MEMORANDUM & ORDER On April 29, 2019, Allan Barton (“Defendant”) was found guilty by jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Specifically, on August 26, 2016, Defendant, having previously been convicted in a court of one or more crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, possessed in and affecting commerce, a Hi-Point, Luger 9 mm pistol and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 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 contained in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant is sentenced to 51 months of incarceration, 2 years of supervised release, forfeiture of the guns and ammunition recovered in this case, and the $100.00 mandatory special assessment. Additionally, the Court adopts the Probation Department’s proposed special condition. BACKGROUND On April 29, 2019, Allan Barton (“Defendant”) was found guilty by jury of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Specifically, on August 26, 2016, Defendant, having previously been convicted in a court of one or more crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, possessed in and affecting commerce, a Hi-Point, Luger 9 mm pistol and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). 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). a. Family and Personal Background Defendant was born on October 29, 1971, in Uniondale, New York. PSR 27-28. His parents — Allan Barton and Kathleen Schep — were never married. Id. Defendant has a close relationship with his mother who is in good health, resides in Texas, and remains supportive of Defendant despite the instant offense. Id. However, his parents ended their relationship when Defendant was an infant, and he has not been in contact with his father since then. Id. Defendant shared a close relationship with his stepfather until his stepfather passed away in 2014. Id. Defendant has three maternal half-siblings. His siblings are all aware of the instant offense and remain supportive. Id. 29. Defendant was raised in modest economic circumstances and reported a “normal” childhood, free from any history of abuse or financial hardship. Id. 28. Defendant attended Uniondale High School in Uniondale, New York, but dropped out in the 12th grade after being arrested for a prior unspecified offense. Id. 42. He received his GED on January 7, 1992 while incarcerated for a prior conviction. Id. Additionally, he received his plumbing certificate from the New York State Department of Labor in approximately 1997. Id. 44. Defendant attended one semester of college at the New York Institute of Technology in 2012. Id. 43. Defendant moved to Brooklyn in 2006. Id. 30. Before his arrest for the instant offense, Defendant lived with and was the primary caretaker of his great-aunt, Arletta Newton who is in the early stages of dementia. Id. In approximately 2000, defendant had a brief romantic relationship with Tyhisha Dukes. Id. 31. Ms. Dukes, a nurse, is aware of the instant offense and is supportive of Defendant. Defendant and Ms. Dukes share one child — Allan Barton — who resides with his mother in Queens and is currently enrolled in a General Educational Development (GED) Program. Id. Prior to his incarceration, Defendant was active in his son’s life and financially provided for him when necessary. Id. Defendant shares a good relationship with his son, who is aware of the instant offense and is supportive of Defendant. Id. Defendant also has a child with Lameeka Malchi, a Parks Department worker. Id. 32. Alleek Malchi, age 16, resides with his mother and stepfather and is attending school. Id. Ms. Malchi and Defendant do not speak. Id. Defendant stated in his presentence interview that prior to his incarceration, he would financially provide for his son when necessary, and spent birthdays and holidays with him. Id. Defendant stated that there is currently a child support case in process with Brooklyn Family Court, but that Defendant’s son is aware of the instant offense and is supportive of him. Id. b. Defendant’s Physical Condition Despite being shot in 1992 and stabbed in 2003, Defendant is current healthy. Id. 37-39. Defendant smoked marijuana approximately four times a week and drinks alcohol occasionally. Id. 41. c. Defendant’s Criminal History Defendant was arrested for committing Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of New York Law on September 3, 1989. Id. 17. Defendant pleaded guilty to the robbery offense on July 16, 1991 and was sentenced to three to nine years imprisonment. Id. The defendant was initially paroled on September 4, 1992 but defendant’s parole was revoked on November 26, 1993 based on the defendant’s arrest for another crime. Id. Defendant was then remanded into custody on that date, where he remained until February 4, 2000, at which point the defendant was “re-paroled.” Id. This second crime was criminal possession of a loaded firearm in the third degree, a violation of New York Penal Law §265.02; the defendant pleaded guilty to this offense in November 1993 and received a sentence of thirty months to five years in custody. Id. 18. The defendant was arrested again in 2007 and ultimately pleaded guilty in July 2009 to two misdemeanor offenses in New York State Supreme Court for Kings County: menacing in the second degree (with a weapon), in violation of New York Penal Law §120.14, and assault in the third degree (with intent to cause physical injury), in violation of New York Penal Law §120.00. Id. 19. The defendant received a sentence of one year in custody on each count, to run concurrently with each other, for a total sentence of one year, which, the PSR indicates, the defendant began serving in July 2009. Id. According to the PSR, these convictions in July 2009 also had the effect of resulting in a second revocation of parole with respect to the defendant’s 1991 robbery conviction, resulting in an additional eight months of custody attributable to that offense (the PSR indicates that the defendant was “re-paroled” in March 2010). Id.
