Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 1 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`-v.-
`
`NATISHA APONTE,
`
`Defendant.
`
`KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
`
`15 Cr. 19-2 (KPF)
`
`ORDER
`
`Defendant Natisha Aponte was sentenced in March 2016 principally to a
`
`term of 120 months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release.
`
`(Dkt. #108 (judgment)). She began her term of supervised release in June
`
`2022, and is being supervised in the Middle District of Florida, where she
`
`resides. On February 27, 2025, the Probation Office filed a Request for Court
`
`Action in which it requested early termination of Ms. Aponte’s term of
`
`supervised release, citing her stable residence and employment, lack of need
`
`for drug treatment, and compliance with her conditions of supervised release.
`
`(See Request for Court Action dated February 27, 2025 (“Request”)). For the
`
`reasons set forth in the remainder of this Order, the request is denied without
`
`prejudice to its renewal.
`
`By way of background, Ms. Aponte was part of a wide-ranging narcotics
`
`conspiracy that maintained apartments/stash houses in both Manhattan and
`
`the Bronx. (See Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR” (Dkt. #95)) ¶¶ 10-35).
`
`Ms. Aponte herself conspired to distribute “approximately 69.5 kilograms of
`
`cocaine, 38.5 grams of crack, 986.2 grams of MDMA, 1.34 kilograms of
`
`marijuana, and 6.36 kilograms of heroin over the course of the offense.” (Id.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 2 of 7
`
`¶ 32). In addition, Ms. Aponte was “responsible for the possession of nine
`
`firearms during the course of the offense, including three machine guns” (id.),
`
`and was once stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport with “$136,900
`
`in cash in a vacuum-sealed pouch contained within her carry-on luggage,”
`
`which she ultimately abandoned (id. ¶ 11). (See also id. ¶ 24 (consenting to
`
`search by law enforcement of bag on her person, which search revealed
`
`$14,909 in U.S. currency); id. ¶ 12 (arriving at car dealership in December
`
`2013 to pick up package containing three kilograms of heroin, but leaving
`
`without package because of suspicions of law enforcement involvement)). At
`
`the Brooklyn apartment where Ms. Aponte resided part-time with the head of
`
`the charged conspiracy, Roman Kitroser, law enforcement recovered
`
`nine firearms, one of which showed evidence of
`discharge, and three of which appeared to be three
`machine guns;
`two silencers; high-ammunition
`magazines;
`approximately
`eight
`kilogram-sized
`packages containing cocaine; two packages containing
`approximately 2 kilograms of heroin; a large press used
`to form loose narcotics into kilogram-sized bricks,
`commonly referred to as a “kilo press”; large quantities
`of U.S. currency totaling more than $889,000; three
`money counters; approximately 21 cellular phones; a
`laptop, which revealed that more than 140 UPS
`packages had been tracked between California and New
`York, with each weighing between 9 and 60 pounds;
`identification cards that displayed photographs of
`[ROMAN] KITROSER, but reflected different names;
`papers bearing
`the name
`“NATISHA APONTE,”
`including U.S. mail; women’s clothing and shoes; and
`prescription pill bottles bearing the name “ROMAN
`KITROSER.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 25). At the Manhattan apartment, law enforcement recovered
`
`three speaker boxes, each containing 7 kilograms
`cocaine (a total of 21 kilograms); a bag containing 2.35
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 3 of 7
`
`kilograms of marijuana; scales; a safe containing
`approximately $55,000 in U.S. currency; a vacuum-
`sealed package containing more than $100,000 in U.S.
`currency; ledgers containing tracking numbers for
`packages; three money counters; electronics (two
`laptops, one
`iPad, and
`five cell phones);
`fake
`identification cards; tax documents for KITROSER and
`APONTE; a prescription pill bottle bearing the name
`“ROMAN KITROSER”; and an autographed picture
`made out to “ROMAN KITROSER.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 27). And at the couple’s Las Vegas residence, law enforcement recovered
`
`a money counter. (Id. ¶ 30).
`
`In December 2014, the Government filed a criminal complaint against
`
`Ms. Aponte, Mr. Kitroser, and others, charging them with narcotics and
`
`firearms offenses. (Dkt. #1). Ms. Aponte was arrested on December 11, 2014,
`
`and detained. (Dkt. #5). In January 2015, the Grand Jury returned an
`
`indictment charging Ms. Aponte, Mr. Kitroser, and others with similar
`
`narcotics and firearms offenses. (Dkt. #14 (“Indictment”)). On November 4,
`
`2015, Ms. Aponte entered a plea of guilty to the narcotics conspiracy charged
`
`in Count One of the Indictment pursuant to a plea agreement with the
`
`Government in which the parties stipulated to a sentencing range under the
`
`United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) of 135 to 168 months’
`
`imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment.
`
`(PSR ¶ 5; see also Dkt. #85 (plea transcript)).
`
`The Court sentenced Ms. Aponte on March 16, 2016, to the mandatory
`
`minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by the mandatory
`
`minimum term of five years’ supervised release. (Dkt. #108 (judgment); Dkt.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 4 of 7
`
`#111 (sentencing transcript)). In explaining the reasons for the sentence given,
`
`the Court noted in relevant part:
`
`I will cut to the chase and tell the parties that I am going
`to impose the mandatory minimum sentence of 120
`months. I will explain why. I do think there are some
`significant issues with Ms. Aponte’s childhood. I
`accept, because there is no reason not to, the recitation
`that [defense counsel] gave me about the various times
`that she has been abandoned by people close to her.
`
`***
`
`I am also mindful of the sheer scope of this conspiracy.
`There [is] an extraordinary amount of drugs involved
`here of many different types. There are firearms. There
`was a kilogram press in the apartment, which in many
`years of involvement with narcotics-related cases I’ve
`never seen before. More than a million dollars in
`narcotics proceeds. And I accept the government’s
`point that when Ms. Aponte was stopped at the airport
`and abandoned the money, on some level she was
`extending the life of the conspiracy.
`
`***
`
`Considering all of that, I think 120 months is sufficient
`but not greater than necessary to comport with the
`purposes of sentencing.
`
`(Dkt. #111 at 29-30).
`
`The Court understands that Ms. Aponte was released from custody in
`
`June 2022, and commenced her term of supervised release on June 17, 2022.
`
`(Request 1). As noted, the Probation Office submitted its request for early
`
`termination on February 27, 2025, citing Ms. Aponte’s stable housing and
`
`employment, lack of substance abuse, and compliance with the conditions of
`
`supervised release. (Id. at 1-2).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 5 of 7
`
`APPPLICABLE LAW
`
`Section 3583(e)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code empowers a court
`
`to terminate a term of supervised release at any time after the expiration of one
`
`year of that term so long as the court determines that such action is warranted
`
`by the conduct of the defendant and is in “the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 3583(e)(1). The court is required to consider the factors set forth in Sections
`
`3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7). Id.
`
`§ 3583(e). Put somewhat differently, the Court is required to consider the
`
`factors in Section 3553(a) that “bear on ‘deterrence, public safety,
`
`rehabilitation, proportionality, and consistency.’” United States v. Gonzalez,
`
`No. 94 Cr. 134 (JSR), 2015 WL 4940607, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2015) (quoting
`
`United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1997)). The United States
`
`Sentencing Guidelines encourage courts “to exercise this authority in
`
`appropriate cases.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2, comment. n.5 (November 2024 manual).
`
`“Early termination ‘is not warranted as a matter of course,’” United States
`
`v. Wheeler, No. 20 Cr. 492 (GHW), 2023 WL 4561591, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 17,
`
`2023) (quoting United States v. Fenza, No. 03 Cr. 921 (ADS), 2013 WL
`
`3990914, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2013)). However, courts have recognized that
`
`“changed circumstances” may make it appropriate for a court to reduce a term
`
`of supervised release. Lussier, 104 F.3d at 36. Those changed circumstances
`
`can include the “exceptionally good behavior by the defendant” on supervised
`
`release, which may “render a previously imposed term or condition of release ...
`
`too harsh or inappropriately tailored to serve the general punishment goals of
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 6 of 7
`
`section 3553(a).” Id. However, “exceptionally good behavior” is not established
`
`simply by complying with the terms of supervised release. See Fenza, 2013 WL
`
`3990914, at * 2 (“Full compliance with the terms of supervised release is what
`
`is expected of a person under the magnifying glass of supervised release and
`
`does not warrant early termination.”). Conversely, new or changed
`
`circumstances are not required so long as a court considers the relevant 18
`
`U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Parisi, 821 F.3d 343,
`
`347 (2d Cir. 2016).
`
`Upon consideration of the applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
`
`the Court declines to terminate Ms. Aponte’s supervised release at this time.
`
`The nature and circumstances of the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), Ms.
`
`Aponte’s history and characteristics, id., and the need to avoid unwarranted
`
`sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been
`
`found guilty of similar conduct, id. § 3553(a)(6), counsel against early
`
`termination. To be clear, the Court is encouraged by Ms. Aponte’s progress
`
`while on supervised release, particularly the stability of her housing and
`
`employment situations, the degree of family support that she has received, and
`
`her consistent compliance with the terms and conditions of supervised release.
`
`The Court has also taken seriously the fact that the request for early
`
`termination was filed by the Probation Office, which is in a prime position to
`
`gauge Ms. Aponte’s progress on supervised release, and which is to be
`
`commended for the assistance it has provided to Ms. Aponte. That all said, the
`
`Court remains concerned about the egregiousness of the underlying criminal
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cr-00019-KPF Document 173 Filed 03/06/25 Page 7 of 7
`
`conduct and the significant role that Ms. Aponte played in it. In addition, the
`
`Court varied downwardly from the applicable Guidelines range at sentencing
`
`precisely because it contemplated that Ms. Aponte would serve the entirety of
`
`her supervised release term. Finally, the Court has received no indication that
`
`the conditions of Ms. Aponte’s supervised release have imposed unusual
`
`burdens on her or otherwise interfered with her reentry into society. For all
`
`these reasons, the Court believes that terminating Ms. Aponte’s supervised
`
`release at this juncture — approximately halfway through her term of
`
`supervised release — would not adequately “serve the general punishment
`
`goals of section 3553(a).” Lussier, 104 F.3d at 36. However, the Court
`
`emphasizes that its decision today is without prejudice to the Probation Office
`
`or Ms. Aponte bringing a renewed application for early termination of
`
`supervised release in the future.
`
`Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the Probation Office’s
`
`request for early termination of Ms. Aponte’s supervised release. The Court
`
`directs the Probation Office to transmit a copy of this Order to the Probation
`
`Office for the Middle District of Florida and to Ms. Aponte.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: March 6, 2025
`
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
`United States District Judge
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.