United States District Court, S.D. New York
ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge.
On April 12, 2013, Julius Barnes, ("Defendant" or "Barnes") pled guilty to Count 2: Attempted Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, a Class C felony, and Count 3: Carrying and Possessing a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c) (1) (A) (ii), a Class A felony. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant will be sentenced to a term of 33 months' imprisonment for Count 2 to be followed by a mandatory and consecutive term of 60 months' imprisonment for Count 3. Defendant will also be sentenced to 2 years' supervised release Count 1 and 3 years' supervised release for Count 3, all counts to run concurrently. Defendant will be required to pay a special assessment of $200.
On August 29, 2012, Defendant was named in a three-count Indictment 12 CR 671 (RWS) in the Southern District of New York. Count 1 charges that from at least July 2012 through August 1, 2012, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Barnes, co-defendant Brian Stubbs ("Stubbs"), co-Defendant Kean Chambers ("Chambers"), co-defendant Kaison Gillespie (" Gillespie"), and others, agreed to commit an armed robbery of people suspected of possessing narcotics and cash in an apartment in New York, NY. Count 2 charges that on August 1, 2012, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Barnes, Chambers, Stubbs, Gillespie, and others, participated in the attempt armed robbery of people suspected of possessing narcotics and cash in an apartment in New York, NY. Count 3 charges that on August 1, 2012, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Barnes, Chambers, Stubbs and Gilespie, during and relation to the attempted robbery charged in Count 2, possessed and carried a firearm in furtherance of that crime.
On April 12, 2013, Barnes pled guilty to Count 2 and Count 3 of Indictment 12 CR 671 (RWS) only.
Defendant's sentencing is scheduled for February 11, 2014.
The sentencing Framework
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 State 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 Guidelines. Thus, the sentence to be imposed here is the result a cons ration 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 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 ...