- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Case No. 1:18-cr-00109-008

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Timothy S. Black)

:

-vs- :

:

ROMAN IAKOVLEV, : 

:

Defendant. :

 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Defendant, Roman Iakovlev (“Defendant”), through counsel, respectfully offers this 

Sentencing Memorandum in response to the Final Presentence Report (“PSR”) submitted by the 

United States Probation Office (“Probation”).

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The facts and the procedural history of this case are thoroughly and accurately detailed in 

the final PSR prepared by probation. For that reason, counsel will not fully restate the facts and 

procedural history herein; rather, counsel will refer to the facts and procedural history as 

needed. Probation filed its final PSR on July 27, 2020. With the initial PSR, counsel was given an 

opportunity to address clerical and factual issues, as well as raise objections to the PSR. Any 

objections were addressed by probation, and there are no issues and/or objections left 

unresolved. However, notwithstanding this, Defendant did reserve the right to argue for a 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 822
- 2 -

below-guideline sentence due to his minimal role in the conspiracy which is the subject of the 

Indictment against him and others. The Defendant now submits his Sentencing Memorandum in 

support of a sentence below the recommended guideline range. 

II. THE STATUTORY PURPOSES OF SENTENCING: "SUFFICIENT BUT NOT GREATER THAN 

NECESSARY" 

This Court is better aware than defendant’s undersigned counsel of the relevant legal 

aspects of sentencing. Rather than waste the Court's time in reanalyzing the numerous cases 

regarding sentencing, suffice it to say that sentencing is at the discretion of the Court. 18 U.S.C. 

§3553(a) specifies the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence. Distilled down, this 

exercise calls for an evaluation of the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of recidivism and 

the resulting necessary degree of punishment. The sentencing determination “involves an 

exercise in judgment, not a mathematical proof.”1 In this case, Probation has concluded that 

Defendant’s proper Guideline Total Offense Level is 22 and a Criminal History Category I. The

corresponding sentencing range is 41 to 51 months of incarceration. Notably, Probation has not 

made a recommendation to this Court, only specifying the Guideline range. Defendant takes no 

issue with the PSR or the Guideline calculation. However, Defendant would like to point out that 

his role in this conspiracy, with which it is believed the Court is well familiar, details a very 

minimal participation. As a matter of fact, if the Court looks to the Statement of Facts attached 

to the Plea Agreement, it is very easy to determine the nature and extent of this Defendant's 

involvement in the conspiracy. Again, distilled down, his involvement entailed the actual 

1 United States v. Grossman, 513 F. 3d 592, 596 (6th Cir. 2008).

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: 823
- 3 -

unloading of boxes and property at the warehouse in Charlotte, North Carolina, that he 

managed; and then advising the executive offices in Florida as to the total number of cubic feet 

that the unloaded property occupied. Nothing more. This Defendant had nothing to do with the 

pricing that was issued to the various customers of the moving enterprises, nor did this 

Defendant have any contact whatsoever with these customers as far as refusing to return 

property or refusing to give any type of refund. Simply put, Defendant simply notified his 

superiors as to the total amount of cubic feet that the property had taken up in the warehouse. 

It would be disingenuous for this Defendant to argue that he was not aware that the company 

was, in fact, overcharging its customers. In hindsight, Defendant recognizes that he certainly 

should have done something about it. For this he is very sorry.

III. NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE 

 

As mentioned, the PSR sets forth the nature and circumstances of the offense as set forth 

in the Indictment. This Defendant takes no issue with probation's analysis. However, this 

Defendant would like to highlight the fact that he did not even move to the United States until 

January 2015, long after any criminal enterprise had been entered into by the various codefendants. When he did move to the United States from Volgograd, Russia, the only people 

that Defendant knew were others who had immigrated from Russia to the United States. This

includes his sister and her family who are located in Charlotte, North Carolina. However, he also 

knew an individual by the name of Andre Shuklin, who is a co-defendant in this case. Mr. Shuklin 

offered Defendant a job, and he readily accepted. At the time, his English was very, very limited.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: 824
- 4 -

Defendant is in no way attempting to avoid responsibility for his criminal conduct. As 

mentioned in the Plea Agreement itself, Defendant acknowledged that he knew that unlawful 

activities were taking place, and he assisted in those unlawful activities that were primarily 

perpetrated by other co-defendants. The fact that he went along with those criminal activities is 

no excuse. However, again, it is highlighted to the Court that his actual involvement in anything 

that had to do with the moving enterprises was extremely limited. It is requested by Defendant 

that the Court take this into consideration in fashioning a sentence that is "sufficient but not 

greater than necessary" to punish him for his involvement.

IV. CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT

Defendant is now 33 years old and has always been a non-violent, law-abiding citizen. He 

has no criminal history whatsoever. Defendant entered the United States in January 2015, after 

he won a "green card lottery" in Russia. Defendant had visited his sister in the United States and 

enjoyed his time here and realized that it truly is the land of opportunity. Having grown up in 

Russia, he sought the freedom and entrepreneurship that was afforded to all of those in the 

United States. 

Defendant was very fortunate in being raised in an upper middle-class family in Russia. 

His parents have always been very attentive and supportive to him, and he certainly has no 

complaints about his childhood or the manner in which he grew up. As a young man, Defendant 

was a professional soccer player. He was invited to play for the Russian Olympic team at a very 

young age. Unfortunately, while training he suffered a debilitating and career-ending knee 

injury. It was then he began to focus on academics. He obtained a law degree from Volgograd

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: 825
- 5 -

State University in 2009. He was employed as a lawyer in Russia prior to entering the United 

States. Primarily, he worked as a bailiff for the Russian government. Obviously, coming to the 

United States and working as a "helper" for a moving company and unloading moving vans was a 

bit of step down from being an attorney, but he relished his new opportunities in the United 

States. 

V. THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINE IS MORE THAN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE

 NECESSARY DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT 

 

The sentencing Court is required to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary to comply with the purposes” of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).2 In addition to confinement, 

Probation has recommended that Defendant be placed on supervised release for a term of five 

years.3 It is believed that a period of supervised release is not particularly realistic and is, 

essentially, a moot point. Since Defendant is not a citizen of the United States, although here 

legally, a conviction for an offense such as this will undoubtedly lead to deportation by 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. This presents two issues that Defendant would like the 

Court to consider: First, that being barred from the country that he has longed to reside in for 

many years and never being allowed to come back is very severe punishment for him. He 

recognizes that the damage caused by members of the Moving Enterprises was also devastating 

and for that he is truly sorry. Second, from a practical standpoint, it is likely that Defendant will 

be held by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement for a substantial period of time after any 

sentence imposed by this Court is completed. Unfortunately, counsel cannot site this Court to 

2 Grossman, supra, 513 F. 3d at 594.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: 826
- 6 -

any particular circumstances, where studies that have been done by the government but from 

past experience it is well-known that often times immigrants remain in the custody of the

marshal's office for a substantial period of time after completion of a sentence imposed by a 

sentencing court for their wrongful conduct. This is one of the many reasons why Defendant will 

be requesting that this Court impose a sentence of "time served." Regardless of the sentence 

ultimately imposed, Defendant agrees to these and any other conditions that may be imposed. 

The recommended term of incarceration is more than is necessary to sufficiently punish 

Defendant and ensure that he never engages in such conduct ever again. Defendant has already 

suffered and will to continue to suffer significant repercussions in his personal and professional 

life. Defendant's wife and daughter had only been in the United States for 12 days before he 

was arrested on this particular charge. He has been incarcerated since July 31, 2018. He has not 

seen his daughter at all, although he does communicate with her frequently. The sadness and 

remorse he feels because of this is beyond description.

Before this case, Defendant had never been in any type of trouble, legal or otherwise. 

Given this, coupled with his decision to plead guilty to the crimes as set forth in the Indictment

leads one to conclude that it is highly unlikely that he would ever reoffend. He recognizes the 

wrongful conduct, and he was one of the very first, if not the first, in this Indictment to step 

forward and accept responsibility for his actions. This certainly mitigates in Defendant's favor.

 

3 PSR at p. 22.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: 827
- 7 -

VI. A SENTENCE BELOW THE RECOMMENDED SENTENCE WOULD ADEQUATELY DETER THIS 

TYPE OF CONDUCT AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC 

 

§3553(a) is specifically concerned with the deterrence effect of a sentence, as well as the 

protection such sanctions offer to the public. In this case, since Defendant will undoubtedly be

deported back to Russia, it is a virtual certainty that this country will never see him engaged in 

any type of criminal behavior again. It is also highly likely that his original home, Russia, will not 

see any type of criminal behavior. Moreover, if one of the concerns of the Court pursuant to

§3553 is protection of the public, it is respectfully suggested that deportation from the United 

States will certainly protect all U.S. citizens. In this instance, since Defendant will be suffering, 

and has already suffered, numerous ancillary consequences to his behavior, it is requested that a 

deviation from the guidelines be imposed by this Court.

 

VII. LETTERS OF SUPPORT 

 

 Letters in support of Defendant have been written and submitted directly to the Court in 

camera by people who are able to offer insight into Defendant. It is noteworthy that the 

majority of letters come from Defendant's friends from Russia, whose language is somewhat 

limited. Nevertheless, the statements contained in all of those letters are very heartfelt and 

sincere. The Court will also receive documentation as to Defendant's academic achievements 

while growing up. From a personal standpoint, counsel for Defendant would advise the Court 

that he has never had a client that was so cooperative, so remorseful, and so willing to do

whatever he could to make things right. Counsel believes this is extremely important.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: 828
- 8 -

VIII. MITIGATION SUMMARY 

Defendant highlights several mitigating factors: 

1. Defendant is 33 years old and has no prior convictions;

2. Defendant has in no way minimized his culpability and has fully accepted his 

responsibility in this matter;

3. Defendant has come forward and cooperated in every way he is able; and,

4. Regardless of the sentence ordered, Defendant has the strong support of family

and friends, which will help him in fulfilling any and all Orders of the Court in 

relocating to his native Russia.

 

IX. CONCLUSION 

 Probation has concluded that the Guidelines provide an advisory range of 41 to 51

months in custody. In consideration of the foregoing and especially the advisory nature of the 

Guidelines pursuant to United States v. Booker4, Defendant respectfully requests a downward 

departure to a Guideline range below that recommended by probation. Such a sentence would 

be sufficient to reflect the seriousness of his offense, would promote respect for the law, and

would provide appropriate punishment.5 For these reasons, his sentence of "time served" is 

believed to be the appropriate sentence. 

4 125 S.Ct. 738.

5 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(A).

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: 829
- 9 -

Given the foregoing, Defendant respectfully moves the Court to depart downward from 

the range submitted in the PSR and sentence him as set forth herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward J. McTigue (0002077)

Attorney for Defendant

810 Sycamore Street, Sixth Floor

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Telephone: (513) 338-5611

Facsimile: (513) 241-1572

Email: ejmctigue@cincilaw.net

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on August 27, 2020, I electronically filed the forgoing with the Clerk 

of the United States District Court using the CM/ECF system, which will notify the attorneys of 

record of such filing.

 

Edward J. McTigue (0002077)

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-TSB Doc #: 161 Filed: 08/27/20 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: 830