PORTLAND MAIN OFFICE 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

(503) 727-1000 

www.usdoj.gov/usao/or 

Quinn P. Harrington 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Quinn .Harrington@usdoj.gov 

(503) 727-1000 

Reply to Portland Office 

Ms. Janet Lee Hoffman 

Janet Hoffman & Associates 

1000 SW Broadway Ste 1500 

Portland OR 97205 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

United States Attorney's Office 

District of Oregon 

Scott Erik Asphaug 

United States Attorney 

March 23, 2022 

Re: United States v. Diana Yates, Case No. 3:15-cr-00238-02 

Plea Agreement Letter 

Dear Counsel: 

EUGENE BRANCH 

405 E 8th Avenue, Suite 2400 

Eugene, Oregon 97401 

(541) 465-6771 

MEDFORD BRANCH 

310 West Sixth Street 

Medford, Oregon 97501 

(541) 776-3564 

I. Parties/Scope: This plea agreement is between this United States Attorney's Office 

(USAO) and defendant, and thus does not bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting, 

administrative, or regulatory authority. This agreement does not apply to any charges other than 

those specifically mentioned herein. 

2. Charges: Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Information, 

which charges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 214. 

3. Penalties: The maximum sentence is 1 year of imprisonment, a fine of $100,000 (or 

twice the gross pecuniary gains or losses resulting from the offense if such amount exceeds 

$250,000), 1 year of supervised release, and a $25 fee assessment. Defendant agrees to pay the 

fee assessment by the time of entry of guilty plea or explain to the Court why this cannot be 

done. 

4. Dismissal/No Prosecution: The USAO will move at the time of sentencing to dismiss 

any remaining counts against defendant. The USAO further agrees not to bring additional 

charges against defendant in the District of Oregon arising out of this investigation, known to the 

USAO at the time of this agreement. 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 6
Ms. Hoffman 

Re: Yates Plea Agreement Letter 

Page 2 

3/23/2022 

5. Elements and Factual Basis: order for defendant to be found guilty of Count One of 

the Superseding Information, the government must prove the following elements beyond a 

reasonable doubt: 

First, the defendant agreed to give a thing of value in exchange for an extension of credit; 

Second, the extension of credit was through a financing institution; 

Third, the extension had an indirect impact on the Federal Reserve; and 

Fourth, the thing of value and all material facts with respect to the arrangement were not 

disclosed in writing 

Defendant has fully discussed the facts of this case and any potential defenses with 

defense counsel. Defendant has committed each of the elements of the crime to which defendant 

is pleading guilty and admits there is a factual basis for defendant's guilty plea. The following 

facts are true and undisputed: 

a. Background 

At all relevant times, Defendant Diana Yates was the Chief Financial Officer at the Bank 

of Oswego. The Bank of Oswego was a financing institution that made extensions of credit. 

Bank of Oswego had its own bank through which is obtained funds to extend credit, and 

transactions conducted by Bank of Oswego indirectly impacted the Federal Reserve. 

b. The Transaction 

In or about October of 2010, the Bank of Oswego lost any interest on a piece of real 

property, hereinafter referred to as "the A Avenue Property," after a foreclosure action by the 

holder of a senior lien. In or about November 20 I 0, the A Avenue Property was listed for sale 

under restrictive terms. Specifically, the sale was initially restricted to individuals, meaning that 

financial institutions, like the Bank of Oswego, could not purchase the property. 

In or about January 2011, Defendant Diana Yates, and others, agreed to arrange for Bank 

of Oswego employee, Employee 1, to obtain title to the A Avenue Property. To accomplish this 

transaction, Defendant Diana Yates authorized the use of bank funds to purchase the A A venue 

Property in the name of Employee 1. In doing so, Defendant Diana Yates provided an extension 

of credit from the Bank of Oswego to Employee 1 to purchase the property in his name. In 

exchange for this extension of credit, Employee 1 received something of value in the form of 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 6
Ms. Hoffman 

Re: Yates Plea Agreement Letter 

Page 3 

3/23/2022 

clear title to the A A venue Property, because no lien or other encumbrance was filed against the 

A Avenue Property. This transaction also provided another thing of value to Employee 1, the 

ability to claim a first-time homebuyer credit on his individual tax return, a tax credit that existed 

at the time of the transaction. Diana Yates and others agreed with Employee I that Employee 1 

would eventually transfer title back to the Bank of Oswego. The agreement with Employee 1 to 

facilitate the purchase of A A venue Property in his name was never disclosed in writing. 

As part of the agreement, in or about May of 2011, Employee l transferred title to A 

A venue back to the Bank of Oswego to facilitate the sale of the A A venue Property to an 

individual, hereinafter Customer 1. 

c. Knowledge 

Diana Yates admits that at the time of the transaction she knew and agreed to give a thing 

of value in exchange for an extension of credit through the Bank of Oswego ( a financing 

institution), that the extension of credit had an indirect impact on the Federal Reserve and that 

the thing of value and all material facts with respect to the arrangement were not disclosed in 

writing. 

6. Sentencing Factors: The parties agree that the Court must first determine the applicable 

advisory guideline range, then determine a reasonable sentence considering that range and the 

factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Where the parties agree that sentencing factors apply, such 

agreement constitutes sufficient proof to satisfy the applicable evidentiary standard. 

7. Relevant Conduct: The parties agree that defendant's relevant conduct, pursuant to 

USSG § 2Cl.2(a)(2) is a Base Offense Level of 9. The parties also agree a 2-level enhancement 

applies pursuant to USSG § 2C l .2(b )(2). 

8. Acceptance of Responsibility: Defendant must demonstrate to the Court that defendant 

fully admits and accepts responsibility under USSG § 3El.1 for defendant's unlawful conduct in 

this case. If defendant does so, the USAO will recommend a three-level reduction in defendant's 

offense level (two levels if defendant's offense level is less than sixteen). The USAO reserves 

the right to change this recommendation if defendant, between plea and sentencing, commits any 

criminal offense, obstructs or attempts to obstruct justice as explained in USSG § 3C 1.1, or acts 

inconsistently with acceptance of responsibility as explained in USSG § 3E 1.1. 

9. Joint Sentencing Recommendation: The parties agree to recommend a probationary, 

noncustodial sentence. The parties are each free to argue any position on the length or conditions 

of probation. 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 6
Ms. Hoffman 

Re: Yates Plea Agreement Letter 

Page 4 

3/23/2022 

10. Additional Departures, Adjustments, or Variances: 

The USAO agrees not to seek any upward departures, adjustments, or variances to the 

advisory sentencing guideline range, or to seek a sentence in excess of that range, except as 

specified in this agreement. 

11. Waiver of Appeal/Post-Conviction Relief: Defendant knowingly and voluntarily 

waives the right to appeal from any aspect of the conviction and sentence on any grounds, except 

for a claim that: (1) the sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum, or (2) the Court 

arrives at an advisory sentencing guideline range by applying an upward departure under the 

provisions of Guidelines Chapters 4 or 5K, or (3) the Court exercises its discretion under 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence which exceeds the advisory guideline sentencing range as 

determined by the Court. Should defendant seek an appeal, despite this waiver, the USAO may 

take any position on any issue on appeal. Defendant also waives the right to file any collateral 

attack, including a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, challenging any aspect of the conviction or 

sentence on any grounds, except on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, and except as 

provided in Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In the event that defendant's 

conviction under this agreement are vacated, the government may reinstate and/or file any other 

charges, and may take any position at a resentencing hearing, notwithstanding any other 

provision in this agreement. 

12. Court Not Bound: The Court is not bound by the recommendations of the parties or of 

the presentence report (PSR) writer. Because this agreement is made under Rule 1 l(c)(l)(B) of 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant may not withdraw any guilty plea or rescind 

this plea agreement if the Court does not follow the agreements or recommendations of the 

parties. 

13. Full Disclosure/Reservation of Rights: The USAO will fully inform the PSR writer and 

the Court of the facts and law related to defendant's case. Except as set forth in this agreement, 

the parties reserve all other rights to make sentencing recommendations and to respond to 

motions and arguments by the opposition. 

14. Breach of Plea Agreement: If defendant breaches the terms of this agreement, or 

commits any new criminal offenses between signing this agreement and sentencing, the USAO is 

relieved of its obligations under this agreement, but defendant may not withdraw any guilty plea. 

If defendant believes that the government has breached the plea agreement, defendant 

must raise any such claim before the district court, either prior to or at sentencing. If defendant 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 4 of 6
Ms. Hoffman 

Re: Yates Plea Agreement Letter 

Page 5 

3/23/2022 

fails to raise a breach claim in district court, defendant has waived any such claim and is 

precluded from raising a breach claim for the first time on appeal. 

15. Restitution: Based on the Court's prior decision, the government is not seeking 

restitution. Defendant understands that victims could still request restitution and that this 

agreement does not bind the Court on restitution issues. 

16. Memorialization of Agreement: No promises, agreements, or conditions other than 

those set forth in this agreement will be effective unless memorialized in writing and signed by 

all parties listed below or confirmed on the record before the Court. If defendant accepts this 

offer, please sign and attach the original of this letter to the Petition to Enter Plea. 

17. Deadline: This plea offer expires if not accepted by February 4, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. 

Sincerely, 

SCOTT ERIK ASPHAUG 

United States Attorney 

QUINN 

HARRINGTON 

Digitally signed by QUINN 

HARRINGTON 

Date: 2022.03.23 13:43:00 -07'00' 

QUINNP.HARRINGTON 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 5 of 6
Ms. Hoffman 

Re: Yates Plea Agreement Letter 

Page 6 

3/23/2022 

I have carefully reviewed every part of this agreement with my attorney . I understand 

and voluntarily agree to its terms. I expressly waive my rights to appeal as outlined in this 

agreement. I wish to plead guilty because, in fact, I am guilty. 

Defendant 

I represent the defendant a:S legal counsel. I have carefully reviewed every part of this 

agreement with defendant. To my knowledge, defendant's decisions to a th" agreement and 

to plead guilty are informed and voluntary ones. ( ! 

Revised May 2018 

Case 3:15-cr-00238-SI Document 1198 Filed 03/24/22 Page 6 of 6