USA v. Minutolo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
VINCENZO MINUTOLO, 	: 	NO. 3:25-CR-00026 (KAD)
:
v. 	:
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	: 	October 9, 2026
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE (ECF NO. 49)
Upon exhaustion of a defendant’s administrative remedies (not contested here), 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) provides that a district court “may reduce” a defendant’s term of imprisonment
“after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a),” if it finds “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction” and “that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the sentencing commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A district court’s
“‘reasonable evaluation of the Section 3553(a) factors’ ‘is an alternative and independent basis for
denial of compassionate release.’” 	United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2021)
(footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 848 F. App’x 477, 478 (2d Cir. 2021))
(citing United States v. Butler, 845 F. App’x 74, 76-77 (2d Cir. 2021)). 	Mr. Minutolo seeks a
sentence reduction due to, in combination, (a) his “regret for the mistakes he made,” see Letter,
ECF No. 50; (b) his post-sentencing rehabilitation as demonstrated by his exemplary conduct and
completion of programming while incarcerated, Mot., ECF No. 49 at 3; (c) the decision by the
BOP to deny him Second Chance Act placement at an RRC, id. at 1-2; (d) his dental needs, id. at
2; (e) perceived sentencing disparities between him and others, id.; (f) the collateral consequences
of his felony conviction, id.; and (g) his viable re-entry plan, id. at 3. He further asserts that the
Section 3553(a) factors support the relief he seeks. Id. The Government objects. See ECF No.
52. Mr. Minutolo submitted a Reply acknowledging the seriousness of his offense, but maintaining
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD Document 55 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
that a sentence reduction is warranted due to his rehabilitation efforts. Reply, ECF No. 53. Mr.
Minutolo also submitted an unauthorized sur-reply asserting that he had three root canals shortly
before he was incarcerated and could only get temporary crowns put in before his self-surrender
date. Sur-reply, ECF No. 54. 	Mr. Minutolo asserts the temporary crowns are beginning to fail
and he is at risk of infection. Id. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
Mr. Minutolo committed a multi-faceted opportunistic fraud over the course of many
months through which he obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars of COVID relief money
available through different programs, i.e., PPP loans and unemployment payments. His guideline
range was 21-27 months. He began serving his 21-month sentence less than 8 months ago. See
J., ECF No. [38]; Order, ECF No. 43. He identifies no “extraordinary and compelling” reason to
reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 235
(2d Cir. 2020). The Court expects inmates to conform to prison rules. Meeting this expectation
is not a basis for a sentence reduction. See, e.g., U.S. v. Garcia, 758 F. Supp. 3d 47, 58 (E.D.N.Y.
2024) (“lack of disciplinary infractions while in custody . . . do[es] not warrant a sentence
reduction when considered independently or in combination with” other factors). The BOP has
absolute discretion in terms of placement under the Second Chance Act. 	See Fournier v.
Zickefoose, 620 F. Supp. 2d 313, 318 (D. Conn. 2009) (the BOP “retains discretion under the
Second Chance Act to decide whether and when an inmate should be placed at an RRC, provided
such pre-release confinement is practicable and the BOP considers the statutory factors.” (citation
omitted)). The Court’s original sentence was not, in any fashion, based upon any expectation that
the BOP would exercise that discretion and place Mr. Minutolo in an RRC. 	The need for
permanent dental crowns, without support by any medical records, does not warrant release. See
United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 426–27 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding the defendant
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD Document 55 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
bears the burden of establishing that the circumstances warrant a sentence reduction); United States
v. Star, No. 20-1999, 2022 WL 2165895, at *1 (2d Cir. June 16, 2022) (summary order) (citing
Butler, 970 F.2d at 1026) (affirming the denial of a compassionate release motion where the
defendant did not provide any medical records to demonstrate the severity of his conditions).
Indeed, Mr. Minutolo, in large measure, simply asks the Court to reconsider the original
sentence under the statutory factors because, in his words, “the purposes of sentencing have largely
been achieved.” 	Mot., ECF No. 49 at 3. 	A motion for sentence reduction is not, however, an
opportunity for a “do over.” 	See United States v. Montanez, No. 3:20-CR-27(MPS), 2023 WL
2889358, at *7 (D. Conn. Apr. 11, 2023) (finding it would be inappropriate to reconsider or reduce
the defendant’s sentence when no extraordinary circumstances have been presented and the
Section 3553(a) factors weigh against a reduction). 	And in any event, the Court disagrees. 	At
sentencing, the Court carefully considered each of the Section 3553(a) factors, to include the
seriousness of the offense, the nature and characteristics of the Defendant; the purposes of
sentencing; the victim impact; and both the aggravating and mitigating factors presented in the
Presentence Investigation Report and by both parties. 	There is absolutely nothing in Mr.
Minutolo’s motion that alters the Court’s assessment of the factors as to an appropriate sentence.
Accordingly, whether because he has not identified an extraordinary and compelling reason to
warrant a sentence reduction or because the statutory factors do not counsel a sentence reduction,
the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of October 2026 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.
/s/ Kari A. Dooley
KARI A. DOOLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cr-00026-KAD Document 55 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3