Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


November 17, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, District Judge


Defendant Miguel Andres Enriquez, also known as Miguel Ortiz, (hereinafter "Enriquez"), pleaded guilty on June 26, 2003 to the following: (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 (Count 1); (2) possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (Count 2); and (3) illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a), (b)(2) (Count 3). For the reasons set forth below, Enriquez will be sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a ten-year term of supervised release, subject to the sentencing hearing now set for November 18, 2005. A special assessment fee of $300 is mandatory and will be due immediately. Prior Proceedings

On November 6, 2002, Enriquez was arrested by law enforcement after being observed facilitating and participating in a drug sale. The government filed a complaint on November 7, 2002 and subsequently filed an indictment on December 5, 2002. Enriquez entered a guilty plea on June 26, 2003, which this Court accepted on July 9, 2003, and currently Enriquez is scheduled for sentencing on November 18, 2005.

  The Sentencing Framework

  In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and the Second Circuit's decision in United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), the sentence to be imposed was reached through consideration of all of the factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a), including the advisory Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines") established by the United States Sentencing Commission. Thus, the sentence to be imposed here is the result of a consideration of:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed —
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for —
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines . . .;
(5) any pertinent policy statement . . . [issued by the Sentencing Commission];
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A sentencing judge is permitted to find all the facts appropriate for determining a sentence, whether that sentence is a so-called Guidelines sentence or not. See Crosby, 397 F.3d at 114-15.

  The Defendant

  The defendant stated that he was born on January 16, 1968, in the Dominican Republic. He is the second of four children born to the union of Pascual Henriquez, age 58, a factory owner, and Ramona Cabrera, age 54, a homemaker. The defendant stated that his parents remain together and reside in the Dominican Republic.

  The defendant advised that he had a difficult childhood. His father was very strict and believed in corporal punishment. The defendant stated that if he or his siblings broke his father's rules, they would be beaten, often severely, a with a belt.

  Enriquez stated that at age 18, his father kicked him out of the home. It was at that time the defendant came to the United States seeking economic opportunities. According to government records, the defendant entered the United States under the name Miguel Andres Henriquez on September 1, 1986. The defendant was deported on May 13, 1993 to the Dominican Republic, and he subsequently re-entered the United States illegally in September or October of 2000.

  The defendant advised that when he first came to New York, he settled in Brooklyn and lived in a small apartment with three other families sleeping on the floor. The defendant advised that during that time he worked in a local grocery store. According to the defendant, it was during that time that he was introduced to the drug business. He advised that he married Wanda Tavares on November 6, 1998 in the Dominican Republic. Ms. Tavares is a supervisor with Jet Blue Airline and she is also an architect. From their marriage they have three children: Estafania, age 16, Chelsea, age 12 and Andres, age 5. The children live in the Dominican Republic with their mother.

  Enriquez stated that he used marijuana beginning at the age of 19, and that he last used marijuana in 1987. The defendant also advised that he used cocaine for one year beginning at age 19. The defendant stated that he completed a drug treatment program in the Bronx while he was on parole; however, he could not recall the name of the program.

  The defendant submitted a written financial statement which indicated he has no assets or liabilities and a net worth of zero.

  The Offense Conduct

  The undersigned, having reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report (hereinafter "PSR") prepared by the United States Probation Office, relies on certain of the facts as set forth therein.

  On November 5, 2002, an individual, who will be referred to as co-conspirator 1 (hereinafter, "CC1"), was arrested in Manhattan in possession of a duffle bag that contained approximately 10 kilograms of cocaine. Prior to his arrest, CC1 was seen by agents ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.