1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SANDY GREEN, 

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.: 3:18 CR 104

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING 

MEMORANDUM

 

Now comes the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 

Attorney, and respectfully provides the following sentencing memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (0073698)

Assistant United States Attorney

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, OH 45402

(937) 225-2910

Fax: (937) 225-2564

Andrew.Hunt@usdoj.gov

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 65
2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Sandy Green (“Green”) was convicted in 2006 of wire fraud, stealing a 

substantial amount from a previous employer. (Presentence Report (“PSR”) ¶ 49). In 2017, 

Green managed to obtain employment as a bookkeeper at two local businesses, hereinafter 

Company A and Company B. (R. 21, Plea Agreement, PAGEID# 49-50). In that capacity, Green 

almost immediately began defrauding her employers in multiple ways. At Company A, she 

conducted numerous fraudulent credit card returns, stealing over $100,000. (PSR ¶¶ 15-18; R. 

21, Plea Agreement, PAGEID# 49). At Company B, Green used her access to the company’s 

account to wire thousands of dollars to her personal accounts, made unauthorized credit card 

purchases using the company credit card, and inflated her wages. (R. 21, Plea Agreement, 

PAGEID# 49-50). As to the counts of conviction, between on or about November 2, 2017 and 

January 16, 2018, Green caused two interstate wire communications to be transmitted in 

furtherance of her scheme to defraud the companies. (Id.) For purposes of U.S.S.G. 

§ 2B1.1(b)(1), the readily provable amount that was stolen from the two companies is 

approximately $208,327.11.

1

On August 28, 2018, Green entered guilty pleas to the two-counts in the Information, 

each count alleging “Wire Fraud,” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The statutory penalties 

include a term of up to 20 years in prison. Based on the Statement of Facts, PSR, and the 

 

1 It appears unlikely that the full scope of her fraud can be identified with precision, because 

Green was the bookkeeper for Company B and admittedly entered false information into the 

company’s records, and there are a large number of accounts and transactions related to Green 

and the two companies. Company B’s owner testified that he and his staff spent numerous hours

reviewing their books and later enlisted an outside CPA, and even now lacked full confidence in 

the figures. (4/23/19 Tr., pgs. 18, 23). 

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 66
3

information elicited at the April 23, 2019 sentencing hearing, the Government believes the Court 

should find the advisory guideline range is 33-41 months (Criminal History Category III, Net 

Offense Level 18).

ARGUMENT

In crafting a sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court takes into account: 1) 

the nature and circumstances of the offense, and history and characteristics of the defendant, 2) 

the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and provide just 

punishment for the offense, 3) the need to adequately deter criminal behavior, 4) the need to 

protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, 5) providing rehabilitative services to the 

defendant, 6) the kinds of sentences available, 7) the kinds of sentence and sentencing range 

established by the Sentencing Guidelines for the offense (and any pertinent policy statements), 8) 

restitution needs, and 9) the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similarly situated 

defendants. The Court may place greater weight on certain factors as opposed to others. United 

States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558, 571 (6th Cir. 2012). 

The Government respectfully requests that the Court impose a term of at least 52 months 

imprisonment. The Government understands that this would require an upward variance, but 

believes such a variance appropriate under the § 3553 factors based upon: 1) Green’s recidivism, 

2) that there were multiple victims, 3) the financial and personal damage inflicted by Green, and 

4) because her abuse of trust was aggravated.

First, Green was previously convicted of wire fraud in 2006, wherein she basically 

engaged in the same conduct as her present offense. She stole money through fraudulent credit 

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 67
4

card purchases/credits, made unauthorized credit charges on company accounts, and wrote

checks to herself using the company account. (PSR ¶ 49). After defrauding that victim of a large 

sum of money, it appears she made nominal efforts to pay restitution. (Id.) While Green accrued 

criminal history points for that 2006 conviction, the Sentencing Guidelines do not account for 

her recidivism. Her conduct reflects a great need for deterrence, as her prior 27 month prison 

sentence apparently had no impact upon her.

Second, Green also victimized multiple companies, and Green started stealing from them 

almost immediately after being hired (within approximately two months). (R. 21, Plea 

Agreement, PAGEID# 49-50; PSR ¶ 23). The Sentencing Guidelines are the same regardless of 

whether there are two victims or one, and regardless of the speed by which Green took advantage 

of her employer.

Third, Green inflicted great personal and financial damage. As the Court heard at the 

April 23, 2019 hearing, Company B is a smaller, family-owned business, and was just getting 

started when Green began stealing from them. (4/23/19 Tr., pg. 14). Because of her fraud, 

Company B lacked sufficient funds to pay its employees and suppliers, at one point having 

around $4 in a checking account. (Id. at 18-19). Green’s acts caused great uncertainty about the 

true state of Company B’s financial affairs, and required countless hours of Company B’s 

owner/his staff and an outside accounting firm to unravel. (Id. at 18-19, 23-24). On multiple 

occasions, Company B’s owner had to take his personal money and inject it into the business to 

keep it afloat, causing personal issues. (Id. at 19-20, 22-24). Company B’s vendors placed 

restrictions on Company B’s purchases and caused Company B to pay substantial late fees. (Id. 

at 20-21). Her fraud also affected Company B’s reputation, and when married with the financial 

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 68
5

issues from the theft, stunted Company B’s ability to grow. (Id. at 20-22). The opportunity cost 

of that lost business/growth is unknown, but it is certainly an additional harm not fully reflected

by the advisory guidelines range. 

Finally, Green’s abuse of trust was aggravated. More than just simply using her position 

to steal money through her account access, she deceived Company B in ways beyond that 

necessary to commit the crime. Because she was the CFO, Company B’s owner relied on Green 

and had several conversations with her to obtain an accurate picture of the company’s finances, 

but Green obviously misled Company B’s owner - either explicitly or through omission - as he 

made decisions trying to keep the company afloat. (Id. at 16-17). She also doctored Company 

B’s ledgers, which contributed to the difficulty in identifying the amount stolen and the true 

financial state. (R. 21, Plea Agreement, PAGEID# 50). This conduct increases the seriousness of 

her offense. 

Because the Sentencing Guidelines do not fully account for these facts/harms, an upward

variance is appropriate to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors of deterrence and just punishment, to 

protect the public from more theft by Green, reflect the seriousness of the offense and the 

recidivist criminal background of Green, and to promote respect for the law. The Government 

believes the recommended sentence of at least 52 months imprisonment would satisfy the 

purposes of sentencing.

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 69
6

CONCLUSION

The United States believes a sentence of at least 52 months imprisonment would be 

sufficient, but not more than necessary to satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. GLASSMAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (0073698)

Assistant United States Attorney

200 West Second Street, Suite 600

Dayton, OH 45402

(937) 225-2910

Andrew.Hunt@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served May 21, 2019, upon Mr.

Christopher Deal, Esq., via CM/ECF electronic filing.

s/ Andrew J. Hunt

Andrew J. Hunt (0073698)

Assistant United States Attorney

Case: 3:18-cr-00104-WHR Doc #: 27 Filed: 05/21/19 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 70