Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Minutolo (Dkt. 32, D. Conn.)

Summary

A sentencing memorandum filed November 26, 2025 for defendant Vincenzo Minutolo by attorney Andrew P. Giering in United States v. Minutolo, Case No. 3:25-CR-26 (KAD), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, ahead of a December 10, 2025 sentencing hearing. The defense asks for a non-Guidelines prison sentence of 12 months and one day. It states that the offense conduct consists of unemployment insurance fraud from March 2020 until April 2021 and Paycheck Protection Program fraud from March 2021 until September 2021, and that on February 28, 2025 Minutolo waived indictment and pled guilty to an information with one wire fraud count for each. It reports about 9 ½ months on supervision with one reported instance of late notice of police contact, and notes unrelated state matters pending.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                           :   Case No. 3:25-CR-26 (KAD)
                       vs.                          :
                                                        November 26, 2025
 VINCENZO MINUTOLO                                  :


                               SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       Vincenzo Minutolo respectfully submits this memorandum in anticipation of his sentencing

hearing on December 10, 2025.        The defense respectfully requests that the Court impose a

non-Guidelines prison sentence of 12 months and one day.

I.     Procedural Background

       The offense conduct consists of unemployment insurance fraud that occurred from

March 2020 until April 2021, and Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) fraud that occurred from

March 2021 until September 2021. See PSR ¶¶ 16, 28, 32. On February 28, 2025, Mr. Minutolo

waived indictment and pled guilty to an information charging him with one count of wire fraud

regarding PPP loans, and one count of wire fraud regarding unemployment insurance. See ECF No. 9.

       Sentencing is currently scheduled for December 10, 2025. See ECF Nos. 28 & 29.

       As of the time of sentencing, Mr. Minutolo will have been under the supervision of the

U.S. Probation Office for approximately 9 ½ months.          During this time, the only reported

non-compliance was reporting police contact to the U.S. Probation Office after seven days instead of

within three days. See ECF No. 20 at 2.

       Mr. Minutolo also has unrelated state criminal matters pending in GA 1 in Stamford and GA 9

in Middletown, each related to alleged conduct on December 23, 2024.           See PSR ¶¶ 58–59.

Mr. Minutolo’s next court appearance in Middletown is scheduled for December 12, 2025, and his

next court appearance in Stamford is scheduled for January 15, 2026. See ibid. Undersigned counsel

has conferred with Mr. Minutolo’s attorney in the Middletown case, who represents that these charges

will be marked nolle prosequi at the next hearing on December 12, 2025.

       Regarding the Stamford case, Mr. Minutolo maintains his innocence and hopes for an outcome

similar to the anticipated outcome in Middletown. To facilitate the resolution of his Stamford case

prior to the commencement of any term of imprisonment in this federal case, Mr. Minutolo anticipates

requesting a federal self-surrender date on or after January 22, 2026, which is 43 days after his

anticipated federal sentencing date of December 10, 2025. Should the Stamford charges not fully

resolve on January 15, 2026, undersigned counsel would consider filing a motion with this Court to

postpone Mr. Minutolo’s self-surrender date, with the understanding that the Court might deny such

a motion.

       Mr. Minutolo is 39 years old and has no prior convictions.

II.    The History and Personal Characteristics of Vincenzo Minutolo

       Although 39 years old, Vincenzo Minutolo has failed to launch. He has not checked off many

of the milestones that many of his peers have achieved. He has not earned a college degree, married,

had children, or lived independently from his parents. See, e.g., PSR ¶¶ 64, 68, 81. Mr. Minutolo

has not achieved financial independence. He was raised under “modest economic circumstances”

(see id. ¶ 64) and has thus far been unable to raise himself or his family from those circumstances

(see id. ¶ 97). Typical milestones such as college graduation, professional or career attainment,

owning his own home, authentic friendships with other males, and promising romantic relationships,

are simply not part of Mr. Minutolo’s current world.

       Because male dominance and success in finance, dating, mating, and marriage are often the

metric by which others (and individual males themselves) evaluate status, the long-term effects of

                                                 2

chronic deficits in these areas are profound. Mr. Minutolo has found himself shut out of the traditional

pathways to educational attainment, professional development, and lifetime partnership. Without a

path to success in one or more of these areas, Mr. Minutolo, like a growing number of young men,

views himself as a failure.

          As a Millennial, Mr. Minutolo is of a generation that has suffered significant economic

disruption since starting their working lives, with many facing high levels of unemployment and debt

in the wake of the Great Recession and the COVID-19 recession. See generally, e.g., Julian Mark,

‘Unluckiest Generation’ Falters in Boomer-Dominated Market For Homes, WASH. POST,

Aug. 12, 2023, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/12/millennial-home-

buyers/ (last accessed Nov. 26, 2025); Danielle Kurtzleben, Here We Go Again: Millennials Are

Staring      At     Yet    Another     Recession,       NPR,    June    8,    2020,      available    at

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/871042916/d-j-vu-for-millennials-staring-at-the-2nd-recession-of-

their-adult-lives (last accessed Nov. 26, 2025); Catherine Baab-Mugira, Failure To Launch: Why So

Many American Millennials Feel Adulthood Is a Lie, NBC NEWS, July, 8, 2018, available at

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/failure-launch-why-so-many-millennials-feel-adulthood-

lie-ncna889466 (last accessed Nov. 26, 2025). Mr. Minutolo was 21 years old at the onset of the

Great Recession in late 2007, and 33 years old at the onset of the COVID-19 recession in early 2020.

          Mr. Minutolo’s adult life has been characterized by constant debt, failed employment or

entrepreneurial ventures, failed romantic relationships that did not result in cohabitation or offspring,

and a complete inability to achieve or maintain meaningful independence (financial or otherwise)

from his parents.

          This is necessary context and a partial explanation for Mr. Minutolo’s inexcusable decision to

fraudulently obtain $145,831 in PPP loans and $98,781 in unemployment insurance proceeds during

                                                    3

the COVID-19 pandemic, depriving fellow taxpayers and citizens of public funds at a moment of

great instability and hardship. Mr. Minutolo, who has long dreamed of financial independence and

aspired to establish a successful business of his own, used this money largely to shore up failed

business ventures, including his audio production company, City Sounds Production. Some of the

proceeds of the crime were also shared with family and friends who benefitted from the fraud but will

not share in the punishment. See generally PSR ¶ 66 (Mr. Minutolo’s sister described him as

“someone who gives all he can” and “a good person to have on your side”) & id. ¶ 77 (Mr. Minutolo

described himself as “too generous” because he “does not know when to say no”).

       Mr. Minutolo will live with the consequences of his criminal conduct for the rest of his life.

In addition to the thousands of collateral consequences of a federal felony consequences,

Mr. Minutolo expects that the Court will sentence him to a term of imprisonment.

       Since his arrest, Mr. Minutolo has taken concrete steps to improve his financial situation and

to establish an educational foundation to improve his long-term prospects. Since July 9, 2025,

Mr. Minutolo has worked as a veterinary assistant at Pet Town Vet Clinic in Newtown. See id. ¶ 84.

Mr. Minutolo is also enrolled in Penn Foster’s Veterinary Technician Program, an online accredited

associate degree program. See id. ¶ 78. He aspires to a career in the veterinary field, reflecting his

lifelong passion for caring for animals. See id. ¶ 77. Mr. Minutolo also continues to donate his time

and talents at City Wide Church in Bridgeport, where he has been an invaluable volunteer for more

than a decade. See id. ¶ 92.

III.   The Offense Conduct

       From March 2020 until April 2021, Mr. Minutolo collected $98,781 in unemployment

insurance claims through materially false representations. See id. ¶¶ 28, 32. From March 2021 until

September 2021, Mr. Minutolo obtained $145,831 in PPP loans based on materially false

                                                  4

representations. See id. ¶¶ 16, 32. Mr. Minutolo has agreed to pay restitution in the amount of

$244,612, including $145,831 to the U.S. Small Business Administration and $98,781 to the

Connecticut Department of Labor. See id. ¶ 120. Although the actual loss is under $250,000,

the intended loss including monies that were clawed back is $290,765. See id. ¶¶ 32, 109, 120.

But for this $40,000 difference, Mr. Minutolo’s Guidelines imprisonment range would be 15 to 21

months, instead of 21 to 27 months. Compare U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) (12-level increase for loss

amount between $250,000 and $550,000), with U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) (10-level increase for less

amount between $150,000 and $250,000).

IV.    Argument

       Vincenzo Minutolo respectfully submits that a non-Guidelines prison sentence of 12 months

and one day is sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing. There are numerous bases for a

downward variance under the Guidelines, including Mr. Minutolo’s lack of any criminal history;

the principle of incremental punishment, as Mr. Minutolo has never served a period of imprisonment;

Mr. Minutolo’s full compliance and significant rehabilitative efforts while on presentencing

supervision, including ceasing all entrepreneurial activities, obtaining and maintaining lawful

employment, and enrolling in an associate degree program; and the amount of time since the offense

conduct, which concluded more than four years ago.

       According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s JSIN database, the average and median

sentences for U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 defendants with Mr. Minutolo’s criminal history category and total

offense level nationwide over the last five fiscal years are 13 months and 12 months in prison.

See PSR ¶ 104.

       A.     The Guideline range in this case provides little useful advice.

       In determining an appropriate sentence, the sentencing court must apply the “parsimony

                                                5

clause” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which provides that the court “shall impose a sentence

sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of sentencing. The Court of

Appeals explained in United States v. Ministro-Tapia, 470 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2006) (Walker, J.), that if

the sentencing court believes a lower sentence will be as effective as a higher sentence in serving the

purposes of sentencing, it must choose the lower sentence. See id. at 142 (stating that where a

Guidelines sentence is “in equipoise with [a] below-the-range sentence,” the parsimony clause

requires imposition of the lower sentence).

       While the Court is required to consider the range of penalties suggested by the Sentencing

Guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence in a given case, that range does not bind the Court.

See United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (Newman, J.). The Supreme Court has

repeatedly reminded sentencing courts that “[t]he Guidelines are not only not mandatory on

sentencing courts; they are also not to be presumed reasonable.”            Nelson v. United States,

555 U.S. 350, 352 (2009) (per curiam) (emphasis in original); see also Rita v. United States,

551 U.S. 338, 351 (2007) (Breyer, J.) (emphasizing that the only “presumption of reasonableness”

that applies to a Guidelines sentence is “an appellate court presumption,” not applicable in the initial

sentencing analysis conducted by the District Court) (emphasis in original). Thus, while the Court

must consider the recommendations of the advisory Guidelines, the Court may not presume that those

recommendations are reasonable. Instead, the Court must treat the recommended Guidelines sentence

as only one among numerous factors.

       For good reason, courts generally pay less attention to the Guidelines in fraud cases. While the

amount of “loss” is the primary determinant of the offense level for fraud offenders, loss is a highly

imperfect measure of the seriousness of an offense. See United States v. Gupta, 904 F. Supp. 2d 349,

351 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rakoff, J.) (“By making a Guidelines sentence turn, for all practical purposes,

                                                   6

on this single factor [the amount of monetary loss or gain occasioned by the offense], the Sentencing

Commission effectively ignored the statutory requirement that federal sentencing take many factors

into account, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and by contrast, effectively guaranteed that many such

sentences would be irrational on their face.”); United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 509

(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Rakoff, J.) (criticizing “the inordinate emphasis that the Sentencing Guidelines

place in fraud cases on the amount of actual or intended financial loss” without any explanation of

“why it is appropriate to accord such huge weight to [this] factor[ ]”); Stewart Bishop, Sentencing

Commission      Plans     to   Reassess     Fraud       Guidelines,   LAW360,      Aug.     7,    2025,

https://www.law360.com/articles/2374801/sentencing-commission-plans-to-reassess-fraud-

guidelines (last accessed Nov. 26, 2025) (“The U.S. Sentencing Commission on Wednesday said it

will consider potential reforms to the federal sentencing guidelines for fraud offenses, including the

outsized role of loss calculation in sentencing, one of several priorities the agency has marked for

closer examination.”).

       In his concurrence in United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 377–78 (2d Cir. 2013),

Judge Underhill wrote that “[i]n my view, the loss guideline is fundamentally flawed . . . . [t]he

widespread perception that the loss guideline is broken leaves district judges without meaningful

guidance . . . .” Courts and commentators alike have frequently expressed their disdain for the fraud

guideline: “[I]t is difficult for a sentencing judge to place much stock in a guidelines range that does

not provide realistic guidance.” United States v. Parris, 573 F. Supp. 2d 744, 751 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)

(Block, J.); see also United States v. Watt, 707 F. Supp. 2d 149, 151 (D. Mass. 2010) (Gertner, J.)

(stating that the “Guidelines were of no help”); Corsey, 723 F.3d at 379 (Underhill, J., concurring)

(“the loss guideline . . . was not developed by the Sentencing Commission using an empirical

approach based on data about past sentencing practices” and as a result, “district judges can and

                                                    7

should exercise their discretion when deciding whether or not to follow the sentencing advice that

guideline provides”); Alan Ellis, et al., At a “Loss” for Justice: Federal Sentencing for Economic

Offenses, 25 CRIM. JUST. 34, 40 (2011) (“As it stands, the fraud guideline constitutes a series of ad hoc

amendments covering a vast array of distinctly dissimilar conduct applying to offenders from the

Gordon Gecko variety to the well-intentioned but desperate business owners. There simply is no way

the sentences that result from them can be considered principled or even reasonable.”).

       The Court should not adhere to the advisory sentencing range prescribed by the fraud

guideline in this case. Instead, in crafting its sentence, the Court should rely mainly on the sentencing

factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

       B.       Mr. Minutolo’s lack of any criminal history supports a downward variance.

       Mr. Minutolo is 39 years old and has no criminal history. He has no prior adult or juvenile

convictions. Thus, the experience of being charged, prosecuted, and convicted of two federal felony

offenses has served to deter and punish him significantly. Moreover, the impact of a federal criminal

conviction, which Mr. Minutolo will carry with him for the rest of his life, cannot be overstated.

Mr. Minutolo’s lack of criminal history is relevant to determining the appropriate sentence in at least

two ways: (1) in relation to the concept of incremental punishment; and (2) because as a first-time

offender, he will be severely punished by the collateral consequences of a felony conviction.

                1.      The concept of incremental punishment justifies a below-Guidelines sentence.

       First, the fact that Mr. Minutolo has never served a prior sentence suggests that a Guidelines

sentence would be disproportionate. In United States v. Mishoe, the Court of Appeals stated:

            Obviously, a major reason for imposing an especially long sentence upon those
            who have committed prior offenses is to achieve a deterrent effect that the prior
            punishments failed to achieve. That reason requires an appropriate relationship
            between the sentence for the current offense and the sentences . . . for the prior
            offenses.

                                                    8

241 F.3d 214, 220 (2d Cir. 2001) (Newman, J.). While the Mishoe decision principally addressed the

Career Offender Guidelines, the teaching of that decision applies here. Where an individual has never

been incarcerated prior to the instant offense, as is the case here, a sentence within the Guidelines

imprisonment range would be excessively severe. That is because there is no reason to believe in

such an instance that a prolonged period of incarceration (e.g., a Guidelines prison sentence of

21 months or more) would be more effective than a lesser sentence, because there is no point of

comparison or historical example to disprove the efficacy of a lower sentence.

               2.      The Court should consider the collateral consequences of a felony conviction.

       Mr. Minutolo is a first-time offender. While he has other charges pending, they will not

necessarily result in a felony conviction, or in any conviction at all. Mr. Minutolo faces a more severe

penalty than other defendants, because, in addition to a prison sentence, he is experiencing for the

first time the extremely serious collateral consequences of a felony conviction. A sentencing court

should consider such collateral consequences before imposing a sentence.              See United States

v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 141 (2d Cir. 2009) (Sack, J.) (“It is difficult to see how a court can properly

calibrate a ‘just punishment’ if it does not consider the collateral effects of a particular sentence.”).

       Senior District Judge Block in the Eastern District of New York departed substantially below

the Guidelines range in the case of a defendant convicted of importing 602 grams of cocaine.

He noted that because this was their first felony conviction, it would bring with it a myriad of

collateral consequences, the effect of which would be “devastating.” United States v. Nesbeth,

188 F. Supp. 3d 179, 180 (E.D.N.Y. 2016). Judge Block added, “As Professor Michelle Alexander

has explained, myriad laws, rules, and regulations operate to discriminate against ex-offenders and

effectively prevent their reintegration into the mainstream society and economy. These restrictions

amount to a form of ‘civil death’ and send the unequivocal message that ‘they’ are no longer part of

                                                    9

‘us.’” Ibid. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (noting “nearly 50,000 federal and state

statutes and regulations that impose penalties, disabilities, or disadvantages on convicted felons”).

A felony conviction will, among other consequences, impact Mr. Minutolo’s rights, his reputation,

his employment and housing prospects, and his sense of himself for the rest of his life.

        For Mr. Minutolo, the lifetime prohibition on ever possessing a firearm is an especially

onerous consequence of his felony conviction. Prior to this conviction, recreational hunting and

shooting was both a pastime and a passion for Mr. Minutolo. See PSR ¶¶ 5, 66. During his

presentence interview, Mr. Minutolo described the “copious amounts of time” that he spent “hunting

deer” with his grandfather as his “best childhood memory.” See id. ¶ 66. Turning 21 was a milestone

for Mr. Minutolo, because he was finally old enough to become a lawful pistol permit holder and

make his grandfather proud. Mr. Minutolo was such a firearms enthusiast that he has the text of the

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution tattooed on his right arm. See id. ¶ 71. 1 In the days

leading up to his waiver of indictment and guilty plea, Mr. Minutolo surrendered all his firearms.

See id. ¶ 5. Due to his felony conviction, Mr. Minutolo will never be able to participate in recreational

hunting or shooting with family and friends, visit the shooting range, or pass down the traditions that

his grandfather shared with him. He will never be able to even touch a firearm again without

committing another federal felony offense. This loss has weighed heavily on him, and is a daily

reminder of how his short-sighted decisions yielded consequences that he can never undo.

        C.      The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support a below-guidelines sentence.

        The Court must impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to




        1
         “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. CONST., amend. II.
                                                      10

achieve the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defense respectfully submits that a

prison sentence of 12 months and one day is sufficient to meet the purposes of sentencing in this case,

particularly when compared to sentences imposed in fraud cases involving similar or much greater

loss amounts in the District of Connecticut and nationwide.

                1.      The need for the sentence to achieve just punishment, reflect the seriousness
                        of the offense, and promote respect for the law.

        The offense in this case, though non-violent, was serious. Mr. Minutolo stole money from

pandemic-era government relief programs that were critical to keep people employed and businesses

afloat during an unprecedented public health crisis. Mr. Minutolo owes a considerable (but not

insurmountable) amount of restitution that it will take him at least several years to pay back. He fully

acknowledges the seriousness of his offense and does not seek to minimize it.

        Notably, however, Mr. Minutolo has already been punished severely in a myriad of ways as a

result of his actions. He incurred a federal felony conviction which will follow him for the rest of his

life. An avid sportsman, he will most likely never be able to touch a firearm again. He considerably

limited his options for the future, including for a future career. He disappointed his family and friends

and destroyed his reputation.     See, e.g., Nov. 13, 2025 Sentencing Hearing Transcript at 73,

United States v. Gaston, No. 3:25-CR-108 (SFR), ECF No. 32 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2025) (Russell, J.)

(in imposing probation sentence for $1.1 million PPP/EIDL fraud, where the defendant had a prior

state Medicaid fraud conviction, noting that “the nature of this prosecution, of course, has been quite

public and I think that’s no doubt impacted your standing in the community,” which “itself . . . serves

as a form of punishment and also has a deterrent impact as I don’t think you will want to put yourself

in this situation again”).

        The past year has been a time of reckoning for Mr. Minutolo, focused specifically on


                                                   11

recognizing and reflecting on the seriousness of his offense. The past year has also promoted his

respect for the law, specifically through his compliance while on presentencing release for 9 ½ months.

       A below-Guidelines sentence would better serve the goal of just punishment than a Guidelines

sentence because it would return Mr. Minutolo to the community after a reasonable period of

incarceration (his first and hopefully last), so that he can establish a new career before he is much

older, and work toward earning money to pay restitution and make the victims whole.

               2.      The need for general and specific deterrence.

       Imposing a prison sentence within the Guidelines range would not serve the goal of general

deterrence, because it is not clear that the severity of a sentence—as distinct from the certainty of its

imposition—has any significant general deterrent value. See Gary Kleck et al., The Missing Link in

General Deterrence Research, 43 CRIMINOLOGY 623 (2005). For example, one study of defendants

sentenced in the District of Columbia tracked over a thousand defendants whose sentences varied

substantially in terms of prison and probation time. The study’s authors found that “incarceration

seems to have little net effect on the likelihood of subsequent rearrest.” See Donald P. Green & Daniel

Winik, Using Random Judge Assignments To Estimate the Effects of Incarceration and Probation on

Recidivism Among Drug Offenders, 48 CRIMINOLOGY 357, 381 (2010). See also United States

v. Bannister, 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 658 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (Weinstein, J.) (“[T]here is little apparent

correlation between recidivism and the length of imprisonment.”).

       Mr. Minutolo fully acknowledges that he committed a serious federal offense that has and will

continue to result in life-changing consequences. Given his lack of criminal history, his age

(nearly 40), his education history (high school graduate with some college), and his track record while

on bond, Mr. Minutolo presents a low risk of recidivism. The best way to achieve specific deterrence

in this case is to provide for Mr. Minutolo’s return to the community after a reasonable period of time,

                                                   12

so that he can resume employment and pay his debt to the victims and to society.

       As for general deterrence, “[d]eterrence theory assumes the existence of a set of circumstances

that do not exist,” particularly “a level of civic knowledge and awareness – that everybody knows

what the consequences are for a given crime.” See DANIELLE SERED, UNTIL WE RECKON 61 (2019).

The public already knows that, in general, people who commit financial crimes can be arrested,

convicted, and sentenced to time in prison. And the public does not have the attention or interest to

learn or retain minutiae such as the sentence received for a particular defendant. “As a culture, we

simply do not possess that level of knowledge or awareness.” See ibid. The theory of “general

deterrence” ignores the basic fact that not many people other than federal criminal court practitioners,

and the occasional federal criminal defendant with internet access, take the trouble to regularly check

U.S. Department of Justice press releases to learn what sentences are imposed in federal criminal

cases. “Nor do people typically learn about their peers’ or neighbors’ sentences with enough context

to anticipate the consequences of their own actions.” See ibid. While there may be exceptions for

cases of extraordinary public interest, this is not such a case.

               3.      The need to protect the public.

       The goal of protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant goes hand in hand with

the goal of specific deterrence, discussed above. As long as Mr. Minutolo is deterred from committing

further crimes, there is no risk to the public. Significantly, Mr. Minutolo will continue to be deterred,

and the public will continue to be protected, during the anticipated term of supervised release.

               4.      The need to prevent unwarranted sentencing disparities.

       A significantly below-Guidelines sentence in this case would not create “unwarranted

sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The JSIN data in the Presentence Report indicates that the median

                                                   13

length of imprisonment for individuals with Mr. Minutolo’s primary guideline, offense level,

and criminal history category is 12 months, below the Guidelines range, which suggests that the

Guidelines are not necessarily a useful benchmark in the “average” first-time offender fraud case.

See PSR ¶ 104. A prison sentence of 12 months and one day would not only be an average sentence

nationwide, but would also be a significantly longer than average sentence for this District and Circuit.

        The requested sentence is also in accord with sentences imposed in recent Connecticut federal

fraud cases involving similar or greater loss amounts. In this case, the agreed-upon intended loss is

$290,765, and the actual loss after banks clawed back certain funds is $244,612. See id. ¶¶ 32, 109.

Mr. Minutolo has agreed to pay $244,612 in restitution. See id. ¶ 120. A review of recent federal

fraud sentences imposed in the District of Connecticut suggests that the requested sentence is an

appropriate resolution for a fraud case involving approximately a quarter-million dollars. Compare,

e.g.:

    •   Judgment, United States v. Squillante, No. 3:25-CR-106 (VDO), ECF No. 40 (D. Conn.
        Oct. 7, 2025) (Oliver, J.) (60-day sentence for $220,912 insider trading scheme where
        defendant illegally traded 15 times, stealing material nonpublic information from 13 different
        companies, with fine of $331,368, where Guidelines imprisonment range was either 12 to 18
        months or 18 to 24 months depending on how the Court resolved disputed abuse of position
        of trust enhancement);

    •   Judgment, United States v. Bethea, No. 3:22-CR-188 (KAD), ECF No. 96 (D. Conn.
        Mar. 6, 2025) (Dooley, J.) (time served sentence for payroll fraud scheme and separate check
        fraud scheme that victimized an elderly retired woman, with restitution order of $434,212.55
        (joint and several liability), where Guidelines imprisonment range was 21 to 27 months);

    •   Judgment, United States v. Ivy, No. 3:22-CR-196 (KAD), ECF No. 113 (D. Conn.
        Oct. 3, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (time served sentence for check fraud scheme that victimized an
        elderly retired woman, with restitution order of $248,423.09 (joint and several liability),
        where Guidelines imprisonment range was 33 to 41 months);

    •   Judgment, United States v. Coleman, No. 3:24-CR-36 (KAD), ECF No. 83 (D. Conn.
        Aug. 19, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (3-month sentence for check fraud scheme that victimized an
        elderly retired woman, with restitution order of $248,423.09 (joint and several liability),
        where Guidelines imprisonment range was 21 to 27 months);

                                                   14

•   Judgment, United States v. Hatch, No. 3:23-CR-141 (SVN), ECF No. 117 (D. Conn.
    Apr. 18, 2024) (Nagala, J.) (14-month sentence for art fraud scheme, with restitution order of
    $248,600, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 21 to 27 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Yankana, No. 3:22-CR-172 (AWT), ECF No. 34 (D. Conn.
    Sept. 27, 2023) (Thompson, J.) (5-month sentence for stealing from Amazon, with restitution
    order of $210,836.97, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 15 to 21 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Rankin, No. 3:18-CR-272 (JAM), ECF No. 690 (D. Conn.
    May 24, 2023) (Meyer, J.) (12-month sentence for Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy
    Cooperative (CMEEC) Chief Executive Officer who used ratepayer money to pay for lavish
    trips to the Kentucky Derby and the Greenbrier Resort, where the Court apportioned liability
    and ordered restitution as to this defendant in the amount of $374,400.31, where the
    government argued that the Guidelines imprisonment range was 41 to 51 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Sullivan, No. 3:18-CR-272 (JAM), ECF No. 691 (D. Conn.
    May 24, 2023) (Meyer, J.) (6-month sentence for CMEEC board member who used ratepayer
    money to pay for lavish trips to the Kentucky Derby and the Greenbrier Resort, where the
    Court apportioned liability and ordered restitution as to this defendant in the amount of
    $187,200.16, where the government argued that the Guidelines imprisonment range was 33
    to 41 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Bilda, No. 3:18-CR-272 (JAM), ECF No. 692 (D. Conn.
    May 24, 2023) (Meyer, J.) (6-month sentence for CMEEC board member who used ratepayer
    money to pay for lavish trips to the Kentucky Derby and the Greenbrier Resort, where the
    Court apportioned liability and ordered restitution as to this defendant in the amount of
    $187,200.16, where the government argued that the Guidelines imprisonment range was 41
    to 51 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Kalinowski, No. 3:22-CR-234 (VLB), ECF No. 41 (D. Conn.
    May 2, 2023) (Bryant, J.) (7-month sentence for tax fraud scheme, with restitution order of
    $174,746, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 12 to 18 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Aucapina, No. 3:21-CR-113 (JBA), ECF No. 242 (D. Conn.
    Apr. 5, 2023) (Arterton, J.) (5-month sentence for tax fraud scheme, with restitution order of
    $177,589, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 27 to 33 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Gutierrez, No. 3:21-CR-113 (JBA), ECF No. 236 (D. Conn.
    Mar. 30, 2023) (Arterton, J.) (6-month sentence for tax fraud scheme, with restitution order
    of $215,460.72, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 12 to 18 months);




                                             15

•   Judgment, United States v. Chaudhary, No. 3:20-CR-113 (JCH), ECF No. 77 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 18, 2022) (Hall, J.) (probation sentence for food stamp fraud conspiracy,
    with restitution order of $211,208 (joint and several liability), where Guidelines imprisonment
    range was 12 to 18 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Khan, No. 3:20-CR-108 (JCH), ECF No. 83 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 16, 2022) (Hall, J.) (probation sentence for food stamp conspiracy, with restitution
    order of $211,208 (joint and several liability), where Guidelines imprisonment range was 12
    to 18 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Javed Saeed, No. 3:21-CR-155 (JCH), ECF No. 91 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 10, 2022) (Hall, J.) (1 year and 1 day sentence for food stamp fraud conspiracy,
    with restitution order of $211,208 (joint and several liability), where Guidelines imprisonment
    range was 21 to 27 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Dastgir Saeed, No. 3:21-CR-155 (JCH), ECF No. 88 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 10, 2022) (Hall, J.) (2-month sentence for food stamp fraud conspiracy, with restitution
    order of $211,208 (joint and several liability), where Guidelines imprisonment range was 12
    to 18 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Richards, No. 3:22-CR-72 (KAD), ECF No. 81 (D. Conn.
    Sept. 19, 2022) (Dooley, J.) (3-month sentence where project manager defrauded his
    employer, with restitution order of $396,966, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 21
    to 27 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Klatt, No. 3:21-CR-217 (JCH), ECF No. 26 (D. Conn.
    Apr. 21, 2022) (Hall, J.) (1 year and 1 day sentence where property management company
    office manager stole from their employer, with restitution order of $446,859.82,
    where Guidelines imprisonment range was 33 to 41 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Miller, No. 3:19-CR-40 (KAD), ECF No. 73 (D. Conn.
    Sept. 10, 2020) (Dooley, J.) (6-month sentence where bookkeeper at property management
    and development company embezzled from their employer, with restitution order of $413,180,
    where Guidelines imprisonment range was 27 to 33 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Sherman, No. 3:19-CR-256 (MPS), ECF No. 56 (D. Conn.
    Aug. 17, 2020) (Shea, C.J.) (8-month sentence where bookkeeper embezzled from their
    clients and defrauded the IRS, with restitution order of $377,444.09, where Guidelines
    imprisonment range was 30 to 37 months); and




                                              16

    •   Judgment, United States v. Buchanan, No. 3:20-CR-52 (JBA), ECF No. 24 (D. Conn.
        July 23, 2020) (Arterton, J.) (1 year and 1 day sentence where payroll manager defrauded
        their employer, with restitution order of $260,202.52, where Guidelines imprisonment range
        was 30 to 37 months). 2

        In Mr. Minutolo’s case, a sentence within or near the Guidelines imprisonment range would

be excessive and create unwarranted sentencing disparities. A 21-month sentence for Mr. Minutolo’s

theft of less than $250,000 would be harsher than necessary to serve the purposes of sentencing given

recent sentences imposed in Connecticut fraud cases involving much more significant loss amounts.

For example, last week Judge Russell sentenced Karen Gaston, who fraudulently obtained over

$1 million in PPP and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funds and had a prior state Medicaid

fraud conviction, to probation. See Judgment, United States v. Gaston, No. 3:25-CR-108 (SFR),

ECF No. 31 (D. Conn. Nov. 17, 2025) (Russell, J.) (where Guidelines imprisonment range was 37–

46 months, imposing sentence of 3 years’ probation with conditions including four weekends of

intermittent confinement, followed by 10 months of home detention with location monitoring, with

restitution order of $1,163,910). Ms. Gaston “applied for seven separate loans over the course of

multiple months stretching into 2021, filing false applications, lying about the number of employees

on [her] payroll, using aliases and pseudonyms and even putting the name of a family member on the

fraudulent applicants.” See Nov. 13, 2025 Sentencing Hearing Transcript at 66–67, United States

v. Gaston, No. 3:25-CR-108 (SFR), ECF No. 32 (D. Conn. Nov. 20, 2025).




        2
          But cf. Judgment, United States v. Matava, No. 3:23-CR-156 (KAD), ECF No. 139 (D. Conn.
Apr. 3, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (24-month sentence in PPP loan fraud case with intended loss of $200,000 and actual
loss of $100,000, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 21 to 27 months, where defendant took a week-
long Carnival cruise to Bermuda while on pretrial release).
                                                     17

       Like Mr. Minutolo, Ms. Gaston spent some of the money “helping others and some investing

in the business that [she was] trying to get off of the ground.” See ibid. However, unlike Mr. Minutolo,

Ms. Gaston spent much of the money on two Mini Coopers, a Toyota, a $40,000 diamond ring from

Harry Winston, another $30,000 in jewelry from Tiffany & Co., $14,000 at Macy’s and Nordstrom,

$13,000 at Jimmy Choo, $10,000 at Crate & Barrell, $6,000 at All Pets Clubs, $4,500 at California

Closets, $3,400 at Louis Vuitton $1,600 at The Capital Grille, $1,500 at Fleming’s Prime Steakhouse

and Wine Bar, $1,200 at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, $1,100 at Victoria’s Secret, and $1,000 at Kate

Spade. See id. at 40.

       For other examples of recent sentencing outcomes in Connecticut federal fraud cases

involving significantly greater loss amounts suggesting that a Guidelines sentence for Mr. Minutolo

would create unwarranted disparities, see, e.g.:

   •   Judgment, United States v. Khokhar, No. 3:24-CR-109 (SVN), ECF No. 55 (D. Conn.
       Nov. 18, 2025) (Nagala, J.) (20-month sentence for tobacco tax fraud scheme, with restitution
       order of $1,140,994.13, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 30 to 37 months);

   •   Judgment, United States v. Mingione, No. 3:25-CR-65 (AWT), ECF No. 38 (D. Conn.
       Aug. 27, 2025) (Thompson, J.) (time served sentence where defendant embezzled millions
       from various real estate businesses he was entrusted to manage, with restitution order of
       $2,958,203, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 30 to 37 months);

   •   Judgment, United States v. Epps, No. 3:24-CR-203 (KAD), ECF No. 25 (D. Conn.
       Feb. 7, 2025) (Dooley, J.) (27-month sentence for Medicaid fraud scheme, with restitution
       order of $1,001,508.43, where Guidelines imprisonment range after Fernandez departure was
       30 to 37 months);

   •   Judgment, United States v. Keating, No. 3:24-CR-12 (VAB), ECF No. 42 (D. Conn.
       Feb. 3, 2025) (Bolden, J.) (20-month sentence where defendant defrauded his employer, with
       restitution order of $1,226,603.97, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 41 to 51
       months);




                                                   18

•   Judgment, United States v. Bethi, No. 3:24-CR-175 (VAB), ECF No. 24 (D. Conn.
    Jan. 10, 2025) (Bolden, J.) (probation sentence where defendant, a dentist, received over
    $2.2 million in Medicaid payments for patients incentivized by kickbacks and agreed to
    disgorge $500,000 in forfeiture, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 37 to 46 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Bobzin, No. 3:24-CR-169 (KAD), ECF No. 23 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 26, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (24-month sentence where defendant stole over two million
    dollars from his employer and failed to accurately report the stolen monies in yearly tax filings
    over eight years, with restitution order of $2,498,758, where Guidelines imprisonment range
    was 30 to 37 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Gilson, No. 3:24-CR-127 (VDO), ECF No. 32 (D. Conn.
    Oct. 11, 2024) (Oliver, J.) (19-month sentence for tax scheme including $250,000 PPP loan
    fraud, with restitution order of $1,407,831.16, where Guidelines imprisonment range was
    18 to 24 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Biebel, No. 3:24-CR-94 (KAD), ECF No. 35 (D. Conn.
    Oct. 1, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (18-month sentence for tax fraud scheme, with restitution order of
    $1,208,801.23, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 24 to 30 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Glenn, No. 3:23-CR-171 (RNC), ECF No. 42 (D. Conn.
    Sept. 17, 2024) (Chatigny, J.) (21-month sentence for “cherry-picking” securities scheme
    where defendant was an investment advisor, with restitution order of $2,743,616,
    where Guidelines imprisonment range was 51 to 63 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Slocum, No. 3:23-CR-137 (SRU), ECF No. 46 (D. Conn.
    July 17, 2024) (Underhill, J.) (probation sentence for Medicaid fraud case, where defendant
    was a licensed professional counselor, with restitution order of $695,048, where Guidelines
    imprisonment range was 30 to 37 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Pines, No. 3:24-CR-14 (SVN), ECF No. 35 (D. Conn.
    May 14, 2024) (Nagala, J.) (27-month sentence for Medicaid fraud scheme, with restitution
    order of $1,617,679, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 37 to 46 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Sullivan, No. 3:23-CR-188 (KAD), ECF No. 36 (D. Conn.
    Feb. 23, 2024) (Dooley, J.) (24-month sentence where office manager of a family-owned
    business defrauded their employer, with restitution order of $1,172,989.71, where Guidelines
    imprisonment range was 27 to 33 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Lonski, No. 3:22-CR-227 (SVN), ECF No. 57 (D. Conn.
    Dec. 20, 2023) (Nagala, J.) (27-month sentence for six-year Medicare, Medicaid, and private
    insurance fraud scheme, with restitution order of $2,651,294, where Guidelines imprisonment
    range was 37 to 46 months);


                                               19

•   Judgment, United States v. Stewart, No. 3:22-CR-26 (AWT), ECF No. 41 (D. Conn.
    Sept. 29, 2023) (Thompson, J.) (9-month sentence for stealing from Amazon, with restitution
    order of $1,063,762.83, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 27 to 33 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Pezzolo, No. 3:23-CR-4 (VAB), ECF No. 23 (D. Conn.
    June 27, 2023) (Bolden, J.) (13-month sentence where office manager and bookkeeper at
    nursery embezzled from their employer and failed to file a personal tax return or pay the
    income tax to the IRS for four years, with restitution amount of $1,329,314, where Guidelines
    imprisonment range after Fernandez departure was 24 to 30 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Guerreno, No. 3:22-CR-181 (MPS), ECF No. 38 (D. Conn.
    Feb. 14, 2023) (Shea, C.J.) (24-month sentence where Chief Financial Officer of financial
    services company diverted funds from the comapny, with restitution order of $1,073,473.57,
    where Guidelines imprisonment range was 41 to 51 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Chen, No. 3:22-CR-143 (SRU), ECF No. 45 (D. Conn.
    Jan. 10, 2023) (Underhill, J.) (18-month sentence where defendant “zapped” cash
    transactions at six restaurants for nearly a decade, resulting in over $2 million in losses on
    payroll-related taxes, with restitution order of $600,000, where Guidelines imprisonment
    range was 37 to 46 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Fitzgerald-Williams, No. 3:22-CR-73 (VAB), ECF No. 45
    (D. Conn. Dec. 8, 2022) (Bolden, J.) (30-day sentence in bank fraud case where defendant
    abused his position of trust as a bank employee, with restitution order of $780,922.77,
    where Guidelines imprisonment range after Fernandez departure was 63 to 78 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Kania, No. 3:21-CR-194 (VAB), ECF No. 41 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 18, 2022) (Bolden, J.) (60-day sentence where defendant fraudulently obtained funds
    from State of Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL) programs that provided wage and
    training subsidies to employers that hire unemployed jobseekers, including veterans,
    with restitution order of $1,054,722.22, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 27 to 33
    months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Gardner, No. 3:21-CR-90 (VAB), ECF No. 33 (D. Conn.
    Nov. 16, 2021) (Bolden, J.) (8-month sentence where defendant abused their position as the
    site manager of low-income government-subsidized elderly and disabled housing complexes
    to embezzle from their employer, with restitution order of $501,656.17, where Guidelines
    imprisonment range was 24 to 30 months);

•   Judgment, United States v. Meole, No. 3:20-CR-114 (VAB), ECF No. 77 (D. Conn.
    July 13, 2021) (Bolden, J.) (probation sentence for multiple fraud schemes over four years,
    with restitution amount of $559,811.56, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 41 to 51
    months);



                                             20

   •   Judgment, United States v. White, No. 3:18-CR-249 (AWT), ECF No. 47 (D. Conn.
       Mar. 5, 2021) (Thompson, J.) (13-month sentence for vital participant in health care fraud
       scheme, with restitution order of $27,616,662 (joint and several liability), where Guidelines
       imprisonment range was 57 to 71 months);

   •   Judgment, United States v. Huitzil, No. 3:20-CR-21 (KAD), ECF No. 39 (D. Conn.
       Aug. 31, 2020) (Dooley, J.) (6-month sentence where defendant, a tax return preparer, had a
       multi-year practice of preparing and filing false returns, with restitution order of $898,665,
       where Guidelines imprisonment range was 30 to 36 months);

   •   Judgment, United States v. Gyambibi, No. 3:18-CR-136 (JAM), ECF No. 169 (D. Conn.
       Feb. 20, 2020) (Meyer, J.) (12-month sentence where defendant was convicted at trial for
       health care fraud scheme, where the Court apportioned liability and ordered restitution as to
       this defendant in the amount of $825,166.12, where Guidelines imprisonment range was 51 to
       63 months); and

   •   Judgment, United States v. Foreman, No. 3:19-CR-62 (VAB), ECF No. 46 (D. Conn.
       Jan. 28, 2020) (Bolden, J.) (1 year and 1 day sentence for years-long fraud and tax scheme,
       with restitution order of $640,209.46, where the Guidelines imprisonment range was 37 to 46
       months).

       Overall, precedent in this District and nationwide averages available in the U.S. Sentencing

Commission’s JSIN database suggest that the requested sentence of 12 months and one day would

avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and that a sentence within the Guidelines imprisonment

range of 21 to 27 months would create unwarranted disparities, for this offense involving an actual

loss of less than $250,000.

               5.     The need to provide training, medical care, or treatment in the most effective
                      manner.

       Section 3553(a)(2)(D) requires the Court to consider “the need for the sentence imposed . . .

to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other

correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” This purpose militates strongly against a

lengthy prison sentence. Congress has explicitly directed that “imprisonment is not an appropriate

means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a).



                                                21

        Mr. Minutolo will receive rehabilitation while on supervised release. The Court can impose

conditions including educational and vocational goals, financial restrictions, community service,

and cognitive behavioral therapy, among others. Mr. Minutolo will have many tools to succeed on

supervised release, including the support of the U.S. Probation Office, the Federal Defender Office,

and this Court. Incarceration will not provide him with rehabilitation, but will only interrupt his

efforts at rehabilitation while on presentencing release and delay future efforts at rehabilitation while

on supervised release.

                6.       The need to provide restitution to victims.

        Mr. Minutolo has agreed to repay $244,612 in restitution. See PSR ¶ 120. Because he does

not have any assets to speak of, Mr. Minutolo expects that he will be making restitution payments in

this case for at least several years. As long as he is incarcerated, he will not be able to make restitution

payments. Accordingly, the sentencing goal of providing restitution would be best served by a

sentence that returns Mr. Minutolo to the community after a reasonable period of time so that he can

resume employment and make restitution payments.

IV.     Conclusion

        Mr. Minutolo respectfully requests that the Court impose a non-Guidelines prison sentence of

12 months and one day.




                                                    22

                          Respectfully Submitted,

                          THE DEFENDANT,

                          Vincenzo Minutolo

                          OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER

Date: November 26, 2025   /s/Andrew P. Giering
                          Andrew P. Giering
                          Assistant Federal Defender
                          265 Church Street
                          New Haven, CT 06510
                          Tel: (203) 498-4200
                          Fax: (203) 498-4207
                          Bar no.: ct29332
                          Email: Andrew_Giering@fd.org




                             23

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 26, 2025, a copy of the foregoing Sentencing
Memorandum was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing.
Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or
by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.

                                               /s/Andrew P. Giering
                                               Andrew P. Giering

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ctd.163679.32.0.pdf

Size

312,475 bytes

SHA-256

9578bb9e7d67c5e15f78a43e992dea2967ccabf201b3568c3946f9ec79bf1c87

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ctd.163679.32.0.pdf

Original

archive.org