14.7 million figure adopted in the PSR, and the basis for any agreement or disagreement with the defense's position on this issue;

(2) The Probation Office's response to the defense's position that the sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) should not be applied, and the basis for any agreement or disagreement with the defense's position on this issue;

(3) Any factual corrections to the PSR narrative that are warranted by the information submitted in the Defendant's Objections and the materials enclosed herewith; and

(4) Updated information regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history, mental health conditions, and caregiving responsibilities, as set forth in the enclosed preliminary mitigation materials, to the extent the Probation Office determines that such information should be reflected in the PSR or its addendum.

We respectfully request that the addendum be completed and disclosed to the parties sufficiently in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing to allow the defense adequate time to review the Probation Office's positions and to prepare any further response that may be warranted. Given the complexity of the issues presented — particularly with respect to the loss calculation — we believe that early completion of the addendum would best serve the interests of all parties and the Court.

V. Request for Meeting

We respectfully request a meeting at the Probation Office's earliest convenience to discuss the following matters:

(1) Specific factual corrections to the PSR narrative identified in the Defendant's Objections and in the enclosed materials;

(2) The defense's position on the Guidelines calculation, including the factual and legal basis for each of the defense's objections to the PSR's application of the Sentencing Guidelines;

(3) Additional personal history and mitigation information that may be relevant to the Probation Office's sentencing recommendation, beyond the preliminary materials enclosed herewith; and

(4) Ms. Fonseca's financial condition and restitution capacity. In connection with this topic, we are prepared to discuss, among other things, Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, which the defense estimates to total approximately $1.68 million to $2.08 million, including real property, personal property, and financial accounts; the status of the Aurelia Pictures receivership, which is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court as Case No. 25STCV08312, with Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC serving as receiver; and the outstanding victim claims, which include claims by Brindoval Investors Group LP (approximately $8.2 million), Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC (approximately $3.9 million), the California Film Commission (approximately $2.8 million), and various individual investors (approximately $2.6 million combined).

The members of the defense team who would participate in such a meeting — Conrad Ashby, Victoria Chambers, and Lisa Morrow — are available at the Probation Office's convenience during the weeks of January 20, January 27, and February 3, 2026. We are happy to accommodate whatever date and time is most convenient for you and any other members of the Probation Office who may wish to participate.

Additionally, we wish to note that the defense is willing to make Ms. Fonseca available for an interview with the Probation Office should you request one. We believe that a personal interview would provide you with valuable additional insight into Ms. Fonseca's background, character, and state of mind, and would supplement the written materials that have been and will be submitted.

VI. Forthcoming Submissions

We wish to advise the Probation Office that the following additional materials will be submitted to both the Probation Office and the Court in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing:

1. Expert report of Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, Department of Economics, Westbridge University, regarding the correct calculation of actual and intended financial loss;

2. Expert report of Dr. Kenneth Whitmore, board-certified forensic psychiatrist, containing the results of his comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Fonseca;

3. Comprehensive mitigation report of Dr. Sandra Oleander, Ph.D., Lead Mitigation Specialist, Thornfield Mitigation Consulting LLC, containing the results of her social history investigation;

4. Character reference letters from industry colleagues, community members, and family members (more than 40 letters are anticipated);

5. Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum;

6. Defendant's Motion for Downward Variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and

7. Proposed Judgment and Restitution Order.

The defense anticipates filing the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance with the Court, and submitting copies to the Probation Office, on or about February 14, 2026. Expert reports, character reference letters, and the other materials listed above will be submitted as they are completed, and in all events sufficiently in advance of the sentencing hearing to allow for the Probation Office's and the Court's review.

VII. Closing

We sincerely appreciate your attention to these materials and the thoroughness and professionalism reflected in your preparation of the PSR in this complex matter. The defense looks forward to a productive dialogue with the Probation Office in the weeks ahead and to working cooperatively to ensure that the Court has a complete and accurate record upon which to base its sentencing determination.

For scheduling purposes, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (310) 556-8412 or cashby@calderwoodharkness.com, or Lisa Morrow at (310) 556-8437 or lmorrow@calderwoodharkness.com. We are happy to provide any additional information the Probation Office may require in connection with any of the matters addressed in this letter or the enclosed materials.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Conrad Ashby Partner, White Collar & Investigations Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8412

Email: cashby@calderwoodharkness.com

Counsel for Defendant Marguerite D. Fonseca

Enclosures:

1. Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (filed January 10, 2026)

2. Summary Memorandum on Defense Loss Calculation Analysis

3. Preliminary Mitigation Materials (biographical overview, mental health summary, caregiving summary, community contributions summary)

cc:

Brenda K. Tillotson, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California

Derek R. Huang, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California

The Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge (via ECF, Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD)

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP Attorneys at Law 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8400 Facsimile: (310) 556-8401 cashby@calderwoodharkness.com
January 15, 2026
Michael T. Brennan United States Probation Officer United States Probation Office Central District of California 350 West 1st Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: United States v. Marguerite D. Fonseca, Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD Defense Sentencing Submissions and Request for PSR Addendum Sentencing Hearing: March 6, 2026 Before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge
Dear Mr. Brennan:
I. Introduction and Purpose of Letter
I am Conrad Ashby, a Partner in the White Collar & Investigations practice of Calderwood & Harkness LLP. I write on behalf of our client, Marguerite D. Fonseca, the defendant in the above-referenced matter. This firm was retained on November 12, 2025, to represent Ms. Fonseca in connection with her sentencing proceedings following her conviction at trial. We succeeded prior trial counsel, Harrison J. Kerrigan of Kerrigan & Wolfe LLP, 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800, Los Angeles, California 90071, who represented Ms. Fonseca through the trial phase of this matter.
The Calderwood & Harkness LLP engagement team for this matter consists of Conrad Ashby (Responsible Partner), Victoria Chambers (Billing Partner), Lisa Morrow (Lead Associate), and Peter Vassiliev (Working Associate). Ms. Morrow and Mr. Vassiliev have been principally responsible for the detailed analytical work described herein, under my direct supervision and that of Ms. Chambers.
As you know, the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") was disclosed to the parties on November 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing in this matter is currently scheduled for March 6, 2026, before the Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge. The purpose of this letter is fivefold:
(1) To transmit to the Probation Office a courtesy copy of the Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, which were previously filed with the Court on January 10, 2026;
(2) To provide a summary of the defense's loss calculation analysis, which the defense believes demonstrates that the actual and intended loss attributable to Ms. Fonseca is materially lower than the figure set forth in the PSR;
(3) To submit preliminary materials regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history and mitigating circumstances for the Probation Office's consideration in connection with its sentencing recommendation;
(4) To respectfully request that the Probation Office prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing the defense's positions on the contested issues; and
(5) To request a meeting with you and any other members of the Probation Office at your earliest convenience to discuss factual corrections, the defense's United States Sentencing Guidelines position, and matters pertinent to the Probation Office's ultimate recommendation to the Court.
We appreciate the thorough and professional work reflected in the PSR and recognize the considerable effort required to prepare a presentence report in a case of this complexity. We respectfully submit, however, that certain aspects of the PSR warrant correction and further analysis, and we look forward to working cooperatively with the Probation Office to ensure that the sentencing record is as complete and accurate as possible.
II. Enclosed Materials
Together with this letter, we are transmitting several categories of materials for the Probation Office's review and consideration. Each category is summarized below.
A. Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report
The Defendant's formal written Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report were filed with the Court on January 10, 2026. A courtesy copy of the filed objections is enclosed herewith for the Probation Office's convenience and reference. The objections address three principal areas of concern:
First, the loss calculation used in the PSR. As discussed in greater detail in Section III of this letter and in the enclosed summary memorandum, the defense contends that the PSR's adoption of the government's total alleged loss figure of $14.7 million is materially overstated due to double-counting of certain loss components and the failure to account for funds that were reinvested into legitimate production activities. The defense's corrected loss figure is $8.3 million, which would result in a lower specific offense characteristic enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 2B1.1(b)(1).
Second, the application of the sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). The defense submits that the conduct underlying the offenses of conviction, while undeniably serious, did not involve the level of planning, concealment, or complexity that warrants application of the two-level sophisticated means enhancement. The defense's objections set forth the factual and legal basis for this position in detail.
Third, certain factual inaccuracies in the PSR narrative. The objections identify specific paragraphs of the PSR narrative that contain factual errors, omissions, or characterizations that are unsupported by the trial record or the Probation Office's own investigation. While some of these inaccuracies may not directly affect the Guidelines calculation, they bear on the overall picture presented to the sentencing court, and the defense respectfully requests that they be corrected in any addendum or revised report.
B. Summary of Defense Loss Calculation Analysis
Enclosed is a summary memorandum prepared by Lisa Morrow, Lead Associate, analyzing the loss figures set forth in the PSR and presenting the defense's position regarding the correct loss amount for Guidelines purposes. The key points of the defense position are as follows:
The PSR adopted the government's total alleged loss figure of $14.7 million. According to the PSR, this figure is composed of three components:
(i) $6.1 million in inflated budget diversions across five film and television productions produced by Aurelia Pictures, Inc. ("Aurelia Pictures");
(ii) $2.8 million in fraudulent California Film Commission tax credits across three productions; and
(iii) $5.8 million in diverted investor funds.
The defense contends that this total is materially overstated for two independent reasons.
First, the defense has identified $4.3 million in double-counting between the investor fund diversion category and the inflated budget diversion category. Specifically, a substantial portion of the funds characterized as "diverted investor funds" in component (iii) above are the very same funds that were inflated or misallocated within the production budgets reflected in component (i). The government's methodology, as implemented by its forensic accounting expert at trial, Dr. Ramesh Patel of Hargrove, Patel & Sullivan LLP, 200 Park Avenue South, Suite 3100, New York, New York 10003, failed to reconcile these overlapping categories. The defense's analysis traces specific tranches of investor capital through Aurelia Pictures' accounts to their ultimate disposition and demonstrates that a significant portion of funds were counted once as "inflated budget diversions" and again as "diverted investor funds," resulting in aggregate double-counting of approximately $4.3 million. Correcting for this overlap yields an actual loss figure of approximately $10.4 million.
Second, the defense has further identified $2.1 million in funds that were characterized by the government as "diverted" but that were, in fact, reinvested into legitimate production activities. These funds were used for purposes including post-production costs, distribution expenses, and marketing activities that directly benefited the productions and their investors. Because these funds were ultimately deployed for their intended purpose — albeit through irregular accounting channels — they should not be counted as "loss" for Guidelines purposes under the definition set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 3. Subtracting this $2.1 million from the corrected total of $10.4 million yields a defense-calculated intended loss of $8.3 million.
At a loss amount of $8.3 million, the applicable specific offense characteristic enhancement falls within the range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) (covering losses of more than $6,500,000 but not more than $9,500,000), which warrants a 16-level enhancement. By contrast, the PSR applied the enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) (covering losses of more than $9,500,000 but not more than $25,000,000), resulting in an 18-level enhancement. The two-level difference between these enhancements is significant and has a material impact on the advisory Guidelines range.
In connection with this issue, the defense has retained Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, Department of Economics, Westbridge University, 4500 University Drive, Pasadena, California 91107, to conduct an independent analysis of the actual and intended financial loss in this case. Dr. Chandrasekaran is a recognized expert in financial economics with particular expertise in forensic loss calculations in complex fraud cases. Her expert report, which is currently in preparation, will set forth her independent findings and opinions regarding the correct loss figure and will address the specific methodological shortcomings in the government's analysis as presented at trial through Dr. Patel's testimony. Dr. Chandrasekaran's report will be submitted to both the Court and the Probation Office upon completion, in advance of the sentencing hearing.
C. Preliminary Mitigation Materials
Enclosed with this letter are preliminary materials regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history and mitigating circumstances. These materials are offered to supplement the personal history information set forth in the PSR and to provide additional context that the defense respectfully submits is relevant to the Probation Office's sentencing recommendation and, ultimately, to the Court's sentencing determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The enclosed materials address the following areas:
Personal and Family Background. Marguerite D. Fonseca is a first-generation Filipino-American, born on June 7, 1973, in Sacramento, California. She was raised in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento, one of the city's most economically disadvantaged communities, in a household that frequently lived below the federal poverty line. Her parents, Renato Fonseca (deceased 2016) and Corazon Fonseca (age 79), emigrated from the Philippines in the late 1960s. Her father worked two jobs — as a janitor at a downtown office building and as a weekend laborer at a produce packing facility — to provide for the family. Her mother suffered from chronic illness throughout Ms. Fonseca's childhood, including severe rheumatoid arthritis that limited her mobility and her ability to work outside the home. Beginning at approximately age 12, Ms. Fonseca assumed significant caretaking responsibilities for her mother, including managing household duties, preparing meals, and accompanying her mother to medical appointments. Ms. Fonseca was the first member of her family to attend college.
Educational History. Ms. Fonseca earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film and Digital Media from the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 1995. She subsequently earned a Master of Fine Arts degree in Film Production from the American Film Institute in 1998. Her academic record at both institutions was distinguished, and she has been recognized by both as a notable alumna.
Professional History. Following several years of work in various production capacities at studios and independent production companies in Los Angeles, Ms. Fonseca founded Aurelia Pictures, Inc. on March 14, 2009 (California Secretary of State Entity Number C3276451). The company was headquartered at 8950 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1400, West Hollywood, California 90069. Ms. Fonseca built Aurelia Pictures from a one-person operation into a significant independent production company. Over the course of its operations, Aurelia Pictures produced 23 feature films and 6 limited television series, generating approximately $312 million in cumulative gross revenues. At its peak in 2022, the company employed approximately 45 full-time staff members, in addition to the hundreds of production crew, cast, and other personnel engaged on a per-project basis. Ms. Fonseca's work was recognized with multiple industry awards and nominations, and she was widely regarded as one of the most successful Filipina-American producers in the entertainment industry.
Mental Health History. Ms. Fonseca was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder in 2017 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2019 by her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Elaine Varma of Pacific Mind Health Associates, 1200 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90017. Her treatment has included sertraline 100mg and weekly psychotherapy sessions. Significantly, the onset of the charged conduct in this case (January 2018) coincided with a period of severe deterioration in Ms. Fonseca's mental health following the death of her father, Renato Fonseca, in 2016, and the commencement of what became a contentious and protracted divorce from her then-husband, Alejandro Fonseca, which was finalized in 2019. While the defense does not offer Ms. Fonseca's mental health conditions as an excuse for her conduct, they provide important context for understanding the circumstances under which the offenses occurred and are relevant to the Court's consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
In connection with the defense's mitigation presentation, a comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Fonseca is currently being conducted by Dr. Kenneth Whitmore, a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, whose offices are located at 9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 760, Beverly Hills, California 90212. Dr. Whitmore's evaluation will address Ms. Fonseca's psychiatric diagnoses, the relationship between her mental health conditions and the charged conduct, her current mental health status, and her amenability to treatment and rehabilitation. Dr. Whitmore's report will be submitted to the Court and the Probation Office upon completion.
Additionally, a comprehensive social history investigation and mitigation report is being prepared by Dr. Sandra Oleander, Ph.D., Lead Mitigation Specialist at Thornfield Mitigation Consulting LLC, 1520 Blake Street, Suite 400, Denver, Colorado 80202. Dr. Oleander is a nationally recognized mitigation specialist who has prepared over 280 federal sentencing mitigation reports. Her investigation includes extensive interviews with Ms. Fonseca, her family members, friends, colleagues, and community members, as well as a thorough review of educational, medical, employment, and other records spanning Ms. Fonseca's entire life. Dr. Oleander's report will also be submitted upon completion.
Caregiving Responsibilities. Ms. Fonseca is the sole caretaker for her elderly mother, Corazon Fonseca, age 79, who was diagnosed with early-stage Alzheimer's disease in 2024. Mrs. Fonseca's condition requires daily supervision and assistance with activities of daily living, and her care needs are expected to increase as the disease progresses. Ms. Fonseca is also the primary custodial parent of two minor children: Elena Fonseca, age 17, and Marco Fonseca, age 14. All three individuals reside with Ms. Fonseca at 1847 Mulholland Terrace, Los Angeles, California 90068. Ms. Fonseca was divorced from Alejandro Fonseca in 2019, and Mr. Fonseca has had limited involvement in the children's daily lives. No other family members in the Los Angeles area are capable of assuming the caregiving responsibilities that Ms. Fonseca currently fulfills for her mother and her children. The enclosed materials provide additional detail regarding these family circumstances and the impact that Ms. Fonseca's incarceration would have on these dependents.
Charitable and Community Contributions. Ms. Fonseca founded the Aurelia Foundation in 2014, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to supporting underrepresented filmmakers. Between 2014 and 2023, the Aurelia Foundation provided approximately $1.8 million in scholarships and grants to aspiring filmmakers from historically underrepresented communities, with a particular focus on Filipino-American and other Asian-American artists. In addition, Ms. Fonseca personally mentored over 60 young filmmakers through the Filipino-American Arts Coalition, providing career guidance, professional networking opportunities, and, in many cases, direct employment opportunities at Aurelia Pictures. Ms. Fonseca also served on the board of the Los Angeles Youth Media Project from 2016 to 2023, an organization that provides media education and production training to at-risk youth in Los Angeles.
Criminal History. Ms. Fonseca has no prior criminal history of any kind. Across a 25-year career in the entertainment industry, she has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of any offense. The instant case represents the first and only time Ms. Fonseca has come into contact with the criminal justice system.
Character Reference Letters. The defense is currently collecting character reference letters from industry colleagues, community members, and family members who can speak to Ms. Fonseca's character, contributions, and the impact of this case on her life and the lives of those around her. More than 40 such letters are anticipated and will be submitted with the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum. We expect these letters to provide a comprehensive and compelling portrait of a person whose life, taken as a whole, is defined by hard work, generosity, and service to others.
Remorse and Cooperation. Although Ms. Fonseca exercised her constitutional right to trial, she has expressed genuine remorse for the harm caused by her conduct. Since her conviction, Ms. Fonseca has cooperated fully with the court-appointed receivership under Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC, which is administering the assets of Aurelia Pictures, Inc. for the benefit of creditors and victims. Ms. Fonseca has not attempted to conceal or dissipate any assets, has provided full and candid financial disclosures to the receiver, and has complied with all conditions of her pretrial release. The defense respectfully submits that Ms. Fonseca's post-conviction conduct is consistent with her expressed remorse and demonstrates her willingness to accept responsibility for the consequences of her actions.
III. Defense Position on the Guidelines Calculation
The PSR calculates Ms. Fonseca's Total Offense Level at 31, with a Criminal History Category of I, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 108 to 135 months of imprisonment. The PSR's Guidelines calculation is set forth as follows:
Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1): 7
Specific Offense Characteristic — Loss Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), based on a loss amount of $14.7 million): +18
Specific Offense Characteristic — Sophisticated Means (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)): +2
Specific Offense Characteristic — Number of Victims, 10 or more but fewer than 50 (§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)): +2
Chapter Three Adjustment — Abuse of Position of Trust (§ 3B1.3): +2
Chapter Three Adjustment — Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 3E1.1): Not applied (case proceeded to trial)
Total Offense Level: 31
Criminal History Category: I
Advisory Guidelines Range: 108–135 months
The defense respectfully submits that the correct Guidelines calculation, after correction for the errors identified in the Defendant's Objections and the enclosed materials, is as follows:
Base Offense Level (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1): 7
Specific Offense Characteristic — Loss Enhancement (§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I), based on a corrected intended loss amount of $8.3 million, falling within the $6,500,000 to $9,500,000 range): +16
Specific Offense Characteristic — Sophisticated Means (§ 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)): Not applied (the defense contends this enhancement is unwarranted)
Specific Offense Characteristic — Number of Victims, 10 or more but fewer than 50 (§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i)): +2 (not contested)
Chapter Three Adjustment — Abuse of Position of Trust (§ 3B1.3): +2 (not contested in this submission, although the defense reserves the right to address this enhancement in subsequent filings)
Chapter Three Adjustment — Acceptance of Responsibility (§ 3E1.1): Not applied
Corrected Total Offense Level: 27 (7 + 16 + 2 + 2 = 27)
Criminal History Category: I
Advisory Guidelines Range: 70–87 months
The difference between the PSR's calculation and the defense's corrected calculation is significant — the defense's position results in an advisory Guidelines range that is 38 to 48 months lower than the range set forth in the PSR. The defense contends that this corrected calculation more accurately reflects the seriousness of the offense and the actual harm caused.
Moreover, the defense intends to seek a further downward variance below the corrected advisory Guidelines range pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The basis for this request will be set forth in detail in the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance, which the defense anticipates filing on or about February 14, 2026. The defense's variance argument will address, among other factors, Ms. Fonseca's personal history and characteristics, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense while also providing just punishment, adequate deterrence, and protection of the public, and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.
IV. Request for PSR Addendum
Pursuant to the standard practice in the Central District of California, we respectfully request that the Probation Office prepare an addendum to the PSR addressing the defense's objections and the supplemental information submitted herewith. Specifically, we request that the addendum address the following matters:
(1) The Probation Office's response to the defense's position on the loss calculation, including the defense's contention that the correct intended loss figure is $8.3 million rather than the $14.7 million figure adopted in the PSR, and the basis for any agreement or disagreement with the defense's position on this issue;
(2) The Probation Office's response to the defense's position that the sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) should not be applied, and the basis for any agreement or disagreement with the defense's position on this issue;
(3) Any factual corrections to the PSR narrative that are warranted by the information submitted in the Defendant's Objections and the materials enclosed herewith; and
(4) Updated information regarding Ms. Fonseca's personal history, mental health conditions, and caregiving responsibilities, as set forth in the enclosed preliminary mitigation materials, to the extent the Probation Office determines that such information should be reflected in the PSR or its addendum.
We respectfully request that the addendum be completed and disclosed to the parties sufficiently in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing to allow the defense adequate time to review the Probation Office's positions and to prepare any further response that may be warranted. Given the complexity of the issues presented — particularly with respect to the loss calculation — we believe that early completion of the addendum would best serve the interests of all parties and the Court.
V. Request for Meeting
We respectfully request a meeting at the Probation Office's earliest convenience to discuss the following matters:
(1) Specific factual corrections to the PSR narrative identified in the Defendant's Objections and in the enclosed materials;
(2) The defense's position on the Guidelines calculation, including the factual and legal basis for each of the defense's objections to the PSR's application of the Sentencing Guidelines;
(3) Additional personal history and mitigation information that may be relevant to the Probation Office's sentencing recommendation, beyond the preliminary materials enclosed herewith; and
(4) Ms. Fonseca's financial condition and restitution capacity. In connection with this topic, we are prepared to discuss, among other things, Ms. Fonseca's identifiable assets, which the defense estimates to total approximately $1.68 million to $2.08 million, including real property, personal property, and financial accounts; the status of the Aurelia Pictures receivership, which is pending in the Los Angeles Superior Court as Case No. 25STCV08312, with Nathaniel W. Prescott of Ridgeway Advisory Group LLC serving as receiver; and the outstanding victim claims, which include claims by Brindoval Investors Group LP (approximately $8.2 million), Lakeshore Capital Partners LLC (approximately $3.9 million), the California Film Commission (approximately $2.8 million), and various individual investors (approximately $2.6 million combined).
The members of the defense team who would participate in such a meeting — Conrad Ashby, Victoria Chambers, and Lisa Morrow — are available at the Probation Office's convenience during the weeks of January 20, January 27, and February 3, 2026. We are happy to accommodate whatever date and time is most convenient for you and any other members of the Probation Office who may wish to participate.
Additionally, we wish to note that the defense is willing to make Ms. Fonseca available for an interview with the Probation Office should you request one. We believe that a personal interview would provide you with valuable additional insight into Ms. Fonseca's background, character, and state of mind, and would supplement the written materials that have been and will be submitted.
VI. Forthcoming Submissions
We wish to advise the Probation Office that the following additional materials will be submitted to both the Probation Office and the Court in advance of the March 6, 2026 sentencing hearing:
1. Expert report of Dr. Priya Chandrasekaran, Department of Economics, Westbridge University, regarding the correct calculation of actual and intended financial loss;
2. Expert report of Dr. Kenneth Whitmore, board-certified forensic psychiatrist, containing the results of his comprehensive forensic psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Fonseca;
3. Comprehensive mitigation report of Dr. Sandra Oleander, Ph.D., Lead Mitigation Specialist, Thornfield Mitigation Consulting LLC, containing the results of her social history investigation;
4. Character reference letters from industry colleagues, community members, and family members (more than 40 letters are anticipated);
5. Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum;
6. Defendant's Motion for Downward Variance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and
7. Proposed Judgment and Restitution Order.
The defense anticipates filing the Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance with the Court, and submitting copies to the Probation Office, on or about February 14, 2026. Expert reports, character reference letters, and the other materials listed above will be submitted as they are completed, and in all events sufficiently in advance of the sentencing hearing to allow for the Probation Office's and the Court's review.
VII. Closing
We sincerely appreciate your attention to these materials and the thoroughness and professionalism reflected in your preparation of the PSR in this complex matter. The defense looks forward to a productive dialogue with the Probation Office in the weeks ahead and to working cooperatively to ensure that the Court has a complete and accurate record upon which to base its sentencing determination.
For scheduling purposes, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (310) 556-8412 or cashby@calderwoodharkness.com, or Lisa Morrow at (310) 556-8437 or lmorrow@calderwoodharkness.com. We are happy to provide any additional information the Probation Office may require in connection with any of the matters addressed in this letter or the enclosed materials.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Conrad Ashby Partner, White Collar & Investigations Calderwood & Harkness LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8412
Email: cashby@calderwoodharkness.com
Counsel for Defendant Marguerite D. Fonseca
Enclosures:
1. Defendant's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (filed January 10, 2026)
2. Summary Memorandum on Defense Loss Calculation Analysis
3. Preliminary Mitigation Materials (biographical overview, mental health summary, caregiving summary, community contributions summary)
cc:
Brenda K. Tillotson, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California
Derek R. Huang, Assistant United States Attorney, Major Frauds Section, United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California
The Honorable Catherine M. Driscoll, United States District Judge (via ECF, Case No. 2:24-cr-00583-CMD)

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts