United States District Court, S.D. New York
ORDER SETTING FORTH STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
Kevin Castel United States District Judge
sentencing on December 16, 2019, the Court confirmed that:
materials the Court had in hand were the only materials the
parties thought it should have on the subject of sentencing.
defendant had read, reviewed and discussed the revised
Presentence Report ("PSR"), Addendum and
Neither side had any objections to the facts set forth in the
PSR, whereupon the Court adopted the facts set forth in the
PSR as the Court's Findings of Fact.
Neither side had any objections to the Guideline Calculation
in the PSR whereupon the Court adopted the revised Guideline
calculation in the PSR.
Defense counsel spoke on defendant's behalf and the
defendant spoke on his own behalf. Victim-1, who spoke at
defendant's original sentencing, again spoke eloquently
about the serious harm she suffered as a result of the
defendant's campaign against her. The government also
spoke and urged that the sentence the Court had imposed on
December 20, 2017bereimposed.
Court then announced a proposed sentence (60 months
imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, restitution to be
imposed with a draft order submitted by the government within
30 days, waiver of the fine and imposition of the $200
special assessment) and delivered a statement of reasons for
the sentence. Thereafter defendant's counsel was given
the opportunity to speak setting forth any objection to the
proposed sentence or the statement of reason to for the
sentence. Defendant, by his counsel, had no objection. The
government had no objection. Sentencing was then imposed and
the defendant informed of his right to appeal.
sentencing defendant, the Court considered all of the written
submissions and arguments of the parties, as well as their
oral statements, the written victim impact statement and the
December 20, 2017 and December 16, 2019 oral statements of
Victim-1. It considered all of the factors under section
Court's reasons for the above Guideline sentence are as
stated on the record at the time of sentencing on December
20, 2017, excluding the discussion of the two-level
enhancement relating to the protective order. They include
the following: Defendant embarked on a campaign of
psychological torture against Victim-1. It was not a one-time
error of judgment but a sustained campaign over months that
did not stop until he was arrested. Defendant was an
intelligent, well-educated individual (Bachelor's Degree
from Vassar) who knew and appreciated the nature and
consequences of his acts and why they were wrong. He harassed
Victim-1, her employer and her co-workers. He spread false
information that she had been pulled over for driving while
intoxicated, was being sued for transmitting a sexually
transmitted disease, had threatened to kill him, had
confessed to regularly viewing child-pornography (this was
reported by defendant to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children), and had made anti-Semitic comments.
Defendant made false accusations about Victim-1 to the NYPD,
ATF and New York State Office of Professions.
escalated his actions by sending bomb tin-eats and other
threats to, among others, Jewish community centers, schools
or institutions across the country, including the offices of
the Anti-Defamation League in Manhattan, two schools in
Manhattan, The Center for Jewish History in Manhattan, a
community center in San Diego and a school in Farmington
Hills, MI. (PSR ¶31). The defendant's purpose, in
the main, was either to implicate Victim-1 as the source of
the threats or to accuse Victim-1 of falsely accusing him of
the threats. These threats caused terror and fear on the part
of the recipients. They also diverted the attention of law
enforcement and the organizations who had no choice but to
treat the threats as real.
Court considered defendant's difficult upbringing,
including his mother's crack addiction and his
father's absence and troubles with law enforcement. He is
34 and has no prior convictions. The Court also considered
his alcoholism which was a contributing factor to his crimes.
A forensic psychologist retained by the defendant's
counsel observed symptoms of anxiety, depression and
personality disorder but "[b]ased on the information
provided for this evaluation, Mr. Thompson does not meet the
criteria for a severe mental illness." He rated the risk
for future violence as "moderate," "with a low
risk for severe violence and a low risk of imminent
violence." He provided assistance to the government on
an unrelated matter (See sealed portion of the transcripts of
December 20, 2017 and December 16, 2019.)
is a need for just punishment in this case because the harm
to Vicitm-1 was direct and severe. The harm to the
organizations receiving bomb or other threats was also direct
and serious. There is a need to protect the public from
further crimes of this defendant. With a "moderate"
risk of future violence, he is in danger of reoffending.
There is an important need to deter others from similar
conduct. Cyberstalking of this extreme form can destroy a
person's ability to function, to work and to live a
normal life. Bomb threats are a harm to society, to law
enforcement and to the organizations receiving the threats.
They disrupt the public order. They are often difficult to
detect and when uncovered they are in need of being deterred.
Court has considered the Sentencing Guidelines, Policy
Statements, and Official Commentary of the United States
Sentencing Commission. It recognizes that the Guidelines are
an important consideration in sentencing but they are
advisory and that the Court has variance discretion. The
Guidelines protect against unwarranted sentencing