The entire incident was captured on surveillance tape from nearby buildings, and a witness identified our client as the shooter. Initially, the prosecutors sought a sentence near the maximum, between 8 and 10 years in prison. After a lengthy period of negotiation, the client’s attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, secured a plea agreement for the client with a sentencing range of between 33-41 months under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, following the client’s guilty plea, it was up to the federal judge to decide his ultimate sentence (the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory but not mandatory).

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Mr. Galluzzo submitted a lengthy memorandum detailing the client’s difficult upbring, his long period of productive employment, his supportive family network, his remorse for the crime, and the terrible conditions the client had endured at MDC Brooklyn during the pendency of the case. The federal judge (Judge Donnelly) was thus persuaded to give our client a downward variance far below the sentencing Guidelines, in sentencing him to 24 months in prison. Given the time that he has already spent in custody, that amounts to a sentence only slightly longer than time served. The client was thrilled was this result and with the prospect of returning home to his wife and son soon.

The case caption is United States v. R.P., 20-cr-511(AMD) in the Eastern District of New York.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a federal firearm crime like 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g), you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo has extensive experience defending these sorts of cases and is well known for his passionate advocacy. Mr. Galluzzo operates primarily in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey federal courts, but has also represented clients in other federal courts across the country.

The indictment charges the following individuals:

LUIS FELICIANO, a.k.a. “Louminaty,” 38, of East Hartford
JOSE TIRADO, a.k.a. “Joselito” and “Leet,” 41, of Hartford
CARL JONES, a.k.a. “M.O.B.,” 41, of Hartford
LUIS ROBLES, a.k.a. “Lou,” 25, of Hartford
ROBERTO DIAZ, a.k.a. “Dragon Eyes,” 52, of West Hartford
MILTON ROSARIO, a.k.a. “Little,” 39, of Hartford
ANGEL DELGADO, 58, of Hartford
MARTIN MALDONADO, 33, of Hartford
JEREMY OZUNA, 27, of New Jersey
ROBERT VALLE, 58, of Schenectady, New York
MARSHA WATSON, 33, of Bangor, Maine
DEVIN TEXIRA, a.k.a. “LV,” 25, of Hartford
JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, 31, of Hartford
JOEL DELEON, JR., a.k.a. “Psycho,” 41, of Hartford
HERIBERTO MENDEZ, a.k.a. “Big Ed,” 43, of Hartford
CHRISTOPHER GILLIARD, a.k.a. “CJ” and “Gilly,” 34, of Hartford.

They are charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 846 (a conspiracy to distribute narcotics, meaning a working agreement to do a crime together) and violations of 21 U.S.C. Section 841. The seriousness of the latter charge depends on the quantity of the drugs for which the conspirators are responsible (or at least, the amount that was reasonably foreseeable to them as conspirators), with the most serious charge being 21 USC Section 841(a)(1)(A). That latter charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison. Other federal drug charges under Section 841 carry 5 year mandatory minimum sentences, and others have no mandatory minimum at all (though there could be a twenty-year maximum).

Several of the defendants are also charged with various firearms offenses. The 922g charge in this indictment means possession of a firearm by a “prohibited person,” which in this case means a person with a prior felony conviction. The 924c charge relates to the possession or use of a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics-related crime. So, just having access to the gun while operating as a drug dealer can be sufficient evidence of guilt for this crime. It could carry a potential five-year sentence to run consecutive to any narcotics-related sentence.

Notably, the press release explains that this case involves a significant quantity of fentanyl. That drug is oftentimes used to lace other drugs, make counterfeit pills (fake Xanax or Oxycodone), and all-too-often causes fatal overdoses. As such, the penalties for fentanyl can be significant, and individuals convicted of trafficking fentanyl may not be eligible for certain credits for early release from prison.

If you or a loved one have been charged with violating the federal narcotics or firearm laws, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is a federal criminal defense attorney based in New York and Connecticut and former Manhattan prosecutor.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Thus, a person who was convicted of a criminal charge carrying a potential maximum penalty of one year – typically a felony – can be charged under federal law for possessing a firearm, even if the person was not in fact previously sentenced to a year or more in prison.

It is important to understand that possession is not the same as ownership. Possession can also be constructive, meaning that people can possess firearms in their homes, their cars, their places of employment, or their storage lockers, for example, without even being physically present at the time of the discovery of the firearms. If law enforcement can prove that a person has access to a firearm, and potential control over that firearm, then the person can be found to be in possession of it. Possession need not be exclusive either – under the law, multiple people can possess the same firearm. Indeed, it is common for all of the passengers in a vehicle to be charged with possessing a single firearm in a vehicle.

Determining the penalties for a violation of this crime are complicated and depend largely upon the individual’s criminal history. However, absent other aggravating factors, straight possession of firearm by a felon has a maximum penalty of 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922g, you should strongly consider retaining the services of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor. He defends relentlessly against the prosecution and advocates fiercely for his clients. Give him a call to discuss your case.

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien –

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that –

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

For now, Ms. Ferrier is charged in a D.C. federal court with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 871 (Threats against the President). Among other things, this charge makes it illegal for a person to knowingly deliver a letter containing a threat to take the life of the American President. The maximum penalty for this charge is 5 years in prison.

Ms. Ferrier is likely to face additional charges soon, however. For example, should law enforcement choose to charge her for the threatening letters she might have sent to the officials in Texas, she could face several counts of 18 U.S.C. Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries). Basically, if a person attempts to kill an official of a U.S. government agency through the mail in a manner transcending national boundaries, then that person can be charged with this crime. Those charges would carry potential life sentences.

If Ms. Ferrier has a felony conviction stemming from her period of incarceration in Texas (it is unknown to the author), then she could also potentially be charged with a felony for illegally possessing a firearm as a felon. That crime would carry an additional potential maximum penalty of ten years in prison.

Finally, Ms. Ferrier was recently deported from the United States following her incarceration in Texas. As such, her attempt to re-enter the United States was probably also illegal. The applicable federal crime for illegal re-entries after removal/deportation is 8 U.S.C. 1326. The penalties for that crime depend upon the manner in which the person was removed/deported, and whether it followed a felony or aggravated felony conviction.

Ms. Ferrier may attempt to use a psychiatric defense. The content of her alleged letters – not to mention her actions – certainly suggest some mental illness. The ultimate question, however, is not whether a defendant is mentally ill, but whether that mental illness prevented the defendant from appreciating the illegality or wrongfulness of his/her actions. The fact that the letters were sent anonymously suggests that the perpetrator knew the risks of being discovered, and sought to avoid capture. So, the defense – at first glance – seems unlikely to work. It may, however, be a mitigating factor at sentencing at some point.

Matthew Galluzzo, the author of this post, is a French-speaking criminal defense attorney in New York City. He recently commented on this matter on Canadian French-language television. He regularly represents foreign citizens in federal matters throughout the United States, and concentrates his practice primarily in the federal courts of New York City.