United States v. Scott

239 F. Supp. 3d 629, 2017 WL 1154711
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 20, 2017
Docket15-CR-382
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 239 F. Supp. 3d 629 (United States v. Scott) 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. Scott, 239 F. Supp. 3d 629, 2017 WL 1154711 (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_631

A. Instant Offense .. .631

[631]*631B. Arrest .. .631

C. Guilty Plea ... 681
D. Sentencing Hearing .. .632

II. Offense Level, Category, and Sentencing Guidelines Range ... 632

III. Law...632

IY. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Considerations. ...633

Y. Sentence.... 635

VI. Conclusion_636
I. Introduction

Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). See Guilty Plea Transcript, July 1, 2016, EOF No. 249 (“Pleading Tr.”), at 22:23-23:6. He participated in a drug trafficking organization (“DTO”) that distributed heroin in Queens, New York. Two defendants are currently awaiting trial, several have been sentenced and several more are awaiting sentencing.

On March 2, 2017, he was sentenced to time served of 20 months, supervised release for 3 years, and a $100 special assessment. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr., Mar. 2, 2017 (“Sent. Hr’g”), at 7:16-18,19:12.

A.Instant Offense

Defendant is a forty-six year-old African American male, born in Queens, New York. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) at 2. In 2013, the Homeland Security Investigation (“HSI”) and other law enforcement agencies began an investigation of narcotics and drug trafficking by Mr. Scott, together with Kamel Lambus, Stanley Fuller, Shavona Trappier, Shak-eem Powell, Sean Brabram, Scott Williams, Tyrone Thomas, Andre Mitchell, Earl Davis, and Tyran Trotter (“defendants”). Allegedly, they were participating in a street gang called the Paper Chasing Goons. PSR at ¶2. The DTO maintained access to narcotics and firearms; some of its members distributed heroin to a network of street sellers. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. They sold heroin from several stash houses using a mobile telephone. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.

Scott purchased heroin from Trappier, Powell, and Trotter and then sold it on the street. Id. at ¶8. The government describes Scott’s role as that of “an independent drug dealer within the DTO—who did not supervise others or take direction from anyone.” Id. écott testified that he only knew a few of his co-defendants. See Sent. Hr’g at 10:17-22. He says he was an addict who used heroin, and distributed it to his friends with whom he had pooled money to make purchases for their own use. Id at 9:21-22.

B. Arrest

Defendant was arrested by HSI agents on July 8, 2015, at his home in Queens, New York. No post-arrest statements were made. PSR at ¶ 7.

C. Guilty Plea

On July 1, 2016, Mr. Scott pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). See PSR at ¶ 1. This was a lesser included offense within Count One of an eight-count superseding indictment. Id. The offense carried a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); PSR at ¶ 107. A special assessment of $100 is mandatory. 18 U.S.C. § 3013. A term of supervised release of no less than three years is required. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c). The government dismissed open counts in the underlying indictment. Sent. Hr’g at 18:17-22.

[632]*632D. Sentencing Hearing

A sentencing hearing was conducted on March 2, 2017. See generally Sent. Hr’g'. The hearing was videotaped to develop an accurate 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 30, with a criminal history category of VI. See PSR at ¶¶ 50, 108. The base offense level is 30 because the offense allegedly involved between 1 and 3 kilograms of heroin. Id. at ¶50. The offense level was enhanced by two points for being a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. The offense leM was decreased by three points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E.l.l(a)-(b) for defendant’s timely acceptance of responsibility. PSR at ¶¶ 57-58. The total adjusted offense level is 29. Id. at ¶ 59. The Guidelines imprisonment range is 151 to 188 months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5 Pt. A; PSR at ¶ 108. The parties do not object to this calculation. See Sent. Hr’g at 11:13-12:21.

-Pursuant, to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v, Booker, the-Guidelines are advisory; a sentencing court may¡-depart from them in the interest of justice as well as in light of other statutory concerns 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) (footnote omitted) (“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.”).

Ill, Law

A sentencing court shall “state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c).

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

Related

United States v. Thomas
255 F. Supp. 3d 400 (E.D. New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 F. Supp. 3d 629, 2017 WL 1154711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-scott-nyed-2017.