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. Soliman

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 23, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MONA SOLIMAN, Defendant.

          SENTENCING OPINION

          ROBERT W. SWEET U.S.D.J.

         On January 29, 2015, Mona Soliman ("Defendant" or "Soliman") pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Based on the conclusions set forth below, Soliman will be sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment followed by three (3) years' supervised release, subject to the scheduled sentencing hearing on July 7, 2017.

         Prior Proceedings

         Soliman is named in a one-count information filed in the Southern District of New York on October 30, 2013. Count One charges that from November 2004 to June 2007, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, Soliman, along with co- defendants Ryan Knights ("Knights") and Jordan Kapchan ("Kapchan"), conspired together and with others to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by causing fraudulently obtained loan funds to be transferred via interstate wires, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.

         Soliman was arrested on October 30, 2014, and on January 29, 2015, she appeared before the Honorable Sarah Netburn and allocuted to her criminal conduct as charged in Count One.

         Soliman is scheduled to be sentenced on July 6, 2017.

         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 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 ...

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.