United States of America v. Igor Erlikh

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 00-5281
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
IGOR ERLIKH
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 95-cr-00388-2)
District Judge: Hon. Joseph E. Irenas
Argued March 7, 2002
Before: SCIRICA and COWEN, Circuit Judges,
RESTANI*, Judge, United States Court of International Trade
(Filed April 18, 2002 )
Christopher J. Christie, Esq.
Office of the United States Attorney
970 Broad Street, Rm. 700
Newark, NJ 07102
*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
Robert E. Lindsay, Esq.
Alan Hechtkopf, Esq.
Karen Quesnel, Esq. (Argued)
United States Department of Justice
Tax Division
P.O. Box 502
Washington, DC 20044
Counsel for Appellee
Richard Coughlin, Esq. (Argued)
Office of the Federal Public Defender
800 Cooper Street, Suite 350
Camden, NJ 08102
Counsel for Appellant
_______________

-- 1 of 3 --

OPINION
_______________
COWEN, Circuit Judge
Presented for our review is one of four companion cases involving a lengthy trial
before the District Court after which defendants were convicted of various federal crimes
arising out of a so-called "daisy chain" scheme to avoid paying federal and New Jersey
state fuel taxes. The elements of such schemes have been detailed sufficiently elsewhere
by this Court. See, e.g., United States v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798, 801 (3d Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 820 (1999) (citations omitted). We will add factual detail below as it
becomes necessary to the alleged point of error.
Igor Erlikh was the president of Kings Motor Oil, a wholesale distributor of home
heating oil and motor oil. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Erlikh pled guilty to: (1)
violating 18 U.S.C. 371 by conspiring to defraud the United States and to commit tax
evasion, contrary to the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 7201, to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C.
1343), and to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1957); (2) money laundering (18
U.S.C. 1957); and (3) tax evasion (26 U.S.C. 7201). The District Court sentenced
Erlikh to 108 months of imprisonment, ordered a special assessment of $1,850, and
ordered restitution in the amount of $1,000,000. Erlikh does not challenge the propriety
of his plea agreement with the government, but does appeal various aspects of his
sentencing. After thoroughly reviewing the parties submissions in this regard, we
conclude that Erlikh’s arguments are without merit. Therefore, Erlikh’s sentence will be
affirmed.
The District Court’s interpretation and application of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines is a matter of law subject to plenary review. United States v. Cherry, 10 F.3d
1003, 1009 (3d Cir. 1993). Pure issues of fact underlying sentencing decisions are only
reviewed for clear error. Id.
Erlikh argues that the District Court erred in using the money laundering
guidelines to determine his sentence because the conduct at issue was atypical, and fell
outside the "heartland" of usual money laundering activity. We do not agree. The record
demonstrates that Erlikh was a leading figure in an elaborate, carefully orchestrated,
systematic scheme to defraud. Money derived from the success of the scheme was used
to keep the daisy chain going and the links in the chain were set up to avoid detection by
authorities. This amounted to a crime of significant duration and marked severity. The
total loss to the State of New Jersey on account of the daisy chain scheme was
approximately 11 million dollars. The conduct at issue constitutes serious criminal
activity and is the type Congress sought to prevent and punish when it proscribed money
laundering. There was nothing "atypical" about Erlikh’s specific case that would have
justified the District Court in not using the money laundering guideline. See United
States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 713-14 (6th Cir. 2002). The District Court made the
proper selection.
Erlikh asserts that the District Court erred by giving him a four level upward
adjustment for his role as an "organizer or leader" in the criminal activity. See U.S.S.G.
3B1.1(a). This argument is meritless. The record provides ample factual support for the
District Court’s decision to adjust Erlikh’s level based on his leading role in the criminal
conduct. Erlikh played a key authoritative role in orchestrating the scheme, which
included the money laundering component. He was a pivotal decision-maker at the Kings
oil company and, as the District Court noted, Kings would not have been involved in the
scheme if Erlikh did not allow it. As an example of his position within the scheme,
Erlikh had decision-making authority over another Kings principal, coconspirator
Demetrios Karamanos. It is also clear that five or more participants were involved in the
money laundering activity and that such activity was extensive. U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a).
The record reveals that the District Court did not err in giving Erlikh an upward
adjustment.
Erlikh contends that we should remand the case to the District Court because it did
not adequately address his request for a downward departure. In conjunction with this
argument, he asserts that the government engaged in charge manipulation to his
detriment. After a review of the sentencing transcript, we deem these arguments to be
without merit. We are satisfied that the District Court was aware of Erlikh’s contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

and discretion to grant a downward departure if convinced that the money laundering
guideline overstated the seriousness of his conduct or if there was any improper charge
manipulation. The District Court simply chose not to exercise discretion in granting a
departure. Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to address the issue. United States v.
Hart, 273 F.3d 363, 379 (3d Cir. 2001). In any event, Erlikh has failed to convince us
that, even if we remanded the matter, the District Court would consider granting a
downward departure. The District Court clearly expressed the opinion that Erlikh’s
conduct was very serious and extensive. It stated that the sentence of 108 months was
actually too light and that, but for the recommendation of the government in the plea
agreement, it would have been higher. App. at 2745. There is no basis, on this record, to
assert that the District Court would grant Erlikh a downward departure if he presented
that question to the District Court for the second time. The District Court concluded that,
based on the facts of the case, the sentence was already too lenient.
Finally, Erlikh challenges the District Court’s imposition of $1,000,000 in
restitution. This argument deserves little discussion. The record reveals that Erlikh, as a
top figure at Kings, profited enormously from the elaborate daisy chain scheme, in an
amount well in excess of the restitution amount. He wholly failed to account for the
whereabouts of this huge sum of illegally obtained money. We deem the District Court’s
restitution order to be more than reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1092-93 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v.
Copple, 74 F.3d 479, 484-86 (3d Cir. 1996).
III.
We have thoroughly reviewed all the arguments presented by Erlikh in his
submissions to this Court, and those presented at oral arguments, and find no basis to
disturb the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Judgment of Conviction entered
on April 18, 2000 will be affirmed.
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing opinion.
/s/Robert E. Cowen
United States Circuit Judge

-- 3 of 3 --