Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

United States v. Brown

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 16, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DAVON BROWN, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge

         On July 15, 2015, the United States filed a seventy-five count Superseding Indictment against twenty-three defendants, including Davon Brown ("Defendant"). On April 5, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One, Racketeering Acts Sixty through Sixty-Three, of the Superseding Indictment. The Court now sentences Defendant and provides a complete statement of reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) of those factors set forth by Congress and the President and contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant is hereby sentenced to 41 months of incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, and payment of restitution, a forfeiture money judgment of $1, 000, 000.00, and a $100.00 special assessment.

         BACKGROUND

         On July 15, 2015, the United States filed a seventy-five count Superseding Indictment against twenty-three defendants, including Davon Brown ("Defendant"). See Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 48. On April 5, 2016, Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One, Racketeering Acts Sixty through Sixty-Three, of the Superseding Indictment. See Plea Agreement ¶ 1, ECF No. 309.

         The Court hereby sentences Defendant and sets forth its reasons for Defendant's sentence using the rubric of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Legal Standard

         18 U.S.C. § 3553 outlines the procedures for imposing sentence in a criminal case. If and when a district court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing Guidelines range, the court "shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and ... the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from that described" in the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). The court must also "state[] with specificity" its reasons for so departing "in a statement of reasons form[.]" Id.

         "The sentencing court's written statement of reasons shall 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. Davis, 08-CR-0332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010) (Weinstein, J.). Section 3553(a) provides a set of seven factors for the Court to consider in determining what sentence to impose on a criminal defendant. The Court addresses each in turn.

         II. Analysis

         A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Defendant

         The first § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).

         Born in Richmond, Virginia on August 7, 1994, Defendant entered the foster care system as an infant. Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶¶ 47, 52, ECF No. 362. When Defendant was eleven months old, an older couple obtained custody of him and his sister, and they legally adopted both children several years later. Id. ¶ 52. Defendant refers to this couple- his adoptive parents-as his grandparents. Id. ¶¶ 47, 50-52. Similarly, although he is aware that she is not his biological mother, Defendant has always referred to the couple's adult daughter- who entered Defendant's life when he was five or six years old-as his mother. Id. ¶¶ 47» 48> 50-52. He "does not talk about [his biological parents]." Id. ¶ 52. For ease of reference, the Court will refer to Defendant's family members as he does.

         After their adoption, Defendant and his sister were raised by their grandparents under "middle-income" circumstances in Brooklyn, New York. Id. ¶ 51. In 2011, when he was sixteen years old, Defendant worked part-time as a waiter at a restaurant, but he has otherwise primarily been financially supported by his family. Id.¶Gl. Defendant's education has been limited. He attended high school until at least September of 2012, but he did not graduate as he was incarcerated during his senior year. Id. ¶ 60. Despite his criminal history, Defendant has always maintained good relationships with his mother and grandparents, and he stated he plans to return to live with them once he is released from custody. Id. ¶¶ 50-51. Defendant noted his present incarceration has been particularly difficult for his family, as they have never been separated from one another for such a lengthy period, and he has expressed concern about the health of his grandparents, who are currently seventy-eight and ninety years old, respectively. Id. ΒΆ ...


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.