Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00636/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00636-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Eitan Maximov, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

United States of America, 

Respondent.

No. CV-14-0636-PHX-DGC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Eitan Maximov filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence. He argues that sentencing guidelines were incorrectly applied to him, 

his indictment was defective, and that he received ineffective assistance of trial and 

appellate counsel. Respondent argues that Maximov’s claims are procedurally defaulted 

and meritless. As explained below, the Court recommends that this motion be denied. 

BACKGROUND 

In November 2011, based on a complex series of home purchases and sales, a jury 

in the District of Arizona found Maximov guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit 

wire or bank fraud and one count of bank fraud. (Doc. 10, Ex. D; Ex. A at 6) Maximov, 

through counsel, filed an extensive objection to the Presentence Report. (Doc. 10, Ex. A 

at 6) At sentencing, the Court addressed his objections, accepting some of the 

government’s proposed enhancements and rejecting others. (Doc. 10, Ex. A at 57-75) 

As relevant here, the Court applied the Aggravating Role enhancement, over his 

Case 2:14-cv-00636-DGC Document 15 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

objection, because he was “clearly an organizer” and “the activity in the transaction was 

otherwise extensive within the meaning of guideline section 3B1.1(a) [of the Sentencing 

Guidelines].” (Doc. 10, Ex. A at 68:15-16, 69:1-2) The Court also found that this 

enhancement was applicable because Maximov had recruited straw buyers when needed, 

helped to falsify the straw buyers’ documentation, and involved over a dozen other 

people in the series of transactions. (Id. at 66, 69) At the conclusion of sentencing, the 

Court adjusted Maximov’s final sentencing range down two levels to acknowledge 

approximations in the actual loss calculations. (Doc. 10, Ex. A at 73) The end result was 

an offense level of 29 which translated to a range of 87 to 109 months imprisonment; the 

Court imposed a mid-range sentence of 97 months. (Id. at 75) 

Maximov timely filed a notice of appeal. (Doc. 10, Ex. C) After appellate 

counsel was appointed, Maximov requested an international prison transfer to his home 

country, Israel. (Id.) Maximov apparently learned that international prison transfer 

requests will not be considered during the pendency of an appeal and so he decided to 

dismiss his appeal. (Doc. 10, Ex. B at ¶¶ 5-6) Maximov’s appellate counsel warned him 

that dismissing his appeal would mean that “some of [his] claims may be barred because 

they were not raised on direct appeal.” (Doc. 10, Ex. C at 3) Maximov proceeded with 

the dismissal and executed an affidavit acknowledging that “a voluntary dismissal of [his] 

direct appeal might impact [his] rights to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence 

and serve as a bar to consideration of certain issues.” (Doc. 10, Ex. B at ¶ 8) 

On March 28, 2014, Maximov timely filed his Section 2255 motion in this Court 

along with a supporting affidavit and memorandum where he argues that the sentencing 

guidelines were incorrectly applied to him, and that he received ineffective assistance of 

trial and appellate counsel.1

 (Docs. 1, 2, 3) Respondent contends that Maximov’s claims 

are procedurally barred because he did not raise them on direct appeal. (Doc. 10) 

 

1

 His motion also claims that his indictment was defective but he does not provide any support for this claim and so the Court will not consider it. 

Case 2:14-cv-00636-DGC Document 15 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ANALYSIS 

Section 2255 motions are not intended as vehicles to “allow criminal defendants 

repeated opportunities to overturn their convictions on grounds that could have been 

raised on direct appeal.” United States v. Dunham, 767 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1985). 

The Court agrees with the government that he is procedurally barred from raising his 

claims because he failed to raise them in his first direct appeal. See United States v. 

Ratigan, 351 F.3d 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the Court can only review 

Maximov’s claims if he can demonstrate either cause and actual prejudice to explain the 

default, or that he was actually innocent of the charged crime. United States v. Braswell, 

501 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Guess, 203 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

 Maximov argues that his ineffective assistance claim constitutes cause and that he 

was prejudiced because he should have been sentenced under an earlier, more lenient 

version of the sentencing guidelines and, but for his ineffective trial counsel, he would 

have been. He also argues that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising this 

as a viable appellate claim. These arguments are unavailing. First, Maximov repeatedly 

claims that he should have been sentenced under the 1998 version of the sentencing 

guidelines. (Doc 2 at ¶ 7; Doc. 3 at 3-9) However, Maximov was found guilty based on 

conduct that occurred between June 2006 and January 2008. (Doc. 10, Ex. D) This 

means that the relevant sentencing guidelines are the ones that were in effect between 

2006 and 2008, not 1998. See Peugh v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2072 (2013) (ex post 

facto clause violated when defendant receives a higher sentencing range from current 

sentencing guidelines, not a lower range based on guidelines in effect at the time of the 

offense). Maximov has not provided any evidence to show that he was convicted or 

sentenced for crimes that occurred when the 1998 version of the sentencing guidelines 

applied. Instead, the record shows that Maximov was sentenced in accordance with the 

guidelines that were in effect at the time of his offenses. (Doc. 10, Ex. A at 57-75; Ex. E) 

Case 2:14-cv-00636-DGC Document 15 Filed 06/22/15 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Because Maximov was sentenced under the correct version of the sentencing guidelines, 

his trial and appellate counsel could not have been ineffective in this regard. 

Maximov also argues that he was prejudiced when his sentence was impermissibly 

enhanced and because his ineffective counsel failed to object or appeal this issue. 

Specifically, Maximov objects to being characterized as a “leader or organizer” because 

the other participants were not “working” for him and he could not control or direct their 

activities. As a result, Maximov claims the Court should not have imposed the four level 

aggravating role enhancement of his sentence. (Doc. 3 at 21) This argument is not 

persuasive. Maximov’s conclusory arguments, devoid of citations to the record, are not 

enough to show that the Court was clearly erroneous in this regard. United States v. 

Brown, 771 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014). Instead, the Court explained why 

Maximov’s objections were overruled and why Maximov met the sentencing guideline’s 

requirements for an enhancement. Further, Maximov has not shown that his counsel was 

ineffective in this matter: his trial counsel raised an objection to this sentencing 

enhancement and the Court denied it. That is not enough to show that his counsel’s 

performance was objectively unreasonable as required under Strickland v. Washington, 

466 U.S. 668 (1984). 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Eitan Maximov’s Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence be denied. (Doc. 1) 

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because Petitioner has not made 

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, 

Case 2:14-cv-00636-DGC Document 15 Filed 06/22/15 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

the parties have seven days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure 

timely to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may 

result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the district court without 

further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Failure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will 

be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an 

order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 

72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

 Dated this 22nd day of June, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00636-DGC Document 15 Filed 06/22/15 Page 5 of 5