Court filing
Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Ciero (Dkt. 396, N.D. Iowa)
Summary
The government's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Yovany Ciero, No. 24-CR-03013-006-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, filed November 26, 2025 as Document 396, responding to R. Doc. 390. The government states that it will call no witnesses or offer exhibits and will rely on the trial evidence, since the court presided over the trial. It addresses each of the eight issues the U.S. Probation Office identified in the presentence report, beginning with loss and a recommended base offense level of 19 under USSG §2S1.1(a)(1) tied to the jury's verdict on Count 38, Money Laundering Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The memorandum is signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy L. Vavricek.
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
Filed November 26, 2025 in Yovany Ciero; one of 1 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-11-26 |
Cite this document
“Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Ciero (Dkt. 396, N.D. Iowa).”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, No. 3:24-cr-03013, Doc. 396, filed 2025-11-26. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-yovany-ciero-iand-65865/2025-11-26-gov-uscourts-iand-65865-396-0-doc-396/
, SHA-256 0dcaf0f9f150016dab5b6f3aa11ff4a1345eee348c7a282017d9852619462ff4.Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 24-CR-03013-006-LTS
)
vs. )
)
YOVANY CIERO, )
)
Defendant. )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
II. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS .................................................................................... 2
A. Potential Witnesses ............................................................................................ 2
B. Exhibits ................................................................................................................. 2
III. FACTS ............................................................................................................................ 2
IV. ISSUES ........................................................................................................................... 2
A. Loss ........................................................................................................................ 2
B. Sophisticated Means .......................................................................................... 5
C. Possession or Trafficking of an Authentication Feature .......................... 7
D. Sophisticated Laundering ................................................................................ 8
E. Role ........................................................................................................................ 9
F. Obstruction of Justice...................................................................................... 10
G. Zero-Point Offender ........................................................................................ 10
H. Restitution......................................................................................................... 10
IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 11
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s Order (R. Doc. 390), the government files the instant
Sentencing Memorandum.
1
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 1 of 12
II. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS
A. Potential Witnesses
1. None. The government intends to rely on the trial evidence in
this case.
B. Exhibits
1. None. The government intends to rely on the trial evidence in
this case.
III. FACTS
Because the Court presided over the trial and is very familiar with the facts of
the case, the government does not repeat those facts here. Instead, the
government will highlight particularly relevant facts from the trial in conjunction
with its arguments concerning the issues below.
IV. ISSUES
The United States Probation Office (“USPO”) has identified eight issues in
the PSR. The government addresses each issue below, in turn.
A. Loss
The USPO recommends the Court find that defendant’s base offense level is
19, pursuant to USSG §2S1.1(a)(1), in light of the jury’s guilty verdict on the most
serious count of conviction, i.e., Count 38, Money Laundering Conspiracy in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). This recommended base offense level for
defendant’s § 1956(h) conviction depends on a number of subsidiary Guidelines
findings, because the base offense level for Count 38 under §2S1.1(a)(1) is “[t]he
offense level for the underlying offense from which the laundered funds were
derived.” As relevant to this first issue, defendant argues the USPO’s base offense
2
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 2 of 12
level calculation contains an erroneous subsidiary “loss” finding under USSG
§2B1.1 for the “underlying offense.”
For purposes of USSG §§2S1.1 and 1B1.3, and consistent with the indictment
and the jury instructions, the “underlying offense” in this case is Wire Fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Thus, the general fraud guideline, USSG §2B1.1,
provides the underlying Guidelines calculations for USSG §2S1.1(a) and requires
the Court to calculate “loss.”
For purposes of §2B1.1, “loss” includes both actual loss and intended loss.
USSG §2B1.1, Table Note “C.” “‘Actual loss’” means the reasonably foreseeable
pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense.” Id. “Intended loss” includes
“pecuniary harm the defendant purposely sought to inflict,” even if impossible or
unlikely to occur. Id. The Court need only estimate loss, which may include “[t]he
fair market value of the property unlawfully taken.” USSG §2B1.1, cmt (n3(B)).
Here, because the trial evidence shows that defendant participated in
facilitating fraudulent PPP loans for himself and M.P.G., and otherwise laundering
fraudulently obtained PPP loan moneys directly and by means of Yordanis Perez
Velazquez (“Yordanis”), whom he recruited for that purpose, the Court should find
that the moneys the SBA and its participating lenders lost from such fraudulent
PPP loans constitutes “reasonably foreseeable harm that resulted from
[defendant’s] offense.” USSG §2B1.1, Notes to Table (C). This harm to the SBA
and its participating lenders in the PPP, which totals $232,543, qualifies as “actual
loss,” because the harm was reasonably foreseeable to defendant and actual
monetary loss to a victim may be determined. See United States v. Harmon, 944
3
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 3 of 12
F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 2019) (taking “broad view of what conduct and related loss
amounts can be included in calculating loss,” including uncharged relevant conduct
that was part of common scheme or plan (quoting United States v. DeRosier, 501
F.3d 888, 896 (8th Cir. 2007)); cf. United States v. Miller, 588 F.3d 560, 565 (8th
Cir. 2009) (explaining that gain to the defendant may only be used as the measure
of loss under the guidelines if neither actual nor intended loss to a victim can be
determined) (citing USSG §2B1.1 cmt. (n.2(B)); United States v. Van Brocklin, 115
F.3d 587, 600 (8th Cir. 1997) (construing predecessor to USSG §2B1.1 and holding
that “the district court clearly erred in equating ‘loss’ solely with the defendants’
profit”).
The USPO correctly concludes that, because the jury convicted defendant of
knowingly participating in the underlying offense of Wire Fraud, he is responsible
for the more than $150,000 in loss that resulted from the scheme to defraud. See
USSG §2S1.1, cmt. (n.2(B)) (stating §2S1.1(a)(1) applies if the defendant committed
the underlying offense or is otherwise accountable for it). Although defendant
continues to deny he conspired with Adrian Pupo Perez (“Adrian”) and Helen Leyva
Santiesteban (“Helen”), the jury found otherwise. 1
Therefore, pursuant to USSG §2S1.1, a 10-level enhancement should be
included within defendant’s base offense level for Count 38, because defendant is
1 The USPO correctly points out that defendant is only held responsible in this loss
calculation for the stolen funds he personally obtained or laundered, not the entire $2.4
million at issue in the conspiracy. Thus, the USPO’s loss calculation is appropriately
conservative insofar as there is no attempt to attribute the loss of other “bundlers” and
“facilitators” to defendant under the reasonable foreseeability provisions of USSG
§1B1.3(a)(1)(B).
4
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 4 of 12
responsible for more than $150,000 in “loss” for “the underlying offense” under
USSG §2B1.1(b)(1)(F).
B. Sophisticated Means
The government also requests the Court apply a two-level enhancement for
sophisticated means under USSG §2B1.1(b)(10)(C) within defendant’s base offense
level under USSG §2S1.1 for Count 38. “The sentencing guidelines instruct courts to
increase a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the offense ‘involved sophisticated
means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting
sophisticated means.’” United States v. Garbacz, 33 F.4th 459, 474 (8th Cir. 2022)
(quoting USSG §2B1.1(b)(10)(C)). The commentary to §2B1.1(b)(10(C) states:
For purposes of subsection (b)(10)(C), “sophisticated means” means
especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the
execution or concealment of an offense. For example, in a telemarketing
scheme, locating the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating
soliciting operations in another jurisdiction ordinarily indicates sophisticated
means. Conduct such as hiding assets or transactions, or both, through the
use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or offshore financial accounts also
ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.
USSG §2B1.1, comment. (n.9(B)).
The two examples identified in the commentary are “‘simply illustrative, not
exclusive.’” United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 1056, 1058 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting United
States v. Lewis, 93 F.3d 1075, 1082 (2d. Cir. 1996)). The Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals has made clear that “[r]epetitive and coordinated conduct, though no one step
is particularly complicated, can be a sophisticated scheme . . . .” United States v. Finck,
407 F.3d 908, 915 (8th Cir. 2005). At bottom, “[a]n offense involve[s] sophisticated
means if, ‘viewed as a whole,’ the offense conduct is ‘notably more intricate than that of
5
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 5 of 12
the garden-variety offense.’” Garbacz, 33 F.4th at 474 (quoting Belfrey, 928 F.3d at
753).
Here, defendant’s offense conduct—even when one limits its scope to that
portion of such conduct in which defendant personally engaged—was notably more
intricate than that of the underlying garden-variety offense of wire fraud. Defendant’s
conduct was not limited to one or two instances of fraudulent conduct but instead
repetitive and coordinated with many others. The trial evidence established that
defendant recruited multiple individuals into the PPP fraud scheme and repeatedly
facilitated that scheme by transferring moneys to Helen and Adrian. Defendant used
the wire transfer service “Zelle” and, on some occasions, directed the recipients of the
fraudulent loan proceeds to address funds through Zelle to M.P.G., instead of to the
defendant, in an attempt to conceal his own involvement and the involvement of Helen
and Adrian. Further, at the outset of the fraudulent PPP loan scheme in June 2020,
Helen and Adrian paid the defendant over $1,400, which he transferred to a
cryptocurrency account that he controlled at Coinbase. Defendant thereafter
periodically transferred moneys from an account that he controlled at Capital One to
Coinbase.
In sum, defendant’s conduct was repetitive and coordinated, Finck, 407 F.3d at
915, and it was notably more intricate than the garden-variety offense, Garbacz, 33
F.4th at 474. Accordingly, the Court should find the sophisticated means enhancement
applies.
6
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 6 of 12
C. Possession or Trafficking of an Authentication Feature
The government also requests the Court apply a two-level enhancement for
possession or trafficking of an authentication feature, pursuant to USSG §2B1.1(b)(11),
within defendant’s base offense level under USSG §2S1.1 for Count 38.
The trial evidence showed that defendant’s role in the scheme to defraud was to
recruit individuals into the scheme, obtain their personal identifying information for
the fraudulent loan applications (including photographs of drivers’ licenses containing
authentication features described in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)), and then pass that
information along to Adrian and Helen, who submitted the fraudulent loan
applications to lenders participating in the PPP.
Comment 10 to §2B1.1 defines “authentication feature” to have the same
meaning as the same phrase in 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(1). Section 1028(d), in turn, defines
“authentication feature” to include any hologram, watermark, certification, symbol,
code, image, sequence of numbers or letters, or other feature that either individually or
in combination with another feature is used by the issuing authority on an
identification document, document-making implement, or means of identification to
determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified. The phrase
“identification document” in § 1028(d) includes state driver’s licenses. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028(d)(3). Here, an example of an authentication feature that defendant possessed
and trafficked is Trial Exhibit 8D, an Iowa Driver’s License containing a hologram,
“Real ID” star, etc.
Accordingly, this Court should find the possession or trafficking of an
authentication feature enhancement under USSG §2B1.1(b)(11) applies.
7
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 7 of 12
D. Sophisticated Laundering
The USPO recommends a two-level enhancement, pursuant to USSG
§2S1.1(b)(3), because defendant’s offense involved “sophisticated laundering.” The
Guidelines commentary to §2S1.1(b)(3) defines “sophisticated laundering” as
“complex or intricate offense conduct pertaining to the execution or concealment of
the 18 U.S.C. § 1956 offense.” USSG §2S1.1, cmt. (n.5). The commentary further
states sophisticated laundering “typically involves the use of” (1) fictitious entities;
(2) shell corporations; (3) two or more levels of transactions; or (4) offshore financial
accounts.
A “sophisticated laundering” enhancement is appropriate in this case. The
trial evidence made plain that defendant’s money laundering offense involved
multiple layers of financial transactions that were designed to conceal and disguise
the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the illegally obtained SBA
moneys. Further, at the outset of the scheme, defendant used a cryptocurrency
account that he controlled at Coinbase, and he then periodically transferred funds
from an account that he controlled at Capital One to Coinbase. Defendant also
directed PPP loan recipients to send fees to an account that he controlled in the
name of M.P.G. Finally, defendant incorporated “YC Transport, LLC” with the
Iowa Secretary of State in a further attempt to conceal the scheme. See, e.g., United
States v. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707, 730-31 (8th Cir. 2005) (affirming imposition of
sophisticated laundering enhancement on account of “layering” and making clear
“[t]he guideline does not require a finding that each layer was composed of a
complex transaction”); United States v. Rubashkin, 718 F. Supp. 953, 976 (N.D.
8
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 8 of 12
Iowa 2010) (applying sophisticated laundering enhancement despite lack of
evidence of fictitious entities, offshore financial accounts, or shell corporations,
because the defendant layered transactions, even if those transactions were not
particularly sophisticated), aff’d on other grounds, 655 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2011).
E. Role
The USPO recommends a three-level enhancement, pursuant to USSG
§3B1.1(b), for defendant’s aggravating role in the offense. USSG §3B1.1(b) directs
that, if the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)
and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise
extensive, increase by three levels.
Of the more than 100 participants in this fraudulent PPP loan scheme, the
defendant was one of six high-level “bundlers” or “facilitators” working to recruit
fraudulent PPP loan applicants for Adrian and Helen. After the PPP applicants
received their fraudulent loans, defendant requested and collected the fees for the
loans from the applicants. Again, defendant directed the applicants either to
transfer the money to him directly or indirectly to his significant other, M.P.G.
Defendant then transferred fees to Adrian and Helen. In addition, the defendant
personally recruited Yordanis into the scheme to defraud as a lower-level bundler—
also collecting fees from applicants whose loans Yordanis facilitated. Therefore, the
role enhancement applies. See United States v. Irlmeier, 750 F.3d 759, 764 (8th
Cir. 2014) (defendant may be subject to the §3B1.1(b) enhancement even if he
managed or supervised only one participant in a single transaction); United States
v. Felix-Aguirre, 824 F. App’x 429, 431 (8th Cir. 2020) (unpub. per curiam) (holding
9
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 9 of 12
three-level enhancement applied for role in money laundering conspiracy, where
defendant “called upon [another co-conspirator] to help set up utilities for
residences that were then used . . . for money laundering operations”).
F. Obstruction of Justice
The USPO recommends a two-level enhancement, pursuant to USSG §3C1.1,
for obstruction of justice. As relevant here, the Guidelines commentary defines
obstructive acts to include false testimony at trial. USSG §3C1.1, (cmt. n.4(B)).
The Court should apply the obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG
§3C1.1, because defendant perjured himself repeatedly at trial. Specifically,
defendant falsely testified (1) he did not know the PPP loan funds were illegal or
fraudulent when he received and sent them, when, as the jury correctly found
based on strong evidence, that defendant acted knowingly (R. Doc. 363, at 42, 58,
60, 61); (2) he repays his debts, especially government loans, when in truth he did
not repay his credit card debts and was receiving delinquency notices on his
residential FHA loan) (Id. at 42, 44-45, 52-55); and (3) the only time he used cash
was when he needed $10 to $20 to put in the offering plate at church on Sundays
when, in truth, he withdrew over $4,000 in cash via multiple ATM transactions in
August 2020 (Id. at 63, 88-90).
G. Zero-Point Offender
Because defendant should receive an aggravating role enhancement under
USSG §3B1.1, he is ineligible for a zero-point offender reduction under USSG
§4C1.1. See USSG §4C1.1(a)(10).
H. Restitution
The probation office correctly states that defendant should be required to
10
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 10 of 12
make $212,293 in restitution to the SBA. This restitution amount is equal to the
total actual loss for which defendant is responsible, specifically, $232,543, minus
the $20,250 in fraudulent loan proceeds that M.R.M. voluntarily returned to her
lender. Defendant insists he is at most responsible for $40,348, but the Court
should overrule this objection, in light of the trial evidence, the jury’s verdicts, and
the mandatory restitution provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.
IV. CONCLUSION
In addition to ordering $212,293 in restitution to the SBA, the Court should
determine defendant’s Guidelines range to be 121 to 151 months of imprisonment,
based upon a total offense level of 32 and a criminal history category of I. This
calculation consists of:
● A base offense level of 23, pursuant §2S1.1(a)(1), based upon (1) an
underlying base offense level for wire fraud of 7 under USSG §2B1.1(a)(1); (2) a 10-
level increase for loss under USSG §2B1.1(b)(1); (3) a 2-level increase under USSG
§2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for sophisticated means; (4) a 2-level increase under USSG
§2B1.1(b)(11) for possession or trafficking of an authentication feature; and (5) a 2-
level increase under USSG §2B1.1(b)(12) because defendant’s offense involves
conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040 (disaster benefits);
● Pursuant to USSG §2S1.1(b)(2), a 2-level increase, because defendant was
convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1956;
● Pursuant to USSG §2S1.1(b)(3), a 2-level increase for sophisticated
laundering;
● Pursuant to USSG §3B1.1(b)(2), a 3-level increase for aggravating role;
11
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 11 of 12
and
● Pursuant to USSG §3C1.1, a 2-level increase for obstruction of justice.
Respectfully submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LEIF OLSON
I hereby certify that on November 26, 2025, United States Attorney
I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the ECF system, which
will send notification of such filing to the By: /s/ Timothy L. Vavricek
parties or attorneys of record.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY TIMOTHY L. VAVRICEK
Assistant United States Attorney
BY: /s/ TLV
111 7th Avenue SE, Box 1
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401-2101
319-363-6333
319-363-1990 – Fax
Tim.Vavricek@usdoj.gov
12
Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM Document 396 Filed 11/26/25 Page 12 of 12File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.iand.65865.396.0.pdf
- Size
- 197,161 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0dcaf0f9f150016dab5b6f3aa11ff4a1345eee348c7a282017d9852619462ff4
- Original
- archive.org