The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, D.J.
On May 13, 2005, Defendant Raymond Castillo ("Castillo") was found guilty after a jury trial of conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 to distribute and possess with invent to distribute one kilogram and more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a) (1) and 841(b) (1)(A). For the reasons -et forth below, Castillo will be sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. A special assessment of $100 is mandatory and is due immediately.
On May 6, 2004, the government filed a wealed indictment against Castillo and his co-defendants, charging them with a single count of conspiracy to distribute and posses- with intent to distribute one kilogram and more of heroin. T e indictment was unsealed on May 11, 2004, and Castillo was arrested the same day. Trial against Castillo and his co-defendant Oscar Caesar began on May 9, 2005. A guilty verdict against both defendants was returned on May 12, 2005. Castillo is scheduled for sentencing on November 28, 2006.
In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (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 corsideration 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 (the "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 trea ment 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 ho 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 ...