[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11028

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EROTIDA NATASHA HARDEN ORTIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00057-RBD-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 1 of 19
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Erotida Ortiz appeals her convictions and total sentence of 

96 months’ imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to defraud 

the United States and six counts of aiding in the preparation and 

presentation of a false tax return. First, Ortiz argues that the government presented insufficient evidence for each count to establish 

that she willfully agreed to submit and submitted false tax returns 

that entitled her customers to higher refunds. Second, Ortiz argues 

that the district court erred in allowing testimony about her alleged 

Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan fraud under Federal 

Rule of Evidence 403. Third, Ortiz argues that the district court 

erred in failing to instruct the jury on the good faith defense. And 

lastly Ortiz argues that her below Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because her codefendant, Aida Cortes, received a lesser sentence. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I.

A federal grand jury charged Ortiz with one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 

(Count One), and six counts of aiding in the preparation and 

presentation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) 

(Counts Two to Seven). The indictment lists Cortes as a coconspirator. The indictment alleged that Ortiz owned a tax preparation business, Certified Taxes, which Cortes managed. As to 

Counts Two to Seven, it listed the specific tax returns that were 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 2 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 3

filed for the following individuals for tax years 2016 and 2017: C.Q. 

as to Count 2; A.M. as to Count 3; M.M. as to Count 4; J.M. as to 

Count 5; A.P. as to Count 6; and J.D. as to Count 7.

Ortiz moved to exclude, in relevant part, any mention at 

trial to her uncharged, alleged PPP loan fraud, arguing that she had 

a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. She contended

that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, 

or misleading the jury because the evidence was only indicative of 

propensity, as PPP loans were not relevant or similar to the instant 

offense conduct. The government responded by arguing that the 

evidence was admissible, if Ortiz testified, for impeachment on 

cross-examination and under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(2). 

The case proceeded to trial. During trial, the government 

called several Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) agents, who testified to the following. To submit taxes returns to the IRS, a company must have an electronic filer identification number (“EFIN”) 

and a preparer tax identification number (“PTIN”). To obtain an 

EFIN, the person must pass a suitability check, which includes a 

criminal background check. Cortes obtained an EFIN, which Certified Taxes used to submit tax returns. The Schedule C form on a 

tax return listed profits or losses from a business. If someone did 

not have a business, they could not put any expenses on a Schedule 

C form. Instead, they would deduct work-related expenses on a 

Schedule A. Earned income tax credit was a credit that increased 

as someone’s income increased, leveled off, and then decreased as 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 3 of 19
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

their income increased. A negative income on a Schedule C form 

offset wages earned on a W-2 for purposes of calculating the earned 

income tax credit. 

Ricky Poole, a retired IRS agent who previously investigated 

Certified Taxes, testified to the following. During his investigation, 

he interviewed Ortiz, who said that she personally reviewed all of 

the tax returns the company filed. Although Certified Taxes prepared around 700 Schedule C forms, Ortiz told him that the company had prepared only twenty Schedule C forms. She told him 

that she required documentation for any Schedule C expenses and 

would investigate any claims of no income. According to another 

IRS agent, throughout the scheme, Ortiz made approximately $1.1 

million from processing returns.

The government also called Chris Nisbeth, who testified to 

the following. Nisbeth worked for Drake Software, which offered 

tax preparation software to tax professionals. Certified Taxes used 

Drake Software with Ortiz and Cortes listed as contact individuals.

The preparer was responsible for inputting the data into the system 

for each document and, to use the software properly, needed to 

understand how to prepare taxes. A Schedule C form did not generate automatically, but rather, a preparer had to navigate to that 

page of the software. 

The government called several past customers of Certified 

Taxes: Joseph Mojica, Carmen Quinones, Angela Williams, Antonio Rivera, Alberto Medina, Maribel Medina, Alfred Pennant, 

Jamark Salazar, and Jose Dominguez. These past customers

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 4 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 5

testified that, while their taxes indicated that they had a business 

for which they incurred expenses but made no income, they never 

told anyone at Certified Taxes any of those things and never provided documentation to that effect. On cross-examination, the customers testified that they were charged a flat fee regardless of the 

size of the return and did not receive any kickbacks. 

The government then called two former employees of Certified Taxes, who testified to the following. They did not have any 

prior experience filing taxes. For training, Ortiz and Cortes provided a packet about taxes, including information on tax returns 

involving businesses. No one at Certified Taxes told them to make 

up numbers to put on a tax form. They received a commission 

based on how many returns they completed. One employee testified that Ortiz and Cortes reviewed every tax return she prepared. 

The other employee testified that she did not fill out any Schedule 

C forms without documentation. That same employee indicated

that, in December 2018, the employees at Certified Taxes found 

out they were preparing taxes incorrectly after going to an IRS seminar. 

After the government rested, Ortiz moved for judgment of 

acquittal on all counts. The district court denied her motion. 

Then, Ortiz called Darryll Jones, an expert in taxation, who 

testified to the following. There was no minimum level of education needed to get a PTIN number. The expenses listed on a Schedule C form were not automatically disqualified if a business name 

was not listed. On cross-examination, Jones testified that the tax 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 5 of 19
6 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

preparer must have some substantiation of the expenses entered 

on the Schedule C form. He testified that a person could get an 

earned income tax credit for more than what they had withheld in 

their taxes. And he testified that one way to get the maximum 

earned income tax credit was to list deductions on a Schedule C

form. 

Ortiz herself then testified to the following in her defense. 

She primarily worked on marketing the company and did not review most of the taxes it filed. Cortes and Michael Harden were 

responsible for checking the returns before filing. Ortiz and Cortes 

trained their employees with a study guide. She did not tell anyone

to make up numbers. She was previously convicted of three felonies: dealing in stolen property, false verification to a pawn broker, 

and food stamp fraud. She paid her employees a commission based 

on the amount of tax returns they filed. As the administrator, she 

was the default user in the Drake Software program. In 2018, she 

attended an IRS seminar where she learned that Certified Taxes has 

been incorrectly using Schedule C forms, as they had listed regular 

W-2 expenses on the Schedule C form. Soon after that seminar, 

she informed everyone at the office the correct way to complete 

Schedule C forms. She did not prepare or assist in any of the tax 

returns listed in the indictment. If her name was on a tax return, it 

was because the person had logged into the system “under admin.” 

She charged customers a flat fee and did not ask for kickbacks. 

On cross-examination, Ortiz testified that, before opening 

Certified Taxes, she worked for two other tax companies that the 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 6 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 7

IRS shut down. She denied the government’s assertion that all of 

her customers except one received a refund, although when confronted with evidence she stated that she was unsure. She denied 

the government’s assertion that customers receiving a big refund 

benefited her because it would incentivize customers to come 

back. 

The government asked whether she had received and applied for a PPP loan, to which she objected. Ortiz argued that, because she was being investigated for PPP loan fraud, she had a Fifth 

Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court explained 

that her credibility was at issue because she had elected to testify. 

After a recess, the court explained that, according to its research, 

Ortiz waived her right to raise a Fifth Amendment privilege by taking the stand. Ortiz argued that the Rule 403 balancing test 

weighed in her favor based on her constitutional right against selfincrimination. The court explained that the alleged PPP loan was 

relevant because it bore on the plausibility of her explanation that 

the improper tax returns were the result of a mistake. Ortiz asked 

whether the court found that the probative value of the alleged 

PPP loan was not substantially outweighed by her right against selfincrimination, to which it replied that it did. Ortiz asked for, and 

the court granted, a standing objection. 

Ortiz retook the stand for cross-examination. She testified 

that she received a PPP loan in 2021. She testified that someone 

else prepared her application for that PPP loan, in which they indicated that she had another business that she did not have. She 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 7 of 19
8 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

testified that she received $20,000 from that PPP loan. On redirect 

examination, she testified that, for the PPP loan, she found someone online to submit the application and sent that person her tax 

return. She testified that she did not give that person the false information listed on the application about a separate business. 

Then, Cortes herself, in her defense, testified to the following. When filling out Schedule C forms, she asked customers how 

far they drove to work, if they used their cell phone for work, and 

if they bought food at work. She would input the information into 

the Schedule C form regardless of whether the person had a business. After Ortiz attended an IRS forum, she learned that the way 

she had completed Schedule C forms was incorrect. Cortes managed the company’s office. 

Ortiz then renewed her motion for judgment of acquittal, 

which the district court denied. 

As to the jury instructions, Ortiz objected to the proposed 

instruction on the good faith defense, arguing for the inclusion of 

language stating that “evidence that establishes only that a person 

made a mistake in judgment or error in management or was careless does not establish fraudulent intent.” The district court explained that Ortiz’s instruction was a modification of the pattern 

jury instruction. The government argued against any modification 

to the pattern instruction. The district court stated that it would 

not modify the pattern instruction and overruled Ortiz’s objection. 

In the jury instructions, the district court instructed that 

“[e]vidence that a Defendant was previously convicted of a crime 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 8 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 9

is not evidence of guilt of the crime in this trial,” but rather could 

be used to decide the credibility of the testimony. Further, it instructed on the good faith defense, specifically stating that:

Good-Faith is a complete defense to the charges in the 

indictment since good-faith on the part of a Defendant is inconsistent with willfulness, and willfulness is 

an essential part of the charges. If that Defendant 

acted in good faith, sincerely believing herself to be 

exempt by the law, then that Defendant did not intentionally violate a known legal duty – that is, that Defendant did not act “willfully.” The burden of proof 

is not on that Defendant to prove good-faith intent 

because that Defendant does not need to prove anything. The government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that each Defendant acted willfully as 

charged.

The jury ultimately found Ortiz guilty on all counts. 

The U.S. Probation Office generated Ortiz’s presentence investigation report (“PSI”). The PSI grouped the counts together 

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T4.1(J), 

her base offense level was 24. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2T1.4(b)(1)(B), Ortiz received a two-level increase because she 

professionally caused tax returns to be filed at Certified Taxes. 

Next, pursuant to § 2T1.4(b)(2), Ortiz received a two-level increase 

because she provided co-conspirators with the instructions and 

training on how to file fraudulent tax returns. And, pursuant to 

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, she received a two-level increase because she obstructed justice when she lied at trial that she had no knowledge of

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 9 of 19
10 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

tax preparation. The PSI thus calculated her total offense level as 

30. 

As to her criminal history, Ortiz had prior convictions, including cultivation of marijuana, possession of 20 grams or less of 

cannabis, food stamp fraud, dealing in stolen property, and receiving money from a pawnbroker by false verification of ownership. 

She had three criminal history points, resulting in a criminal history 

category of II. 

For Count One, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment was five years. For Counts Two to Seven, the statutory maximum term of imprisonment was three years per count. Based on 

a total offense level of 30 and a criminal history category of II, her 

total guideline range was 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. 

Ortiz submitted objections to the PSI, which are not relevant to this appeal. The government did not object to the PSI. In 

her sentencing memorandum, Ortiz asked for a sentence of 60 

months’ imprisonment. She argued that the government abused 

its prosecutorial discretion in charging her with seven counts and 

Cortes with only one because Cortes managed the business and assisted in the preparation of false tax returns. She contended that 

the difference in charging was the government’s attempt to “get 

around” any future argument of a sentencing disparity. 

At the consolidated sentencing hearing, the district court 

noted that, with a total offense level of 30 and a criminal history 

category of II, Ortiz’s guideline range was 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. As to Cortes, it noted that, while her Guideline range 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 10 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 11

would have been 97 to 121 months’ imprisonment based on a total 

offense level of 30 and a criminal history category of I, Cortes’s 

guideline range was 60 months’ imprisonment due to her statutory 

maximum. The government argued for both Ortiz and Cortes to 

be sentenced within their applicable guideline ranges. It contended 

that Ortiz deserved a higher sentence than Cortes based on her 

knowledge and role in the scheme, her criminal record, and her 

fraudulent conduct regarding the PPP loan. 

Ortiz asked the district court not to consider the alleged PPP 

loan because she had not been charged with any PPP fraud. She 

argued that there was no reason she should be treated any differently than Cortes because both were integral to the scheme. She 

contended that the government abused its prosecutorial discretion 

in charging her with extra counts with which it did not charge Cortes. But she acknowledged that her criminal record allowed for her 

to be “treated a little differently.” 

The district court sentenced Cortes to 54 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Ortiz to a total sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment, consisting of 60 months’ imprisonment as to Count One 

and 6 months’ imprisonment as to Counts Two to Seven, all to run 

consecutively. The district court imposed a total supervised release 

of three years, imposed a total restitution of $3,796,000, and waived 

the imposition of a fine. The district court noted that, based on the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the sentence reflected a balance between the nature of and her role in the offense, her criminal history, and the need to avoid sentencing disparities. It explained that 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 11 of 19
12 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

the 36-month difference between the sentences imposed on Ortiz 

and Cortes was warranted by Ortiz’s criminal history and organizational leadership, including the formation of the entity, origin of 

the concept of the fraud, and implementation of the fraud. 

This appeal ensued.

II.

We review the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal 

de novo, viewing all facts and inferences in the light most favorable 

to the government. United States v. Holmes, 814 F.3d 1246, 1250 

(11th Cir. 2016). The district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal will be upheld “if a reasonable trier of fact could 

conclude that the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 218 

F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000)). It is not enough for a defendant 

to put forth a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as the issue is 

not whether the jury reasonably could have acquitted, but whether 

it reasonably could have found the defendant guilty. United States 

v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2009). “Although the evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,”

a conviction will not be affirmed if it is predicated on “conjecture.” 

United States v. Toler, 144 F.3d 1423, 1433 (11th Cir. 1998). 

When a defendant takes the stand and testifies in her own 

defense, the jury may disbelieve her testimony, and the defendant’s 

own statements “may be considered as substantive evidence of the 

defendant’s guilt.” United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 

1995) (emphasis in original). In other words, “when a defendant 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 12 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 13

chooses to testify, [s]he runs the risk that if disbelieved ‘the jury 

might conclude the opposite of h[er] testimony is true.’” Id. (quoting Atkins v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 952, 961 n.7 (11th Cir. 1992)).

To sustain a conviction for conspiracy under § 371, the government must show: “(1) the existence of an agreement to achieve 

an unlawful objective; (2) the defendant’s knowing and voluntary 

participation in the conspiracy; and (3) the commission of an overt 

act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Harmas, 974 

F.2d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Cure, 804 

F.2d 625, 628-30 (11th Cir. 1986)). Because direct evidence of an 

agreement is rare, an agreement “can be inferred from acts that 

furthered the conspiracy’s purpose.” United States v. Miller, 693 F.2d 

1051, 1053 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Middlebrooks, 

618 F.2d 273, 278 (5th Cir. 1980)).

To prove a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), the government 

must show that the defendant (1) willfully and knowingly aided or 

assisted (2) in the preparation or filing of a federal income tax return (3) that contained false material statements. See United States 

v. Haynes, 573 F.2d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 1978).1 The defendant does 

not need to sign or prepare the return to be prosecuted under this 

statute. See United States v. Wolfson, 573 F.2d 216, 225 (5th Cir. 

1978). Willfulness is a “voluntary, intentional violation of a known 

legal duty” that does not require proof of evil motive or bad intent. 

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), 

we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit 

handed down before October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 13 of 19
14 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

United States v. Brown, 548 F.2d 1194, 1199 (5th Cir. 1977). This is 

generally shown through circumstantial evidence, such as making 

false invoices or documents, concealing assets to hide the source of 

income, and any other conduct that misleads or conceals. Id. at 

1199 & n.14.

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Ortiz’s motion for judgment of acquittal because the government presented sufficient evidence as to each count. As to Count 

One, the government presented sufficient evidence as to the existence of an agreement to defraud the United States through submitting false tax returns that claimed Schedule C expenses that reduced the earned income for the customer and inflated their refund, encouraging the customer to return and refer others to the 

business. The government presented evidence that: (1) Ortiz and 

Cortes trained their employees, who ultimately filed the false tax 

returns; (2) Cortes managed the office while Ortiz marketed the 

business; and (3) Cortes acquired an EFIN to submit taxes, as Ortiz 

was unable due to her prior felonies. Because the jury rejected 

Ortiz’s testimony, her testimony that she did not review the tax 

returns or instruct her employees to fabricate information was substantive evidence of her guilt, as corroborated by testimony that 

the tax returns claimed false Schedule C expenses and that Ortiz 

reviewed all of them. As to Counts Two to Seven, the government 

presented sufficient evidence that Ortiz willfully and knowingly 

aided or assisted in the false filings identified in the indictment. 

Witnesses testified that Ortiz reviewed every tax return.

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 14 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 15

Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.

III.

We review a district court’s ruling on admission of evidence 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Jimenez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1249 

(11th Cir. 2000). “An abuse of discretion arises when the district 

court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an 

errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” 

United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005)).

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and 

“the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R.

Evid. 401(a)-(b). Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible at 

trial unless provided otherwise by statute, the Constitution, the 

Federal Rules of Evidence, or the Supreme Court. Fed. R. Evid. 

402. 

Relevant evidence “may” be excluded “if its probative value 

is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, 

undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Exclusion under Rule 403 is an “extraordinary remedy” that courts should employ “only sparingly 

since it permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence.” Smith, 459 F.3d at 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United 

States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1989)). Accordingly, 

we view the disputed evidence “in a light most favorable to its 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 15 of 19
16 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

admission, maximizing its probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” Id. (quoting United Statesv. Elkins, 885 F.2d 

775, 784 (11th Cir. 1989)). A similarity between an extrinsic act and 

the “charged offense will make the other offense highly probative 

with regard to a defendant’s intent in the charged offense.” United 

States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1354 (11th Cir. 2005). Unfair prejudice is defined as “relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense 

charged.” Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997). 

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of the alleged PPP loan fraud pursuant to Rule

403 because its probative value was not substantially outweighed 

by the danger of unfair prejudice, as both the instant offense conduct and the alleged fraud involved misrepresentations to the government on Schedule C forms. Further, there was no risk of confusion of the issues because she executed the schemes in different 

ways, i.e., the instant offense conduct involved her business filing 

false tax returns and the alleged fraud involved her application for 

a PPP loan regarding a separate business. 

Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.

IV.

We review a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury 

instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Martinelli, 454 

F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court abuses its discretion in refusing such a request where: (1) the instruction correctly 

stated the law; (2) the instruction’s subject matter was not 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 16 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 17

substantially covered by other instructions; and (3) the refusal seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to defend herself. Id. If the 

charge given “adequately addresses the substance of [her] request,” 

a defendant is not entitled to an instruction using her precise language. United States v. Horner, 853 F.3d 1201, 1210 (11th Cir. 2017) 

(quoting United States v. Silverman, 745 F.2d 1386, 1396 (11th Cir. 

1984)). 

Issues not briefed on appeal are deemed forfeited and will 

not be addressed absent extraordinary circumstances. United States 

v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc), cert. denied, 

143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). 

Here, we conclude that the district court did not err in failing 

to instruct the jury on the good faith defense because it did give 

that instruction. While the district court did not instruct the jury 

with Ortiz’s precise language, she abandoned any argument that 

not using her precise language was error by failing to raise it as an 

issue in her brief. 

Thus, we affirm as to this issue.

V.

We review a sentence’s reasonableness for abuse of discretion, regardless of whether that sentence falls inside or outside of 

the guideline range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

“Substantive reasonableness involves examining the totality of the 

circumstances and whether the sentence is supported by the sentencing factors outlined in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. 

Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1353 (11th Cir. 2010). “The party 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 17 of 19
18 Opinion of the Court 23-11028

challenging a sentence has the burden of showing that the sentence 

is unreasonable in light of the entire record, the § 3553(a) factors, 

and the substantial deference afforded sentencing courts.” United 

States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015). The 

district court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not 

greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” listed in 

§ 3553(a), which includes, in relevant part, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. § 3553(a)(2). 

A defendant may challenge her sentence as substantively unreasonable due to an “unwarranted” sentencing disparity under 

§ 3553(a)(6). United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 

2009). A difference in sentences is warranted if meaningful differences in the codefendants’ conduct and situations justified it. 

United States v. Howard, 28 F.4th 180, 216 (11th Cir. 2022). “The 

underlying facts of the crime and all of the individual characteristics 

are relevant” to a court’s evaluation of alleged sentencing disparities and its assessment of whether two defendants are similarly situated. United States v. Azmat, 805 F.3d 1018, 1048 (11th Cir. 2015). 

We have also stated that “[d]isparity between the sentences imposed on codefendants is generally not an appropriate basis for relief on appeal.” United States v. Regueiro, 240 F.3d 1321, 1325–26 

(11th Cir. 2001). 

Here, we conclude that Ortiz’s sentence is not substantively 

unreasonable because the 36-month sentencing disparity was warranted based on Ortiz’s higher criminal history, including prior 

fraudulent conduct, and leadership role in the instant offense 

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 18 of 19
23-11028 Opinion of the Court 19

conduct. Indeed, she reviewed all of the tax returns filed at the 

company and worked at two prior tax companies closed by the IRS. 

Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.

VI.

For the reasons stated, we affirm Ortiz’s convictions and 

sentences.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11028 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2024 Page: 19 of 19