Court filing
Memorandum & Order — Sentencing of Angel Cabrera (24 Months)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-09-16 |
U.S. District Court, E.D.N.Y. · No. 1:21-cr-00411-WFK · Doc. 326 · 2025-09-16 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A sentencing memorandum and order in United States v. Angel Cabrera, 21-CR-411 (WFK), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, signed by United States District Judge William F. Kuntz, II on September 16, 2025 and filed as Document 326. The order states that the defendant pled guilty on February 7, 2023 to Count One of a thirteen-count Indictment, charging conspiracy to commit access device fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2), in a case involving New York unemployment insurance claims funded by COVID-19 relief programs. It records the guilty pleas of co-defendants and works through the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court imposes twenty-four (24) months' imprisonment, two years of supervised release, restitution of $129,877.00 plus interest, forfeiture of $129,877.00 and a $100.00 special assessment, and imposes no fine.
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 DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
ANGEL CABRERA,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
21-CR-411 (WFK)
On February 7, 2023, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of a thirteen-count Indictment, charging
him with Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2).
Plea Agreement ,r 1, ECF No. 157; see generally Indictment, ECF No. 70. 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 set forth
below, Defendant is sentenced to twenty-four (24) months' imprisonment, to be followed by two
(2) years' supervised release, with both the standard and special conditions of supervision;
restitution in the amount of $129,877.00, plus interest, as set forth in the Order of Restitution;
forfeiture in the amount of $129,877.00, as set forth in the Order of Forfeiture; and a $100.00
mandatory special assessment.
I.
BACKGROUND
A. Background of COVID-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 7-14. 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 9-10. The CARES Act created new UI
programs, including Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Federal Pandemic Unemployment
Compensation. Id. 'if 11. As the pandemic continued, the President authorized additional
funding to alleviate COVID-19-related financial hardship. See id ,r,r 13-14.
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1492
The NYSDOL operates New York's unemployment system and distributes UI benefits.
Id. 17. New York's UI benefits are distributed primarily through the New York State
Unemployment Insurance Fund ("NYSUIF"). Id. Individuals could claim NYSUIF benefits
tln·ough the NYSDOL website. Id. 115. Once approved, claimants could elect how to receive
their NYSUIF benefits. Id. 116. One option was to receive a Key Bank National Association
("Key Bank") debit card pre-loaded with 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 infmmation to the NYSDOL website to receive a direct deposit. Id.
B. 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. 1 19. 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. 120.
Defendant and his co-conspirators opted to receive NYSUIF benefits through Key Bank
debit cards and direct deposit. Id. 122. Defendant and his co-conspirators made purchases
directly with the Key Bank debit cards or else used them to withdraw large amounts cash from
various ATM machines tln·oughout the Eastern District. Id. 123.
During the offense period, Defendant and his co-conspirators took photographs flaunting
their wealth. Id. 125. In online posts, Defendant and his co-conspirators can be seen wearing
designer clothes, accessories, and jewelry while suITotmded by stacks of cash and luxury cars.
Id. 127; see also Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3.
2
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1493
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. PSR ,i 19. Defendant submitted fraudulent claims under the names of at least
thirty-six (36) victims, yielding approximately $130,059.00 in fraudulent NYSUIF benefits. Id
C. 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, using the Pll of third
party victims to receive UI benefits funded by COVID-19 pandemic assistance programs.
Comp!., ECF No. 1.
On August 5, 2021, a grand jury returned a thirteen-count Indictment charging Defendant
with one count of access device fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit access device
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(2), (a)(S), and (b)(2); and one count of aggravated
identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(l), (b), (c)(4), and (c)(S). Indictment, ECF
No. 70.
Defendant was released from custody on May 18, 2021, on a $75,000.00 bond with
reporting conditions. Order Setting Conditions of Release, ECF No. 19. Defendant participated
1 The PSR and the Government's sentencing submission both discuss Defendant's involvement
in other fraudulent schemes not covered by the instant offense. First, Defendant was in a
Telegram group chat with his co-defendants in which the chat members discussed how to make
fraudulent claims on Blueacorn and Womply, providers of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
loans. PSR ,i 37; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3-4. Second, in another Telegram chat between
Defendant and a co-defendant, Defendant shared forged Ohio tax fmms for a third-party. PSR ,i
38; 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. PSR ,i 39; Gov't
Sent'g Mem. at 3-4.
3
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1494
in the Special Options Services (SOS) program, which offered him educational and vocational
training support-oppmtunities that Defendant spurned. PSR ,i 5.
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), (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, co-defendant Bryan
Abraham 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 B1yan Abraham.
On February 7, 2023, Defendant 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 Angel
Cabrera, ECF No. 157. On February 17, 2023, co-defendant A1mani 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 June 25, 2025, the Court removed
Defendant from the SOS program. See ECF Nos. 309, 311. To date, the Court has sentenced
five of Defendant's co-defendants.
4
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1495
II.
LEGALSTANDARD
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 comi
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 comi'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).
Wben 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.
5
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1496
III.
ANALYSIS
A. The Nature aud 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 August 22, 2002, in Moca, Dominican Republic. PSR ,r 71. He
was raised in a close-knit, lower-income household. Id. ,r 73. Defendant and his family
immigrated to the United States in 2010. Id. Defendant is a legal pe1manent resident. Id. ,r 76.
Defendant's father previously worked as a taxi driver in the Dominican Republic; he has
been unemployed since suffering a stroke in 2018 that left him partially paralyzed. Id. ,r,r 71, 73.
Defendant's mother is healthy and works as a home health aide. Id. ,r 71. Defendant has two
brothers, one of whom lives with Defendant. Id. ,r 72. Defendant's other brother lives in the
Bronx, New York. Id. Defendant's parents and brothers are aware of this case and suppmtive.
Id. '\!'\! 71-72.
Defendant is also close with his extended family and reports that his entire family now
lives in the United States. Id. ,r 73. Defendant has never been married and has no children. Id.
'\! 75.
6
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1497
2.
Educational and Employment History
In 2021, Defendant graduated from the High School for Medical Professions in Brooklyn,
New York. Id. ,i 83. Defendant is currently emolled in school to receive his barber's license.
Id. ,i 82.
In fall 2021, Defendant worked as a package handler with UPS. Id. ,i 88. From April
2022 to October 2022, Defendant worked in retail at a Lowe's Home Improvement store. Id.
,i 87. From December 2022 onward, Defendant worked part-time at a Whole Foods warehouse.
Id. ,i 86.
3.
Prior Convictions
Defendant has no prior convictions. Id. ,i,i 64-67.
4.
Physical and Mental Health
Defendant reports no physical or mental health conditions or issues. Id. ,i,i 78-79.
5.
Substance Abuse
Defendant reports not drinking alcohol. Id. ,i 81. Defendant used marijuana daily before
his a!1'est for the instant offense. Id. ,i 80. He states he was "able to quit using the drug on his
own and does not believe substance abuse treatment is necessary." Id. Despite this statement,
Defendant tested positive for marijuana use multiple times while awaiting sentencing. See
Sealed Pretrial Violation Memoranda, ECF Nos. 134, 163, 179, 279, 291, and 307.
6.
Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The Court's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Part I.
7
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1498
B. The Need for the Sentence Imposed
The second§ 3553(a) factor instmcts 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 obtain disaster relief funds for his personal gain.
Defendant and his co-conspirators submitted approximately 250 claims to New York's
unemployment benefits office, claiming nearly $9,000,000.00 in fraudulent benefits and
receiving more than $1,750,000.00 in disbursements. PSR ,r 19. Defendant submitted or caused
to be submitted at least thirty-six fraudulent claims. Id. ,r 29. 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 fo1ih in this factor. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
The third Section 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). Plea
Agreement ,r I. Defendant faces a statutmy 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
8
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1499
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) and (e). Defendant is eligible for between one- and five-years' probation. 18
U.S.C. § 3561(c)(l). One of the following must be imposed as a condition of probation unless
extraordinary circumstances exist: a fine, restitution, or community service. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3563(a)(2).
In addition, Defendant faces a maximum fine of the greater of $250,000.00, or twice the
gross gain or twice the gross loss; he appears unable to pay this fine. 18 U.S.C. §§ 357l(b)(2),
(b)(3), and (d); PSR ,r 93. 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).
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for Defendant's
Offense
The fourth Section 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).
The applicable guideline for Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud is U.S.S.G.
§2Bl.l(a)(2), which provides a base offense level of six (6). Sixteen (16) levels are added under
U.S.S.G. §2Bl. 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.
Further enhancements apply. Two (2) levels are added under U.S.S.G.
§2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i) because the offense involved ten or more victims. Two (2) levels are added
under U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l(b)(ll)(C)(i), because the offense involved the unauthorized transfer or
use of identification unlawfully to produce or obtain any other means of identification. Two (2)
levels are added under U.S.S.G. §2Bl.l(b)(12) because the offense involved fraud in connection
9
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1500
with major disaster or emergency benefits (see 18 U.S.C. § 1040). These enhancements yield an
offense level of 28.
Tln-ee (3) levels are reduced for Defendant's timely acceptance of responsibility under
U.S.S.G. §3El. l(a)-(b). PSR ,r,r 61-62. An additional two (2) levels are reduced because
Defendant qualifies as a zero-point offender. Id. ii 62(a); U.S.S.G. §4Cl.l. Finally, the parties
agreed to an additional one (1) level reduction under Policy Statement 5K2.0 of the Guidelines.
See PSR Addendum ,r 109. These reductions yield a total adjusted offense level of 22.
Criminal History Categoty
All pmiies agree Defendant has no criminal history, resulting in a criminal history category
of I. PSR ,r 66; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5; Def. Sent'g Mem. at 5, 9, ECF No. 319.
Effective Guidelines Ranges
Probation and the Government argue Defendant has a total offense level of 22, which,
together with a criminal history categmy of I, results in a Guidelines range of 41-51 months'
imprisonment. PSR Addendum ,r 109; Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 5. Defense counsel does not
provide a separate calculation of Defendant's total offense level or corresponding Guidelines
range. See generally Def. Sent'g Mem.
The Parties' Sentencing Recommendations
Probation recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of twenty-four (24) months'
imprisonment; two (2) years' supervised release with special conditions; restitution in the
amount of$1,788,429.00; and the $100.00 mandatory special assessment. U.S. Prob. Sent'g
Rec. at 1, ECF No. 189-1; Revised U.S. Prob. Sent'g Rec. at 1, ECF No. 321-1. The
Government recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of not less than twenty-four (24) months'
imprisonment. Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 1. Defense counsel recommends a non-custodial sentence
10
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
1501
of three (3) years' probation. Def. Sent'g Mem. at 1. The Court appreciates the sentencing
arguments raised by all parties and has considered each in tum.
E. Pertinent Policy Statement(s) of the Sentencing Commission
The fifth Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "any pertinent policy
statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5).
Defense counsel directs the Court to the policy considerations in U.S.S.G. §SHI.I, which
the United States Sentencing Commission amended in November 2024. Def. Sent'g Mem. at 7.
Prior to the amendment, U.S.S.G. §SHI. I 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. §SHI. I states: "A downward departure also may be warranted due to
the defendant's youthfulness at the time of the offense .... " Id. Defense counsel emphasizes
Defendant was only eighteen at the time he committed the instant offense. Def. Sent' g Mem. at
5-7. Probation and the Government likewise point to Defendant's young age as a mitigating
factor. P SR ,r 11 O; Gov't Sent' g Mem. at 8.
F. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
The sixth Section 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). Mem. & Order as to Andre Ruddock, ECF No. 174. On May 8, 2024,
the Court sentenced co-defendant Gianni Stewaii to twenty-four (24) months' imprisonment for
one count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud. Mem. & Order as to Gianni Stewaii,
11
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
1502
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. Mem.
& Order as to Seth Golding, I :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. Mem. & Order as to Armani Miller, ECF No. 264.
On May 21, 2025, the Court sentenced co-defendant Bryan Abraham to sixty (60) months'
imprisonment for one count of Conspiracy to Commit Access Device Fraud and one count of
Aggravated Identity Theft (which carries a statutory term of two (2) years' imprisonment).
Mem. & Order as to Bryan Abraham, ECF No. 302.
Defense counsel asks the Court to impose a lower sentence than it gave his co
defendants. Def. Sent' g Mem. at 8. In fact, defense counsel emphasizes how Defendant faces
"severe immigration consequences" and has no family or support network in the Dominican
Republic. Id. "The potential for removal from the United States-the only country Angel
considers home-serves as an additional, extraordinary punishment." Id.
The Government argues its requested sentence would not create unwarranted disparity
among similarly situated co-defendants. First, the Government contends Defendant's best
comparator among his co-defendants is Gianni Stewmi, who had the same Guidelines range as
Defendant and was nineteen at the time of the crime. Gov'! Sent'g Mem. at 9-10. Notably,
Defendant did not use ill-gotten profits to support violence or other crimes, in contrast to other
convicted criminals. Id. at 7. And unlike some of his co-defendants, Defendant has no histmy
with firearms or violence. Id. at 8.
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, and considering the other six
§ 3553(a) factors, the Comi's sentence avoids unwarranted sentence disparities.
12
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
1503
G. The Need to Provide Restitution
Finally, the seventh Section 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 $129,877.00 plus interest. Order of Restitution 12, ECF No. 256.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant is sentenced to twenty-four (24) months'
imprisonment, to be followed by two (2) years of supervised release, with both the standard and
special conditions of supervision; restitution in the amount of $129,877.00 plus interest, as set
forth in the Order of Restitution; forfeiture in the amount of $129,877.00, as set forth in the
Order of Forfeiture; and the $100.00 mandatory special assessment. This sentence is sufficient
but no greater than necessary to accomplish the purposes of Section 3553(a)(2). The Court does
not impose a fine given Defendant's apparent inability to pay.
The Comt expressly adopts the factual findings of the Sealed Presentence Investigation
Rep01t and Addendum thereto, as corrected herein, to the extent those findings are not
inconsistent with this opinion.
Dated: September 16, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
SOORD*
ΘON. WTL(IAM F. KUNTZ, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT illDGE
13
s/WFK
Case 1:21-cr-00411-WFK Document 326 Filed 09/16/25 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
1504File and source
- File
- United_States_v._Abraham__nyed_1-21-cr-00411__doc326__gov.uscourts.nyed.467852.326.0.pdf
- Size
- 986,755 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1cf3c11d338f2fccdb9bcd057d6c99d45999afc06cbc65a9d3b8a43983c94b4f
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com