ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
On August 29, 2013, Isabella Garcia ("Garcia" or "Defendant") pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal government funds pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 371 and theft of government funds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 641.
For the reasons set forth below, Garcia will be sentenced to time served followed by two years supervised release with a special condition of 6 months' home confinement. A fine of $3, 000 and a special assessment of $200 are imposed.
Defendant was named in a Three-Count Indictment filed in the Southern District of New York on March 6, 2013. Count One charges that from January 2011 through February 1, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Raymundo Hernandez, Andrius E. Gonzalez Francisco, Jilfredo Gonzalez, Dawin Brito, Isabel Garcia, Cristino Antonio Rodriguez and others conspired to steal money from the United States Treasury Department as they engaged in a scheme to obtain and cash fraudulent income tax return checks. Count Two charges that from January 2011 through February 1, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Raymundo I. Hernandez, Andrius E. Gonzalez Francisco, Jilfredo Gonzalez, Dawin Brito, Isabel Garcia, and Cristino Antonio Rodriguez engaged in a scheme to obtain and cash fraudulent income tax return checks. Count Three charges that from at least January 2011 through February 1, 2013, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Raymundo I. Hernandez, Andrius E. Gonzalez Francisco, Jilfredo Gonzalez, Dawin Brito, Isabel Garcia, and Cristino Antonio Rodriguez possessed and used the names and personal identifying information of other persons during and in relation to the offense charged in Count two of this indictment.
The Sentencing Framework
In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Crosby , 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), the sentence to be imposed was reached through consideration of all of the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the Advisory Guidelines. Thus, the sentence to be imposed here is the result of a consideration of:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed -
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for -
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines...;
(5) any pertinent policy statement.. [issued by the Sentencing Commission];
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A sentencing judge is permitted to find all the facts appropriate for determining a sentence, whether that sentence is a so-called Guidelines sentence or not. See Crosby , 397 F.3d at 114-15.
The Court adopts the facts set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") with respect to Defendant's personal and family history.
The Offense Conduct
The following description draws from the PSR. The specific facts of the underlying conduct are adopted as set forth in that document. These crimes were investigated by a special agent employed by the Internal Revenue Service (Agent-1) and a postal inspector ...