UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING

 MEMORANDUM

- v. - : 

 07 Cr. 349 (DAB)

STEVEN REGINALD, : 

 

Defendant. :

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MICHAEL J. GARCIA

United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of New York

Attorney for the United States 

of America

RANDALL W. JACKSON

Assistant United States Attorney,

Of Counsel

Case 1:07-cr-00349-DAB Document 10 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 4
1

U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

The Silvio J. Mollo Building

One Saint Andrew’s Plaza

New York, New York 10007

May 27, 2008

BY ECF

Honorable Deborah A. Batts

United States District Judge

Southern District of New York

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse

500 Pearl Street

New York, NY 10007

Re: United States v. Steven Reginald

07 Cr. 349(DAB)

Dear Judge Batts:

The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the sentencing of

Steven Reginald (the “defendant”), which is currently scheduled for June 2, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. 

For the reasons described below, the Government believes that a sentence within the Guidelines

range would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the legitimate purposes of

sentencing. 

Background

On or about August 20, 1993, the defendant was convicted in New York Supreme

Court, Queens County, of Robbery in the Second Degree. (PSR ¶¶ 5, 25). As a result of this

conviction, on or about December 13, 1995, the defendant was deported to Guyana, his native

country. (PSR ¶¶ 5, 25, 31). The defendant subsequently reentered the United States without

having obtained the permission of the Attorney General of the United States or the Secretary of

the Department of Homeland Security. (PSR ¶¶ 6, 7, 9, 35). On or about March 28, 2007, federal

agents arrested Reginald at a Home in Queens County, New York. (PSR ¶ 6). 

Discussion

The United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) still provide strong

guidance to the Court in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and United States

v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). Although Booker held that the Guidelines are no longer

Case 1:07-cr-00349-DAB Document 10 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 2 of 4
2

mandatory, it held also that the Guidelines remain in place and that district courts must “consult”

the Guidelines and “take them into account” when sentencing. 543 U.S. at 264. As the Supreme

Court recently stated, “a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly

calculating the applicable Guidelines range” — that “should be the starting point and the initial

benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). 

After that calculation, however, a sentencing judge must consider seven factors

outlined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a): “the nature and circumstances of the

offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” (§ 3553(a)(1)); the four legitimate

purposes of sentencing (§ 3553(a)(2)); “the kinds of sentences available” (§ 3553(a)(3)); the

Guidelines range itself (§ 3553(a)(4)); any relevant policy statement by the Sentencing

Commission (§ 3553(a)(5)); “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants” (§ 3553(a)(6)); and “the need to provide restitution to any victims” (§ 3553(a)(7)). 

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. at 597.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the statute directs judges to “impose a

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of sentencing,

which are:

(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). 

 

Courts may not presume that the appropriate sentence necessarily lies within

Guidelines range, but “the fact that § 3553(a) explicitly directs sentencing courts to consider the

Guidelines supports the premise that district courts must begin their analysis with the Guidelines

and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process.” Gall, 2007 WL 4292116, at

*7 n.6. Their relevance throughout the sentencing process stems in part from the fact that, while

the Guidelines are advisory, “the sentencing statutes envision both the sentencing judge and the

Commission as carrying out the same basic § 3553(a) objectives,” Rita v. United States, 127 S.

Ct. 2456, 2463 (2007), and the Guidelines are “the product of careful study based on extensive

empirical evidence derived from the review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions,”

Gall, 2007 WL 4292116, at *6; see also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. at 2464. To the extent

a sentencing court varies from the Guidelines sentence, “[it] must consider the extent of the

deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the

variance.” Gall, 126 S. Ct. at 597.

Case 1:07-cr-00349-DAB Document 10 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 3 of 4
3

The PSR correctly calculates the defendant’s criminal history category is IV, and

that the total offense level is 21. (PSR ¶¶ 20, 30). The applicable Guidelines range is therefore

57 to 71 months’ imprisonment. (PSR ¶ 47). The Guidelines provide that this range must be

satisfied by a term of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(f). The Government submits that

consideration of the § 3553 factors militates in favor of a Guidelines sentence. The defendant

was deported after the commission of multiple violent felonies. The need for adequate

deterrence, both specific and general, is particularly implicated by the defendant’s conduct. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Government respectfully submits that a sentence

within the Guidelines range calculated in the PSR, 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment, would be

sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the legitimate purposes of sentencing. 

 Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL J. GARCIA 

United States Attorney

Southern District of New York

By: /s/ 

Randall W. Jackson

Assistant United States Attorney

212-637-1029

cc: Darmin Bachu, Esq.

Case 1:07-cr-00349-DAB Document 10 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 4 of 4