United States v. Frank Castaldi, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3394

Castaldi ran a 22-year Ponzi scheme that caused about $40 million in losses to victims and the IRS.
He pled guilty to mail fraud and corruptly impeding the IRS; district court imposed consecutive maximum terms totaling 276 months.
Castaldi disclosed the scheme and cooperated with the government, but the judge gave extensive emphasis to victims’ harms and imposed an above-guideline sentence.
Plea agreement allowed below-guideline arguments; the court computed a guideline range of 151–188 months, but sentenced beyond this range.
Castaldi argued the sentence failed to adequately consider his voluntary disclosure and cooperation; the government acknowledged cooperation.
The majority affirms, finding the judge’s consideration of mitigation sufficient under Cunningham; the dissent would remand for explicit evaluation of cooperation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court adequately considered disclosure and cooperation in mitigation	Castaldi argues the court failed to meaningfully address cooperation	Castaldi's cooperation was a principal mitigation argument	No remand required; court implicitly considered cooperation and harmed victims dominated
Whether the above-guideline sentence was substantively reasonable	Castaldi/Gov argue guideline sentence too lenient given harm; judge thought it insufficient	Castaldi contends the sentence is too severe given cooperation and admissions	Affirmed; court reasonably justified departure based on victim impact and circumstances
Whether § 5K2.16 plain error review applied and absence of explicit application was reversible	Castaldi says district court should have considered § 5K2.16 downward departure	No plain error since disclosure aligned with discovery inevitability	Not plain error; § 5K2.16 not triggered by imminent discovery situation
Whether sentencing disparities argument required explicit addressing	Castaldi says court should have explained disparities vs. similar cases	Disparities were warranted by extraordinary harm and not required to be dissected case-by-case	Court's explanation adequate; not reversible for disparities context

United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (requires addressing meaningful mitigation grounds and avoids rote statements)
United States v. Gary, 613 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts need not belabor obvious mitigation; implicit consideration may suffice)
United States v. Patrick, 707 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 2013) (remand when cooperation is not clearly considered; distinguishes from weak arguments)