United States v. Shteyman , 610 F. App'x 60 ( 2015 )

13-4842-cr
United States v. Shteyman
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or
after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and
this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this Court, a
party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary
order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by
counsel.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
2 the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
3 on the 19th day of May, two thousand fifteen.
4
5 PRESENT:
6 RALPH K. WINTER,
7 CHESTER J. STRAUB,
8 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
9 Circuit Judges.
10 __________________________________________
11
12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
13
14 Appellee,
15
16 v. No. 13-4842-cr
17
18 DMITRY SHTEYMAN,
19
20 Defendant-Appellant,
21
22 ALEKSEY SHTEYMAN, MAXSIM SHVEDKIN, SARA
23 KALANTAROV, ILYA GERSHKOVICH, PELAGEYA
24 KOTELSKY, EVGENY GIL, YEFIM KORNFELD,
25 VALENTINA MUSHINSKAYA, SHELYA PINSKAYA,
26 VLADMIR RUBIN, JESSE A. STOFF, M.D., BILLY N.
27 GERIS, M.D., AND MARIA NAKHBO,
28
29 Defendants.*
* The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to conform with the above.
1 __________________________________________
2
3 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: MARTIN J. SIEGEL, New York, NY (Jillian
4 S. Harrington, Monroe Township, NJ, on
5 the brief).
6
7 FOR APPELLEE: SANGITA K. RAO, Attorney, Appellate
8 Section, Criminal Division, U.S.
9 Department of Justice, Washington, DC
10 (Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney
11 for the Eastern District of New York,
12 Leslie R. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney
13 General, Sung-Hee Suh, Deputy Assistant
14 Attorney General, and Catherine Votaw
15 and Ellen R. Meltzer, Attorneys, Fraud
16 Section, Criminal Division, U.S.
17 Department of Justice, on the brief).
18
19 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
20 of New York (Johnson, J.).
21 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
22 ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court entered on
23 December 20, 2013, is AFFIRMED.
24 Defendant-Appellant Dmitry Shteyman appeals from a judgment of the United States
25 District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Johnson, J.) sentencing him to 97
26 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release and ordering
27 him to pay $1,489,909.40 in restitution to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
28 (Shteyman was separately ordered to forfeit $1,489,909.40 to the United States.) The
29 sentence was based on Shteyman’s conviction, following a guilty plea, of conspiring to
30 commit health care fraud, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349. On appeal, Shteyman contends that
31 the District Court committed procedural and substantive error in imposing this sentence.
32 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history of the
33 case, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision.
34 In a sentencing appeal, “the role of the Court of Appeals is limited to examining a
35 sentence for reasonableness, which is akin to review under an ‘abuse of discretion’
2
1 standard.” United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222, 225 (2d Cir. 2009). “Reasonableness review
2 involves consideration of both the length of the sentence (substantive reasonableness) and
3 the procedures used to arrive at the sentence (procedural reasonableness).” United States v.
4 Mazza-Alaluf, 621 F.3d 205, 213 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a
5 sentencing challenge was not raised in the district court, the challenge “will be deemed
6 forfeited on appeal and addressed only upon a showing that the court committed plain
7 error.” United States v. Coriaty, 300 F.3d 244, 252 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks
8 omitted).
9
10 I. Procedural Challenges
11 When imposing sentence, a district court is required to consider a number of factors,
12 including “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
13 the defendant” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants
14 with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
15 (6). In addition, “[t]he court, at the time of sentencing, [must] state in open court the
16 reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence . . . .” Id. § 3553(c). A court “errs
17 procedurally if it does not consider the § 3553(a) factors” or “fails adequately to explain its
18 chosen sentence.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc).
19 Shteyman contends that the District Court committed procedural error in both of these
20 respects. Because Shteyman raises these arguments for the first time on appeal, we review
21 for plain error.
22 We “presume, in the absence of record evidence suggesting otherwise, that a
23 sentencing judge has faithfully discharged h[is] duty to consider the statutory factors” laid
24 out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193 (internal quotation marks omitted).
25 Shteyman, focusing on § 3553(a)(6), attempts to rebut this presumption by pointing to the
26 prison sentences of his co-defendants and the mean and median prison sentences for fraud
27 in the Second Circuit and nationally in 2013, all of which were shorter than Shteyman’s
3
1 sentence.1 None of this evidence, however, demonstrates the existence of an unwarranted
2 disparity and, in turn, a lack of consideration by the District Court: Section 3553(a)(6) “does
3 not require a district court to consider disparities between co-defendants” at all. United States
4 v. Frias, 521 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 2008). And the proffered statistics “provide no details
5 underlying the sentences” and are thus “unreliable to determine unwarranted disparity.”
6 United States v. Irving, 554 F.3d 64, 76 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
7 the absence of persuasive evidence of an unwarranted disparity or any other evidence that
8 the court did not consider the need to avoid such disparities, Shteyman has failed to show
9 that the court committed error, let alone plain error.
10 Shteyman also suggests that the District Court committed procedural error by failing
11 adequately to explain its chosen sentence in open court. Generally, “a brief statement of
12 reasons will . . . suffice where the parties have addressed only straightforward, conceptually
13 simple arguments to the sentencing judge.” Cavera, 550 F.3d at 193 (internal quotation
14 marks omitted). In some cases, “the ‘open court’ requirement may be satisfied by the
15 district court adopting the PSR in open court.” United States v. Molina, 356 F.3d 269, 277 (2d
16 Cir. 2004). The arguments presented by the parties to the District Court here were
17 straightforward and simple: the government focused on Shteyman’s leadership role in the
18 scheme, while Shteyman’s counsel focused on Shteyman’s family circumstances, medical
19 conditions, and pursuit of further studies while detained awaiting sentencing. Given the
20 nature of the arguments before the court, the district judge did not plainly err by merely
21 adopting the PSR in open court and stating generally that he was considering the § 3553(a)
22 factors.
23
1 If Shteyman were “assert[ing] that the district court failed to accord the § 3553(a)(6) factor sufficient
mitigating weight, he [would be] rais[ing] a substantive challenge.” Mazza-Alaluf, 621 F.3d at 214. Because
Shteyman makes his argument within the rubric of procedural unreasonableness, we take him to be arguing
that the District Court did not adequately consider the § 3553(a)(6) factor, rather than that the court did not
accord the factor sufficient weight. We address Shteyman’s substantive challenges separately in Part II.
4
1 II. Substantive Challenges
2 Shteyman also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. In so
3 doing, he points to a number of factors, including the District Court’s failure to reduce his
4 offense level by a third point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) based on his claimed extraordinary
5 acceptance of responsibility.
6 To the extent that Shteyman contends that the court erred in its Guidelines
7 calculation, this is really a procedural argument, see Cavera, 550 F.3d at 190, and it is without
8 merit. A government motion is “a necessary prerequisite” to a court’s reducing an offense
9 level by a third point under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) unless the government has acted in bad faith
10 with respect to a plea agreement or has refused to move for the reduction based on an
11 unconstitutional motive. United States v. Lee, 653 F.3d 170, 173 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal
12 quotation marks omitted). Here, the government never moved for the reduction and
13 Shteyman does not argue that either exception applies. In this posture, the District Court
14 was without power to award the third point and thus did not err in declining to do so.
15 None of Shteyman’s truly substantive arguments has merit, either. Substantive
16 reasonableness review “provide[s] a backstop for those few cases that, although procedurally
17 correct, would nonetheless damage the administration of justice because the sentence
18 imposed was shockingly high, shockingly low, or otherwise unsupportable as a matter of
19 law.” United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009). Shteyman points to his
20 cooperation with the government, his acceptance of responsibility, his medical conditions,
21 his parents’ ill health, the nature of his past crimes, the volume of supportive letters
22 submitted on his behalf, his pursuit of further studies, and his co-defendants’ lesser
23 sentences as reasons for concluding that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. But
24 these factors do not demonstrate that his sentence was shockingly high or unsupportable as
25 a matter of law, particularly when considered in light of Shteyman’s leading role in the
26 multimillion-dollar conspiracy to defraud the federal government and evidence that
27 Shteyman was not fully honest with the government in the course of his promised
28 cooperation.
5
1 * * *
2 We have considered Shteyman’s remaining arguments and find them to be without
3 merit. For the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
4
5 FOR THE COURT:
6 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
6