MEMORANDUM & ORDER On June 12, 2018, Parris Desuze pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment. The Court now sentences him and provides a complete statement of reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2) of those factors set forth by Congress and contained in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, Parris Desuze is hereby sentenced to 210 months of incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, and a $100.00 special assessment. BACKGROUND On July 15, 2015, the United States filed a 75-count Superseding Indictment against 23 defendants, including Parris Desuze (“Defendant”). See Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 48. On June 12, 2018, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment, charging Racketeering Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d), and admitted as racketeering acts his participation in: (1) conspiring to distribute cocaine base, as alleged in Racketeering Act 2; and (2) conspiring to murder John Doe #5 and John Doe #6, as alleged in Racketeering Act 66. See Plea Agreement 1, ECF No. 551. 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. The “starting point and the initial benchmark” in evaluating a criminal sentence is the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). 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). Defendant, now 31 years old, was born on July 18, 1988 in Brooklyn, New York. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 87, ECF No. 726. Defendant is the sole child born to the consensual union of David Desuze and Leticia Cumberbatch. Id. Defendant’s father resides in Panama, where he is employed in sanitation. Id. Defendant’s mother resides in Brooklyn, New York, where she is employed as a teacher’s aide. Id. Both of Defendant’s parents are aware of his arrest and remain supportive. Id. Defendant has one maternal half-sibling, who resides in Brooklyn, New York, and five paternal half-siblings. Id. 89. Defendant’s younger siblings live in Panama. Id. Defendant’s older siblings, who live in New York and North Carolina, are aware of his arrest and remain supportive. Id. Defendant was raised in an intact, lower-income home until approximately age eight, when Defendant’s father was arrested and ultimately deported. Id.
87, 90. Defendant described his childhood as “alright,” explaining that his father was strict and often used corporal punishment. Id. 91. After his father was deported, Defendant did not again have contact with his father until he was 16 years old, when he visited his father in Panama. Id. Defendant reported he and his father occasionally speak by telephone, and he visited his father again when he was twenty-two years old. Id. Defendant reported he shared a close relationship with his mother and has lived with her at the address of record his entire life, up to the time of his arrest for the instant offense. Id. 93. Defendant’s mother advised Defendant may return to the residence upon his release from custody. Id. Defendant is currently housed at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn, New York. Id. 97. According to the Bureau of Prisons SENTRY database, Defendant has incurred disciplinary infractions for: interfering with staff; lying or falsifying a statement; being insolent to a staff member; refusing to obey orders; fighting with another inmate; destroying/disposing an item; and giving/accepting money without authorization. Id. While at the MDC, Defendant completed his GED on April 4, 2016. Id. Defendant has also completed a drug education course and participated in a special housing unit health course. Id. Defendant has one son from his relationship with Desire Stephens. Id. 94. Defendant’s relationship with Ms. Stephens ended in 2013 due to irreconcilable differences. Id. Defendant’s son is now six years old and resides with his mother. Id. Prior to his arrest, Defendant co-parented his son with Ms. Stephens, as the child would live with him for weeks at a time at the address of record and with his mother for weeks at a time. Id. Presently, Defendant’s son spends summer vacation and school holidays with Defendant’s mother. Id. Defendant’s mother also provides financial assistance to Ms. Stephens. Id. Ms. Stephens described Defendant as a good person and a “wonderful,” “hands on” father. Id. 95. She reported Defendant continued to be involved in their child’s life, as the child visits Defendant, and they often speak on the telephone. Id. Defendant has been romantically involved with Rochelle Carter since approximately 2014. Id. 96. Ms. Carter resides in Brooklyn, where she is employed as a home health aide. Id. Defendant advised he is physically healthy. Id. K 99. He has, however, been shot on three different occasions. Id.
