USA v. Nezhinskiy et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JUAN VILLAR,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
25-CR-40 (WFK)
On June 16, 2025, Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to receive stolen property, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, charged under a four-count Indictment. See Plea Agreement (the
"Plea") at ,r !, ECF No. 55; see generally Indictment, ECF No. 1. 1 The Court now sentences
Defendant and provides a complete statement of reasons, under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), of those
factors set fo1th by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant
is hereby sentenced to forty-six (46) months' incarceration; one (1) year of supervised release with
both the standard and special conditions of supervision; restitution in accordance with the
forthcoming Order of Restitution; forfeitnre of U.S. currency and items identified in the Order of
Forfeiture, ECF No. 81; and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment.
I. Background
Factual Background
While operating the New York City pawn shop Big Apple General Buyers ("Big Apple")
between November 2020 and January 2025, Defendants Juan Villar ("Defendant") and Dimitry
Nezhinskiy ("Nezhinskiy") conspired together and with South American Theft Groups (the
"SATGs") "to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, and dispose goods, merchandize, and
money, of the value of $5,000 or more." Presentence Investigation Report (the "PSR") at ,r,r 2,
6, ECF No. 68.
To serve as the SATGs' fence, Defendants coached the groups as they "traveled across
the United States engaging in crime tonrism [and] committing bnrglaries" by "targeting jewehy
1 Citations are to the docket in United States v. Nezhinskiy, et al., 25-CR-40. Pincites refer to the ECF
page numbers assigned to a filing, where available, and where no ECF heading is present, to the page
numbers listed in the original filing.
I
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

vendors or wealthier neighborhoods, including the homes of various prominent athletes." Id. at
,r,r 6-7; see also Fence, Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) (A "fence" is "[s]omeone who
receives stolen goods, [usually] with the intent to sell them in a legitimate market"). Although
Defendants did not recruit any SATOs, "smaller fences and other SATO[s] referred SATO[s] to
[Big Apple]" given Defendants' ability "to purchase upwards of$300,000 in stolen goods in a
single transaction" and pay with cash. PSR at ,r 8.
The SATOs proceeded to take "any high-end items they could potentially resell[,]" and
were further instructed by Defendants "to steal items outside of New York to make it easier for
[Defendants] to resell and harder for law enforcement to trace." Id. at ,r 7. As a result of
Defendants' preference for out-of-state theft, the items "crossed a State or United States
boundary after being stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken[.]" Id. at ,r 2; Indictment at ,r 1, ECF
No. I. The stolen goods identified as part of Defendants' scheme can be categorized as follows:
Jewelry, watches, handbags, and miscellaneous luxury items. See PSR at ,r 2.
Nezhinskiy remained "the main point of contact for [the] SATO[s]" throughout the
scheme while Defendant "served as the backup." Id. at ii 9. To avoid detection, "Nezhinskiy
met [the] SATO[s] at alternate locations and made transactions outside of[Big Apple]." Id.
Meanwhile, Defendant would "purchas[e] stolen goods within [Big Apple]," but he remained
"aware of the scope and structure of the fencing operation." Id.
At least six separate burglaries were conducted by SATOs across the United States and
prior to Defendants' arrests. See id. at ,r,r 11-12. At least five of the SATOs' "theft crimes
across the United States between 2020 and 2025" involved Defendants' operation. Id. at ,r 12.
However, only Nezhinskiy was in contact with "at least two members of a four-man burglary
crew involved in the December 9, 2024, burglary of a high-profile athlete in Ohio." Id. at ,r 11.
2
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

Nezhinskiy spoke with the crew members "less than a week prior to the commission of the
burglary," and Probation does not indicate Defendant was in contact with this specific burglary
crew. Id. at ,i 11.
Defendants' criminal activity was discovered when "law enforcement utilized undercover
officers" between October 2022 and January 2024 to "conduct[] controlled sales of purported
stolen property, including high end handbags and luxury accessories, to either Nezhinskiy or
[Defendant], or both, at [Big Apple]." Id. at ,i 10. Evidence exists documenting Defendants'
"recei[pt] [of] at least $2,595,798.19 worth of stolen property" between December 2020 and
February 2023. Id. at ,i 14.
Procedural History
On February 4, 2025, the Federal Bureau of Investigation an-ested Defendant at Big
Apple. See id. at ,i 18. While executing both an arrest and search wan-ant, law enforcement
found "large quantities of stolen property including dozens of high-end watches and jewelry,
large quantities of cash, and marijuana." Id. at ,i 13. Following Defendant's an-est, additional
stolen goods were discovered in storage units belonging to the Defendants in New Jersey. See
id.
On Janumy 30, 2025, a U.S. Grand Jury returned an Indictment asserting four counts:
Count One against Defendants alleged conspiracy to receive stolen property in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 371; Count Two against Defendants alleged receipt of stolen property in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2315; and Counts Three and Four against Nezhinskiy alleged receipt of stolen property
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315. See Indictment at ,i,i 1-5. The Indictment also raised criminal
forfeiture allegations pertaining to all counts. See id. at ,i,i 6-7.
3
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

On June 16, 2025, Defendant pied guilty to Count One of the Indictment, charging him
with conspiracy to receive stolen property from November 2020 to Januaiy 2025 in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 371. See Plea at ,r 1; see also Indictment at ,r,r 1-2. Pursuant to the Plea, Defendant
agreed not to file an appeal or otherwise challenge his sentence if the Court imposed a term of
sixty (60) months' incarceration or below. Plea at ,r 4. The Government agreed "no further
criminal charges [would] be brought against [Defendant] for conspiring to and actually receiving
and possessing stolen property between November 2020 and February 2025." Id. at ,r 5.
Additionally, the Government agreed to dismiss Count Two of the Indictment with prejudice as
to Defendant at the time of sentencing. See id.
On July 18, 2025, Nezhinskiy pied guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Nezhinskiy
Plea Agreement at ,r 1, ECF No. 63. He is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday, March 23,
2026. See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 67.
II. Legal Standard
Congress set forth the procedures for imposing a sentence in a criminal case in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553. Together with 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines (the
" Sentencing Guidelines," or "Guidelines," or "U.S.S.G.") operate as the "starting point and ...
initial benchmark" for a court evaluating a criminal sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
49 (2007). If and when a trial court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing
Guidelines range, the comt "shall state-in open court-the reasons for its imposition of the
particular sentence, and ... the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from
that described" in the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). The court must also "state[] with
specificity" its reasons for so depaiting "in a statement of reasons form." Id. The court's
statement ofreasons "shall be a simple, fact-specific statement explaining why the guidelines
4
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

range did not account for a specific factor or factors under§ 3553(a)." United States v. Davis,
08-CR-332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010) (Weinstein, J.) (internal citation
omitted).
When determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider seven different
factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the
kinds of sentence and the sentence range established by the Guidelines; (5) any pertinent policy
statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records found guilty of similar
conduct; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a). The Comt now addresses each factor in turn.
III. Analysis
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics
of Defendant
The first§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l).
1. Family and Personal Background
Defendant was born on January 22, 1977, in Queens, New York, to the union of his
father, Juan Carlos Villar, Sr., and his mother, Carmen Rosa Villar (nee Urquiza). See PSR at ii
45. Defendant's father passed away in 2001 after suffering a heart attack. See id. Prior to his
passing, Defendant's father "did odd jobs, which involved being a supply manager at a
restaurant, operating a car delivery service for car auctions, and co-owning a bar (with his
mistress)." Id. Defendant's mother "is a retired accountant and professional gift wrapper." Id.
5
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

Defendant was previously married to Noris Mercedes Sabogal ("Sabogal"). See id. at ,r
49. Defendant and Sabogal were married "in either 2000 or 2001," and divorced on October 5,
2010, due to Defendant "not giv[ing] her attention" because "he was young, foolish, and making
a lot of money." Id (internal quotation marks omitted). Sabogal is forty-six years old and
presently lives in Florida where she is employed as a nurse. See id. Defendant married Daphne
Z. Kohavy ("Kohavy") on December 4, 2013, and the couple share one eleven-year-old son
named Ariel Kohavy Villar ("Ariel"). See id. at ,r 50. Kohavy is forty-six years old, lives in
Queens, New York, and works as a teacher. See id.
Defendant and his mother reportedly suffered abuse "at the hands of his father," who had
a history of drug use and was "subsequent[ly] arrest[ed] and incarcerat[ed] for narcotics."
Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum ("Defs Sent'g Mem.) at 2-3, ECF No. 77; see also PSR
at ,r,r 45, 47. Defendant believed the impetus for his father's abusive conduct was the physical
abuse his father sustained from Defendant's maternal grandmother. PSR at ,r 47. Defendant's
father "used to slap and kick at [Defendant], and when [Defendant] made mistakes, [his] father
asked [him] why he was stupid before slapping him across the face, causing [Defendant] to bleed
from his lip." Id (internal quotations marks omitted). Defendant also reported witnessing "his
mother bleed from her nose as a result of [his] father physically abusing her" when he was seven
or eight years old. Id. His father had a history of abusing both cocaine and alcohol-which
Defendant witnessed on family vacations alongside finding drug paraphernalia in their home
and was sentenced to fifty months' incarceration for a narcotics-related offense in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. See id. at ,r,r 45, 47. After release from
custody, Defendant's father "relocated to Florida to escape negative influences in New York."
Id. atif 47.
6
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 6 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

Defendant "was primarily reared by his mother" as "[a] lifelong resident of Queens." Id.
at ,r 47. Defendant described his mother as a "good role model." Id His mother is now eighty
years old and "lives alone at the address of record in Queens." Id. at ,r 45. She is in poor health,
suffering from "high cholesterol, hypertension, and diabetes." Id. Additionally, his mother
suffered a fall on or around March 2025 which resulted in hip replacement surgery,
rehabilitation, and now ambulation with a walker. See id. In late November and early December
2025, Defendant's "mother suffered from multiple miniature strokes, resulting in her ongoing
hospitalization through at least December 10, 2025." Id.
During Defendant's marriage to Kohavy, Defendant "alternated between living with his
mother and living with his wife." Id. at ,r 50. Defendant states he was the "full-time caretaker
for his mother" prior to his arrest, given "his wife does not have a good relationship with his
mother" and therefore "does not involve herself in being present for [Defendant's] mother."
Defs Sent'g Mem. at 7; PSR at ,r 45.
Defendant disclosed he was "the victim of sexual abuse as a child" which was perpetrated
by his childhood friend's older brother. PSR at ,r 48. He believes the abuse "affected his
experience with relationships ... in a negative manner, such that it caused [Defendant] to feel he
was being taken advantage of by others to develop feelings of mistrnst in them." Id.; Defs
Sent'g Mem. at 3. This physical and sexual abuse was confirmed by Defendant's wife and
further confirmed by treatment Defendant received from the Manhattan-based Crime Victims
Treatment Center. See Defs Sent'g Mem. at 3; see generally PSR at ,r 48 (indicating Kohavy
knew of the sexual abuse Defendant faced).
Defendant reported Kohavy is "barely" able to provide for their son Ariel, who was
diagnosed with "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and, because of [Defendant's]
7
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 7 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

instant arrest" has "missed a scheduled psychological evaluation, which he has not [yet] made
up." PSR at 150. There are reports Ariel has been "shutting down at school and has stopped
participating in events at school and after school programming, such as sports." Id (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Kohavy stated she was shocked to learn of Defendant's instant arrest and described him
as "selfless" and "hard working[.]" Id. at 151. She also stated Defendant was a good father and
a good son. Id. Defendant reported a good relationship with his mother who is aware of his
involvement in the instant offense but nonetheless remains supportive of him. Id. at 145.
Defendant has a paternal half-brother named Roberto Greco ("Greco"). See id. at 146.
However, Defendant "does not have much of a relationship with him and has only conversed
with him by phone a few times." Id. Greco is reportedly between sixty and seventy years old.
See id.
Family members and friends have written letters in support of Defendant, including his
mother, his mother-in-law, and his sister-in-law. See Def. Sent'g Mem., Ex. A.
2. Educational and Employment History
Defendant earned his high school diploma from Forest Hills High School on January 31,
I 997. See PSR at 161. Defendant achieved "a cumulative academic average of 65.39%" and
had "no disciplinary records on file[;]" if Defendant had any disciplinmy records, the school
advised the records "were expunged upon his graduation on Janua1y 31, 1997." Id. Defendant
reported attending night classes at Jamaica High School in Queens during unspecified dates in
the 1990s. See id. at 162.
Defendant's first record of employment was as a stockman and stationmy store worker at
numerous businesses. See id. at 167. "From the mid-I 990s through early 2000s, [Defendant]
8
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 8 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

worked as a bail bondsman." Id. Defendant would return to working as a bail bondsman after
leaving work as "a clerk and salesman at a luxury car dealership." Id. From some unspecified
period between Defendant's work as a bail bondsman and luxury car salesman, Defendant also
"tried but was unsuccessful at being a real estate contractor." Id. Income from these numerous
employment opportunities was not reported. See id.
From 2012 to 2016, Defendant was a manager at Marvin's Bail Bond in Bronx, New
York. See id. at ,r 66. Defendant reported "earn[ing] $1,000[.00] each week." See id. "He
withdrew himself from this company" to begin work at the Elite Bail Bond Agency "due to
issues with customer complaints and collateral returns related to [Marvin's Bail Bond] taking too
long to return money to its customers." Id.
Defendant was also a manager at Elite Bail Bond Agency for two years, where he
"handled business paperwork and maintained contact with defendants on bond." Id. Defendant
"earned between $3,000[.00] and $5,000[.00] each month." Id. at ,r 65. Defendant was let go
from the company in 2018 "because of the collateral financial consequences that bail reform in
New York City had on this business and the bail bonds industry" in general. Id.
Defendant's last record of employment prior to his arrest was as the sole owner of Big
Apple, the business referenced in the instant case, which was established in October 2018 and
located in the Diamond District of Manhattan, New York. See id. at ,r 64. Defendant "stated he
earned between $60,000[.00] and $100,000[.00] annually, and this business earned as much as
$5,000,000[.00] (gross) on average each year." Id. Defendant's employment naturally halted
upon his airnst pursuant to the instant offense conduct on February 4, 2025. See id.
9
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 9 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

3. Prior Convictions
Defendant has two adult criminal convictions prior to the instant case. On January 1,
2001, Defendant was arrested after "us[ing] a metal flashlight to strike a male victim in the head
multiple times and break the ... glass front door" of"the Bora Bora Club on Steinway Street in
Queens, New York." Id. at ,r 37. "The victim required seven stitches to close his laceration, and
the damage to the ... door exceeded $250[.00]." Id. The Queens County Criminal Court
convicted Defendant ofassault in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor. See id. Defendant
was sentenced to one-year conditional discharge on February 28, 2001. See id. On April 7,
2005, a certificate ofreliefwas issued in the case. See id.
On March 16, 2009, Defendant was arrested after "submitt[ing] a false bail bond" in the
New York County Supreme Court. Id. at ,r 38. The New York County Supreme Comi charged
Defendant with offering a false instrument to file in the first degree, a Class E felony. See id.
On July 8, 2009, Defendant was sentenced to six months' custody and five-years of probation.
See id. On August 27, 2013, Defendant was discharged early from probation. See id. On
October 15, 2014, a certificate ofreliefwas issued in the case. See id.
4. Physical and Mental Health
Defendant reported "he has high cholesterol, a fatty liver, and an enlarged prostate"
which precipitates "lower urinary tract symptoms." Id. at ,r 55-56. Additionally, Defendant is
prediabetic and suffers from hyperlipidemia, or "high levels offat in the blood." See id. at ,r 56.
During the course ofhis detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center Brooklyn
("MDC"), Defendant suffered an accident on October 14, 2025, and was hospitalized for an
unrelated event on October 23, 2025. See id. at ,r 57. On October 14, 2025, Defendant "lost his
grip while climbing down from his bunkbed and hit his head on a metal ladder." Id. Defendant
10
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 10 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

"complain[ed] of intermittent ringing and hearing loss in his right ear" following the accident.
Id. When "trace amounts of dry blood [was] found in his inner right ear," Defendant "was
examined and found to have ... a ruptured tympanic membrane in his right auditory canal." Id.
Defendant was "referred for a supplemental evaluation with an ... ear, nose, and throat ...
doctor." Separately, on October 23, 2025, Defendant was sent to Brooklyn Hospital because of a
"longstanding history of prediabetes ... intermittent hematuria (blood in the urine), prostate
enlargement, [and] significant frequency nocturia (the need to urinate at night)." Id.
Defendant "takes 81 milligrams of baby aspirin as a preventative measure" given a
family history of heart-related issues. Id. at ,i 55. Medical records from MDC report Defendant
is also prescribed two medications "to be taken once daily": (1) 0.40 milligrams of tamsulosin
hydrocholoride following his hospitalization for "treat[ing] enlarged prostates and assist[ing]
with easier urination"; and (2) 10.00 milligrams of atorvastatin for "reduc[ing] fat in the blood
and prevent[ing] heart disease." Id. at ,i 56.
Defendant did not report any histmy of mental or emotional health conditions, suicidal
ideation, or gambling issues. See id. at ,i 58. Defendant's medical records at MDC also "do not
reflect any mental or emotional health history for [Defendant]." Id.
However, Defendant received treatment "sometime in 2014 or 2015 at the Crime Victims
Treatment Center in Manhattan," a provider of "treatment services for survivors of sexual
assault." Id. Additionally, Kohavy reported believing Defendant had "severe anxiety." Id.
Defendant reported he believed "he may have undiagnosed ADHD." Id.
11
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 11 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

5. Substance Abuse
Defendant reports "a history of using marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, and alcohol." Id. at 1
59. Defendant "believes his experience with sexual abuse caused him to abuse drugs and
alcohol." Id.
Defendant began smoking marijuana at sixteen years old-when his friends introduced
him to the drug-and continued using marijuana at one or two cigarettes daily "until the time of
his arrest for the instant offense conduct." Id. Defendant stated he abused marijuana "to calm
him down from being hyper." Id (internal quotation marks omitted).
Defendant abused cocaine at unspecified amounts "a couple of times per week" from
1998 to 2001. See id (internal quotation marks omitted). He stopped using cocaine after a
negative experience while picking up Sabogal from school, where Defendant "used so much
cocaine that he could not breathe." Id.
Defendant also used ecstasy on two "holiday weekends in 2011." Id. Defendant did not
report continued use of ecstasy after 2011. See id.
Defendant "first staiied drinking alcohol as a high school student in 1992." Id. This
caused Defendant to "cut class[]," which resulted in him taking night classes. Id. Defendant's
preference for alcohol was wine as he "continued to drink alcohol into his adulthood." Id.
Defendant reported drinking "at a rate of once or twice per month" with the intention of
"black[ing] out." Id.
6. Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The CoUJi's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Pali I.
12
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

B. The Need for the Sentence Imposed
The second§ 3553(a) factor instructs the Court to consider "the need for the sentence
imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, 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 vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in
the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
The Court's sentence recognizes the seriousness of Defendant's conduct. Defendants'
"creat[ion of] a cash-based marketplace for stolen items ... motivated individuals to engage in a
nationwide series of burglaries and thefts" and "created a marketplace for the products of
dangerous residential burglaries and retail thefts." Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 4. This "criminal
conduct was serious and directly enabled others to engage in conduct that creates a substantial
risk to human life." Id. The Court's sentence will deter Defendant and others from engaging in
similar conduct, justly punish Defendant for his crimes, and protect the public from Defendant's
actions. Accordingly, the Court's sentence is "sufficient, but not greater than necessmy" to
comply with the purposes set forth in this factor. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
The third§ 3553(a) factor requires the Cami to detail "the kinds of sentences available"
for Defendant. 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(3). Defendant pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit interstate transportation of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 371. Plea at ,r 1.
Defendant faces a maximum term of five years' imprisonment and no minimum term.
See 18 U.S.C.§ 371. Defendant also faces a maximum term of three years of supervised release.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(2), 3559(a)(4). If a condition of release is violated, Defendant may be
13
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

sentenced to up to two years of imprisonment without credit for pre-release imprisonment or
time previously served on post-release supervision. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3583(e). Defendant is
eligible for a term of probation of one to five years. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3561(c)(l). Unless
extraordinary circumstances exist, the Court must impose one of the following as a condition of
probation: a fine, restitution, or period of community service. See 18 U.S.C.§ 3563(a)(2).
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for Defendant's
Offense
The fourth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to discuss "the kinds of sentence and the
sentencing range established for ... [t]he applicable category of offense committed by the
applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines." Id. § 3553(a)(4)(A).
The Government and Defendant stipulated to an estimated Total Adjusted Offense Level
of 21 in the Plea.2 Id. at ,r 2.
The applicable provision of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") is§
2Xl.1, which directs the Court to apply the "base offense level for the substantive offense."
U.S.S.G.§ 2Xl.l(a). Here, the base offense level for the substantive office-receipt of stolen
goods-is found in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, which covers, inter alia, forms of theft. See U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1. Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1. l(a)(2), Defendant has a Base Offense Level of 6. See id; PSR at
,r 23; Government's Sentencing Memoranda ("Gov't Sent'g Mem.") at 3, ECF No. 78; Plea at ,r
2.
The parties also agree certain adjustments should apply to Defendant. First, U.S.S.G. §
2B 1.1(b )( 1 )(I) adds 16 levels because the total loss stemming from the offense-based on the
2 The parties originally calculated the Total Adjusted Offense Level as 24. See Plea at 12. However, the
parties fmiher stipulated that the Total Adjusted Offense Level would be subject to a two-level reduction
if Defendant "clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility," and a one-level reduction should
Defendant "plead[] guilty on or before July 16, 2025." Id.
14
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 14 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

Government's estimates and Defendant's plea agreement-was greater than $1,500,000.00, but
less than $3,500,000.00. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.l(b)(l)(I); PSR at124; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea
at12.
Second, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.l(b)(2)(A)(i) adds 2 levels because the offense involved ten (10)
or more victims.3 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.l(b)(2)(A)(i); PSR at 125; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea at1
2.
Third, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.l(b)(4) add 2 levels because the offense involved receiving stolen
property, and Defendant was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property. U.S.S.G. §
2B1.l(b)(4); PSR at126; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea at12.
Fourth, U.S.S.G. § 2B1.l(b)(l0)(C) adds 2 levels because the offense involved
sophisticated means, and Defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting
sophisticated means. U.S.S.G. § 2B1. l(b)(l0)(C); PSR at127; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea at
The parties have varying opinions on whether certain mitigation factors apply to
Defendant. The parties agree a three-level reduction should apply for Defendant's timely
acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. §§ 3El.l(a) and (b). U.S.S.G. §§ 3El.l(a)-(b); PSR
at 1132-33; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea at 12.
The parties also agree a two-level reduction should apply because Defendant qualifies as
a Zero-Point Offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 4Cl.l(a) and (b). See U.S.S.G. §§ 4Cl.l(a)-(b);
PSR at 134; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea at 12.
3 All parties agree ten or more victims were involved in this case, although neither Probation, the
Government, or Defendant states the specific facts underlying the finding. See PSR at 1 25; see also
Gov'! Sent'g Mem. at 3; see also Plea at 12.
15
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 15 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

However, the parties disagree on whether a two-level reduction should apply due to
Defendants role in the instant offense. Defendant argues "that pursuant to [U.S.S.G.J § 3Bl.2(b),
the written Plea Agreement, and the facts of the instant offense, [Defendant] is entitled to a two
level mitigating role reduction" because Defendant "only participated in a secondary, contingent
capacity, did not plan or organize the conduct, recruit participants, control proceeds, or direct
others, and his financial benefit was limited." Addendum to the PSR ("Add. to the PSR") at 1,
ECF No. 79; see also Defs Sent'g Mem. at 4-7. Thus, the Defendant believes the Total
Adjusted Offense Level is 21. See Defs Sent'g Mem. at 4--7 (noting such a position is in
conformity with the Plea which sets forth a Total Adjusted Offense Level of 21 ); see also Plea at
,r 2. The Government agrees with Defendant on the stipulation within the Plea and "inclusion of
credit for a mitigating role." Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3-4. Nevertheless, the U.S. Probation
Department maintains its recommendation of a Total Adjusted Offense Level of 23 because "the
Government [did] not assert any factual objections to the narrative of the PSR that would support
[the] reduction[,]" and therefore the reduction is "not supported by the underlying facts." Add.
to the PSR at 1; see PSR at ,r 35. Probation also reminds this Court it is not bound by the Plea.
See Add. to the PSR at I.
Defendant's Criminal History Category is I despite having two criminal convictions. See
U.S.S.G. § 4Al.1; PSR at ,r,r 37-40; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Defs Sent'g Mem. at 4.
Defendant's convictions are not counted for purposes of computing criminal history because the
prior sentences of imprisonment (I) did not exceed one year and one month, and (2) were not
16
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 16 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

imposed within ten years of Defendant's commencement of the instant offense. See U.S.S.G.§
4Al . 2(e)(l)-(3); see also PSR at 1i[ 37-40.
Because the parties disagree on the applicable reductions, their calculations of the
applicable Guidelines range differ. See generally Add. to the PSR. Probation calculated a Total
Adjusted Offense Level of 23 and a Criminal History Catego1y ofl, which results in a
Guidelines range of forty-six (46) to fifty-seven (57) months' incarceration. The Government
calculated a Total Adjusted Offense Level of21 and a Criminal History Categ01y ofl, which
results in a Guidelines range of thirty-seven (3 7) to forty-six (46) months' incarceration. See
U.S.S.G. § SA. Defendant did not provide a specific Guidelines calculation but stipulated to a
Total Adjusted Offense Level of21 and a Criminal History Categ01y ofl in the Plea. Plea at 12.
Probation recommends a Guidelines sentence of forty-six (46) months' incarceration
followed by one (I) year of supervised release with four special conditions; mandatory
restitution to be determined; and payment of a $100.00 mandatory special assessment. Probation
Sent' g Recommendation at 1, ECF No. 68-1. The Government recommends a Guidelines
sentence between thirty-seven (37) to forty-six (46) months' incarceration. Gov't Sent'g Mem.
at 4. Defense counsel recommends incarceration in the form of home confinement to
Defendant's mother's residence for the duration of his unspecified sentence. Def's Sent'g Mem.
at 7. This Court appreciates the sentencing arguments raised by all parties and has seriously
considered each in turn.
E. Pertinent Policy Statement(s) of the Sentencing Commission
The fifth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "any pertinent policy
statement ... issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5). The parties have
17
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 17 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

not drawn the Court's attention to any applicable policy statements. Finding none on its own, the
Court proceeds to the next§ 3553(a) factor.
F. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
The sixth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted
sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The parties have not raised arguments regarding
unwarranted sentencing disparities in this case. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and
Order, and considering the other six§ 3553(a) factors, the Court's sentence avoids unwarranted
sentence disparities.
G. The Need to Provide Restitution
Finally, the seventh§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to touch upon "the need to
provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(7).
Pursuant to the Plea, Defendant agreed to a Restitution Order "in the full amount of each
victim's losses as determined by the Court" and consistent with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A and 3664.
See Plea at 1 1. The U.S. Probation Department's investigation only revealed a response from
one victim thus far ("Victim- I") whom "SATG members committed a robbe1y of ... on October
26, 2022." PSR at 116. The jewelry stolen from Victim-l's store "was later sold to
Nezhinskiy." Id. Victim-l's Affidavit of Loss to Probation "indicat[ed] a remaining total loss of
$185,250 in lost property." Id.
As of the time of sentencing, no other responses have been received regarding victim
losses. The Court reserves its right, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3664(d)(5), to hold an evidentiary
hearing within ninety (90) days after sentencing to determine the specific amounts owed to
Defendant's victims. The Court will issue a Final Order of Restitution accordingly.
18
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 18 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court sentences Defendant to forty-six (46) months'
incarceration; one (1) year of supervised release with both the standard and special conditions of
supervision; restitution as set forth in the forthcoming Order of Restitution; forfeiture of items
identified in the Order of Forfeiture, issued on February 12, 2026; and a $100.00 mandatory
special assessment. This sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to accomplish the
purposes of§ 3553(a)(2). The Court does not impose a fine given Defendant's present financial
circumstances.
The Court expressly adopts the factual findings of the Presentence Investigation Report
and Addenda thereto, as corrected herein, to the extent those findings are not inconsistent with
this opinion.
Dated: February 18, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERED.
__. HON. WILLIAM F. fe:6Afz:_.iy7
UNITED STATE�✓DISTRICT JUDGE
19
s/WFK
Case 1:25-cr-00040-WFK Document 83 Filed 02/18/26 Page 19 of 19 PageID #:
<pageID>