Court filing
Memorandum & Order — Sentencing of Bryan Abraham (60 Months)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-22 |
U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. · No. 1:21-cr-00411-WFK · Doc. 302 · 2025-05-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A Memorandum & Order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York sentencing the defendant in United States v. Bryan Abraham, No. 1:21-cr-00411-WFK, dated May 21, 2025 and entered May 22, 2025 as Document 302. It records that on January 26, 2023 the defendant pled guilty to Counts One and Eight of a thirteen-count indictment, charging conspiracy to commit access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2) and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The order gives a statement of reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) and works through the seven factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It states that approximately 250 fraudulent unemployment insurance claims were submitted to NYSDOL. The court imposes sixty (60) months' imprisonment, two years' supervised release, restitution of $579,862.00, forfeiture of $609,592.87 and a $200.00 special assessment.
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
UNITED STATES DISTR1CT COURT
EASTERN DISTR1CT OF NEW YORK
-----------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMER1CA,
v.
BRYAN ABRAHAM,
Defendant.
-----------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-CR-411 (WFK)
On January 26, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to Counts One and Eight of a thirteen-count
Indictment, charging him with: {l) Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2); and (2) Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l).
Plea Agreement ,I 1, ECF No. 152; see generally Indictment, ECF No. 70. The Court now
sentences Defendant and provides a complete statement of reasons, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2),
of those factors set forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below,
Defendant is sentenced to sixty ( 60) months' imprisonment, to be followed by two years'
supervised release, with both the standard and special conditions of supervision; restitution in the
amount of $579,862.00, plus interest, as set forth in the Order of Restitution; forfeiture in the
amount of $609,592.87, as set forth in the Order of Forfeiture; and a $200.00 mandatory special
assessment.
I.
Background
Background ofCOVID-19 Emergency Relief Funds
In March 2020, the President of the United States signed into law various acts providing
financial assistance to individuals affected by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sealed PSR
,r,r 9-13. These acts included the: (1) Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which provided
administrative funding for state unemployment insurance ("UI") agencies; and (2) Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES" Act), which expanded the ability of states to
provide UI for workers affected by COVID-19. Id ,r,r 11-12. The CARES Act created new UI
programs, including Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Federal Pandemic Unemployment
1
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1318
Compensation. Id. ,r 12. As the pandemic continued, the President authorized additional
funding to alleviate COVID-19-related financial hardship. See id 'if'if 15-16.
The NYSDOL operates New York's unemployment system and distributes UI benefits.
Id ,r 9. New York's UI benefits are funded primarily through the New York State
Unemployment Insurance Fund ("NYSUIF"). Id Individuals could claim NYSUIF benefits
through the NYSDOL website. Id 'if 17. Once approved, claimants could elect how to receive
their NYSUIF benefits. Id ,r 18. One option was to receive a Key Bank National Association
("Key Bank") debit card pre-loaded with NYSUIF benefits. Id Another was to upload personal
debit card information to the NYSDOL website for funding. Id A third was to upload personal
bank account information to the NYSDOL website to receive a direct deposit. Id
The Fraudulent Scheme
Between June 2020 and April 2021, Defendant and his co-conspirators submitted
approximately 250 fraudulent UI claims to NYSDOL using the personal identifying information
("PII") of real individuals (''the victims"). Id ,r 21. Defendant and his co-conspirators obtained
these victims' PII by, among other things, using Bitcoin to purchase the information from
individuals on Telegram, an encrypted messaging application. Id ,r 22.
Defendant and his co-conspirators opted to receive NYSUIF benefits through KeyBank
debit cards and direct deposit. Id ,r 24. Defendant and his co-conspirators made purchases
directly with the KeyBank debit cards or else used them to withdraw large amounts cash from
various ATM machines throughout the Eastern District. Id. 'if 25. Defendant was arrested twice
during this offense period: first on August 28, 2020, and a few weeks later, on September 18,
2020. Id Both times, Defendant or a co-conspirator possessed a KeyBank debit card issued in
one of their victims' names. Id
2
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 1319
During the offense period, Defendant and his co-conspirators took photographs flaunting
their wealth. Id. ,r 26. In online posts, Defendant and his co-conspirators can be seen wearing
designer clothes, accessories, and jewelry while surrounded by stacks of cash and luxury cars.
Id ,r 27; see also Government Sentencing Memorandum ("Gov't Sent'g Mem.") at 3, ECF No.
300. Defendant himself purchased two such luxury cars during the course of the investigation.
Id. ,r29.
Defendant and his co-conspirators ultimately submitted more than $8,900,000.00 in
fraudulent claims, receiving more than $1,750,000.00 in NYSUIF benefits before NYSDOL
detected the fraud. Id ,r 21. Defendant submitted fraudulent claims under the names of at least
seventy-eight victims, yielding approximately $579,862.00 in fraudulent NYSUIF benefits. Id ,r
29.1
Procedural History
On May 14, 2021, the Government filed a then-sealed Complaint alleging Defendant and
others fraudulently filed federal and state unemployment insurance claims between June 2020
and April 2021, using the PII of third-party victims to receive UI benefits funded by the COVID-
19 pandemic assistance programs. Compl., ECF No. 1.
1 The PSR and the Government's Sentencing Memorandum b~th discuss Defendant's conduct
related to other fraudulent schemes not covered by the instant offense. First, Defendant was in a
Telegram group chat with co-defendants in which the chat members discussed how to make
fraudulent claims on Blueacom and Womply, providers of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
loans. PSR ,r 39; Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 3-4. Defendant suggested co-defendant Vazquez steal
his girlfriend's grandmother's identifying information to make such fraudulent claims. PSR ,r
39; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3. Second, in another Telegram chat between Defendant and a co-
defendant, Defendant shared forged Ohio tax forms for a third-party and indicated making
fraudulent claims for unemployment benefits in Michigan. PSR ,r 40; Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 3-4.
Third, Defendant was involved in a scheme to purchase iPhones for resale using the names of
various third-party victims to obtain financing. Id. ,r 41. Defendant discussed this scheme in a
Telegram chat, telling co-defendants where he bought his ''trappys," a reference to trap or burner
phones. Id ,r 41.
3
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 1320
On August 5, 2021, a grand jury returned a thirteen-count Indictment against all
defendants in this case. Indictment, ECF No. 70. The Indictment charged Defendant with: one
count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2),
(a)(5), and (b)(2); one count of Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(5) and
(c)(l)(A)(ii); and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1028A(a)(l), {b), (c)(4), and (c)(5). Id
Defendant was released from custody on May 18, 2021, on a $75,000.00 bond with
reporting conditions. PSR ,r 6. On May 24, 2021, the Court modified Defendant's release
conditions to include participation in the Special Options Services (S.O.S.) program. Id. As part
of his participation in the S.O.S. program, Defendant attended vocational training sessions. Id.
On May 6, 2022, co-defendant Seth Golding pied guilty to one count of Conspiracy to
Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(b)(2) and (c)(l)(A)(ii). Plea
Agreement as to Seth Golding, l:22-CR-143, ECF No. 90. On June 9, 2022, co-defendant Andre
Ruddock pied guilty to one count of Operating an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a). Plea Agreement as to Andre Ruddock, ECF No. 121. On
January 23, 2023, co-defendant Carlos Vazquez pied guilty to one count of Conspiracy to
Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), and one count of
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). Plea Agreement as to Carlos
-Vazquez, ECF No. 148. On January 24, 2023, co-defendant Gianni Stewart pied guilty to one
count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2).
Plea Agreement as to Gianni Stewart, ECF No. 150.
On January 26, 2023, Defendant pied guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Commit
Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029{b )(2), and one count of Aggravated
4
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 1321
Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). Plea Agreement as to Bryan Abraham.
On February 7, 2023, co-defendant Angel Cabrera pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to
Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2). Plea Agreement as to
Angel Cabrera, ECF No. 157. On February 17, 2023, co-defendant Armani Miller pied guilty to
one count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1029(b)(2). Plea Agreement as to Armani Miller, ECF No. 160.
On January 29, 2025, the Court removed Defendant from the S.O.S. program following
violations of his conditions of release. Sealed Pretrial Modification of Bond Conditions, ECF
No. 284. To date, the Court has sentenced four of Defendant's co-defendants: Andre Ruddock,
Gianni Stewart, Seth Golding, and Armani Miller.
II.
Legal Standard
Congress set forth the procedures for imposing a sentence in a criminal case in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553. Together with 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines
operate as the "starting point and the initial benchmark" for a court evaluating a criminal
sentence. 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
I
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 court's 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.) (internal citation omitted).
5
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 1322
When determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider seven different
factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the
kinds of sentence and the sentence range established by the Guidelines; (5) any pertinent policy
statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission; ( 6) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among similar defendants found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court
now addresses each factor in turn.
III.
Analysis
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics
of 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)(l).
1.
Family and Personal Background
• Defendant was born on June 6, 2002, in Brooklyn, New York. PSR ,r 80. He was raised
in a middle-income household free of abuse. Id. ,r 82. His father is a self-employed contractor;
his mother is a housekeeper. Id ,r 80. Both are in relatively good health. Id Defendant has two
siblings, a brother and a sister. Id ,r 81. He has a gpod relationship with his family members,
who are aware of the instant arrest and remain supportive. Id
Defendant started dating his current romantic partner in 2020; they have one child
together (a son). Id ,r 83. They separated for a brief period around the time of their son's birth
but have since repaired their relationship. Id As of July 23, 2023, Defendant moved in with his
girlfriend, their son, and his girlfriend's mother. Id ,r 84. Defendant's girlfriend describes him
6
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 1323
as a "really good father" who is involved in their son's care. Id ,r 85. She is aware of the instant
case and supportive. Id. ,r,r 85-86.
2.
Educational and Employment History
Defendant attended South Shore High School in Brooklyn. Id ,r 100. Due to declining
grades and inconsistent class attendance, Defendant transferred to East Brooklyn Community
High School. Id ,r 100. Defendant attended East Brooklyn Community High School until 2020.
Id. ,r 100. He stopped attending school when classes became virtual due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Id.
In 2021, Defendant worked construction with his father and as a seasonal employee at
FedEx unloading trucks. Id ,r,r 110-11. From January 2022 to March 2022, Defendant worked
part-time for Whole Foods. Id ,r 108. From May 2022 to October 2022, Defendant worked as
an overnight delivery processor at Nordstrom Rack. Id ,r 106. From November 2022 to
February 2023, Defendant worked at a BJ's Wholesale store in Brooklyn. Id. ,r 104. Defendant
was fired from this position after a physical altercation with another employee. Id. ,r 104. From
March 2023 to the present, Defendant has worked as a part-time cashier and stockperson at a
Marshalls in Brooklyn, assisted his father with carpentry jobs, and worked at R&M Maintenance
and Repairs. Id ,r 102; Sealed Addendum to the PSR at 3, ECF No. 301.
3.
Prior Convictions
Defendant has no prior convictions. Id ,r,r 71-74.
4.
Physical and Mental Health
In 2019, Defendant was hit in the left leg by a stray bullet. Id ,r 89. The bullet shattered
his femur, requiring surgery to insert a rod into his leg. Id ,r 89. Defendant reports no lingering
effects from the surgery. Id ,r 89.
7
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 1324
Defendant reports no history of mental or emotional health problems. Id ,r 90. He
reports experiencing some levels of stress and anxiety due to the instant prosecution and legal
proceedings. Id ,r 90.
5.
Substance Abuse
Defendant reports not liking alcohol and not really drinking. Id ,r,r 94, 97. Defendant
• first smoked marijuana when he was sixteen years old and reports smoking at least once a day
prior to the instant arrest. Id ,r 95. Defendant does not believe his marijuana use was
problematic. Id ,r 96. Although Defendant reports feeling no urge to smoke marijuana again,
see PSR ,r 96, he tested positive for marijuana use multiple times while awaiting sentencing. See
Sealed Pretrial Violation Memoranda, ECFs No. 159,214,269,274, and 280.
6.
Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The Court's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Part I.
B. The Need for the Sentence Imposed
The second§ 3553(a) factor instructs the Court to consider ''the need for the sentence
imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant
with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in
the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
The Court's sentence recognizes the seriousness of Defendant's conduct, which involved
stealing innocent victims' identities to access disaster relief funds for his personal gain. PSR ,r
21. Defendant and his co-conspirators submitted approximately 250 claims to New York's
8
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 1325
unemployment benefits office, claiming nearly $9,000,000.00 in fraudulent benefits and
receiving more than $1,750,000.00 in disbursements. Id Defendant submitted claims on behalf
of more victims (seventy-eight) and received more money (almost $600,000.00) than any other
co-defendant. Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 7. The Government characterizes Defendant as
"incorrigible." Id He continued the conspiracy despite being arrested twice and being
concurrently involved in other frauds: forging tax documents, submitting fraudulent claims in
other states, and using victims' personal identifying information to finance iPhones for resale.
Id
The Court's sentence will deter others from engaging in similar conduct and justly
punish Defendant for his crimes. Accordingly, the Court's sentence is "sufficient, but not greater
than necessary" to comply with the purposes set forth in this factor. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
The third§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to detail "the kinds of sentences available"
for Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3). Defendant pied guilty to one count of Conspiracy to
Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), and one count of
Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). Plea Agreement ,I 1.
Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud
Defendant faces a statutory maximum term of seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment and
no minimum term. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(b)(2), (c)(l)(A)(ii). He also faces a maximum term of
three years' supervised release. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(2), (e). If a condition of supervised
release is violated, Defendant may be sentenced to up to two years without credit for pre-release
imprisonment or time previously served on post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(2)
9
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 1326
and ( e ). Defendant is ineligible for probation because he is being sentenced at the same time to a
term of imprisonment for the same or a different offense. 18 U.S.C. § 356l(a)(3).·
In addition, Defendant faces a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000.00, or twice the
gross gain or twice the gross loss, which he appears unable to pay. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3571(b)(2),
(b)(3), and (d); PSR 1115. The Court is also required to impose a mandatory special assessment
of$100.00 per count pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).
Count Eight: Aggravated Identity Theft
Defendant faces a statutory term of two years' imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l).
The sentence imposed on this count must run consecutively to the sentence imposed on any other
count. See 18 U.S. C. § 1028A(b )(2). Defendant also faces a maximum term of one year of
supervised release. 18 U .S.C. §§ 3583(b )(2), ( e ). If a condition of supervised release is violated,
Defendant may be sentenced to up to one year without credit for pre-release imprisonment or
time previously served on post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(2), (e). Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3624(e), multiple terms of supervised release shall run concurrently. Defendant is
ineligible for probation because probation is expressly precluded by statute. 18 U.S.C. §
1028A(b)(l); 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(2). Defendant faces the same financial penalties for Count
Eight as for Count One.
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for Defendant's
Offense
The fourth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to discuss ''the kinds of sentence and the
sentencing range established for ... [t]he applicable category of offense committed by the
applicable-category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines." Id § 3553(a)(4)(A).
Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
1327
The applicable guideline for Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud is U.S.S.G.
§2B 1.1 ( a)(2), which provides a base offense level of six. Enhancements apply. Sixteen levels
are added under U.S.S.G. §2B 1.l(b)(l)(I) because the offense involved a loss of $1,788,429.00,
which is more than $1,500,000.00 but less than $3,500,000.00. Two levels·are added under
U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i) because the offense involved ten or more victims. Two levels are
added under U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l(b)(l2) because the offense involved fraud in connection with
major disaster or emergency benefits (see 18 U.S.C. § 1040). Three levels are added under
U.S.S.G. §3Bl.l(b) because Defendant acted as a manager or supervisor-but not an organizer
or leader-in an offense involving five or more participants.
Three levels are reduced for Defendant's timely acceptance of responsibility under
U.S.S.G. §3El.l(a)-(b). PSR ,r,r 68-69. An additional level is reduced under the global
resolution policy consideration enunciated in U.S.S.G. §5K2.0. Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5 n.3.
Count Eight: Aggravated Identity Theft
The applicable guideline for Aggravated Identity Theft is U.S.S.G. §2Bl.6, which
provides a base offense level of twenty-four. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §2Bl.6(a), adjustments and
considerations for Defendant's Criminal History and Criminal Livelihood do not apply to Count
Eight. Instead, the Guidelines sentence is the term of imprisonment required by statute, which is
two years. 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(l).
11
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
1328
Criminal History Category
All parties agree Defendant has no criminal history, 2 resulting in a criminal history
category ofl. PSR ,r 73; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 6; see Defense's Sentencing Memorandum ("Def.
Sent'g Mem.") at 12;ECF No. 296.
Effective Guidelines Ranges
The parties disagree as to Defendant's total offense level for Count One. Probation and
the Government argue Defendant has a total offense level of 25, which, together with a criminal
history category ofl, results in a Guidelines range of 57-71 months' imprisonment. PSR ,r 118;
Addendum to the PSR at 2; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5-6.
Defense counsel endorses the Plea Agreement's stipulated range of 57-71 months'
imprisonment. Def. Sent'g Mem. at 3-4. Defense counsel also uses the ABA's alternative
guidelines to reach a total offense level of 17, which, together with a criminal history category of
I, results in a Guidelines range of24--30 months' imprisonment. Id at 12. Defense counsel
presents the alternative guidelines calculation solely as an argument in favor of a downward
variance.
The Parties' Sentencing Recommendations
Probation breaks its recommendation down by count. For Count One, Probation
recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of thirty-six (36) months' imprisonment; two (2)
years' supervised release with special conditions; restitution in the amount of $1,788,429.00, due
immediately and payable at a rate of $25.00 per quarter while in custody and 10% of gross
monthly income while on supervised release; and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment. For
2 Because Defendant stipulated to this enhancement for a managerial role, he is ineligible for the
zero-point offender reduction. U.S.S.G. §4Cl.1(10); see also Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5 n.2.
12
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
1329
Count Two, Probation recommends the statutorily required sentence of two (2) years'
imprisonment, to run consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed on Count One; one (1)
year of supervised release with special conditions, to run concurrent to any term of supervised
release imposed on Count One; and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment (resulting in a total
mandatory special assessment of$200.00). Prob. Sent'g Rec. at 1, ECF No. 189-1.
The Government recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of not less than sixty ( 60)
months' imprisonment total on both Counts One and Eight. Gov't Sent'g Mem. at-1. Defense
counsel recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of forty ( 40) months' imprisonment,
reflecting sixteen (16) months on Count One and twenty-four (24) months on Count Eight. Def.
Sent'g Mem. at 1.
The Court appreciates the sentencing arguments raised by all parties and has considered
each in turn.
E. Pertinent Policy Statement(s) of the Sentencing Commission
The fifth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "any pertinent policy
statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5).
Probation directs the Court to the policy considerations in U.S.S.G. §5K2.21, stating
Defendant's participation in additional fraudulent conduct not captured in the Guidelines
calculations for the instant offense could constitute grounds for an upward departure. PSR ,r 134;
see U.S.S.G. §5K2.21. However, the Government argues "none of [Defendant's] uncharged
crimes was as serious, as extensive, or as brazen as the charged conduct. Accordingly, the
seriousness of the offense is adequately captured in the Guidelines calculation." Id. at 7 n.4.
Defense counsel also direct~ the Court to the policy considerations in U.S.S.G. §5Hl.1,
which the United States Sentencing Commission amended in November 2024. Def. Sent' g
13
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
1330
Mem. at 4. Prior to the amendment, U.S.S.G. §5Hl.1 stated: "Age may be relevant in
determining whether a departure is warranted." See United States Sentencing Commission,
Amendment 829. In its amended form, U.S.S.G. §5Hl.1 states: "A downward departure also
may be warranted due to the defendant's youthfulness at the time of the offense .... " Id; Def.
Sent'g Mem. at 4. Defense counsel emphasizes Defendant was only eighteen at the time he
committed the instant offense. Id; Addendum to PSR at 3.
F. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
The sixth § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
On April 28, 2023, the Court sentenced co-defendant Andre Ruddock to three (3) years'
probation for one count of Operating an Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a). Memorandum and Order as to Andre Ruddock, ECF No. 174. On May
8, 2024, the Court sentenced co-defendant Gianni Stewart to twenty-four (24) months'
imprisonment for one count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud. Memorandum and
Order as to Gianni Stewart, ECF No. 259. On May 13, 2024, the Court sentenced co-defendant
Seth Golding to fifty-seven (57) months' imprisonment for one count of Conspiracy to Commit
Access Device Fraud. Memorandum and Order as to Seth Golding, l:22-CR-143, ECF No. 118.
And on May 14, 2024, the Court sentenced co-defendant Armani Miller to fifty-seven (57)
months' imprisonment for one count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud.
Memorandum and Order as to Armani Miller, ECF No. 264.
Defense counsel argues a below-Guidelines sentence is appropriate to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities between Defendant and his co-defendants. Def. Sent'g Mem. at 13.
14
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
1331
Specifically, defense counsel argues Defendant's conduct-and corresponding culpability-falls
between co-defendant Stewart, on the one hand, and co-defendants Miller and Golding, on the
,,
other hand. Def. Sent' g Mem. at 14. As such, defense counsel argues an appropriate sentence
, lies between the sentences received by these co-defendants. Id
The Government avers the appropriate inquiry for the Court is "among similarly situated
defendants," and not simply "disparity among co-defendants." Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 9 ( quoting
.
United States v. Kanagbou, 726 F. App'x 21, 25 (2d Cir. 2018)). The Government notes that
although Defendant's "charged conduct was far more extensive than that of his co-defendants,"
he has a meaningfully different criminal history and record (e.g., co-defendants Miller, Golding,
and Stewart all had issues with firearms while on supervised release). Id. at 9-10.
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, and considering the other six
§ 3553(a) fac!ors, the Court's sentence avoids unwarranted sentence disparities.
G. The Need to Provide Restitution
Finally, the seventh§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to touch upon ''the need to
provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7).
Restitution is mandatory in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. The Court entered
an Order of Restitution in this case on May 10, 2024, directing Defendant to pay a total
restitution amount of $579,862.00, plus interest. Order of Restitution ,r 2, ECF No. 253. The
Court further reserves its right, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), to hold an evidentiary
hearing within 90 days after this sentencing to determine the specific amounts owed to
Defendant's victims.
15
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
1332
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant is sentenced to sixty (60) months'
imprisonment, to be followed by two years of supervised release, with both the standard and
special conditions of supervision; restitution in the amount of$579,862.00, plus interest, as set
forth in the Order of Restitution; forfeiture in the amount of $609,592.87, as set forth in the
Order of Forfeiture; and a $200.00 mandatory special assessment. This sentence is sufficient but
no greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of§ 3553(a)(2). The Court does not
impose a fine given Defendant's apparent inability to pay.
The Court expressly adopts the factual findings of the Sealed Presentence Investigation
Report and Addendum thereto, as corrected herein, to the extent those findings are not
inconsistent with this opinion.
Dated: May 21, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
16
s/ WFK
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 302 Filed 05/22/25 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
1333File and source
- File
- United_States_v._Abraham__nyed_1-21-cr-00411__doc302__gov.uscourts.nyed.467850.302.0.pdf
- Size
- 779,994 bytes
- SHA-256
- 9112f38c8e58f2217b01527b573712d002521adb8ffa94628a3d7eb451418d0c
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com