Per Curiam.
OPINION & ORDER On September 8, 2023, the respondent was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, before the Honorable Steven Tiscione, United States Magistrate Judge, of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), a federal felony. On or about April 4, 2024, the respondent notified this Court and the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District of his conviction. By decision and order on motion dated January 29, 2025, the respondent was immediately suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(f) and
22 NYCRR 1240.12(c)(2)(ii), based on his conviction of a serious crime. This Court further directed the respondent to show cause at a hearing before David I. Ferber, as Special Referee, why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made based on his conviction of a serious crime. After a hearing conducted on April 1, 2025, the Special Referee filed a report dated May 14, 2025, setting forth his findings and concluding that the respondent had not demonstrated why a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment should not be made. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the Special Referee's report and to impose such discipline upon the respondent as the Court may deem just and proper. In response, the respondent, through counsel, requests leniency from the Court and the imposition of a sanction of a public censure.
Federal Conviction
On or about April 18, 2023, an indictment was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging the respondent with two criminal felony counts, [*2]conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(D), and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D). The indictment provided that between October 2020 and April 26, 2022, the respondent, together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to distribute and possessed with intent to distribute a Schedule I controlled substance, a substance containing marijuana, for remuneration. Further, the indictment contained a criminal forfeiture provision for
1
approximately $20,850, a sum which was seized in connection with the investigation. On September 8, 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement before the Honorable Steven Tiscione, United States Magistrate Judge, to count two of the indictment, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(D), a federal felony. During the plea allocution, the respondent described his actions as follows: "On April 26, 2022, in Long Island, I did knowingly possess marijuana with the intent to distribute. And when I did this, I knew it was illegal."
On March 25, 2024, the Honorable Gary R. Brown, United States District Judge,
sentenced the respondent to a term of probation of two years, 100 hours of community service to be completed during the term of probation, a special assessment of $100, and forfeiture of $20,850. The first count of the indictment was dismissed during the sentencing hearing.
The Hearing Record
A hearing was held on April 1, 2025. The Grievance Committee entered five
exhibits into evidence. The respondent submitted nine character letters, called two character witnesses, and testified on his own behalf.
The record reflects that the respondent made a number of threats in the commission of his crime which were characterized by his criminal defense attorney as "puffing" in an attempt to bolster his credibility as a marijuana dealer and which, according to his criminal defense attorney, were in stark contrast to his prior history of nonviolence. At the sentencing proceeding, the District Court stated,
"Now, the threats, you are also very fortunate in another way that you have one of the toughest and most thorough prosecutors I have ever seen in my life. Mr. Bagnuola is here and he got to the bottom of the threats of violence because I have to tell you, if that was a thing, if that was real, you would be going to jail today. . . . Rank, rank, stupidity, texting people, I'm going to kneecap this guy, I'm going to kill this guy, are you kidding me? You went to law school. You know about generating evidence. What kind of evidence is that? You generated false evidence about a crime I don't think you had any intention of committing. If I believed for a second you did you would be going to jail and spending a lot time there. . . . I have to tell you I was thinking otherwise because it's so ridiculous and so outrageous and it wasn't an insubstantial amount of money. $20,000 cash, most people would appreciate that in their life. You knew better than anybody what the consequences were. I'm shocked by the case."
In mitigation, the respondent testified that "I would like to reemphasize that I fully accept responsibility for why I am here today. IâI don't know how to express how sorry I am for my conduct and how embarrassed I am for why I'm here today. And it will absolutely never happen again."
The Special Referee's Report
In a report dated May 14, 2025, the Special Referee concluded that
the respondent did not demonstrate why a final order of discipline should not be made. The Special Referee found that the respondent acknowledged the gravity of his actions and expressed shame and remorse. The Special Referee found that the testimony of the respondent's former employer, along with the character testimony and character affirmations, portrayed the respondent as a person of integrity and honesty and was complimentary of his skills as an attorney. The Special Referee noted that the respondent's former employer of many years wished to continue to employ him as an attorney. The Special Referee was persuaded that the respondent "will not ever knowingly come even close to the line again."
Findings and Conclusion
We find that the Special Referee properly concluded that the respondent failed to
meet his burden of establishing why this Court should not issue a final order of suspension, censure, or disbarment based upon his conviction of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 USC §§ 841(a)(1) and (b) (1)(D), a federal felony. In view of the evidence adduced, [*3]the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted.
In determining the appropriate measure of discipline, notwithstanding the mitigating factors, discussed above, the Court finds that the respondent knowingly and intentionally possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute, conspired with others to do so, and made a number of threatening and violent remarks in an effort to bolster himself as a marijuana dealer. The respondent's criminal conduct as charged in the indictment spanned over the course of two years, starting just after he was admitted to the New York State Bar. Under a totality of the circumstances, and given the serious nature of the respondent's misconduct, we find that a suspension from the practice of law for a period of three years is warranted.
LASALLE P.J., DILLON, DUFFY, BARROS, and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Enri Cela, is suspended from the practice of law for
2
a period of three years, effective immediately, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than January 29, 2029. In such application (see 22 NYCRR 1240.16), the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof that during the period of suspension, he (1) refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) fully complied with this opinion and order and with the terms and provisions of the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15), (3) complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(a), and (4) otherwise properly conducted himself; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent, Enri Cela, shall continue to comply with the rules governing the conduct of disbarred or suspended attorneys (see id. § 1240.15); and it is further,
ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, the respondent, Enri Cela, shall continue to desist and refrain from (1) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law; and it is further,
ORDERED that if the respondent, Enri Cela, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in his affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.15(f).
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph Clerk of the Court
3