MEMORANDUM & ORDER On December 10, 2020, Michael Charles Feeney (“Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of transmitting a threatening interstate communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. §875(c). 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 eighteen months of incarceration followed by three years of supervised release with special conditions. BACKGROUND On October 1, 2020, the Government filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging on or before July 24, 2020, he knowingly and intentionally transmitted in interstate commerce, from the Southern District of Florida to the Eastern District of New York, a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another, to wit: a threat to kill and cause serious bodily injury to John Doe and his family, individuals whose identities are known to the United States Attorney. On December 10, 2020, Defendant waived indictment and pled guilty to a single-count Information charging him with Threatening Interstate Communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §875(c), pursuant to a plea agreement. See Plea Agreement, ECF No. 11. 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 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. 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). 1. Family and Personal Background Defendant was born Michael Charles Feeney on January 4, 1961, in Kingston, New York. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 39, ECF No. 24. He is one of three children born to Bernard and Mary (née O’Reilly) Feeney. Id. Both of his parents are deceased. Id. His father was a family court judge in Ulster County, New York and died in 1989 at the age of 57. Id. Defendant’s mother worked as a substitute teacher until Defendant was a teenager. Id. She died in 2019, at the age of 85. Id. Defendant has one living sibling and one who is deceased. Id. 40. Mary Kathryn Solner died in 2010, at the age of 46, leaving behind a husband and two children. Id. Bernard Feeney, III, age 61, is divorced with three children and works at a bank. Id. Defendant does not know his brother’s current whereabouts. Id. Defendant stated he has not spoken to his brother since their mother’s death. Id. Defendant reported that he was reared in a middle-income household in Kingston, free from major hardship, financial or otherwise. Id. 41. He reported good relationships with both parents, describing his father as the “best father [he] could ask for,” and his mother as “like a best friend,” adding that he spoke to her daily until her death. Id. He was very close with his sister, who was only a year younger than the defendant and had an amicable relationship with his brother until after his mother passed. Id. Overall, he described his childhood as having “everything we needed, even if it wasn’t what we wanted.” Id. In approximately 1980, Defendant moved to Florida for employment purposes. Id. 42. He lived in the cities of Pompano Beach and Fort Lauderdale for a few years before briefly relocating to Massachusetts to work for a construction company. Id. In his late 20s, he relocated to New York, New York, where he lived for approximately twenty years before returning to Florida. Id. Defendant has been married twice. Id. He married Elisa Trivigno in the late 1980s. Id. The marriage ended in the early 1990s, due to personal differences. Id. No children were born from this marriage. Id. In the late 1990s, Defendant met his current wife, Silvana (nee Belotti) Feeney (age 67), through friends. Id. 43. Defendant’s wife previously worked as an embassy worker, for an import/export company, and as a translator (Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French). Id. They married approximately a year after meeting in Ft. Lauderdale. Id. No children were born from the marriage; however, his wife has three adult children (and four grandchildren) from a prior marriage. Id. Defendant’s wife has health issues, and Defendant provides support for her. Id. Defendant’s wife described him as generous, and as a caring husband and stepparent. Id. 44. She stated that he loves her children as if they were his own, and she recalled his devotion to his late mother. Id. His wife stated that when Defendant becomes upset, he is “not a gentleman” but was not able to provide an explanation as to how or why he became involved in the instant offense. Id. She is aware of Defendant’s conviction and remains supportive of him. Id. Defendant has lived in Florida since approximately 2000. Id. 45. He has lived at the address of record for approximately four years. Id. The neighborhood is described as residential and middle-income. Id. Defendant lives with his wife. Id. Property records indicate the unit is owned by Defendant’s late mother. Id. 2. Physical Condition, History of Substance Abuse Defendant suffers from several physical health problems, which contributed to his early retirement. He reported suffering from 2 strokes, though his wife said he had suffered from three strokes. After the first stroke, which occurred approximately six years ago, he was hospitalized for two and a half weeks. Defendant reported he was not able to walk for the first week but returned to work shortly thereafter. The second stroke occurred one year later, and Defendant suffered from limited use of his left leg and arm. Defendant also reported suffering from emphysema; chronic blood clots; vascular disease in his legs; arthritis, enlarged prostate, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), deep venous thrombosis, history of hepatitis C, lung nodules, and ulcers. He reported that he walks with a cane due to the vascular disease. Defendant reported no past or current mental health issues, though he reported feelings of stress and anxiety due to the instant offense. Defendant reported experimenting with marijuana a few times in his life. He reported occasional consumption of alcohol, consisting of a few beers once or twice a week. Notably, Defendant is not subject to drug or alcohol testing as a condition of bond. As reported in the Criminal History section of this report, Defendant has a prior conviction for driving while intoxicated in 1982. 3. Legal History, Nature of Offense Defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct in West Palm Beach, FL in 1981, driving with an unlawful blood alcohol level in West Palm Beach, FL in 1982, and speeding in Saugerties, New York in 1995. PSR
