United States v. Johnson

245 F. Supp. 3d 393
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 28, 2017
Docket16-CR-593
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 F. Supp. 3d 393 (United States v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 245 F. Supp. 3d 393 (E.D.N.Y. 2017).

Opinion

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

Jack B. Weinsteiii, Senior United States District Judge:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction... 394

A. Offense.., 394

B. Guilty Plea... 395

C. Sentencing Hearing.;. 395

II. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range... 395

III. Law... 395

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

V. Consistency in Sentencing... 397

VI. Sentence... 397

VII. Conclusion... 397

I. Introduction

This case illustrates what the United States Sentencing Commission concluded in a recent-study- .there is “little apparent association between the length of imprisonment and recidivism for drug trafficking offenders.”-See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Drug Offenders 3 (2016). The study found that federal drug offenders released from incarceration had a higher rearrest rate than offenders released into a probationary sentence. It concluded that a federal offender’s criminal history is closely “correlated with recidivism rates. ... Each, additional criminal history point [i]s generally associated with a greater likelihood of recidivism.” Id. A drug offender who does not have a significant criminal history is less likely to recidivate. Id. In general, imposing a long sentence on such an individual would be excessive and unnecessary. These Sentencing Commission studies must be' viewed with caution; the groups compared are biased in selection towards the final result. Nevertheless, the caution against over-sentencing is useful. It was helpful in the sentence described below.

Oshane Johnson is a 23 year old Jamaican citizen who had no prior criminal record. Presentence Investigation Report, Feb. 10, 2017. (“PSR”) at 2. On January 4, 2017, he pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine into the United States. See 21 U.S.C. § 952(a); 21 U.S.C. § 960(a)(1); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3); Guilty Plea Transcript, Jan. 4, 2017, ECF No. 13 (“Pleading Tr.”). On March 15, 2017, Mr. Johnson was sentenced to time served of 5 months, supervised release for 3 years, and a $100 special assessment. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr., Mar, 15, 2017 (“Sent. Hr’g”). Immediately following his release from incarceration, he will be deported. See id.

A. Offense

' On October 22, 2016, Mr. Johnson traveled aboard a flight leaving from Kingston, Jamaica, and arriving in Queens, New York, PSR at ¶ 2. Upon arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport (“JFK”), he was examined by. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”). Id. Defendant appeared nervous and was avoiding eye con[395]*395tact. Id. He admitted to swallowing narcotics. An x-ray examination, of his intestinal tract revealed the presence of foreign bodies. Id. Thirty-four pellets were passed. They tested positive for cocaine with a total gross weight of 488.7 grams. Id.

Mr. Johnson admitted that he had been asked to engage in the offense while at the passport office in Kingston, Jamaica by an individual known to him as “Buma.” Id. at ¶ 3. Buma told defendant that he would be paid $3000 for the smuggling trip, purchased his plane ticket, and provided him with $100. Id.

B. Guilty Plea

He pled guilty to one count of importation of cocaine, an offense that carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. 21 U.S.G. § 960(b)(3). The statutory provisions and Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) require 3 years of supervised release. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c).

C. Sentencing Hearing

The sentencing proceedings were videotaped to record 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). No friend or relative appeared at the sentencing to support defendant; he had none in the United States.

II. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range

Defendant’s base offense level is 22. See PSR at ¶ 8. This was reduced by 2 points pursuant to U.S.S.G. section 2Dl.l(b)(17) and 5C1.2 because defendant provided complete and truthful information pertaining to the offense; 4 points pursuant U.S.S.G. section 3B1.2(a) because defendant was a minimal participant; 2 points pursuant to U.S.S.G. section 3El.l(a) for defendant’s acceptance of responsibility; and 1 point pursuant to section 3El.l(b) for the timely manner in which defendant indicated he intended to enter a plea. Id. at ¶¶ 9-16; Addendum to the Presentence Report, Mar. 15, 2017 (“Addendum”), at 1. The total adjusted offense level is 13. PSR at ¶ 17; Addendum at 1. There is no criminal history. The Guidelines sentencing range is 12 to 18 months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt. A; PSR at ¶ 44; Addendum at 1.

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.” (footnote omitted)).

The court’s written statement of reasons must be “a simple, fact-specific statement explaining why the Guidelines range did not account for a specific factor or factors under § 3553(a).” United States v. Rattoballi 452 F.3d 127, 138 (2d Cir. 2006), abrogated in part on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct.

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

Related

United States v. Eiflaar
255 F. Supp. 3d 394 (E.D. New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 F. Supp. 3d 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-johnson-nyed-2017.