Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance — United States v. David Antonetti (M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · No. 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP · Doc. 58 · 2025-03-10 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
TAMPA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
                  Case No. 8:24-cr-317-VMC-AEP 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
DAVID ANTONETTI 
_______________________________/ 
 
DEFENDANT DAVID ANTONETTI’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
AND MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE 
 
David Antonetti pleaded guilty to one charge of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. 
Section 1343. Since pleading guilty, Mr. Antonetti has cooperated with the 
government, provided information on another culpable individual, and accepted 
responsibility for his actions in this case. Mr. Antonetti has also used the more than 
seven months he has been incarcerated to reflect, rehabilitate, and prepare for life after 
incarceration. In light of his cooperation, acceptance of responsibility, personal 
history, and other circumstances, Mr. Antonetti respectfully files this sentencing 
memorandum (with accompanying exhibits) and moves for a downward variance 
from the Sentencing Guidelines.   
I. 
PERSONAL BACKGROUND  
 
A. 
Early Life and Diagnosis 
David Antonetti was born to Vanessa Ortiz and David Antonetti Sr. on 
September 10, 1996. From a young age, David faced significant challenges. At six 
years old, he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 1 of 18 PageID 191

2 
 
and intellectual behavior issues. These diagnoses made school particularly difficult for 
David, but with the help of medication, he managed to focus and function well in 
many aspects of life. Despite being picked on in school because of his disabilities, 
David remained determined and worked hard to overcome these obstacles. 
B. 
Childhood and Adolescence 
David’s childhood was marked by perseverance and resilience. He found joy in 
activities like baseball and dancing, which provided him with a sense of 
accomplishment and happiness. Although he did not excel in sports, his passion for 
breakdancing led him to take classes, where he thrived. David’s family moved to 
Hillsborough County from New York when he was 14 years old, which was another 
significant transition in his life. 
David’s relationship with his family has been complex. While he has a cordial 
relationship with his biological father, he is not close with his four siblings on his 
father’s side. Vanessa Ortiz, David’s mother, married Luis Morales when David was 
two years old, and Luis has been David’s primary father figure. 
C. 
Education and Early Adulthood 
After finishing high school, David pursued his interest in videography at the Art 
Institute of Tampa. He loved taking photos and creating videos, which allowed him 
to express his creativity. Unfortunately, a car accident shortly after he got his first car 
forced him to put college on hold. The burden of car payments led David to work to 
support himself financially. 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 2 of 18 PageID 192

3 
 
David’s life took a difficult turn after becoming a father. Despite the challenges, 
he was overjoyed by the birth of his daughter, Avayah, and has always been there for 
her. However, his relationship with Avayah’s mother ended two years ago, and he has 
not seen his daughter since she was two years old. This separation has been a source 
of great pain for David. 
D. 
Mental Health and Personal Struggles 
David has faced numerous mental health challenges throughout his life. In 
addition to ADHD, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder at the age of seven. He 
has struggled with depression, high blood pressure, and a hernia. David has been 
hospitalized under the Baker Act three times due to suicidal behavior, including an 
attempt to throw himself in front of a moving vehicle and an overdose attempt in 2024. 
Despite these struggles, David has shown a willingness to seek help. Speaking with a 
therapist has been beneficial for him, and he is open to counseling. He does not drink 
or use drugs, and he has never owned any weapons. 
E. 
Community Involvement and Personal Interests 
David has always been passionate about helping others. He volunteered with 
the “Back to School with Susan Valdes” program, providing supplies to public school 
communities. He also enjoyed participating in activities with the youth group at The 
Crossing Church. David’s strong interest in video production led him to produce music 
videos successfully, and before his incarceration, he was a productive individual 
working two jobs. 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 3 of 18 PageID 193

4 
 
F. 
Reflection and Future Aspirations 
David’s incarceration has provided him with the opportunity to reflect on his 
actions and the circumstances that led to his involvement in wire fraud. He deeply 
regrets his actions and is committed to turning his life around. During his time in 
prison, David has completed multiple assessments and earned certificates of 
completion, demonstrating his dedication to self-improvement. 
Upon his release, David intends to live with his parents and obtain employment 
in retail. He is determined to rebuild his life and become a positive influence in his 
daughter’s life and the community. With the right support, David is capable of 
overcoming his past mistakes and contributing positively to society. 
David Antonetti’s life story is one of resilience and perseverance in the face of 
significant challenges. His struggles with mental health, family dynamics, and personal 
setbacks have shaped his journey. Despite these obstacles, David has shown a 
commitment to self-improvement and a desire to make amends for his past actions. 
With the Court’s understanding and support, David has the potential to turn his life 
around and become a valuable member of the community. See also Ex. A (Letters of 
Support).  
II. 
MEMORANDUM OF LAW  
 
Mr. Antonetti respectfully objects to paragraphs in the Presentence Report 
(PSR) that result in unwarranted offense-level increases as well as a higher restitution 
amount. In addition, Mr. Antonetti moves for a downward variance based on 
numerous factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 4 of 18 PageID 194

5 
 
 
A. 
Mr. Antonetti’s Objections to the Presentence Report (Doc. 56) 
1. 
The Court need not rule on objections that would not affect Mr. 
Antonetti’s Guidelines range.  
 
 
In his objections to the initial PSR, Mr. Antonetti objected to numerous 
paragraphs that have no effect on the Court’s final calculations of Mr. Antonetti’s 
Guidelines range. See (Doc. 56 at 31–35). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 
32(i)(3)(B), the Court may determine that ruling on an objection to the PSR is 
unnecessary because the objection will not affect sentencing or the Court will not 
consider the matter at sentencing. Thus, Mr. Antonetti acknowledges that the Court 
need not rule on his objections to the PSR that would not affect the Court’s calculation 
of Mr. Antonetti’s Guidelines range.  
 
 
2. 
Mr. Antonetti objects to the PSR’s loss calculation. 
 
Paragraph 22 states that the total loss in this matter is $40,407.71. (Doc. 56 at 
7). Based on this loss calculation, Paragraph 30 states that a 6-level increase is 
warranted under Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(D) because the loss was more than $40,000 but 
less than $95,000. (Doc. 56 at 8). But this loss calculation and corresponding 6-level 
increase are incorrect.  
 
The indictment charged Mr. Antonetti with two counts of wire fraud under 
Section 1343. (Doc. 1). The loss amount for each Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) 
loan charged in the indictment was $20,136. (Id. at ¶ 10). Consistent with Mr. 
Antonetti’s plea agreement with the United States, Count Two was dismissed. (Doc. 
38 at ¶ 4). In addition, consistent with the plea agreement, the Court entered a 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 5 of 18 PageID 195

6 
 
forfeiture order for $20,136—which represents Mr. Antonetti’s proceeds from Count 
One. See (Doc. 53). What’s more, the factual bases to which Mr. Antonetti pleaded 
guilty stipulates only to the PPP loan charged in Count One. (Doc. 38 at ¶ 11). As a 
result, the loss amount resulting from Mr. Antonetti’s conduct is the PPP loan for 
$20,136 in Count One.  
 
An instructive decision on this point comes from the Ninth Circuit in United 
States v. Igboanugo, 655 F. App’x 578 (9th Cir. 2016). There, the defendant was indicted 
on mail and wire fraud charges resulting from a “secret shopper scheme” and a 
separate “lottery scheme.” Id. at 579. The defendant pleaded guilty to the “secret 
shopper” charges, but the “lottery scheme” counts were dismissed. Id. At sentencing, 
the PSR’s loss calculation included the loss attributable to the dismissed “lottery 
scheme” counts. Id. The district court adopted the PSR’s calculation even though the 
defendant never admitted to taking part in the “lottery scheme” and those charges were 
dropped. Id.  The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in adopting the PSR’s 
loss calculation because the district court never found that the defendant participated 
in the “lottery scheme.” Id. at 579–80. 
 
Just as in Igboanugo, where the defendant did not plead guilty to a separate 
“lottery scheme” charge, Mr. Antonetti here has not pleaded guilty or admitted any 
conduct with respect to Count Two. Rather, just as was the case in Igboanugo, the 
separate charge in Mr. Antonetti’s case was dismissed consistent with the plea 
agreement. Without any findings in the record that Mr. Antonetti committed the acts 
alleged in Count Two, which has been dismissed, the PSR may not include the PPP 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 6 of 18 PageID 196

7 
 
loan amounts in the loss calculations. See Igboanugo, 655 F. App’x at 579–80. 
Therefore, this Court should sustain Mr. Antonetti’s objection to the PSR’s loss 
calculation.  
 
If the Court sustains Mr. Antonetti’s objection to the loss calculation, then, 
using the proper loss amount of $20,136, Mr. Antonetti’s Specific Offense Characters 
under Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(C) should warrant a 4-level increase because the loss was 
more than $15,000 but less than $40,000.  
 
 
3. 
Mr. Antonetti objects to the Stafford Act enhancement. 
 
Paragraph 31 recommends a 2-level increase because the PPP loans at issue 
were in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits: 
Specific Offense Characteristics: If the offense involved conduct 
described in 18 U.S.C. § 1040, increase by 2 levels. USSG §2B1.1(b)(12). 
The conduct described in this federal statute involves fraud in connection 
with major disaster or emergency benefits. In the instant offense, the 
defendant knowingly submitted fraudulent applications for the Small 
Business Administration’s Paycheck Protections Program, which was 
authorized due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the offense level 
was increased by 2 levels.[1] 
 
 
Mr. Antonetti objects to this 2-level increase because it is based on an incorrect 
application of the Sentencing Guidelines and Section 1040. Tracking the relevant 
Guidelines and statutory language shows the PSR’s error.  
Sentencing Guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(12) states that if the offense involved 
conduct described in 18 U.S.C. 1040, then the offense level increases by two levels.  
 
1  (Doc. 56 at 8).  
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 7 of 18 PageID 197

8 
 
In relevant part, Section 1040 (entitled “Fraud in connection with major disaster 
or emergency benefits”) states the following: 
(a) 
Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b) of 
this section, knowingly— 
 
(1) 
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, 
or device any material fact; or  
 
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent   
statement or representation, or makes or uses any false 
writing or document knowing the same to contain any 
materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or 
representation,  
 
in any matter involving any benefit authorized, transported, 
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection 
with a major disaster declaration under section 401 of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170) or an emergency 
declaration under Section 501 of the Robert T. Stafford 
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5191) . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
than 30 years, or both.[2]  
 
 
Section 1040(a)’s application to Mr. Antonetti’s case requires that the PPP loan 
funds he received to have been a “benefit authorized . . . transmitted, transferred, or 
paid in connection with a major disaster declaration” under sections 401 or 502 of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 
1040(a). Thus, contrary to the PSR’s recommendation, whether the PPP loans were 
paid in connection with a major disaster or emergency benefits is not enough: Under 
Section 1040(a), the PPP loans had to be paid in connection with a disaster declaration 
 
2  18 U.S.C. § 1040(a). 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 8 of 18 PageID 198

9 
 
under the Stafford Act. This Court has no evidence before it showing that PPP loans 
were paid in connection with a disaster declaration under the Stafford Act. See United 
States v. White, 663 F.3d 1207, 1216 (11th Cir. 2011) (“When a defendant challenges 
the factual basis that the PSR sets forth for his sentence, the burden is on the 
government to prove the disputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence.”).  
 
Relevant statutory text demonstrates how PPP loans were not authorized in 
connection with a Stafford Act declaration. The PPP loans at issue in this case were 
issued under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 
15 U.S.C. Chapter 116. Nowhere in the CARES Act does it state that PPP loans were 
authorized or issued in connection with the President’s disaster declaration under the 
Stafford Act. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001–9141. Instead, a review of Public Law 116–136 
shows that Congress used explicit language referencing the Stafford Act with respect 
to some COVID-related relief (e.g., Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL loans))—
but not PPP loans. Compare Sec. 1110(f)(5) (referencing Section 501(b) of the Stafford 
Act in authorizing EIDL loans) with Sec. 1102 (containing no language about the 
Stafford Act in authorizing PPP loans). Thus, this difference in statutory text shows 
that Congress intentionally did not authorize PPP loans in connection with a major 
disaster declaration under the Stafford Act. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 
(1983) (“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but 
omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts 
intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.”) (citation omitted) 
(cleaned up).   
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 9 of 18 PageID 199

10 
 
 
In a recent decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion 
that PPP loans were not issued in connection with the Stafford Act. See United States v. 
Redfern, Nos. 22-4196, 22-4197, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 8314 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2023). 
In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges related to a 
scheme to defraud COVID-19 relief programs: PPP and EIDL loans. Id. at *1–2. At 
sentencing, the district court concluded that EIDL benefits—but not PPP benefits—
were authorized “in connection with” a Stafford Act declaration and applied a two-
level enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(12). See Redfern, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 
8314, at *9–10. Noting that it had no reason to doubt the district court’s analysis, the 
Fourth Circuit affirmed the two-level enhancement because the district court would 
have imposed the same sentence even without the Stafford Act enhancement. See id. 
at *10–11.  
 
Redfern provides persuasive authority for this Court to conclude—absent 
evidence to the contrary—that PPP loans were not authorized in connection with a 
declaration under the Stafford Act. Therefore, this Court should sustain Mr. 
Antonetti’s objection to this two-level enhancement.  
 
If the Court sustains Mr. Antonetti’s objections relating to the loss calculation 
and the Stafford Act enhancement, the Total Offense Level would be calculated as 
follows: 
 
Base Offense Level: 7 
Specific Offense Characteristics (Based on loss more than $15,000 but less than 
$40,000): 4 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 10 of 18 PageID 200

11 
 
Victim Related Adjustment: 0 
Adjustment for Role in the Offense: 0 
Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice: 0 
Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 11 
Chapter Four Enhancement: 0 
Acceptance of Responsibility: -2 
Total Offense Level: 9 
With an offense level of 9 with a criminal history category of III, Mr. Antonetti’s 
Guidelines range would be 8 months to 14 months.  
 
 
4. 
Mr. Antonetti objects to the PSR’s restitution amount. 
 
Paragraph 102 states that, consistent with Section 3663A, the Court should 
order restitution for $40,407.71. (Doc. 56 at 21). Mr. Antonetti objects to this 
restitution amount because it is based on an improper loss calculation. See infra at 5–
7; see also United States v. Cavallo, 790 F.3d 1202, 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (“Proving actual 
loss for restitution purposes is largely the same as proving actual loss for Guidelines’ 
loss calculation purposes.”) (citation omitted).  
 
“A restitution award under 18 U.S.C. § 3664 must be based on the loss that a 
victim actually suffers.” Cavallo, 790 F.3d at 1239 (citations omitted). In this case, the 
actual loss resulting from the charge to which Mr. Antonetti pleaded guilty is $20,136. 
Therefore, the Court’s restitution order should not exceed $20,136.  
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 11 of 18 PageID 201

12 
 
B. 
Mr. Antonetti’s Motion for Downward Variance Based on Section 
3553(a) Factors  
 
 
The sentence imposed on a defendant must be sufficient, but not greater than 
necessary, to comply with purposes set out in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a). Mr. Antonetti 
respectfully moves for a downward variance from the final Sentencing Guidelines 
range the Court calculates. A concurrent sentence of time served is sufficient must not 
greater than necessary to achieve the goals set out in Section 3553(a).  
 
 
1. 
Nature and circumstances of the offense. 
 
The Court must consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense.” 18 
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). The circumstances in which Mr. Antonetti committed PPP fraud 
as well as his actions to cooperate and assist the government in investigating more 
culpable individuals counsel in favor of a downward departure.  
 
To begin, Mr. Antonetti was convinced to file PPP loan applications on behalf 
of his company by an individual who filed applications on behalf of numerous other 
individuals and their companies. That individual guaranteed Mr. Antonetti that filing 
a loan would be risk-free: all Mr. Antonetti had to do was allow the individual to take 
a portion of the PPP loan Mr. Antonetti received. Mr. Antonetti, who has no business 
training, trusted this individual and agreed to allow that person to submit a PPP loan 
application on behalf of Mr. Antonetti. Mr. Antonetti has provided information on 
this individual as part of his cooperation, assistance, and accepting responsibility. Mr. 
Antonetti takes responsibility for his actions, but the nature of the offense shows that 
Mr. Antonetti was not the mastermind or initiator of the PPP fraud.  
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 12 of 18 PageID 202

13 
 
 
Another mitigating factor that is a part of the nature and circumstances of Mr. 
Antonetti’s offense is the predatory acts done by the company through which Mr. 
Antonetti’s PPP loan applications were filed: Womply. In April 2021—the same time 
during which Mr. Antontti’s PPP loan applications were funded—Womply entered 
into an agreement with Harvest Small Business Finance to target underserved 
businesses and workers to access PPP loans using “fast lane” applications. Womply 
Partners with Harvest Small Business Finance to Help Underserved Businesses and Workers 
Access Forgivable Loans Using PPP Fast Lane, BusinessWire.com (Apr. 20, 2021), 
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210420005254/en/Womply-
Partners-with-Harvest-Small-Business-Finance-to-Help-Underserved-Businesses-and-
Workers-Access-Forgivable-Loans-Using-PPP-Fast-Lane.  
Using this partnership, Womply targeted small communities, independent 
contractors, sole proprietors, and self-employed individuals—like Mr. Antonetti, who 
operated his own music video productions. See id. Womply advertised that no credit 
check was necessary and advised individuals that, if they were unsure whether he or 
she qualified, to go ahead and start a PPP loan application anyway. See id.   
Womply’s predatory practices finally caught up with them when, in March 
2024, the Federal Trade Commission settled a lawsuit against Womply for 
misrepresentations to small business and individuals like Mr. Antonetti about 
Womply’s PPP loan application and fast-track processes. Breakdown in the “Fast Lane”: 
FTC challenges Womply’s promise to get small businesses PPP loans fast, FTC.gov (Mar. 18, 
2024), https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/03/breakdown-fast-lane-
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 13 of 18 PageID 203

14 
 
ftc-challenges-womplys-promise-get-small-businesses-ppp-loans-fast; see also Ex. B 
(FTC Complaint against Womply). The Court should consider Womply’s predatory 
practice of targeting individuals like Mr. Antonetti a mitigating factor.  See Ex. C 
(Application under Womply Letterhead); see also United States v. Leri, 849 F. App’x 
898, 901 (11th Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s downward variance based on 
nature and circumstances of the defendant’s offense).  
 
 
2. 
Mr. Antonetti’s history and characteristics. 
 
The Court must consider “the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). For this factor, Mr. Antonetti’s mental-health issues as well as 
childhood troubles counsel in favor of a downward variance.  
 
 
This memorandum’s “Personal Background” section details the struggles Mr. 
Antonetti experienced because of his mental-health issues. See infra at 1–4. Since he 
was seven years old, Mr. Antonetti has been diagnosed with and treated for various 
mental-health disorders, including bipolar disorder, ADHD, and depression. 
Although therapy benefits Mr. Antonetti, he has suffered severely from his mental-
health issues. Most notable examples include Mr. Antonetti’s three hospitalizations 
under the Baker Act and overdose attempt just last year. What’s more, Mr. Antonetti 
was bullied and got into fights in school growing up because of other students taunting 
his disabilities. This history and characteristics of Mr. Antonetti counsel in favor of a 
downward variance.  
 
Mr. Antonetti’s strained relationship with this biological father also counsels in 
favor of a downward variance based on Mr. Antonett’s history and characteristics. 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 14 of 18 PageID 204

15 
 
Although Mr. Antonetti speaks with his biological father, they are not close. And Mr. 
Antonetti has no relationship with his half-siblings on his biological father’s side. This 
strained, distant relationship with his biological father naturally results in behavioral 
issues for Mr. Antonetti. As a result, this Court should grant a downward variance 
based on Mr. Antonetti’s history and characteristics. See also United States v. Ferguson, 
942 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1194 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (granting motion for downward variance 
based, in part, on defendant’s mental-health issues where the defendant pleaded guilty 
to one count of wire fraud under Section 1343).  
3. 
The need to provide correctional treatment in the most effective 
manner.  
 
 
The Court must consider the need for the sentence “to provide the defendant 
with . . . other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a)(2)(D). In this case, the most effective manner for providing Mr. Antonetti with 
correctional treatment is to allow Mr. Antonetti to continue to serve his substantive 
state-court sentence concurrently with any sentence this Court imposes.  
Mr. Antonetti is currently serving a 20-year state-court sentence. See Ex. D. 
Since his arrest on August 6, 2024, Mr. Antonetti has been using his time incarcerated 
to rehabilitate, reflect on his actions in this case, and prepare for life after incarceration. 
For example, Mr. Antonetti has completed numerous courses involving basic classes 
for business owners, adapting to change, business communication, business ethics, 
problem-solving basics, strategic decision-making, critical thinking, and dealing with 
anger. See Ex. E. What’s more, Mr. Antonetti has used his time incarcerated to 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 15 of 18 PageID 205

16 
 
reengage with his faith by reading the Bible regularly. Thus, the most effective way to 
provide Mr. Antonetti with effective correctional treatment is to allow him to continue 
his rehabilitation concurrently with any sentence this Court imposes. See also United 
States v. Traylor, No. 20-1542, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22765, at *3–4 (6th Cir. July, 
30, 2021) (affirming district court’s downward variance based on the defendant’s 
rehabilitation efforts).  
 
 
4. 
The kinds of sentences available.  
 
The Court must consider “the kinds of sentences available.” 18 U.S.C. § 
3553(a)(3). In this case, the availability of imposing a federal sentence that runs 
concurrently with Mr. Antonetti’s 20-year state court sentences counsels in favor of 
imposing a concurrent sentence.  
 
Sentencing Guidelines Section 5G1.3(c) allows for a federal sentence to be 
imposed concurrently with a state-court sentence. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. Section 
3584(a), entitled “Imposition of Concurrent or Consecutive Terms,” states: “[I]f a term 
of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged 
term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively.” When 
determining whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence, the Court 
considers the factors set forth in Section 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(b).  
 
Mr. Antonetti is subject to an undischarged 20-year term of imprisonment for 
his conviction in State v. Antonetti, 2023-CF-14794 (Hillsborough County, Florida). 
The same factors that counsel in favor of a downward variance also counsel in favor 
of imposing any federal sentence to run concurrently with his state-court sentence. 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 16 of 18 PageID 206

17 
 
Namely, Mr. Antonetti’s history of mental-health and family issues, the circumstances 
surrounding the PPP loan fraud in this case, and his efforts to reflect, rehabilitate, and 
prepare for life after incarceration counsel in favor of imposing a concurrent sentence 
in this case. After serving his state-court sentence, Mr. Antonetti will come out a better 
man ready to be a productive member of society. Thus, the kinds of sentences available 
counsel in favor of a downward variance for Mr. Antonetti. See generally United States 
v. Mihaly, 67 F.3d 894, 897 (10th Cir. 1995).     
III. 
CONCLUSION 
Mr. Antonetti accepts responsibility for his actions in this case. This 
memorandum provides background on Mr. Antonetti’s difficult personal and family 
circumstances. To ensure an individualized sentence that best accounts for all 
mitigating factors, Mr. Antonetti asks that the Court exercise its discretion when 
imposing his federal sentence. Namely, Mr. Antonetti asks that the Court grant his 
motion for downward variance, impose a sentence at the low-end of the Court’s 
Guidelines calculations after accounting for the downward variance, and order that 
Mr. Antonetti’s federal sentence in this case run concurrently with his non-discharged 
20-year state-court sentence. With an incarceration state date of August 6, 2024, the 
Court’s sentence would result in time served for Mr. Antonetti for the instant offense. 
This sentence would be sufficient and no greater than necessary to reflect the 
seriousness of Mr. Antonetti’s actions.  
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Diego M. Pestana_________  
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 17 of 18 PageID 207

18 
 
Diego M. Pestana 
Florida Bar #1004436 
THE SUAREZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 
1011 West Cleveland Street 
Tampa, FL  33606 
Telephone: (813) 229-0040 
Facsimile: (813) 229-0041 
dpestana@suarezlawfirm.com 
Counsel for Defendant David Antonetti 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 10, 2025, a copy of this 
document was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the 
Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt. 
Parties may access this filing through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
 
/s/ Diego M. Pestana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Diego M. Pestana  
 
 
Case 8:24-cr-00317-VMC-AEP     Document 58     Filed 03/10/25     Page 18 of 18 PageID 208

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.58.0.pdf

Size

170,617 bytes

SHA-256

5ab8207995352bbbf23e43518267687f06f3a110911742e0c9a2c0d6e3646a25

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.429938.58.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)