United States v. Eiflaar

255 F. Supp. 3d 394
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedJune 14, 2017
Docket16-CR-636
StatusPublished

This text of 255 F. Supp. 3d 394 (United States v. Eiflaar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Eiflaar, 255 F. Supp. 3d 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).

Opinion

Statement of Reasons Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §.3553(c)(2) .

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ... 395

A. Instant Offense ,,. 395

[395]*395B. Arrest .. .395

C. Guilty Plea ...395
H. Sentencing Hearing ... 395

II. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range ... 396

III. Law...396

IV. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Considerations .. .396

V. Consistency in Sentencing .. ,397

VI. Sentence ... 397

VII. Conclusion ... 398

I. Introduction

This prison sentence for importation of cocaine by swallowing pellets is short, consistent with my policy of deporting defendants with no criminal record .as quickly as possible. See infra, Part V (Consistency in Sentencing).

Defendant is a 26-year old Dutch citizen, born in Paramaribo, Suriname. Pre-sentence Investigation Report, Feb. 17, 2017 (“PSR”) at 2. In January of 2017, he pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(3), and one- count of possession- with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). See Guilty Plea Transcript, Jan. 19, 2017, ECF No. 15 (“Pleading Tr.”), at 16:10-15. On June 6, 2017, defendant was sentenced to time served after serving six months, supervised release for three years, and a $200 special assessment. See Sentencing .Hr’g Tr., Jun. 6, 2017 (“Sent. Hr’g”). Following his release from custody in the present case, he is expected to be promptly deported. See id.

A.Instant Offense

On November 26, 2016, defendant traveled aboard a flight leaving from Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, and arriving in Queens, New York. PSR at ¶ 4. Upon his arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”), he was selected for a Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) examination. Id. While inspecting defendant’s- suitcase, CBP officers noted that defendant appeared nervous. Id. Mr. Eifl-aar consented to. an x-ray examination; it revealed foreign bodies in his intestinal tract. Id. at ¶ 5. He ultimately passed 100 pellets containing 1.1118 gross kilograms of cocaine. Id. at ¶ 6. A Drug Enforcement Administration laboratory analysis revealed that the net weight of the cocaine was 800 grams. Gov’t Sentencing Mem., May 31, 2017, ECF No. 16 (“Gov’t Sent. Mem.”). Defendant recognizes the extreme danger to himself of this method of importation — the pellets may break with their contents released into the digestive system.

B. Arrest

Mr. Eiflaar was arrested on November 26, 2016, after his arrival at JFK in Queens, New York. PSR at ¶ 5. He has remained incarcerated since his arrest. Id. at ¶ 45. •

C. Guilty Plea

On January 19, 2017, he pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine into the United States, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and (b)(3), and one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). See Pleading Tr. at 16:10-15. Each offense carried a maximum term of imprisónment of 20 years, with no mandatory minimum. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3); "21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).

D. Sentencing Hearing

A sentencing hearing was conducted on June 6, 2017. See Sent. Hr’g. The proceedings were videotaped to develop an accu[396]*396rate record of the courtroom atmosphere, as well as some of the subtle factors and considerations that a district court must consider in imposing a sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); In re Sentencing, 219 F.R.D. 262, 264-65 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (describing the value of video recording for the review of sentences on appeal).

II. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range

Defendant’s base offense level is 24. See PSR at ¶ 12. The offense level was reduced by four points pursuant U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a) because defendant was a minimal participant in the offense; two points pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2Dl.l(b)(17) and 5C1.2 (“safety valve”) because defendant provided complete and truthful information pertaining to the instant offense; and three points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E.l.l(a)-(b) for defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. Id. at ¶¶ 13-20; Gov’t Sent. Mem.; Def.’s Sentencing Mem., June 4, 2017, ECF No. 18 (Def.’s Sent Mem.”). The total adjusted offense level is 15. PSR at ¶ 21; Gov’t Sent. Mem.; Def.’s Sent. Mem. With a criminal history category of I, the Guidelines sentencing range for a defendant with a total adjusted offense level of 15 is 18 to 24 months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt. A; PSR at ¶52; Gov’t Sent. Mem.

III. Law

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, the Guidelines are advisory; a sentencing court may depart from the Guidelines in the interest of justice as well as in light of other statutory concerns as expressed in section 3553(a). United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245-46, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“It is now, however, emphatically clear that the Guidelines are guidelines — that is, they are truly advisory. A district court may not presume that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable; it must instead conduct its own independent review of the sentencing factors, aided by the arguments of the prosecution and defense.”).

In view of the excessive incarceration rates in the recent past and their unnecessary, deleterious effects on individuals sentenced, society, and our economy, parsimony in incarceration is encouraged. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (“The court shah impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary.”); National Research Council of the National Academies,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Cavera
550 F.3d 180 (Second Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Johnson
245 F. Supp. 3d 393 (E.D. New York, 2017)
In re Sentencing
219 F.R.D. 262 (E.D. New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 F. Supp. 3d 394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eiflaar-nyed-2017.