MEMORANDUM & ORDER On May 26, 2022, a jury found Molissa Gangapersad (“Defendant”) guilty of making False Statements to Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §100l(a)(2). The Court now sentences Defendant and provides a complete statement of reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2) of those factors set forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, Defendant is sentenced to 12 months of incarceration followed by 3 years of supervised release. The Court also orders Defendant to pay the $100.00 mandatory special assessment. BACKGROUND On January 3, 2019, a grand jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant with making False Statements to Special Agents of the FBI in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2). Indictment, ECF No. 11. Specifically, the Indictment alleges Defendant falsely stated and represented to FBI Special Agents she had not witnessed Ronell Watson’s involvement in the assault of an FBI Special Agent. Id. Mr. Watson was also charged with separate crimes in the same Indictment, and was convicted by a jury of those counts on July 17, 2019. Id.; ECF No. 104. On May 26, 2022, following a three-day trial, Defendant was convicted by a jury of making False Statements to Special Agents of the FBI in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2). See Jury Verdict, ECF No. 223. On July 8, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29, which the Government opposed on August 10, 2022. The Court denied Defendant’s motion for acquittal on October 31, 2022. DISCUSSION 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). 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, No. 08-CR-332, 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 History and Characteristics of the Defendant and the Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 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 Molissa Leone Joseph on September 10, 1988 in Brooklyn, New York, to Harold Joseph and Monique Barthelemy. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 34, ECF No. 230. Defendant’s father resides in Queens, New York, and Defendant’s mother resides with her at the address of record. Id. Defendant’s mother suffers from liver issues and a heart condition. Id. Defendant shares good relationships with her parents, who are aware of her conviction and remain supportive of her. Id. Defendant has two maternal half-siblings and two paternal half-siblings, with whom she shares good relationships and who are aware of her conviction and remain supportive. Id. 35. Defendant also has two additional paternal half-siblings but has no relationship with them. Id. Defendant was raised in a lower-income neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York, primarily by her mother and older maternal half-sister. Id. 36. Defendant’s mother worked long hours, during which time Defendant’s older sister watched over her. Id. 37. Defendant reported she spent time with her father on the weekends throughout her childhood, and he also provided her with financial support. Id. 36. Defendant noted there were periods in her childhood where her family had no electricity or food, and that her family was once evicted and needed to move in with a friend of her mother’s until her mother was able to save enough to provide them with a new home. Id. On December 20, 2008, Defendant married Keem Chang Gangapersad, and they divorced in 2010. Id. 38. In 2009, Defendant met Ronell Watson with whom she shares a twelve-year old daughter. Id. 39. Defendant’s daughter was born premature, and suffers from bronchitis, asthma, and poor vision. Id. Because Defendant was unsure of the outcome of the instant case, her daughter has been residing with her paternal grandparents in Brooklyn, New York since Defendant’s trial, and will continue to reside with them until Defendant’s sentencing. Id. However, Defendant spends time with her daughter daily and ensures her basic needs are met. Id. Defendant’s daughter is aware of her involvement in the instant offense as well as Mr. Watson’s offense. Id. 40. Defendant’s daughter was strongly affected by Mr. Watson’s conviction, and her grades suffered as she refused to complete her assignments and exams. Id. Defendant’s daughter has been improving since she began speaking regularly with her father on the telephone. Id. Defendant has primarily lived in Brooklyn, New York. Id. 41. She previously lived at 1626 Canarsie Road in Brooklyn, New York between 2009 and August 2020. Id. Since June 2022, Defendant has resided at the address of record, where she lives with her mother and brother. Id. 2. Educational and Employment History Defendant attended Southshore High School in Brooklyn, New York from 2005 to 2006, where she completed the tenth grade. Id. 48. Defendant’s grades were poor, but she reported no disciplinary history. Id. Since May 31, 2022, Defendant has been a Caregiver Application Specialist at Astra Home Care Inc. in Brooklyn, New York. Def. Sentencing Mem. at 3, ECF No. 234; PSR 50. From August 2020 to October or November 2021, Defendant was employed as a coordinator with Swift Homecare in Brooklyn, New York. PSR 51; Def. Sentencing Mem. at 3. Between February 2020 and August 2020, Defendant was employed as a coordinator for Four Seasons Home Care in Brooklyn, New York. PSR 52. From November 2019 to February 2020, Defendant was a home healthcare aide with Rockaway Home Care in Long Island, New York. Id. 53. From June to November 2019, Defendant was employed by Brooklyn Boulevard Assisted Living, in Brooklyn, New York. Id. 54. From August 2017 to September 2018, Defendant was employed by Blue Star Cares in Brooklyn, New York. Id. 55. From March to August 2017, Defendant was employed by Most Excellent Home Care in Queens, New York as a home healthcare aide. Id. 56. Prior to 2017, Defendant was, at various times, employed as a home healthcare aid, an associate at a farmer’s market in Brooklyn, a cashier at a supermarket, a sales associate at a clothing store, and an employee of an insurance company, the data entry department of a laboratory, and fast food restaurants. Id.
