United States v. Frank D. Monaco, United States of America v. Daniel Monaco, Jr.

Good Law
852 F.2d 1143·1988 WL 76000·1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9988
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 26, 198887-1011, 87-1013California4,279 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alarcon, J.

Frank D. Monaco and Daniel Monaco, Jr. have appealed from the judgment entered following their pleas of guilty. They do not challenge the validity of their pleas. Instead, they contend that the district court erred prejudicially in its conduct of sentencing proceedings.

In resolving one of the issues in this appeal, we must decide for the first time whether a district court has the discretion to grant or deny an evidentiary hearing whenever a defendant challenges the accuracy of a statement in a presentence report.

I.

PERTINENT FACTS

Frank Monaco founded Golden Plan of California, Inc. (Golden Plan) in 1974. Golden Plan operated as a broker of loans secured by real property. On September 1, 1981, Frank Monaco sold Golden Plan to his brother, Daniel Monaco. On January 28, 1982, Golden Plan closed its doors. In February 1982, an involuntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 11 was filed against Golden Plan.

On March 29, 1985, a federal grand jury returned an eighty-nine count indictment against Frank Monaco and Daniel Monaco. Also named in the indictment were Samuel Monaco, Gregory Monaco, Denise Monaco, Tony Monaco, and Donald Sapronetti. The indictment alleged conspiracy to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.