Consent Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing — United States v. Manfred A. Pentzke-Lemus (D.P.R., Dkt. 380)

Summary

A Consent Motion to Continue Sentencing Hearing in United States of America v. Manfred A. Pentzke-Lemus, Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC, Document 380, filed 05/23/25, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Counsel for the defendant states that the sentencing had been rescheduled for May 28 at 3:00 p.m., that the Government's Third Informative Motion regarding Monetary Penalties says the U.S. Small Business Administration is no longer the sole victim for restitution, and that Oriental Bank filed a lawsuit on November 29, 2024. Both parties agree postponement is warranted, and the motion asks the Court to reschedule sentencing to a date after restitution has been finally adjudicated. It reports that the Government informed no objection. It is signed s/Carlos J. Sagardia-Abreu.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 380 Filed 05/23/25 Page 1of3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

MANFRED A. PENTZKE-LEMUS (1)

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

CRIM NO.: 23-130 (ADC).

CONSENT MOTION TO CONTINUE SENTENCING HEARING

TO THE HONORABLE DISTRICT COURT:

COMES NOW Defendant, Manfred A. Pentzke-Lemus (“Mr. Pentzke”), through the undersigned

counsel, and respectfully states and prays to this Honorable Court as follows:

I.

On April 24, 2025, and as requested by Mr. Pentzke, this Honorable Court rescheduled the
Sentencing Hearing in this case for May 28, at 3:00 p.m. See Docket No. 373.

Subsequently, on April 28, 2025, the Government filed a Third Informative Motion regarding
Monetary Penalties (“Penalties Motion”). See Docket no. 375.

On the Penalties Motion, the Government informed, that contrary to what it had proposed since
the inception of this case, the U.S Small Business Administration (“SBA”) was no longer the
sole victim for purposes of restitution.

According to the Penalties Motion, on November 29, 2024, Oriental Bank (“Oriental”) filed a
lawsuit seeking repayment of funds and damages from defendants in this case, including Mr.

Pentzke. See, Oriental Bank v. Manfred Pentzke-Lemus, et al., No. 24-CV-1550 (MAJ)

(“Oriental Lawsuit”).

As explained by the Government, the Oriental Lawsuit seeks payment of funds encompassed
by an SBA guarantee. Furthermore, the Government has represented that, on April 7, 2025, it
learned that, contrary to its previous understandings—which guided the plea negotiations

processes in this case— the SBA had denied nearly all of Oriental’s requests to SBA to
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 380 Filed 05/23/25 Page 2 of 3

purchase the guarantees of loans pertaining to the cases of caption.

6. To that effect, the Government informed that it would seek restitution as appropriate for losses
sustained by Oriental and states that “new circumstances warrant a new approach to
restitution”.

7. As of this date, Mr. Pentzke has not been served with the Oriental Lawsuit.

8. As of this date, this Honorable Court has not ruled on the Penalties Motion and a final
determination regarding the matter of restitution has not been approved by this Honorable
Court.

9. Furthermore, during the past few months, defense counsel and Mr. Pentzke have been engaged
in conversations with USPO Gaby Meléndez- Yamamoto (““USPO Meléndez”) to produce all
relevant financial and tax related information that is relevant for PSR in this case.

10. To that effect, on May 22, 2025, the Amended PSR was filed in this case.

11. In view of the procedural circumstances described herein, the undersigned counsel held
conversations with AUSA Olinghouse regarding whether sentencing should be postponed.

12. To that effect, and (i) to properly evaluate the Amended PSR; and (ii) to guarantee that a final
resolution regarding the matter of restitution has been determined by this Court, both parties
agree that a postponement of the Sentencing Hearing in this case is warranted.

13. Consequently, Mr. Pentzke requests that this Honorable Court set aside the Sentencing Hearing
in this case and reschedule the same to a date after a final resolution regarding the matter of
restitution has been reached. The presented request has been discussed with the Government
and no objection was informed.

14, Mr. Pentzke respectfully reserves all rights regarding the matter of restitution and the Penalties
Motion.

WHEREFORE Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus and the undersigned counsel respectfully request that

this Honorable Court (i) take notice of the foregoing; (ii) set aside the Sentencing Hearing and reschedule

the same to a date after the matter of restitution has been finally adjudicated by this Honorable Court; and
Case 3:23-cr-00130-ADC Document 380 Filed 05/23/25 Page 3 of 3

(iii) grant any relief that may be deemed just and appropriate.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 23" of May 2025.

I HEREBY CERTIFY: That | electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using
the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record of all the parties

in the above captioned case.

CARLOS J. SAGARDIA-ABREU
Attorney for Manfred A. Pentzke Lemus
1353 Ave. Luis Vigoreaux PMB 678
Guaynabo, PR 00966

Tel. (787) 360-7924

Email: cjsa@strategialegalepr.com

By: s/Carlos J. Sagardia-Abreu
Carlos J. Sagardia-Abreu
USDC PR No. 227510


File and source

File

380.pdf

Size

1,206,169 bytes

SHA-256

7c7ee81263413d01e77f076aec686de6157368bfa6ce4685b726e5321fd322f2

Our copy

380.pdf

Original

No public link identified.