NATAL Hector Govt Sentencing Memo

7/26/2019 NATAL Hector Govt Sentencing Memo

1/35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HECTOR NATAL,

Defendant.

Criminal No. 3:12cr164 (JBA)

January 30, 2015

UNITED STATES SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Hector Natal set fire to his neighbors home knowing that two large families that

included older women and young children were inside. He also knew that his victims were

particularly vulnerable as most were asleep and all were completely unaware of his impending

attack. In his own words, he admitted to torching the house because someone in the building

owe[d] [him] bread making clear that his goal was to violently retaliate against a customer

over a drug debt. But rather than focusing only on his customer, he poured gasoline on the

stairs, hallway and door thresholds to the apartments making it impossible for all to escape.

Although the women and children inside may not have been the initial target of his wrath, by

setting this lethal fire, Natal knowingly trapped them inside. As the Probation Officer

emphasized, Wanda Roberson, Jaqueeta and young Quayshaun were completely innocent and

fell victim to Mr. Natals crimes by virtue of simply living down the street from him in a

building where one of his delinquent drug customers also lived. PSR at 28.

Mr. Natals arson was a knowingly planned and deliberately executed act. He had

been focused on the Wolcott house for months threatening the Robersons with firecrackers and

menacing words at their July 2010 party and then a few months later trying to set fire to the rug

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 293 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 29


2/35

2

on the second floor landing of the house. Moreover, the arson was not an isolated incident of

violent retribution as the defendant ran his drug business with threats of intimidation and

physical violence. He was captured on video threatening to beat another customer, a blind man

suffering from debilitating diseases whom Mr. Natal described as a cripple, if the man failed to

pay a $20 drug debt. And then in the aftermath of the arson, the defendant created a false alibi

and directed his then girlfriend and other family members to lie for him when they testified

before the grand jury investigating the deaths of the three innocent Robersons. Later, even

when detained for selling crack, he directed a drug sale from inside prison. Finally, as recently

as April 25, 2014, he admitted to prison officials to being a Latin King for 14 years and to be

actively recruiting new members because they want their family to be bigger. Exhibit A

(Connecticut Department of Correction Discipline Process Summary Report, dated April 25,

2014).1

In light of the horror wrought by this senseless tragedy, the danger Mr. Natal continues to

present and the other aggravating factors discussed below, the Government respectfully requests

that the Court impose a term of life imprisonment as recommended by the Sentencing

Guidelines.

I. The Facts and Circumstances of Defendants Crimes

At approximately 1:00 a.m. on March 9, 2011, Hector Natal set fire to the house at 48-50

Wolcott Street in Fair Haven where the Roberson and Foster families lived. Wanda, Jaqueeta

and Quayshaun Roberson died from smoke inhalation while trying to escape the arson. Tr. at

2632. Their unrecognizable bodies were found in the third floor apartment and could only be

identified by dental records. Tr. at 2621-25. Jaqueetas body covered young Quayshaun as if

she were trying to shield him from the fire. Tr. At 175. The other fourteen people in the

1 This admission corroborates the fears and concerns of Mr. Natals neighbor, Margaret Batts. Tr. at 586.



3/35

3

house included three children under the age of three, four older children, a teenage boy, two

pregnant women, Jasmine Roberson and Kaitlin Rosa, a third mother, a father and two

grandmothers. Tr. at 199-206, 426. Margaret Roberson, Wandas 66 year-old mother, and her

teenage grandson, Brentell, barely escaped alive as firefighters carried them down ladders

moments before the building was engulfed in flames. Tr. at 127-31, 302-04. The three

youngest, Jasmine Robersons one year-old son Jarrel, Quinesha Robersons two year-old

daughter Taleya, and Kaitlin Rosas two year-old son Tye, were each dropped into the arms of

those waiting below who had only moments earlier jumped out of the second floor windows.

Tr. at 202-03, 205, 418, 424; PSR at 8. As a result of her fall, Shirl Foster broke her ankle

and was hospitalized during her recovery. Tr. at 425, 431. The Fosters also lost several pets

in the fire. Tr. at 426-27.

Although these fourteen people are fortunate to have survived, they each continue to

suffer from the terror of their experience that morning. The Robersons extended family, who

lost Wanda, the matriarch of the family, her niece Jaqueeta, and her youngest son Quayshaun,

equally struggle with the trauma of their incomprehensible loss. Ex. B (Letter to the Court from

Lynn Roberson).

Natal, a drug dealer in Fair Haven, sold drugs to Tobius Foster, a resident of the Wolcott

house, and set the fire because he claimed Foster owed him money. Months before the arson,

Natal had tried to set fire to the rug on the second floor landing of the Wolcott house. In the

hours, days and weeks following the arson, he conspired with his father, co-defendant Hector

Morales, and other family members to obstruct the governments investigation of the lethal fire.

On April 18, 2013, following a three-week trial, the defendants were convicted on all counts.

Mr. Natal stands convicted of four types of crimes: (1) conspiracy to deal drugs; (2) attempting



4/35

4

to set fire to the Wolcott house; (3) committing the arson that killed three people and displaced

fourteen others; and (4) tampering with grand jury witnesses. These offenses are discussed

below.

A. The Defendants Drug Trafficking Operation

1. Natals Drug Dealing

The evidence of Natals drug dealing was overwhelming. It came in the form of a drug

seizure, a controlled narcotics purchase, law enforcement surveillance, his cell phone records,

recorded statements primarily with cooperating witness Gabriel Vega, and the trial testimony of

Vega, Natals former girlfriend Jessica Feliciano, his neighbor Margaret Batts and his drug

customer Fernando Suarez. The trial evidence clearly showed that Natal was an active and

unrelenting drug dealer.

He dealt drugs in an open and bold manner and essentially conceded his involvement in

the drug trafficking conspiracy at trial. Tr. at 63 (As far as Mr. Natal is concerned, this is not a

case about whether Hector [Natal] was involved in drug dealing. He was. He already pled guilty

in this court to dealing drugs during this time period.); Tr. at 3475 (As Mr. Sheehan said in his

opening remarks, we do not dispute that Hector Natal was a drug dealer.); Natal Post-Verdict

Memo at p. 1 [Doc. No. 250]; PSR at 16. Further, before trial, he pleaded guilty to selling

$1800 worth of crack cocaine in a controlled purchase during this same time period. On

October 4, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis accepted his guilty plea to

selling 36.1 grams of crack cocaine in connection with his sale to Vega on June 13, 2011.

PSR at 1; United States v. Hector Natal, 11 Cr. 109 (JBA).

The evidence in support of his drug dealing included the seizure of 36 grams of crack,

law enforcement surveillance, his cell phone records and multiple recorded conversations



5/35

5

between Natal and Vega and Natals other drug associates including Tobius Foster and Chad

Mendes. Exs. 100-130, 401, 407, 407A. These recordings combined with Natals telephone

records lay bare the extent and nature of Natals drug operation. Although the quantities were

not always large, Natal dealt multiple narcotics including crack, powder cocaine, oxycodone,

valium, Xanax and marijuana. In short, he dealt whatever his customers wanted and whatever

he could lay his hands on. In one video recording, he is seen meeting with Foster and Mendes

and discussing sales of various drugs and pills including oxycodone, valium and Xanax. Ex.

102, 121. In addition to packaging and bagging marijuana and pills for resale, Natal cooked

up crack. Both Feliciano and Vega described watching Natal carefully cook powder cocaine

converting it into crack in Natals grandmothers kitchen on Munroe Street in Fair Haven.

Feliciano also testified that he made crack at her apartment at 76 Haven Street and at his parents

Poplar Street apartment. Tr. at 1804-05, 2297-302.

Like many drug dealers, Natal was constantly on the telephone all hours of the day and

night. For example, during a 22-day period surrounding the time of the arson in March 2011,

there were over 100 calls to or from Natals cell phone on 20 of those days. The number of

calls often exceeded 100 calls including one day, March 5, 2011, when there were approximately

320 calls. Exs. 401,719. These calls evidenced Natals constant interaction with multiple

associates, customers and sources both before and after the arson. He sold drugs directly to

customers and also fronted drugs to associates, including Vega, who sold the drugs and split the

proceeds with Natal. Tr. at 1805-06, 2307. Margaret Batts, the defendants neighbor, testified

that she watched Natal openly conduct hand-to-hand transactions with customers from his porch

in front of his mother and father. Tr. at 46973. Vega and Feliciano both testified that

Natals father, Hector Morales, drove Natal to and from drug transactions and to collect drug



6/35

6

debts. Feliciano also testified that Morales watched him repackage drugs for sale and

sometimes held his drug proceeds. Tr. at 230708. PSR at 20.

2. Natals Collection of Drug Debts

What is particularly relevant to the Courts sentencing decision is that Natal ran his drug

business with an iron fist and was singularly focused on collecting drug debts. For example,

Vega testified that at about midnight on the night of March 8, 2011, Natal met him at the corner

of Howard and Spring Streets to collect a $40 drug debt. Tr. at 181417. The trial evidence

showed that within the span of two hours late that night and into the following morning, Natal

picked up the $40 from Vega, set the fire in retaliation for a Wolcott residents failure to pay

another small debt, and returned to Felicianos Haven Street apartment. As discussed in more

detail later, the telephone records and testimony at trial strongly suggested that it was Foster, one

of Natals marijuana customers, who was the target of Natals retaliation. Ex. 401; Tr. 400,

405-06.

Natals obsessive focus on collecting small amounts of money and his willingness to use

violent means to do so is also captured in his videoed conversation with Mendes in which he

demanded that Mendes collect $20 from Natals customer Fernando Suarez. When Mendes

refused to rough up Saurez, whom he characterized as not intact, Natal made clear that he

would not hesitate to use violence to collect the $20 regardless of Suarez infirmities. Ex. 121.

At the time, Suarez was an exceedingly frail and debilitated man; not only was he blind, but he

also suffered from severe diabetes and kidney failure, high blood pressure and asthma. When

he testified at trial, Suarez could hardly walk, was receiving dialysis three times a week, and had

recently been released from intensive care at a local hospital. Tr. 2541, 2726. At the time of

the debt, Suarez had forgotten that he owed Natal $20 and did not receive Natals multiple



7/35

7

telephone messages demanding payment because he was also hospitalized then. When Suarez

ultimately gave the money to Mendes for Natal, Mendes warned him: For your best, do not fuck

with Boom-Boom [Natals nickname]. After paying the debt, Suarez took Mendes advice

and never dealt with Natal again. Tr. 2728-31.

The most revealing part of this episode is what Natal says to Mendes in demanding that

he collect the money from Suarez. PSR at 17. Natal reveals himself to be a menacing and

ruthless drug dealer someone who would not pause in beating a blind and cripple[d] man

over $20:

Natal: Go get that, go get that 20 for me.

* * *

Mendes: (Simultaneous) Call the nigga first.

Natal: (Simultaneous) Im gonna end up hitting the nigga, man.

Mendes: Just call him first, my nigga, because Im not trying to go over there, my nigga

and the nigga like, you know what Im sayin? Hes like, know what Im sayin? For

real, my nigga, he cant even move around like that, my nigga. Its like, know what Im

saying? Its kinda, like, if the nigga was intact all the way, no offense, but it would be

nothing, but feel me? Im not gonna go over there

Natal: Im gonna need my money, nigga.

Mendes: Try and sell a nigga, like that.

Natal: Tell that nigga give me my money and thats it

Mendes: (Simultaneous) And I dont even see the nigga like that.

Natal: (Simultaneous)If I have to go over there, its gonna be problems, my nigga.

Tell him like that. Just like that.



8/35

8

Mendes: Nah, nigga, I aint tellin him that shit.

* * *

Mendes: Im not doin that shit to him. If it was somebody else I would do it, but not

to Fernando, man.

Natal: My nigga, tell the nigga straight up, my nigga, cause if I go over there

* * *

Natal: Nigga sending me to voicemail.

* * *

Natal: (Simultaneous) Cause that what he said, he said go over there, feel me? If thats

what he wants, feel me, if Im going to go over there, Ill wanna put my hands on that

nigga. Feel me? He cant see nothing.

Mendes: (Simultaneous) Nah, for what nigga? Nigga can barely even get around.

Natal: I gave a nigga 50 piece, nigga, for 20 dollars. He can pay, nigga.

Mendes: (Simultaneous) If he dont got it, he must not got it, my nigga.

Natal: He got it, nigga. Payday, nigga.

Mendes: Trust me, he gonna give it to you.

Natal: I dont get sorry for nobody, my nigga. Word up, fucking if youre a cripple

or not, nigga. Dead serious, nigga.

Mendes: (Simultaneous) See, I dont know, I dont even put my hands on the nigga. For

real, I dont even want to talk to him like that, cause I feel like

Natal: (Simultaneous) I know what youre saying, but Im sayin business is business.

* * *

Natal: Hell yea, nigga. I gave that nigga a 50 piece and he called you, he was crying



9/35

9

because he was talkin bout, Oh, I get it for 50 and they gonna--feel me? 20 dollas?

No, nigga. He left for 40, we talking about a 50 piece. Thats supposed to be 30 the

nigga gotta give me, man. Stop playing. Im about to go over there, man. Gonna get my

bread, man.

Mendes: Call somebody else, nigga, you got somebody else you want me to collect

from, Ill do it. But, but I changed my mind on that shit. Word up, my nigga, I

changed my mind on that, I aint gonna do it to him like that. I wont even do it.

Natal: Im gonna go over there.

* * *

Natal: Whatd he say? Its payday, nigga. Hes talkin bout, you talkin bout you got

my money, nigga. What the fuck? You know how he is.

Mendes: This was yesterday.

Natal: I aint gonna lie, he got a little quick temper too, nigga. Cause Ive seen him do

it to his brother. Ya know what I mean? Ive seen it, nigga--blind and everything. You

know what Im saying? I was like, blind nigga, what the fuck? Feel me? Hell yea,

nigga, they gonna let them blind niggas sleep on you, nigga. Shit, dont sleep where

none of them at.

* * *

Natal: (Simultaneous) I dont give a fuck. (UI) money. When you do business, nigga,

thats what happens. Feel me? Hes wilin right now. You gonna pay me my 20,

nigga. Word up, nigga. 20 dollas is 20 dollas, nigga, shit. That shitll add up. Nigga, 80

dollas, nigga, to a hundred. Feel me?

Ex. 121, 121A.



10/35

10

Even over his friends persistent objections, Natal did not hesitate for a moment about

beating defenseless Saurez over twenty dollars. This conversation is all the more chilling

because it happened on April 4, 2011 --- less than a month after Natal had killed Wanda,

Jaqueeta and Quayshaun over a similar debt. As the defendant put it I dont get sorry for

nobody, my nigga. Word up, fucking if youre a cripple or not, nigga. Dead serious, nigga . . .

Im sayin business is business. Ex. 121A.

B. Natals Prior Altercations with the Wolcott Residents

In the summer and fall of 2010, Natal had bullied and threatened the Robersons. These

two incidents showed that even before the arson, Natal had a fixation with fire.

1. The July Party

On July 2, 2011, eight months before the fire, Natal interrupted the Robersons backyard

celebration of Jarrels first birthday by repeatedly setting off M-80s in the street abutting their

yard. When one of the firecrackers blew up inside a childs toy jeep, the Roberson children

grew frightened and began to cry. Tr. at 368-69. Seventeen year-old Jamaica Roberson asked

Natal to stop, but he refused responding with profanity prompting Jamaicas uncle Clayton

Roberson to intervene attempting to get Natal to stop. Clayton and Natal exchanged escalating

words. Tr. at 207-11, 307-09, 370-71. Jamaica testified she heard Natal use threats and say he

was going to get a gun. Tr. at 371-12. Margaret Roberson described how she observed Natal

make a hand gesture indicating that he had a gun. The police were called and spoke first to the

Robersons and then the Natals, but the Robersons continued to hear the explosives being set off

outside their home. Tr. at 310-12.

2. Natals Arson Attempt



11/35

11

Natals threatening behavior targeting those at the Wolcott house continued. Months

later, in the early Fall of 2011, two Roberson children, Quayshauns brother Quavon and cousin

Jammi Neely, both nine years-old at the time, ran up the stairs to Wandas apartment and found

Natal stooped on the second floor landing trying to light the carpet on fire. Tr. 212-14, 2570-74,

2579-8. He was in the exact location where he would ultimately set the fatal fire months later.

But this time he was discovered by the children and fled. As the children were scared, the

Robersons called the police who responded, spoke to the Robersons and went to find Natal at his

home, but he was not there. Tr. 4-15, 2575-77; PSR at 21.

C.

The Arson

1. The Evidence Against Natal

On March 8, 2011, shortly before midnight, Natal called his father who picked him up at

Felicianos Haven Street apartment and drove him to the intersection of Howard and Spring

Street where Natal collected $40 from Vega. Shortly thereafter, at approximately 1:00 a.m. on

March 9, Margaret Batts, the defendants neighbor, saw Morales van parked outside the Wolcott

house on the corner of Poplar Street and Wolcott Street. The vans engine was running but the

lights were off. Batts then saw Natal and Morales, who were wearing black clothes, masks and

gloves, round the corner from the front of the Wolcott house, enter the van and drive away. Tr.

at 490-92, 501-02, 505-11, 514-15. PSR at 28-29. Natals phone records further revealed

his complicity in the arson as there were no calls to or from his otherwise hyperactive cell phone

early on the morning of March 9 from 12:47 a.m. to 1:36 a.m. the exact time the fire was set

and grew to full force. Ex. 401, 719.

Moreover, three witnesses testified that Natal confessed to the arson. First, Vega

testified that on the morning after the fire he overheard a conversation between Natal and



12/35

12

Mendes, in which Natal stated that they owed him money and that he had started the fire. At

the time, Vega he did not understand that Natal was referring to the fatal fire. Tr. at 1826-27.

But later after he began cooperating with law enforcement, on March 25, 2011, Vega recorded a

conversation in which Natal admitted to setting the Wolcott Street fire:

Vega : Yo, so how you burn that crib, my nigga?

Natal: What you mean?

Vega: Nigga, the crib right there on Wolcott.

Natal: Them niggas owe me bread, nigga.

Vega: You wilin son, how you do that shit?

Natal: What you mean, you wilin right now talking like that.

Vega: Nigga, how you do that shit nigga? Just tell me nigga, cause niggas rolled up on

me wilin son like for real bro that shit aint real, my nigga, Im out here trappin for

niggas and shit, yall gonna get me locked up and shot up and shit. How the fuck yall

niggas do that shit, who you do it with?

Natal: By myself, you know what I mean, I dont need nobody else.

Ex. 104. Vega understood Natal to mean that he started the fire on Wolcott Street because of a

drug debt. Tr. at 1881-84; PSR at 24.

Second, Feliciano also testified that Natal admitted to her that he set the fire. She

recounted a conversation at his sisters house where Natal expressed regret over starting the fire:

Q: And what were you talking about?

A: I started asking him questions why is he being investigated, why his name is coming

up constantly, and he broke down on me. He got on his knees, and hold me by my waist

and told me hes sorry, he sorry. He said, Im sorry, Im sorry, I aint mean to do that.



13/35

13

Q: He said, Im sorry, Im sorry, I didnt mean to do that?

A: Correct.

Q: What was he talking about?

A: About the fire.

Tr. at 2382-83; PSR at 26.

Finally, on April 15, 2011, New Haven Fire Marshal Faustino Lopez posed as Vegas

cousin on behalf of law enforcement and recorded a conversation with Natal. Tr. 2216-17. In this

conversation, Natal tacitly admitted that he set the fire. Lopez testified that he vouched to Natal

about Vegas loyalty by explaining that Vega could have collected a $25,000 reward by turning

Natal into the police. Tr. at 222829. The conversation was as follows:

Lopez: . . . if [Vega] wanted to, he could cash in on that fucking money on that flyer.

Right?

Natal: Yea.

* * *

Lopez: [Vega] knows some shit. He was telling me about that shit. He showed me that

flyer because he was pissed off. He was like, yo I cant believe [Natal] approached me

like that.

Natal: Yea.

Ex. 127; PSR at 27.

The evidence further showed that Foster was most likely the target of Natals retaliation.

Foster was one of Natals drug associates and there were over 250 calls between them from

February 7, 2011 and March 8, 2011, including almost 70 calls in the eight days leading up to the

arson. Ex. 401,720. Further, Batts testified that a few days before the arson, she saw Natal



14/35

14

and Foster in a heated discussion in the hallway of the Poplar house where she and the

defendants family lived. Although she did not hear exactly what they were saying, they were

talking about money and Natal was very upset. Tr. at 475-77. Although Foster himself

did not testify, his girlfriend Kaitlin Rosa, who lived with him at the Wolcott house, testified that

weeks before the arson, Natal came to the apartment looking for Foster and said he had a bag of

weed for him. Tr. at 405-07. Further, Natals cell phone records show that Foster was

repeatedly trying to reach Natal within the two hours before the arson as there are three short

calls from Foster to Natal on March 8 at 11:22 p.m., 11:29 p.m. and 11:30 p.m., and then no

contact between them for over two weeks. Ex. 401, 720, 721.

2. The New Haven Fire Departments Response to the Fire

Many New Haven firefighters responded to the fire. Assistant Chief Ralph Black was

the highest ranking officer on scene having battled hundreds of fires during his 26 years on the

force. Tr. at 179, 180. When he arrived, he immediately recognized the fire was very

serious due to the magnitude and volume of fire as well as the likelihood there were still

people inside at that time of the morning. The Chief had significant concerns about sending

his men inside not only because of the strength of the fire, but also because of the fires

location. The stairwells were totally involved with the fire making it possible that people

were trapped in there and that any firefighters who entered might not be able to escape once

inside. Despite these serious risks, the Chief knew they had to make ever[sic] effort for the

people inside so he made the decision to go aggressively offensively on it. Tr. 180-81, 186.

Firefighter Daniel Coughlin testified that he carried a teenage boy down from the porch

roof, then re-entered the building to search for other survivors when he was ordered to get out

of there. Tr. 129. He vividly described the flashover that followed moments later: [A]ll the



15/35

15

contents of the room ignited at once. The fire blew out the windows. It blew right out of the

windows. It blew -- if you are looking at the front of the building, there was a front porch, the

door was open, you could see the fire literally just start to pour out of the front of that building.

Very intense . . . as the flames blew out, they blew out the window and they blew out that

hallway into the front porch. Tr. 127-31; Exs. 5, 5A, 5B, 5C. He and two other firefighters,

Pat Psarras and Mike DeMennato who were the last to leave the porch roof, narrowly escaped

the flashover that then engulfed the building in flames. Having responded to hundreds of New

Haven fires, he characterized this fire as one of the most difficult fires he had experienced due to

its stubborn intensity as well as the the loss of life. Tr. 139.

Acting Captain Robert Celentano testified about how he and Firefighter Patrick Grant

simultaneously led an aggressive interior attack through the fire and up to the third floor where

they found the bodies of the three victims. Ex. 6, 7; Tr. 160-75. His testimony made clear

both the horror of the scene and the lasting impact it has had on the firefighters: At that point, I

removed my mask, and after I removed my mask, I knew right away it was a body because of the

smell. I didn't even have to see it. And that's what it was . . . you never forget it . . . Yeah. Give

me a second here. You can't see, but you know. So, what you do is everything kind of stops at

that point . . . We went into the building and we found the second body. It was a larger body and

we wanted to make sure -- you know, because a lot [of] times when we go to fires, they try to

clutch the children. Excuse me . . . So what we did was when we found her, we had moved her,

rolled her over, found nothing, that is nobody with her, to make sure there was nothing with the

body, because they try to clench the children. So what we did was kept checking, and on our

way exiting out is when we found the third one . . . When we left, when we were on our way out,

we're checking everything with a fine tooth comb . . . I noticed two legs. That's when we found



16/35

16

the third victim, and found it to be a child between, I would say, 8 and 10. Tr. 171-75.

D. Natal Sought to Obstruct Justice by Tampering with Witnesses

In the wake of the three deaths, Natal and Morales took a number of steps to attempt to

ensure that they would never be held accountable for the arson. Together, they worked to

manipulate witnesses into falsely testifying before the grand jury. Feliciano testified that they

gathered their family together to discuss three falsehoods that should be included in everyones

grand jury testimony:

Jorge Natal (Natals uncle, Morales brother-in-law) was going to purchase Morales vanwhich was why Morales painted the van after the fire;

a Mexican jewelry seller -- not Natal -- had attempted to set the first fire at 48-50 WolcottStreet; and

Natal had been home with Feliciano the entire night of the arson.

Tr. 236668. PSR at 38.

In order to draw suspicion away from Natal, both Natal and Morales instructed Feliciano

and other family members, including Natals sister Brenda Morales and his mother Elizabeth

Natal, to testify that Natal was home with Feliciano at the time of the arson and that a Mexican

jewelry salesman was the one who tried to set the fire at the Wolcott house in the Fall of 2010.

Tr. at 237779. PSR at 41. Feliciano further testified that Natal repeatedly pressured her to

provide a false alibi for him:

Q: What were you being told? Who was telling you and what were you being told to say?

A: Natal would always say, Remember I was home with you all night. Like I felt a bigpressure with him. He would always tell me he was home all night, Remember I washome all night with you.

. . . .

Q: But you knew different?



17/35

17

A: Yes.

Tr. at 2379. PSR at 42.

Natals obstructive efforts were initially successful as during her first appearance before

the grand jury on May 18, 2011, Feliciano covered for Natal falsely testifying that he was home

with her at the Haven Street apartment at the time of the arson. Tr. at 2342-4, 2356, 2465, 2379,

2398. Other family members including Hector Morales and Brenda Morales also testified

falsely before the grand jury supporting Natals false alibi as well as the fabricated stories about

the Mexican jewelry seller and Jorges interest in purchasing the van, among other falsehoods.

Morales later admitted that some of his grand jury testimony, particularly the story about the

phantom voice, had been false. Tr. 810-1, 815, 2676-2700, 2919-23; Ex. 21, 22, 413, 735, 736;

PSR at 34.

II. Guidelines Calculations

The Probation Officer has correctly determined that the defendants offense level is 43

and his criminal history category is III, which yields an advisory sentencing range of life

imprisonment, a fine range of $25,000 to $5,000,000, a term of supervised release of at least four

years, and a special assessment of $800. PSR at 45-89, 106-114.

Restitution is applicable in this case. The government is still attempting to obtain

documentation of funeral expenses and related costs incurred by the victims of the arson. The

government will file a supplemental sentencing memo if those records are obtained.

III. Defendants Objections to the Pre-Sentence Report



18/35

18

With little support, Natal makes a number of complaints about the tone of the PSR

claiming that it wades into the specifics of the case, adopts as facts the most prejudicial view

of the evidence and discount[s] Mr. Natals intellectual disability. Email from Michael

Sheehan, dated January 12, 1015. In response to the few specifics identified by defense

counsel, the Probation Officer has deleted several of the concerning adjectives or other

descriptors from the PSR. See Addendum to the Presentence Report, dated January 13, 2015

(Addendum). Contrary to the other claims of the defense, the Probation Officer has diligently

laid out the facts plainly supported by the evidence, much of which was captured in recorded

statements, and the jurys verdict. Against this backdrop, the Officer can hardly be criticized

for conscientiously reporting the facts for it is these very facts that are so critical in determining

the appropriate sentence here.

The Government responds to Natals other specific objections below:

Par. 6: Natal claims that there is no evidence supporting the statement in the PSR that

Natal spread the accelerant from the threshold of the Foster apartment to the threshold of the

Roberson apartment and that [a]ll the evidence indicated was that there was accelerant in the

hallway between the apartments. In fact, the evidence showed that Natal spread the gasoline

on the stairs and the thresholds of both apartments making the fire all the more lethal as there

was no egress out of the apartment doors or down the stairs.

Paul Makuc, the Governments arson expert, testified that his accelerant detection K-9,

Baxter, exhibited a positive alert for an ignitable liquid at the threshold outside of both apartment

doors. Tr. 902, 926-27, 930-31; Ex. 208, 212-15. Makuc concluded that Baxter detected

gasoline, the probable accelerant, on the stairs as well as both thresholds because the liquid

gasoline had been trapped under the non-combustible metal thresholds and thus protected from



19/35

19

being burned off during the fire. Tr. 902, 934, 973. He added that Baxter did not initially alert

to the Roberson threshold because fire debris had covered the threshold, but when the debris was

removed, the dog was able to search closer to the floor area and then alerted to that threshold. Tr.

926-927. Makuc added that during his first inspection of the fire, he noticed that the frames of

the apartment doors exhibited the area of heaviest burning, heaviest charring and heaviest

oxidation and a heav[y] amount of rusting down low at the door frame indicating that this was

one of the most intense areas of the fire. Tr. 933-34.

When interviewed by Makuc during his fire investigation, Foster stated that the wet

gasoline stain covered the full length of the landing from the Foster apartment to the Roberson

apartment and that the liquid was splashed up onto the apartment doors. Tr. 1069-70.

Margaret Roberson also testified about the intensity of the fire at the door to their apartment

stating that after smelling gas, she saw flames coming from under the front door, and when

Quavon opened the door, she saw tall flames all across the hallway from her apartment door to

the Fosters and on the stairs. Tr. at 298-302. By setting the fire at both thresholds as well as

the stairs, Natal eliminated the possibility of an escape out the doors or down the stairs. This

was what had immediately concerned Captain Black when he arrived: The stairwells were

totally involved with the fire making it possible that people were trapped in there. Tr. at

180-81. Similarly, based on his detailed examination, Makuc concluded that the fire was

lethal as it was ignited in a location . . . to not allow any egress from those apartments other

than jumping out of the windows. Tr. 1057- 60.

Par. 44-89: Natal claims that the jury never found that Natal knowingly and

intentionally caused the deaths of the three Robersons. The law does not require that. Natal

was convicted of committing an arson that resulted in the death of the three Robersons. The



20/35

20

third element of that offense, as charged by the Court, is that Natal acted with malicious intent

defined as acting either intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood that damage will

result, and not mistakenly or carelessly. The jury was properly instructed that to find the

defendant guilty, they must find that Natal set the fire with the intent to cause damage or that he

did so recklessly and without regard to the likelihood that damage would result. Tr. at

3353-3354.

Par. 119: Despite Natals protestations, the PSR correctly states that the Sentencing

Guidelines mandate that the Court may not downward depart on the basis of diminished capacity

when the facts and circumstances of defendants offense indicate a need to protect the public

because the offense conduct involved actual violence or a serious threat of violence. U.S.S.G.

5K2.13. Certainly, the facts here make plain a need to protect the public so a downward

departure is not appropriate.

Moreover, this departure is appropriate only when a defendant is so impaired as to not

understand the wrongfulness of the behavior or not be able to reason or control behavior that

he knows is wrongful. Id. In other words, there must be a causal link between th[e] reduced

mental capacity and the commission of the charged offense. United States v. Prescott, 290 F.2d

139, 146 (2d Cir. 1990); accord United States c. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670, 684 (2d Cir. 1994).

There is simply no evidence of such a link here. Natal knew that his behavior was wrong and at

one point cried and begged Feliciano for forgiveness, and his arson was not a result of

uncontrolled behavior or an irrational moment, but rather a calculated and well executed plan.

Par. 123-24: Natal objects to the observation in the PSR that testing showing an overall

IQ score ranging from low 40s to upper 60s raises questions about the accuracy and consistency

of the testing and also Mr. Natals physical and mental state at the time of the testing and argues



21/35

21

that a suggestion that the Court should disregard his proven history of intellectual disability is

unwarranted. The PSR is not suggesting that the Court simply disregard this disability

argument, but rather suggests there is significant evidence in the record to show that he is now

far more high functioning and aware of the consequences of this actions that this testing would

suggest. This evidence includes the fact that Natal operated a successful drug operation

communicating and interacting with multiple sources, customers and other drug associates; that

he used threats and intimidation as well as actual acts of violence to retaliate against those who

owed him money for drug debts; that he carefully executed an arson so that he was neither

identified nor caught in the act; that he conspired to obstruct justice by creating a false alibi and

other false stories to cover up his criminal conduct; and that in his personal life he was able to

simultaneously carry on long-term relationships with two different women and have children

with both women, while keeping one of the women, Jessica Feliciano, completely in the dark

about the other woman. Tr. 2344-45; PSR at 97. All of this conduct requires a certain level of

mental acuity and sophisticated, though often duplicitous, functioning far beyond what is

suggested by the IQ tests all taken over ten years ago.

III. Reasonable Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. 3553

A. Legal Standard

Under 18 U.S.C. '3553(a), the sentencing court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but

not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this

subsection. Accordingly, sentencing courts must consider:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history andcharacteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,



22/35

22

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 vocationaltraining, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the mosteffective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established [in theSentencing Guidelines];

(5) any pertinent policy statement [issued by the Sentencing

Commission];

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendantswith similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct;and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). These considerations strongly militate in favor of a term of life

imprisonment.

B. Analysis of Sentencing Factors

1. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses

As the Court is well aware, the facts of this case are horrific. Natals crime has caused a

sorrow beyond comprehension. In short, Natal knowingly set in motion a fire that killed three

completely innocent people. There is no greater loss than the death of a child. For the

Roberson family, the death of Quayshaun was compounded by the loss of beloved Wanda, the

heart and soul of the family, and Jaqueeta, a young woman just starting out in life.

Natal is utterly and singularly responsible for this crime. He admitted to setting the fire

in retaliation for a drug debt, but he also knew that everyone in the house would be at risk. He



23/35

23

did not just set a fire calibrated to get Fosters attention. Instead, he poured gasoline on the

second floor landing, on the thresholds to both apartment doors and on the stairs. He knew

there were families, young children and older women inside as he had taunted them at their

summer party and been inside the building several times once trying to set the carpet on fire

and at least once looking for Foster. These families were not strangers, they were his

neighbors.

The violent manner in which Natal operated his drug business significantly magnifies the

serious nature of his drug trafficking. In addition to pleading guilty to distributing a substantial

amount of crack cocaine, the evidence showed Natal dealt any narcotic he could get his hands on

including marijuana, all kinds of pills and powder cocaine. He also cooked up crack and called

multiple sources, associates and customers all time of the day and night. He even continued his

dealing from prison telephoning Feliciano to instruct her to broker a crack deal with his uncle

Jorge Natal. Tr. 2311-13; Ex. 128, 128A,130-B.

Natal was a highly dangerous dealer merciless in his dealing and willing to kill over a

small debt. And after the arson, he did everything he could to avoid being held accountable for

his horrendous crime. With his fathers help, he coerced his girlfriend and family members into

lying to investigators and the grand jury in hopes that he would get away with murder.

The nature and circumstances of these crimes could not be more serious.

2. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Natal has two state criminal convictions, one involves threatening and assault charges in

connection with a physical fight with a woman on October 9, 2004, and the second a larceny and

criminal mischief charge on May 30, 2010. He received probation on both offenses and was on

probation at the time of the instant offenses. PSR at 83-84. State charges are also pending



24/35

24

against Natal for his arrest on the morning of the arson with Vega and Mendes in a stolen car and

in possession of narcotics. During the course of the arrest, he fled from police, resisted arrest

and was very combative with the officers. Tr. at 2248-51.

As a result of the above convictions, he has a subtotal criminal history score of two; two

points are added as he committed the instant offense while on probation under 4A1.1(d). The

total criminal history score is 4, which, according to the sentencing table in USSG Chapter 5,

Part A, establishes a criminal history category of III. PSR at 85.

Natal has no employment history. PSR at 104. Other than criminal conduct, his only

other means of income has been his monthly Social Security Disability check which he receives

due to his intellectual disability. PSR at 102. Natal grew up in a tough neighborhood,

cannot read or write, dropped out of school in the 9 thgrade, and suffers from asthma. PSR at

92, 98, 101. He admits to using marijuana, ecstasy and cocaine for a number of years. PSR at

99. He has never been married but has two children, a 5 year-old daughter who lives with

Jessica Feliciano and a 4 year-old son who lives with his mother. PSR at 97.

As described in the PSR based on information provided to the Probation Officer by the

defense, Natal took multiple IQ tests between May 1991, when he was 5 years-old, and

sometime in 2004 when he was 18 or 19. Evaluations by school psychologists from the New

Haven Public Schools showed the following range of IQ scores: 42-58 (age 5), 60-69 (age 8),

and 52-62 (age 11). Tests performed for the Social Security Administration showed the

following scores: 44 (age 8), 40 (age 13) and 59 (age 18 or 19). Based on these scores, Natal

was placed in special education classes and qualified for SSI benefits for intellectual disability.

PSR at 101-03. In light of the wide variation in these test results, the Probation Officer

properly questions the accuracy and consistency of the testing and also Mr. Natals physical and



25/35

25

mental state at the time of the testing. Addendum to the PSR at 2; PSR at 123.

While it is appropriate for the Court to consider Natals intellectual disability in framing a

proper sentence, the facts here show that the above described tests utterly fail to tell the whole

story of who this defendant is. Despite his apparent disability, Natal was able to successfully

operate a drug business buying and selling a number of drugs from multiple customers and

associates, execute the worst possible form of violent retaliation without getting caught in the

act, create a false alibi and other falsehoods in an effort to avoid apprehension, and lead a double

life with two different women and children. Each of these actions alone requires a level of

cognitive functioning above that revealed by his IQ scores which are all over ten years old.

Together, they make clear that whatever his intellectual scores, Natal has significant street

smarts.

Moreover, he was and remains a serious danger to the public. That is clearly evident

from the crime for which he has been convicted. It is re-enforced by his conduct after the fatal

arson. His continued ruthless and menacing nature is on full display in his videoed

conversation with Mendes when less than a month after killing the Robersons, he threatened

violence to a defenseless blind man over twenty dollars. And when Mendes repeatedly urged

Natal to leave Suarez alone, Natal coldly responded I dont get sorry for nobody . . . youre a

cripple or not . . . Dead serious. . . business is business. Ex. 121.

Further, even while in prison, Natal did not stop. He coordinated a crack deal with his

uncle Jorge Natal and has proclaimed his allegiance to the violent Latin Kings gang, stating in an

April 25, 2014 hearing that he is a gang member and continues to actively recruit[] new

members because they want their family to be bigger. Exhibit A.

3. Seriousness of the Offense, Respect for the Law, and Providing Just Punishment



26/35

26

These factors clearly warrant a significant sentence. Arson resulting in three deaths

including the death of a child and two innocent women -- is as egregious a crime as is

imaginable. Committing such a crime over a petty drug debt makes it all the worse.

Further, tampering with witnesses to prevent apprehension reflects Natals utter lack of

respect for the judicial system. Obstruction of justice is driven by his belief that he is above the

law. Natals post-arrest conduct while in prison arranging a drug deal and pledging his support

to the Latin Kings also reflects his complete disrespect for the law.

Wanda, Jaqueeta and Quayshaun Roberson suffered horrible deaths. Their family and

friends continue to grapple with the pain and bewilderment of such senseless loss. The Foster

family also suffers from this trauma. The Court will hear from the surviving victims prior to

imposing sentence. While the defendants convictions offer little solace to these survivors, a just

punishment contemplates a sentence as suggested by the guidelines to reflect the seriousness of

the defendants crimes and his lack of respect for the law.

4. Adequate Deterrence

Given that the defendant is facing a lengthy term of imprisonment under even the best of

circumstances, specific deterrence is not a consideration that ought to drive the sentence in this

case. But deterrence should not be a basis for leniency, either. The defendant, by actively

seeking to tamper with witnesses, and dealing drugs while pledging allegiance to a violent gang

all from prison, evidences his clear disrespect for the law. The callousness with which he

executed this offense also indicates that given the opportunity, Natal may well re-offend.

5.Protection of the Public from the Defendant

Public safety protecting the public from this violent offender is the most important



27/35

27

factor in this case. Natal did not pause when setting fire to the Roberson and Foster home

knowing full well there were children and innocent women and men inside. This seriousness of

his crime cannot be overstated and demonstrates a genuine need to protect the community.

6. Educational and Vocational Training, and Medical Care and Treatment

Nothing in the defendants educational or medical history, employment background, or

family situation suggests the need for a significant sentence modification. For the reasons

discussed above, although his intellectual limitations are appropriate for the Court to consider in

framing a sentence, they fail to outweigh the seriousness of the offense and the public safety

concerns that call out for a term of life imprisonment.

7. Pertinent Guidelines Policy Statements

None applicable.

8. Restitution

Prior to sentencing, the Government may be able to present to the Court, among other

expenses, the funeral costs incurred by the Robersons to bury Quayshaun, Jaqueeta and Wanda.

IV.

Conclusion

The Court should impose a sentence of life imprisonment as recommended by the

sentencing guidelines. Mr. Natal torched the home of his neighbors because he was angry

about a small drug debt. He killed a child, a young woman and a beloved matriarch.

Countless others have been irreparably scarred by the devastation of that morning. In the wake

of that horror, he threatened violent harm to a blind man, persisted in his drug dealing, obstructed

justice and continues to plead allegiance to a violent gang.

Under these circumstances, the Government respectfully submits that life imprisonment

constitutes a fair, just and reasonable punishment.



28/35

28

Respectfully submitted,

DEIRDRE M. DALYUNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/Deirdre M. DalyDEIRDRE M. DALYUNITED STATES ATTORNEYFEDERAL BAR NO. CT 23128157 Church Street, 25th FloorNew Haven, CONNECTICUT 06510Telephone: (203) 821-3700



29/35

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 30, 2015, the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum wasfiled electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of theCourts electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties

may access this filing through the Courts system.

William H. Paetzold, Esq.Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood2230 Main StreetGlastonbury, CT 06033

Paul Thomas, Esq.Office of Federal Public Defender265 Church St, Suite 702New Haven, CT 06510-7005

Michael O. Sheehan, Esq.Sheehan & Reeve139 Orange Street Suite 301New Haven, CT 06510

/s/Deirdre M. DalyDEIRDRE M. DALYUNITED STATES ATTORNEY



30/35

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 293-1 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 3


31/35



32/35



33/35



34/35



35/35


NATAL Hector Govt Sentencing Memo

Documents

Transcript of NATAL Hector Govt Sentencing Memo