US v. Concepcion
| Decision Date | 16 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 91-781,CR 91-844 to CR 91-848,CR 91-1282,CR 91-1283 and CR 92-264.,CR 91-1194,CR 91-1267,CR 91-1268,CR 91-1254,CR 91-937,CR 91-902,CR 91-936,CR 91-821,CR 91-822,CR 91-1265,CR 91-1100,CR 91-781 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Martha CONCEPCION, a/k/a Martha Martinez, a/k/a Martha Morales, a/k/a Julianna Sanchez, a/k/a Sonia Serrano, a/k/a Gladys Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Ana MORILLO, a/k/a Rossi Colon, a/k/a Marta Fernandez, a/k/a Luz Lopez, a/k/a Gloria Velez, a/k/a Jeanette Ruiz, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Jane ARENDELL, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, a/k/a Annette Rivera, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Dinorah CABA, a/k/a Digna Rios, a/k/a Dinorah Santana, a/k/a Maria Santana, a/k/a Maritza Santana, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Anna VEGA, a/k/a Ana Vega, a/k/a Ana Hernandez, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Lourdes ARIAS, a/k/a Hilda Lopez, a/k/a Judy Ojeda, a/k/a Yvette Rivera, Francisca Vargas, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Esperanza LARA, a/k/a Maria Candeleria, a/k/a Anny Centreras, a/k/a Pura Concepcion, a/k/a Ivette Matos, a/k/a Janet Rivera, a/k/a Janet Rodriguez, a/k/a Milagros Soto, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Mayra COLLADO, a/k/a Veronica Ayala, a/k/a Cristina Mejias, a/k/a Josephine Minaya, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Maria RAMIREZ, a/k/a Ana Moldonado, a/k/a Marina Ramirez, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Patria Mabel MERCEDES, a/k/a Carmen Marrero, a/k/a Marcy Pelier, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Georgina CEPIN, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, Margarita Rodriguez, a/k/a Evelyn Rosario, a/k/a Antonia Sanchez, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Maria BAEZ, a/k/a Iris Cruz, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, a/k/a Sara Gonzalez, a/k/a Yaraina Graciano, a/k/a Rosaura Lopez, a/k/a Elsa Rias, a/k/a Miriam Santana, a/k/a Sabrina Soto, a/k/a Maritza Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Griselina OGIRRI, a/k/a Griselina Altagracia Rodriquez de Then, a/k/a Griselina Then-Amparo, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Sonia JIMINEZ, a/k/a Maritza Cruz, a/k/a Patria Germosen, a/k/a Salina Salas, a/k/a Noemi Santiago, a/k/a Maribel Vega, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Calidad Reynoso Peralta MACK, a/k/a Marina Garcia, a/k/a Caridad Mack, a/k/a Maria Perez, a/k/a Diana Pons, a/k/a Sandra Torres, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Flavia POLANCO, a/k/a Carmen Garcia, a/k/a Zurma Gonzalez, a/k/a Guillermina Rivera, a/k/a Xiomara Soto, a/k/a Xiomara Vargas, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Marilyn PEREZ, a/k/a Maria Rivera, a/k/a Sonya Rivera, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Elvira GARCIA, a/k/a Sonia Hernandez, Altagracia Pena, a/k/a Cesaria Rivera, a/k/a Flora Rivera, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Rosario LOPEZ, a/k/a Sara Calderon, a/k/a Maria Medina, Defendant. UNITED STATES of America v. Mercedes PERALTA, a/k/a Sandra Colon, a/k/a Melagros Rivera, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., by Gordon Mehler and Michael Considine, Asst. U.S. Attys., for U.S.
Steven Gold, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Investigation, Henry M. Adler, Associate Gen. Counsel, Human Resources Admin., New York City, for City of New York.
Robert Sackett, New York City, for Concepcion.
Thomas Farrell, Legal Aid Soc., Brooklyn, N.Y., for Morillo.
John Burke, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Arendell.
Owen Daley, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Caba.
David Lewis, New York City, for Arias.
David Segal, New York City, for Vega.
Howard Leader, New York City, for Lara.
Barry Weinstein, Bronx, N.Y., for Collado.
Lawrence Ferguson, New York City, for Ramirez.
Ronald Garnett, New York City, for Mercedes.
Russell Carbone, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for Cepin.
John Villios, MacCarthy Associates, New York City, for Baez.
Frank Lopez, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Ogirri.
Edward Jenks, Mineola, N.Y., for Jiminez.
Lawrence Schoenbach, New York City, for Mack.
Allen Lashley, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Polanco.
Peter Birkett, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Perez.
Heriberto Cabrera, New York City, for Garcia.
Bernard Udell, Brooklyn, N.Y., for Lopez.
Stephen Goldenberg, New York City, for Peralta.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTS .................................................................. ____
II. PUNISHMENT ............................................................. ____
A. General Considerations .............................................. ____
B. Alternatives ........................................................ ____
1. Deportation ..................................................... ____
2. Imprisonment, Probation, Community or Home Incarceration, Fines
Restitution, Community Service, Supervised Release ............ ____
a. Sentencing Statutes .......................................... ____
b. Sentencing Guidelines ........................................ ____
c. Departures From the Guidelines ............................... ____
3. Denial or Limitation of Future Benefits ......................... ____
4. Modification of Sentences ....................................... ____
III. INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES ................................................... ____
A. General Considerations .............................................. ____
B. Defendants .......................................................... ____
1. Martha Concepcion ............................................... ____
2. Ana Morillo ..................................................... ____
3. Jane Arendell ................................................... ____
4. Dinorah Caba .................................................... ____
5. Anna Vega ....................................................... ____
6. Lourdes Arias ................................................... ____
7. Esperanza Lara .................................................. ____
8. Mayra Collado ................................................... ____
9. Maria Ramirez ................................................... ____
10. Patria Mercedes ................................................. ____
11. Georgina Cepin .................................................. ____
12. Maria Baez ...................................................... ____
13. Griselina Ogirri ................................................ ____
14. Sonia Jiminez ................................................... ____
15. Calidad Mack .................................................... ____
16. Flavia Polanco .................................................. ____
17. Marilyn Perez ................................................... ____
18. Elvira Garcia ................................................... ____
19. Rosario Lopez ................................................... ____
20. Mercedes Peralta ................................................ ____
IV. SUMMARY OF SENTENCES ................................................... ____
V. CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS OF PROBATION DEPARTMENT ......................... ____
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................. ____
These twenty defendants represent the first of approximately fifty-five who are being prosecuted in this court for fraudulently obtaining assistance from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Food Stamp and Medicaid programs for the poor. The group now before the court consists primarily of Dominican women who bought, sold and used false identity documents and who bribed government employees to obtain government funds. Some of the defendants used as many as nine aliases and obtained upwards of $50,000 per year in welfare payments. Others who sold and forged documents, took bribes or helped manage the scheme netted hundreds of thousands of dollars each.
All twenty defendants have pleaded guilty to federal crimes. Their sentencing raises difficult issues as to the proper role of the court and other agencies in preventing and punishing welfare fraud. To arrive at sentences that protect the public and are fair to the defendants requires an analysis of the theoretical bases for punishment, governing statutes and the work of the federal Sentencing Commission.
Nineteen of the defendants have pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining AFDC payments and food stamps in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Section 641 provides:
The statutory maximum penalty for violations of section 641 involving property worth more than $100 is a $10,000 fine and ten years imprisonment. Id. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3) provides for additional fines up to $250,000. The statutory punishment scheme may in turn be affected by the Sentencing Guidelines. Those of the defendants who are aliens may also be subject to deportation under federal statutes at the determination of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
One defendant, an employee of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) who accepted cash payments in return for assisting the defrauders, has pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 666. It reads in relevant part:
(a) Whoever ... (1) being an agent of an organization, or of a State or local ......
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. US CURRENCY IN AMOUNT OF $145,139.00, CV 91-4949.
...But it is the statute, and not the Guidelines, which provides the proper guide to determine seriousness. Cf. United States v. Concepcion et al., 795 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.N.Y.1992). Under federal law claimant could have been imprisoned up to a five years and could have been subject to a fine of......
-
US v. Ferranti
...special circumstances), vacated, remanded sub nom., United States v. DeRiggi, 45 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Concepcion, 795 F.Supp. 1262, 1271 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (the Sentencing Guidelines do not alleviate the court's sentencing burden with respect to the statutory directives und......
-
US v. DeRiggi, 92-CR-925.
...pursuant to section 3553(a) of Title 18. See United States v. Abbadessa, 848 F.Supp. 369 (E.D.N.Y.1994); United States v. Concepcion, 795 F.Supp. 1262, 1275-81 (E.D.N.Y.1992). The court of appeals reversed as to the six defendants whose sentences were appealed. Holding that the Guidelines a......
-
U.S. v. Malpeso, 96 CR 170 (JBW).
...28 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(6). See United States v. Ferranti, 928 F.Supp. 206, 213 (E.D.N.Y.1996); United States v. Concepcion, 795 F.Supp. 1262, 1271 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (the Sentencing Guidelines do not obviate the court's sentencing burden with respect to the statutory directives under 18 U......
-
Every day is a good day for a judge to lay down his professional life for justice.
...848 F. Supp. 369 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), vacated by United States v. DeRiggi, 45 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Concepcion. 795 F. Supp. 1262 (E.D.N.Y. (127.) U.S.S.G. [section] 5K2.0 (1994) ("[T]he sentencing court may impose a sentence outside the range established by the applicable g......
-
Lessons unlearned: women offenders, the ethics of care, and the promise of restorative justice.
...See Wald, supra note 25, at 15; Ward, supra note 20, at 732. Raeder cites Judge Weinstein's observation in United States v. Concepcion, 795 F. Supp. 1262, 1282 (E.D.N.Y. 1992), that "[r]emoving the mother in such a matriarchal setting destroys the children's main source of stability and gui......