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. Dunton

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 10, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RAQUEL DUNTON, Defendant.

          SENTENCING OPINION

          ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J.

         On October 19, 2016, Raquel Dunton ("Dunton" or "Defendant") allocuted to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

         For the reasons set forth below, Dunton will be sentenced to 4 6 months'' imprisonment followed by three years' supervised release, subject to the scheduled sentencing hearing on April 20, 2017. Defendant is also required to pay a special assessment of $100.

         Prior Proceedings

         Defendant was named in a one-count indictment (the "Indictment") filed in the Southern District of New York on November 13, 2013. The indictment charges that from 2012, up to and including November 2013, the Defendant, and others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 28 grams, but less than 112 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).

         On October 19, 2016, Dunton appeared before the Court and pled guilty to the one count against him.

         The Indictment further indicates that as a result of committing the offense charged in Count 1, Dunton shall forfeit to the United States any property constituting or derived from any proceeds of the offense and any property used or intended to be used to commit or facilitate it. If any of the property subject to forfeiture cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, has been transferred to a third party, has been placed beyond the Court's jurisdiction, has been substantially diminished in value, or has been commingled with other property, it is the intention of the Government to seek forfeiture of substitute assets of any other property of Defendant up to the value of the forfeitable property. See 21 U.S.C. § 853.

         On October 19, 2016, Dunton pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of conspiracy to distribute narcotics, pursuant to a plea agreement which stipulates the following:

a) The November 1, 2015 Guidelines manual applies in this case.
b) The sentencing guideline applicable to Count 1 is 2D1.1.
c) Pursuant to 2Dl.l(a)(5) and 2Dl.l(c)(8), the base offense level is 24 because the defendant was responsible for the distribution of at least 28 grams but less than 112 grams of cocaine base.
d) Assuming the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, to the satisfaction of the Government, through his allocution and subsequent conduct prior to the imposition of sentence, a two-level reduction will be warranted, pursuant to 3El.l(a). Furthermore, assuming the defendant has accepted responsibility as described in the previous sentence, the Government will move at sentencing for an additional one-level reduction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El.l(b), because the Defendant gave timely notice of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the Government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently.
e) In accordance with the above, the applicable Guidelines offense level is 21.
f) Based upon the information now available to the Government (including representations by the Defense), the Defendant has six criminal history points. As a result, the defendant's Criminal History Category is III.
g) Based upon the calculations set forth above, the Defendant's stipulated guideline range is 46 to 57 months' imprisonment (the "Stipulated Guidelines Range"). In addition, after determining Defendant's ability to pay, the Court may impose a fine pursuant to 5E1.2. At Guidelines level 21, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(h)(1), the applicable fine range is $7, 500 to $1, 000, 000.

         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 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 Guidelines. 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 ...

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.