USA v. Rivas

UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
EASTERN DISTRJCT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERJCA,
V.
REGGIE RlVAS,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CR-373 (WFK)
On August 22, 2024, Reggie Rivas ("Defendant") pied guilty to Count One of a four-count
Indictment, charging him with Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Plea
Agreement ,r 1, ECF No. 24. 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 thirty-six (36)
months' imprisonment; two (2) years' supervised release with both the special and standard
conditions of supervision; restitution to the victims in the amount of $5,200.00; and a $100.00
mandatory special assessment.
I. BACKGROUND
Factual Background
Defendant committed a series of seemingly armed robberies on Beach Channel Drive in
Rockaway, Queens. On July 6, 2023, around 1 :50 A.M., Defendant robbed a convenience store.
PSR ,r 8; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 1. Defendant brandished what appeared to be a black-and-white
handgun at a store employee, forced the employee to open the cash register, and stole
approximately $3,700.00. PSR ,r 8. Two weeks later, on July 18, 2023, around 8:10 P.M.,
Defendant robbed a gas station. Id il 10. Defendant brandished an apparent handgun at the gas
station attendant and stole approximately $250.00. Id. Several days later, on July 26, 2023,
around 9:45 P.M., Defendant robbed a bodega. Id. As with the other robberies, Defendant
brandished an apparent handgun. Id. This time, he stole approximately $500.00. Id. On August
13, 2023, around 2:48 A.M., an individual alleged to be Defendant robbed a fried chicken
restaurant. Id. ,r 11. The robber stole approximately $750.00. Id. Each of these robberies was
1
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

captured on surveillance footage. Id. ,r,r 8, 10. After arresting Defendant, law enforcement
officers seized an imitation gun from Defendant's person. Id. ,r 13.
Procedural History
On August 31, 2023, the Government filed a Complaint against Defendant for
committing these robberies. Comp!., ECF No. 1. On September 1, 2023, then-Magistrate Judge
Reyes arraigned Defendant. See Minute Entry for Anaignment, dated September 1, 2023.
Although the Government filed a letter requesting pretrial detention, Judge Reyes ordered
Defendant released on a $50,000.00 unsecured bond, co-signed by two sureties. See Gov't Ltr.
Requesting Pretrial Detention, ECF No. 3; Order Setting Conditions ofRelease, ECF No. 4. The
Government did not appeal Judge Reyes's decision. See Minute Enlly for AtTaignment, dated
September 1, 2023.
On September 18, 2023, a United States grand jury returned a four-count Indictment
charging Defendant with Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 195l(a). Indictment,
ECF No. 7. The Indictment included criminal forfeiture allegations. Id. at 2-3. On August 22,
2024, Defendant pied guilty to Count One ofthe Indictment. See Plea Agreement, ECF No. 24.
The same day, the Court entered an order ofrestitution against Defendant. See Order of
Restitution, ECF No. 22. On October 23, 2025, the Court held a bail revocation hearing, during
which the Court ordered Defendant's bond continued. Minute Entty dated October 23, 2025.
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 "stmiing 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 comi chooses to
2
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

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
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).
When determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider seven different
factors: (I) 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 Section 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).
3
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

I. Family and Personal Background
Defendant was born on July 26, 1997, in Yonkers, New York. PSR ,r 63. Defendant's
mother was a teenager when she had him and he has never known his father. Def. Sent' g Mem.
at 3. Defendant's mother has a history of abusing alcohol, which has negatively impacted her
relationship with Defendant and his siblings. PSR ,r 63. Defendant has three maternal siblings,
who are all aware of the instant case and supportive. Id. ,r 64.
Between ages two and eleven, Defendant lived in Puerto Rico with his grandmother, who
took legal custody of Defendant. Id. ,r 65. When he was eleven, Defendant moved back to the
United States-to N01ih Carolina-to live with his mother. Id. ,r 67. When Defendant's mother
returned to Yonkers, New York-later moving to Lowell, Massachusetts-Defendant stayed
with his uncle. Id. Defendant states his uncle is the closest father figure he has had in his life.
Id. ,r 63. Eventually, around age twenty, Defendant began staying at various homeless shelters in
New York City. Id. ,r 67. After aging out of the homeless shelter facilities for youth, Defendant
was able to secure permanent housing in Far Rockaway, Queens, for approximately three years
before his arrest in the instant case. Id. Defendant is recently married; he has not fathered any
children. Id. ,r 69.
2. Educational and Employment History
Defendant attended Yonkers Montessori Academy in Yonkers, New York, before
withdrawing in the twelfth grade. Id. ,r 83. Defendant also enrolled in a GED program, which he
did not complete due to his arrest in the instant case. Id. ii 84. Between 2017 and 2024,
Defendant worked various jobs in restaurant service, as a construction laborer, as a security
guard, in the field of senior care, and at a car wash. Id. ,r,r 86-92.
4
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

3. Prior Convictions
Defendant has no prior convictions, resulting in a criminal history score of zero and a
criminal history category of!. Id ,r,r 56-57.
4. Physical and Mental Health
Defendant has no history ofserious or chronic medical conditions. Id ,r 73. But with
respect to his mental and emotional health, Defendant has experienced suicidal ideations. Id. ,r
75. Defendant's uncle helped Defendant seek mental health treatment while Defendant was a
teenager, but, unfortunately, Defendant did not seek further help. Id. ,r,r 77-78. Defendant
started gambling when he was twenty-one years old. Id. ,r 79.
5. Substance Abuse
Defendant reports a history of frequent marijuana use beginning when he was seventeen
years old. Id. ,r 80.
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 Section 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 deten-ence 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 con-ectional
treatment in the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
5
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

The Court's sentence recognizes the seriousness of Defendant's offense, which involved
committing a string ofrobberies while brandishing what looked to be a handgun. Defendant
committed not just one robbery, but several. See supra Part I. The Cmut's sentence will deter
others from engaging in similar acts and justly punish Defendant for his crimes. 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 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 Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 195l(a). Plea
Agreement ,r 1. He faces a maximum term oftwenty years' imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
He faces a maximum term ofthree years' supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). Ifa
condition of release is violated, Defendant may be sentenced to up to two years of imprisonment
without credit for pre-release imprisonment or time previously served on post release
supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b), (e).
Defendant also faces a maximum fine of$250,000.00. 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b)(3). He owes
forfeiture in accordance with the Plea Agreement. See Plea Agreement ,r 9. Finally, the Court is
required to impose a mandatory special assessment of$ 100.00 under 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for
Defendant's Offense
The fomth Section 3553(a) factor requires the Court to discuss "the kinds of sentence and
the sentencing range established for ... [t]he applicable category ofoffense committed by the
applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A).
6
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

Defendant pied guilty to one count of Hobbs Act Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951 (a), and stipulated to committing two other robberies. Plea Agreement ,r,r 1-2. Under
U.S.S.G. §1Bl.2(c), "[a] plea agreement ... containing a stipulation that specifically establishes
the commission of additional offense(s) shall be treated as if the defendant had been convicted of
additional count(s) charging those offense(s)." Accordingly, the Court conducts a Guidelines
calculation as to all three robberies.
Each robbery carries a base offense level of twenty (20). U.S.S.G. §2B3.l(a). Three
offense levels are added because "a dangerous weapon was brandished or possessed." U.S.S.G.
§2B3.l(b)(2)(E). The robberies are not grouped together because each involves a different
victim and a different harm. U.S.S.G. §3Dl.2. To determine their combined offense level, the
Court assigns one unit to the "count" with the highest offense level and one additional unit to
each "count" that is equally serious. U.S.S.G. §3Dl .4(a). Here, each "count" is assigned one
unit, requiring three more offense levels to be added. U.S.S.G. §3Dl .4. Three offense levels are
then subtracted because Defendant timely accepted responsibility. U.S.S.G. §3El.l(a)-(b).
These adjustments establish a total offense level of twenty-three (23).
A total offense level of twenty-three (23) and criminal history category ofl results in a
Guidelines range of 46-57 months' imprisonment. U.S.S.G. §SA. Probation recommends a
Guidelines sentence of fifty-one (51) months' imprisonment; two (2) years' supervised release
with both the standard and special conditions of supervision; and a $100.00 mandatory special
assessment. Sealed Rev. Prob. Sent'g Rec. at!, ECF No. 48-1. The Government recommends a
Guidelines sentence between 46-57 months' imprisonment. Gov't Sent'g Mem. at I. The
Government contends Defendant's conduct warrants a Guidelines sentence, stating: "[A]rmed
robberies have a widespread impact, not only on the victims of the robbery, but also the
7
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

surrounding community." Id at 8. Defense counsel recommends a below-Guidelines sentence
of thirty-six (36) months' imprisonment, to run concurrently with an expected state sentence also
of three years for the same conduct. Def. Sent' g Mem. at 1. Defense counsel emphasizes
Defendant's difficult upbringing, stating "the instant offense was aberrant behavior by a law
abiding young man who has survived a lifetime of trauma." Id. at 3. Defense counsel submits a
letter from Defendant himself, in addition to letters of support from Defendant's wife and his
wife's grandfather. See Ex. B-D to Def. Sent'g Mem.
The Court appreciates the sentencing arguments raised by all parties and has thoroughly
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).
Probation argues the Court may consider Defendant's other criminal conduct-robbing a
fried chicken restaurant on August 13, 2023-not stipulated to in his plea agreement. PSR ,r
111; Second Addendum to the PSR at 7. Defense counsel objects to this. Def. Sent' g Mem. at
1 -2.
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).
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, and considering the other Section
3553(a) factors, Defendant's sentence avoids unwananted sentence disparities.
8
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

G. The Need to Provide Restitution
The seventh and final 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. On August 22, 2024, the Court granted
an Order of Restitution ordering Defendant pay $5,200.00 in from his robberies. PSR 1107.
The Court reserves its right pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) to hold an evidentiary hearing
within ninety (90) days after this sentencing to determine the specific amounts owed to
Defendant's victims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court sentences Defendant to thirty-six (36) months'
imprisonment; two (2) years' supervised release with both the special and standard conditions of
supervision; restitution to the victims in the amount of$5,200.00; and a $100.00 mandatory
special assessment. This sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the
purposes of Section 3553(a)(2). The Court does not impose a fine considering Defendant's
apparent inability to pay.
The Court expressly adopts the factual findings of the Sealed Presentence Investigation
Report and Addenda thereto, as corrected herein, to the extent those findings are not inconsistent
with this opinion.
9
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>

Dated: December 9, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
10
SO ORDERED.
HON. WILLIAM F.
UNITED STATES D
s/WFK
Case 1:23-cr-00373-WFK-JRC Document 50 Filed 12/09/25 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:
<pageID>