MEMORANDUM & ORDER On March 18, 2019, Joseph Maratea (“Defendant”) 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, Defendant is hereby sentenced to time served, two (2) years of supervised release with special conditions, a $2,000.00 fine, and a $100 mandatory special assessment. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2018, the Government filed a 34-count Superseding Indictment. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 48. On March 18, 2019, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Superseding Indictment, charging Defendant with racketeering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(c), pursuant to a plea agreement. ECF Nos. 147, 148. 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 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 or varying “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. 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 was born on May 3, 1976 in Brooklyn, New York, to the marital union of Joseph Maratea, who is deceased, and Liian Caputo. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 174, ECF No. 176. Defendant’s mother resides in Staten Island, New York, is a retired real estate manager, and suffers from heart disease and high blood pressure. Id. Defendant has one surviving sibling, Rose Mary Sciama, who is in good health, works as a healthcare aide, and resides in Nazareth, Pennsylvania with her husband and two children. Id. 175. Defendant’s brother, Anthony Maratea, passed away in 2000. Id. 176. Defendant had a childhood free from abuse. Id. 177. His mother and sister are aware of his current conviction and remain supportive. Id.
174-75. From birth until about 1997, Defendant resided in Brooklyn, first with his parents and then independently. Id. 180. Thereafter he resided with his wife in Brooklyn or Staten Island and has resided at the current case address in Staten Island since 2013. Id. Defendant married Donna Cosentino in 1996 in Westbury, New York. Id. 178. Together, Defendant and his wife have three children ages 14, 18, and 21, who reside with their parents, are in school, and are in good health. Id.; Def.’s Sentencing Mem. (“Def. Mem”) at 3-4, ECF No. 211. Defendant’s wife is employed as a nurse practitioner and supplements her income with rental income from a property in Brooklyn and T-Mobile cell tower fees. PSR
