UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ANDREY SHUKLIN, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the government’s January 14, 2022,

Motion to Amend the Court’s Restitution Procedures for this Case and Continue the 

Restitution Determination (Doc. 223). For the reasons stated more fully below, the 

Court GRANTS the government’s Motion (Doc. 223) and ADOPTS the government’s 

proposed procedures for setting restitution in this matter. 

BACKGROUND

There are twelve defendants in this case. Five of those defendants have pled 

guilty and been sentenced; three have pled guilty and await sentencing; and one is 

currently scheduled for trial in October 2022. The remaining three defendants are 

fugitives and are believed to be overseas. (Mot., Doc. 223, #14001 n.1).

The Court sentenced the first Defendant in this matter, Roman Iakovlev, on 

September 4, 2020. (Sept. 4, 2020, Minute Entry). At that time, the Court ordered 

restitution in the amount of $2,467,807.39. (Id.). On November 25, 2020, however, 

1 Refers to PAGEID #.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 246 Filed: 05/25/22 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1627
2

the Court issued an Order governing the procedures regarding restitution moving 

forward. (Doc. 168). Under that Order, the Court stated that it would impose a 

preliminary restitution amount at each Defendant’s sentencing based on the 

government’s presentation of evidence. (Id. at #872). However, the Court would defer 

identification of victims and the precise amount owed to each until the conclusion of 

the case. (Id.). That plan would allow each Defendant to immediately begin paying 

restitution after their sentencing, and the funds paid toward restitution would be 

held until the conclusion of the case—at which time a final restitution award would 

be imposed in the specific amount of each victim’s loss. (Id.).

When the Court sentenced the next two Defendants, Vladimir Pestereanu and 

Seth Nezat, the Court ordered them jointly and severally liable for restitution. 

(Pestereanu Sentencing Minutes, Doc. 197; Nezat Sentencing Minutes, Doc. 221). 

However, the Court deferred determination of the preliminary restitution amount for 

ninety days, until a more specific preliminary amount could be determined. 

(Pestereanu J., Doc. 198, #1123; Nezat J., Doc. 221, #1392).

Rather than set a preliminary amount now, however, the government asks that 

the Court revise its November 25, 2020, Order. (Mot., Doc. 223, #1398). Under the 

government’s proposal, the Court would defer determining the amount of restitution 

owed by Pestereanu and Nezat until after the last Defendant in this matter is 

sentenced.2 (Id. at #1405). Further, for the remaining Defendants to be sentenced, 

2 In its Motion, the government states that its “references to the ‘last Defendant’ refer to the 

last Defendant sentenced who is currently in federal custody; i.e., the proposed procedure 

does not contemplate waiting to sentence Defendants who are currently fugitives.” (Doc. 223, 

#1404 n.2).

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 246 Filed: 05/25/22 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 1628
3

the Court would order restitution at sentencing and defer determination of the 

restitution amount until after the last Defendant is sentenced. (Id.). Neither Nezat 

nor Pestereanu object to this request. (Id.). 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (the “MVRA”) provides that, “when

sentencing a defendant convicted of an [applicable] offense ... the court shall order, 

in addition to ... any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make 

restitution to the victim of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). Restitution under 

the MVRA is mandatory and, thus, the Court is required to “order restitution to each 

victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court,” without 

regard for the defendant’s ability to pay. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A).

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5), “[i]f the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by 

the date that is 10 days prior to sentencing ... the court shall set a date for the final 

determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.” However, 

in Dolan v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “a sentencing court that 

misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution—at 

least where ... the sentencing court made clear prior to the deadline’s expiration that 

it would order restitution, leaving open (for more than 90 days) only the amount.” 560 

U.S. 605, 607 (2010); see also United States v. Luke, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20568, at 

*8 (6th Cir. Jul. 10, 2019) (“Although 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5) instructs that a district 

court should determine restitution within ninety days of sentencing, a district court 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 246 Filed: 05/25/22 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 1629
4

retains the power to award restitution after that point if it has previously indicated 

that it would order restitution.”).

In this case, the Court previously ordered Nezat and Pestereanu to pay

restitution and delayed setting only the amount. Because Nezat and Pestereanu were 

thus on notice that restitution would be ordered, the Court concludes that it is not 

required to set a finalized amount within ninety days of sentencing. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the government’s Motion 

(Doc. 223) and ADOPTS the government’s proposed procedures for setting 

restitution in this matter. Accordingly, the Court REVISES its November 25, 2020, 

Order regarding Restitution (Doc. 168). As to Nezat and Pestereanu, the Court will 

determine restitution when the last defendant in this matter is sentenced.3 Similarly, 

with regard to the remaining defendants in this matter who have yet to be sentenced, 

the Court will order restitution at sentencing and defer determination of the 

restitution amount until after the last Defendant is sentenced. 

SO ORDERED.

May 25, 2022

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 As in the government’s Motion, this Order’s references to the “last Defendant” refers to the 

sentencing of the last Defendant currently in federal custody. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 246 Filed: 05/25/22 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 1630