Letter to Judge Choudhury Re: United States v. Carmine G. Agnello, Criminal Docket No. 24-366(S-1) (NJC) (Dkt. 35, E.D.N.Y.)
Summary
In a supplemental letter of April 16, 2026 to Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury, Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles P. Kelly answers Carmine G. Agnello's letter of April 13, 2026 in Criminal Docket No. 24-366(S-1) (NJC), E.D.N.Y. The government says Agnello has withdrawn a request for a downward departure to donate a kidney to a relative, and argues the unscheduled donation is too speculative to weigh under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It says that of the $1.1 million in Covid aid Agnello received, only the first EIDL payment of $150,000 came while Crown Auto Parts & Recycling was operating, and that loan modifications of almost a million dollars followed after Crown ceased operations in July 2021. A 2022 request to raise the loan to $2 million was denied. The government asks for a guideline sentence of 33-41 months and restitution of $1,268,302, with interest at $111.30 per day after April 20, 2026.
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
Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 35 Filed 04/16/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 2157
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
+
JLG:CPK 610 Federal Plaza
F. #2022R00347 Central Islip, New York 11722
April 16, 2026
By ECF
Honorable Nusrat J. Choudhury
United States District Court Judge
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
1040 Federal Plaza
Central Islip, New York 11722
Re: United States v. Carmine G. Agnello
Criminal Docket No. 24-366(S-1) (NJC)
Dear Judge Choudhury:
The government respectfully submits this supplemental letter regarding the
sentencing of defendant Carmine G. Agnello (“Defendant”) in response to defendant’s letter of
April 13, 2026. Regarding the once prominent issue of defendant’s request for a downward
departure so that he could donate a kidney to a relative, defendant now withdraws that request
and asks that the court recognize “defendant’s offer” as an “exceptionally good deed” to be
considered as part of defendant’s “history and characteristics.” This is a bridge too far. The
facts are that the oft-promised kidney donation has not happened and is not even scheduled to
happen, and the defendant’s intention to donate his kidney, if required in the future, is too
speculative to be considered under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
As the Court is well aware, defendant stole over a million dollars from the United
States during a national emergency, Covid-19. This is a serious crime. As the Second Circuit
stated, these Covid Aid monies were funds that “people in the midst of a pandemic desperately
needed.” United States v. DiMassa, 117 F.4th 477, 483 (2d Cir. 2024). Of the $1.1 million
received by the defendant from Covid Aid funds, the only Covid funds distributed to the
defendant while the business, Crown Auto Parts & Recycling (“Crown”), was operating
totaled $150K. The near million dollar balance was distributed when the business was
closed and was used by defendant for his own personal purposes. Defendant’s assertion that
“Crown was an operating salvage yard with employees, equipment and expenses” was true
only when Crown received the first EIDL payment of $150,000. When defendant
subsequently received near a million dollars, Crown was no longer operating. Although
defendant’s sentencing letter refers to July 2021 as the date “when the government contends
that the company ceased operations,” (emphasis added), there is no good faith dispute as to
this fact. Defendant himself stated, in a text message to his accountant, that “Crown hasn’t
done any business since July of 21.” Notably, defendant applied for the two loan
Case 2:24-cr-00366-NJC Document 35 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2158
modifications totaling almost a million dollars after Crown had ceased operations. Further,
defendant attaches Crown’s summary sheet of payroll records from 2021to his sentencing
letter to suggest that there were operations throughout 2021 when, in fact, the last paychecks
for Crown employees were between March 2 and July 9, 2021, consistent with defendant’s
statement that there was no ongoing business after July of 21.
Finally, and perhaps most compelling, as to history and characteristics of
defendant, it is significant that, even after receiving almost a million dollars in loan
modifications in the fall of 2021 when Crown had no operations, in 2022, defendant applied
for another modification for Crown, to increase the loan amount to $2 million dollars
claiming that his “business depends on it” and that he ran “a fairly large company that
employs a good amount of people…in which I refused to lay off anyone.” Of course, at the
time, the business was not operating and the employees had been laid off the year before.
That modification request was denied.
These facts strongly support a guidelines sentence. Defense counsel has offered
no rationale for imposing a below guideline sentence for the defendant. Accordingly, the
government maintains its request for a guideline sentence in the 33-41 months range. The
judgment should also include a restitution amount of $1,268,302 which includes interest to April
20, 2026 which continues thereafter at the rate of $111.30 per day and a special assessment of
$100.
Respectfully submitted,
JOSEPH NOCELLA JR.
United States Attorney
By: /s/ Charles P. Kelly
Charles P. Kelly
Assistant U.S. Attorney
(631) 715-7866
cc: Defense Counsel (via ECF)
2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.nyed.520646.35.0.pdf
- Size
- 160,722 bytes
- SHA-256
- c50d5e147e77db4e76cf01128cb0a9541d4b26638c9ee5859f4d2727a04643f3
- Original
- archive.org