Routine/administrative filing

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · No. 1:21-cr-00729-LAK · Doc. 116 · 2024-02-29 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A transcript of a January 31, 2024 proceeding in United States v. Chanette Lewis, 21 Cr. 729 (LAK), before District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed February 29, 2024 as Doc. 116. It records the start of a sentencing hearing, with Assistant United States Attorney Michael D. Neff for the government and Mark Gombiner of Federal Defenders of New York for the defendant. The parties agree the guideline range is 41 to 51 months, and the court adopts the presentence report with that change and three government corrections. After defense counsel states that three sentencing submissions had not reached the court, the court reads them, and at counsel's request adjourns sentencing to Thursday the 8th at 2 o'clock. The transcript is nine pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
------------------------------x 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                
 
           v.                           21 Cr. 729 (LAK) 
 
CHANETTE LEWIS, 
 
               Defendant. 
 
------------------------------x     
 
                                        New York, N.Y. 
                                        January 31, 2024 
                                        2:00 p.m. 
 
 
Before: 
 
HON. LEWIS A. KAPLAN, 
 
                                        District Judge 
 
 
APPEARANCES 
 
DAMIAN WILLIAMS  
     United States Attorney for the 
     Southern District of New York 
MICHAEL D. NEFF 
     Assistant United States Attorney 
 
FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF NEW YORK 
     Attorneys for Defendant  
MARK GOMBINER 
 
ALSO PRESENT: Special Agent Timothy Schmidt, U.S. DoL-OIG 
 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 1 of 9

2
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  United States v. Chanette Lewis.
Government, are you ready?
MR. NEFF:  Good afternoon, your Honor.  Michael Neff
for the government.  I'm joined at counsel table by Special
Agent Tim Schmidt from the Department of Labor.
THE COURT:  Good afternoon.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  Defendant, are you ready?
MR. GOMBINER:  Well, in one second.  Mark Gombiner,
Federal Defenders for Ms. Lewis.  
And Judge, Ms. Lewis is about eight months' pregnant.  
She was sitting here, she told me she had to use the restroom, 
so I mean I didn't know -- I said okay.  So I had my paralegal 
go get her.  So she'll be back in a second. 
(Pause)
THE COURT:  That's your client, right, Mr. Gombiner?
MR. GOMBINER:  Yes, it is, Judge.
THE COURT:  Mr. Gombiner, have you and your client had
the presentence report for the necessary period?
MR. GOMBINER:  Yes, we have, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Ms. Lewis, have you read the presentence
report all the way through, everything?
THE DEFENDANT:  Yes.
THE COURT:  Thank you.  Are there any unresolved
objections to the presentence report?
MR. GOMBINER:  Other than that we've agreed that the
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 2 of 9

3
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
guideline range would be lower, because she was assessed two
criminal history points for committing the offense while on
parole, and that's not part of the present guidelines.  So I
think the government agrees that the correct guideline range is
41 to 51 months.
THE COURT:  Is that right?
MR. NEFF:  Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT:  Okay.  I adopt the presentence report and
the guideline computation and range it contains, with the
exception of that noted by counsel which I adopt in place of
what the presentence report says.
MR. NEFF:  My apologies, Judge.  May I offer three
very modest corrections or edits as well?
THE COURT:  Well, it depends.  Is any of them
material?
MR. NEFF:  I don't believe so, Judge.  But I wanted
to, if anything, they redound slightly to Ms. Lewis's benefit
even though --
THE COURT:  The corrections or the errors redound to
her benefit?
MR. NEFF:  The corrections would redound to her
benefit.
THE COURT:  Go ahead.
MR. NEFF:  Thank you, Judge, and my apologies.
First in paragraph 73, which is on page 16, there is a 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 3 of 9

4
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
reference to the defendant having submitted fraudulent 
materials to NYCHA on behalf of approximately 35 individuals.  
After further investigation, we believe that approximately 32, 
not 35, is the correct number.  There were a few individuals, I 
believe two, where Ms. Lewis had seemingly fraudulent documents 
on her computer, but for which she did not -- 
THE COURT:  I am going to adopt the correction to 32.
Let's move along.
MR. NEFF:  Thank you.
In paragraph 88, which relates to the same scheme, 
there is a reference to eight of Ms. Lewis' customers in fact 
receiving housing benefits based on fraudulent applications.  
After further investigation, we believe that approximately at 
least seven, not eight, is correct. 
THE COURT:  I adopt that one too.
MR. NEFF:  Thank you.
Finally, the second sentence of that same paragraph 
states that "This fraud scheme also deprived or at least 
delayed deserving NYCHA applicants of those benefits in part." 
That is not necessarily incorrect, but I think a more 
conservative formulation may be safer, which is to say simply 
that "this scheme may have delayed," because it is very 
difficult to point to a specific person whose benefits were 
delayed, even though it could be a reasonable inference that 
that was a consequence of this scheme. 
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 4 of 9

5
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
THE COURT:  I'll make that change too.
MR. NEFF:  Thank you.
THE COURT:  I've received in relation to the
sentencing, the presentence report.  There is in my file a
September 25, 2023, memorandum from pretrial services.  I have
the government's sentencing memorandum and I have an executed
consent proposed order of restitution.
Is there anything else I should be aware that I
haven't mentioned?
MR. GOMBINER:  Judge, that's kind of -- I filed three
separate sentencing submissions in this case.  I did not,
because they contain very personal information, I didn't file
them online.  I didn't file them through ECF.  But -- I did --
THE COURT:  I don't have them.
MR. GOMBINER:  Okay.  Judge, that's --
THE COURT:  If you want me to read them, you better
give them to me.
MR. GOMBINER:  Well, I mean there -- I do -- obviously
I want you to read them.
THE COURT:  There is a way to file things.
MR. GOMBINER:  Well, I did have some communications
with your deputy about this.  I thought I had done -- I thought
that was the right way I was supposed to be doing this.  But I
had a sentencing submission of June 5 and then a supplemental
submission --
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 5 of 9

6
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
THE COURT:  Can I see them now if you want me to read
them?
MR. GOMBINER:  Yes, I do want you to read them.
THE COURT:  Thank you.
(Pause)
THE COURT:  For the record, I've just read three
letters from Mr. Gombiner dated June 5, June 7, and
September 14, 2023.  I do note that the September 14 letter was
filed on ECF.
MR. GOMBINER:  Judge, I mean, I have to say, I am
concerned about proceeding with sentencing at this point.  I
understand that this is, you know, irritating I'm sure for me
to say this, but, I mean.
THE COURT:  You couldn't have said that a day ago,
right?
MR. GOMBINER:  What?
THE COURT:  You couldn't have let me that a day ago or
two days ago.
MR. GOMBINER:  Judge, I was under the impression until
about five minutes ago that all these letters had been received
and reviewed.
THE COURT:  They have now been received and reviewed.
MR. GOMBINER:  I understand that that's the case.
But, I mean, I had good reason to believe, and I mean, I could,
if I went back to my office and turned on my computer, I could
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 6 of 9

7
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
provide the Court with the various communications, e-mail
communications I had about this, but --
THE COURT:  What difference would it make?  I've read
them now.
MR. GOMBINER:  The difference it makes to me, I mean,
to me, obviously I am totally prepared to argue this right now.
I don't have any problem with that.  But, for my client, who
this is like the pivotal moment of her life right now, I mean,
I think it's difficult to, you know, I spent a lot of time
writing these sentencing submissions, particularly my first
one.  There's lots of information contained in it, and I feel
very uncomfortable being in a position where the Court has --
I'm not in any way saying anybody did anything wrong, but the
fact is that the Court has now just for a few minutes read
something that, you know, and had probably already come to some
conclusions about what sentence was appropriate.  And to just
be the last second to have, okay, well, here's something you
wrote and read it, I think that puts us at a significant
disadvantage and I mean, I think --
THE COURT:  I would say to you that what's putting you
to a disadvantage, if there is anything, which there is not,
it's what you've just been saying.
MR. GOMBINER:  Okay.
THE COURT:  It's inappropriate.
MR. GOMBINER:  Well, all right, Judge.  I have to
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 7 of 9

8
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
make -- I mean, I feel I have to make a record about that so
I'm wanting to move on.
THE COURT:  Would you like an adjournment,
Mr. Gombiner?
MR. GOMBINER:  Yes.
THE COURT:  Andy, let's get another date.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  How much time, Judge?
THE COURT:  How much time do you want, Mr. Gombiner?
MR. GOMBINER:  A week.  That's fine.  Can we do it
next Monday?  Whatever.  I just want some time.  That's all I
want.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  Wednesday the 7th at 2 o'clock,
Judge.
THE COURT:  How's that.
THE DEFENDANT:  I have a prenatal appointment
Wednesday the 7th.
THE COURT:  Well, Mr. Gombiner?
MR. GOMBINER:  Well, Judge.
THE COURT:  Andy, give us another date.
MR. GOMBINER:  We can do it earlier or later.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  Judge, how about Thursday the 8th
at 2 o'clock.
MR. GOMBINER:  That's fine, Judge.
THE COURT:  That suits you?
MR. GOMBINER:  Yes, your Honor.  Thank you.
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 8 of 9

9
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
            (212) 805-0300
O1V3LEWC                  
THE COURT:  All right.  Thursday the 8th at 2 o'clock.
Thursday the 8th at 2 o'clock.
MR. GOMBINER:  Thank you.
(Adjourned)
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 1:21-cr-00729-LAK     Document 116     Filed 02/29/24     Page 9 of 9

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nysd.571079.116.0.pdf

Size

42,862 bytes

SHA-256

418b41d364b18e741e544c50fa6ed7a5062b13346d620f05b2f0d59b141bbbf3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nysd.571079.116.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)