1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREY SHUKLIN, et al.,

Defendants. Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18CR109

Judge Cole

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Now comes Defendant Andrey Shuklin, by and through counsel, and respectfully submits 

the following sentencing memorandum intended to assist this honorable Court in determining a 

sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to fulfill the sentencing purposes set forth in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Mr. Shuklin pleaded guilty to one count of RICO Conspiracy, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). 

I. FLIGHT FROM RUSSIA

Mr. Shuklin was granted asylum on December 3, 2012. See exhibit A, asylum approval. He 

came to the U.S. from Russia in March of 2012 after fleeing Russia for his participation with the

Russian United Democratic Party, also known as the Yabloko party. The Yabloko party is known as 

a Kremlin opponent.1 According to the Library of Congress, it is “[o]ne of the most high-profile 

1 Andrew Osborn, Infighting erupts in Russia’s anti-Kremlin opposition over Alexei Navalny, 

Reuters, February 10, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-navalnyopposition/infighting-erupts-in-russias-anti-kremlin-opposition-over-alexei-navalnyidUSKBN2AA2EK.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1506
2

opposition parties in Russia...”

2 The party “strives to follow the European model of political 

development by supporting a strong civil society and market economy. The party also works closely 

with many environmental and human rights groups, including those that support LGBT equality.”

3

Navalny was a member until he was expelled in 2007.4

Mr. Shuklin fled Russia as a result of his involvement in pro-democracy protests. He worked 

in the legal department of the Yabloko party in the beginning of 2011 leading up to the March 4, 

2012 presidential election. Through that work, he filed paperwork seeking approval to protest. He 

also participated in the protests. Putin’s government arrested more than 300 opposition activists and 

bystanders.5 During the 2012 Russian presidential election, “[o]pposition Yabloko Party head 

Grigoriy Yavlinkiy was disqualified by the CEC on the grounds that over 5% of the signatures he 

gathered were invalid. Many critics argued that he was eliminated because he would have been the

only bona fide opposition candidate on the ballot.”

6

On February 4, 2012, the "For Fair Elections" group sponsored 

peaceful protests in Moscow and other cities. Turnout in Moscow 

was estimated at 38,000 by police but up to 160,000 by the 

organizers. The protesters called for disqualified liberal candidate 

Grigory Yavlinsky (see below) to be permitted to run in the 

presidential election, the release of "political prisoners" such as 

Khodorkovsky, and legal reforms leading to new legislative and 

presidential elections.

7

2 The Russian United Democratic Party “Yabloko” (Rossiiskaia ob”edinennaia demokraticheskaia 

partiia “Iabloko”), Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0029041/ (last visited 

May 2, 2022). 

3

Id.

4

Id.

5 Hundreds held in Russian election protests, Amnesty International, December 5, 2011, 

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2011/12/hundreds-held-russian-election-protests/.

6

Jim Nichol, Specialist in Russian and Eurasion Affairs, Russia’s March 2012 Presidential 

Election: Outcome and Implications, Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2012, 

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R42407.pdf.

7 Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S. Interests, Congressional Research 

Service, May 8, 2006 – March 31, 2014, 

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33407.html#_Toc384219208.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 2 of 13 PAGEID #: 1507
3

After Shuklin’s name was found on the protest related paperwork he had filed, a threat was made 

against his daughter. He was told by a friend who worked for the Russian government that he should 

leave the country. He did on March 3. More arrests were made related to protests after the March 4, 

2012 election.8

II. ROLE IN THE INSTANT OFFENSE

A. The beginning

Mr. Shuklin moved to Miami where he found a Russian speaking community. He spoke no 

English at the time. He met co-defendant Sergei Verlan in Miami. Verlan told Shuklin that, after six 

years in the moving business, he was opening his own moving company and needed an investor. 

Shuklin agreed and said he could get thirty to forty thousand for start-up funds from his family and 

from selling his Russian apartment. Verlan and Shuklin saw an ad for a moving company on Craig’s 

list. They bought it and one truck. Shortly thereafter, they decided Verlan’s Russian accent (Shuklin 

did not speak enough English at the time) was not good for business so they hired co-defendant 

Phyllis Quincones who had a history in the moving business. 

B. The offense conduct

Mr. Shuklin was involved in a criminal conspiracy and is deserving of significant 

punishment. That being said, his specific involvement in the various underlying activity that

constitutes the required “pattern of racketeering” warrants consideration in determining the specific 

punishment appropriate for Mr. Shuklin.

As set forth in paragraph 25 of the Indictment, there were several types of criminal conduct 

at issue in this case. As for Mr. Shuklin’s specific involvement, he was copied on emails with a 

fabricated images of driver’s licenses. Although he did not create or send the image, unquestionably 

8 Russia election: Police arrest 550 at city protests, BBC News Europe, March 5, 2012, 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 3 of 13 PAGEID #: 1508
4

he was aware of it and that it was fraudulent. Separately, he was involved in writing fake customer 

reviews. Further, he was also involved in restarting the enterprise under different names. He did 

direct Phyllis Quincones to start new companies under new names. He did not direct her to lie on 

the forms. He was unaware of the specific question on a form that asked, “Do you have now, or 

have you ever had, any relationship with any other FMCSA Regulated entity within the past 3 

years?” He did not read English well enough to read and complete the form. Quincones did not tell 

him about this question or ask him for direction about how to answer the question. Contrary to the 

government’s claims, the enterprise did not exist solely for the purpose of engaging in criminal 

activity. It is true, as the government stated in its response to the defendants’ objections, that the 

enterprise would not have been able to continue to operate absent restarting itself as a new company 

to distance itself from bad customer reviews. It is true that such conduct is criminal and deserves 

punishment. It is also true that the enterprise made money on correctly-handled moves. The two are 

not mutually exclusive. Differentiating between 100% of the moves involving mistreatment of

customers and a significantly lower percentage involving mistreatment of customers matters for 

sentencing purposes. None of these crimes are the heart of this case.

The heart of this case is the bad customer moves. Here, Shuklin is less culpable than some 

of the other co-defendants. By way of background, the enterprise was involved in moving people 

across states. First, the enterprise bought customer information, called a lead, from a leads company. 

Then, someone from the enterprise’s sales department contacted the customer. Over the phone9, the

customer reported each item to be moved. The salesperson entered the information, by item, into a 

software system called Granot. Granot provides the actual cubic foot estimation for each item. The 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17265820.

9 On a few occasions, a salesperson or a foreman would physically go out to the customer’s house to 

collection information for the binding estimate.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 4 of 13 PAGEID #: 1509
5

salesperson completes the binding estimate by listing each item to be moved, the total estimated 

cubic feet of the total items (as provided by Granot), and any additional services that may be needed 

such as partial or full packing, additional stairs, and special parking arrangements. The customer 

was required to sign the binding estimate. The customer paid for the move in three installments. The 

first installment occurred as a deposit when the binding estimate was signed. The enterprise did not 

make any money at the time of the deposit. The funds went to the lead company, the salesperson, 

the credit card company, and the third-party carrier who would do the final stage of the move. 

Ninety percent of the time, the salesperson created and accepted the binding estimate on his

or her own without talking to anyone in management. The salespeople did have rules, including 

limits on the discounts they can provide to customers. If the salesperson wanted to give a bigger 

discount than permitted by the rules, the salesperson had to get management approval.

Once the customer signed the binding estimate, information regarding the move, particularly 

the estimated cubic feet, was sent to a foreman and a dispatcher. The foreman was an employee 

responsible for checking the software system to see when a move is scheduled, arranging for an

appropriately sized moving vehicle(s) (in general, “moving truck”), arranging for helpers to assist

with the move, and completing the transportation of items from the customer’s home to a Company 

warehouse. Verlan was responsible for training and managing the foremen and running this part of 

the move process.

If, when the foreman arrived at a customer’s home, the customer had items to be moved 

than were not accounted for on the binding estimate, the foreman filled out a revised estimate. The

customers often (and reasonably)10 had more items to be moved than were reported to the sales 

department. The foremen were told to do a revised estimate if there was the slightest increase in 

10 It is difficult to be 100% accurate reporting all furniture and property that has to be moved.

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 5 of 13 PAGEID #: 1510
6

goods to be moved. This form should have been completed prior to any of the customers’ items 

being loaded onto the moving truck. The revised estimate provided a new estimated cubic feet, per 

the foreman’s visual estimation, and listed “additional goods” to be moved that were not included in 

the binding estimate. The customer signed this form and initialed two boxes. One of which stated: 

“[s]hipper moving more items/weight than was first anticipated.” The other of which stated: 

“[r]evised total estimated charges was approved in totality in person/prior to loading.” 

Once all the customer’s items were loaded onto the moving truck, the foreman completed a 

bill of lading and an inventory. The bill of lading listed the “base” cubic feet charged and the 

“additional” cubic feet charged. The additional cubic feet used on the bill of lading is based on the 

foreman’s visual calculation of the space the items took up in the moving truck. An inventory was 

also filled out at the time. The inventory form should have listed every item that was moved. The 

customer signed both the bill of lading and the inventory. The foreman did have the ability to 

provide customer discounts on the bill of lading. The foreman was paid based on a percentage of 

the amount on the bill of lading. The customer paid the second installment at this time. The second

installment should have been 50% of the remaining balance (now based on the bill of lading). Tenpercent of this installment went to the foreman. Additional fees covered labor for the helpers. Any 

fees collected as a result of stairs, or other moving difficulties, went directly to the foreman and 

helpers. Other fees covered packing materials. Generally, 7% of the total paid by customers went to 

the office.

The foreman transported the customers items to an enterprise warehouse to be unloaded. 

The third-party carriers would pick up the customer property from a warehouse and deliver it to its 

end destination. Because the third-party carrier had to reserve a set amount of space on its truck (and 

has thus foregone selling that space to another customer), they demanded advanced payment by the 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 6 of 13 PAGEID #: 1511
7

cubic foot. Herein lies the difference between the footage charged to the customer and what was 

listed on paperwork related to securing the third-party transport. At the warehouse, the customer’s 

property could be strategically packed and organized to take up as little space as possible. Once the 

items were unloaded and stacked on the warehouse floor, either the foreman or the warehouse 

manager filled out and signed the “Foreman Sheet.” The Foreman Sheet listed “actual cubic

footage.” The “actual” or “real” (terms are used interchangeably) cubic feet is determined by how 

much space the customer items took up when stacked on the warehouse floor. The “actual” cubic 

feet were always less than the cubic feet on the bill of lading because the items were stacked more 

efficiently on the warehouse floor than they were stacked in the moving truck. Then, either the 

foreman or the warehouse manager sent all the customer paperwork to the “office.” Shuklin 

received the paperwork at this time.

Lastly, the third-party carrier arrived at the warehouse to complete the move. At that time, 

the closing sheet was prepared. The third-party carrier delivered the customer items to the end 

destination.

The third customer installment was paid at the time of delivery. The enterprise required this 

third installment, the remaining balance, to be paid in cash. However, the enterprise would accept a 

wire transfer if the wire transfer is completed at least 24 hours prior to delivery. The cash policy is 

designed to prevent chargebacks.11

Shuklin did not devise the moving process. He did not train or supervise the foremen. He 

did not tell them or encourage them bump customer prices. The fact he was not in charge of those 

parts of the move does not excuse him of culpability. However, his role in the moving process and, 

additionally, his attempts to help customers should be taken into account. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 7 of 13 PAGEID #: 1512
8

When customers had complaints after their items were loaded and moved by the foreman, 

they would call customer support. Customer support would then bring the issue to Shuklin’s 

attention. Bear in mind, when he receives the forms back in the office, the customer signed this form 

and initialed two boxes. One box stated: “[s]hipper moving more items/weight than was first 

anticipated.” The other box stated: [r]evised total estimated charges was approved in totality in 

person/prior to loading.” Consequently, Shuklin had no reason to know, prior to a customer 

complaint, when something had gone wrong. When he did learn about issues, he worked with 

customers to resolve them. He frequently gave discounts for customers who argued their price had 

been inflated. He also worked to stop the company from bumping customer prices. In an interview 

with the government, a co-defendant stated Shuklin “does not want them bumping customer prices 

anymore, although at one time that is how they thought the business was operated.”

12 His efforts to 

help were far too little and too late to prevent harm to the customers and to avoid a significant

punishment. That being said, they are worth considering with other factors in determining the 

appropriate prison sentence. 

Separately, Mr. Shuklin’s conduct post-raid helped customers. When the government raided 

the enterprise, customers who were currently in the process of being moved were stranded. Rather 

than flee the country or refuse to communicate with the government, Shuklin assisted the

government with those stranded customers. Additionally, one manager at a warehouse in Maryland 

had encrypted customer move information. The government could not access the information. 

Accordingly they asked for help. Shuklin assisted in getting the information decrypted. 

11 A chargeback, as an example, is where a customer would call their credit card company to stop a 

payment before it was processed.

12 At the Court’s request, documentary support can be provided under seal. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 8 of 13 PAGEID #: 1513
9

III. PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Overall, Shuklin had a positive childhood. Shuklin’s parents divorced when he was five or 

six years old. His father left, leaving his mother with two children alone. She obtained a job that was 

two hours away from their home. As a result, she sent Shuklin to live with his grandparents. His 

older brother, four years his senior, stayed with his mom. Then, when he was thirteen years old, he 

lived at a military school. He would see his mother on the weekends when he was allowed to visit 

home on account of good grades. Later, his mother did not want him to have a career in the military. 

She pulled him out of military school when he was fifteen years old and put him in high school. 

Although he spent significant time away from his mother, he is grateful for the choices she made for 

his future. In Russia, all men are obligated to join the military unless they pursue a college degree

and then pursue a Ph.D. Shuklin was in the process of a Ph.D program in economics when he was 

forced flee. See Exhibit B, certifications.

13

Family and friends have written letters to this Court describing Shuklin’s character. He is 

extremely involved in his family’s life. He is incredibly supportive of his wife as well as charitable 

to those in need around him. See Exhibit C, Ltr from Tatiana Rakhmaninova. Andrey is supportive 

to his extended family as well. His mother-in-law writes: He has always been one of the most 

supportive persons in my life, who I could turn to every minute when I needed help. Exhibit D, Ltr 

from Irina Rakhmaninova. The family continues to struggle emotionally in Andrey’s sustained 

absence.

Since seeking asylum in the United States from Russia in 2012, Andrey has also become an 

important figure in his community. As demonstrated by the numerous letters attached to this 

13 The translated certificates indicate Shuklin is a lawyer and has a jurisprudence certificate. This is 

a slight error in translation. Shuklin’s certificate and education is more equivalent to a paralegal in 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 9 of 13 PAGEID #: 1514
10

memorandum, Andrey is dedicated to his friends as he is to his family. Andrey has created a 

community in Florida to which he is very supportive and generous. He has financially supported 

struggling acquaintances, given people shelter in his home, and arranged professional help for a 

friend in crisis. See Exhibit E, Ltr from Dennis Katsman and Vera Khazanova; see also Exhibit F, 

additional ltrs from friends and family.

14 He is also described as hardworking, not only in his 

profession, but as someone who is willing to work on constantly improving himself as well. A longtime friend from Miami writes: “Andrey is a hardworking man. And we are not only talking about 

regular job but also about his ability to work on himself...After all what happened to him and his 

family, we are sure that he made the right conclusions and will never get himself into this kind of 

situation he is in right now again.” Exhibit G, Ltr from Dmitry Pak and Julia Hayday. 

Those who have written letters asking this court for leniency can attest to Andrey’s 

acceptance of responsibility and understanding of the seriousness of his crime. One friend writes: 

“Knowing Andrey, my wife and I think that the trauma of a punishment beyond what has already

been given will have a diminishing intended effect compared to the damage it would cause to

the lives of Andrey and his family.” See Exhibit D. Andrey has already realized the gravity of his 

actions. Even during the time he has been in jail, Andrey is committed to becoming a better 

version of himself - learning Spanish, reading books, and educating himself – so that his past 

mistakes will not be repeated.

the U.S. system. He could work in the legal department of any company and work in arbitration. He 

could not work on behalf of private individual clients. 

14 For the letters that were written in Russia, the original letter as well as a translated version are 

included. The translated version immediately follows the version in Russian. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 10 of 13 PAGEID #: 1515
11

IV. PUNISHMENT ENDURED TO DATE AND COLLATERAL 

CONSEQUENCES

A. Incarceration during a pandemic

Shuklin has been detained for four years. He has not seen his family since then. Due to both 

COVID-19 and the expense of traveling here from Florida, his wife and young daughter have not 

been able to make the trip. Further, he is at a facility that does not offer programming or

educational opportunities. See Exhibit H, ltr from Andrey Shuklin.

Shuklin is keenly aware of the impact his conduct has had on his family. He has limited 

contact with his fifteen-year-old daughter who lives in Russia. Shuklin is only able to speak to 

her when she visits Shuklin’s mom during an opportune time to call. As for his youngest, she is 

now almost five years old. Shuklin has not seen her in four years. The grandmother who raised 

him passed away while he was in jail. His mother is a cancer survivor and is thus at high risk 

from COVID-19. See Exhibit I, Ltr from Shuklina Mariya. Now, his mother is reporting 

significant hardship due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She reports high prices and difficulty 

getting necessities. Shuklin feels guilty and devastated that he is here rather than working to help 

financially support his mom. These realities and the knowledge he caused them weigh more on 

him that any specific term of imprisonment.

B. Shuklin faces deportation

The impact of this conviction on Mr. Shuklin’s immigration status is unknown. Shuklin and 

undersigned counsel have consulted with an immigration attorney. It is theoretically possible that he 

succeeds in avoiding deportation. If he does not, it is up in the air as to whether he will be deported 

back to Russia or to another country, should one accept him with this criminal record. Mr. Shuklin’s 

wife and child will still retain citizenship. The realistic possibility of being returned to Russia is 

made even more frightening by the developments of the last few months. Given the current political 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 11 of 13 PAGEID #: 1516
12

climate, he will be at risk for significant danger and potential punishment. It is inevitable that he will 

have to fight this battle in immigration court. The issue here is what additional time should be 

served in a federal BOP facility beforehand. 

V. GUIDELINES 

As noted in the objection letter attached to the final PSR, Shuklin has three objections that 

matter for Guidelines calculations. Rather than restate those objections here, those objections are 

incorporated herein. (PSR, Doc. 188, Page ID 996-1002). As a result of those objections, Shuklin 

asserts that his total offense level is 22. With a criminal history category of I, the Guideline

imprisonment range is 41-51 months. In contrast, the final PSR, with an offense level of 30, has a 

range of 97 to 121 months. Practically speaking if given a 51-month sentence, when good time is 

taken into account, the actual sentence served is generally a little over 43 months. Shuklin has been 

detained for 46 months thus far. 

VI. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Shuklin respectfully requests a downward variance to a 

sentence that this Court deems is sufficient, but not greater than necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephanie F. Kessler

STEPHANIE F. KESSLER (0092338)

MARTIN S. PINALES (0024570)

Pinales, Stachler, Young & Burrell Co., LPA

455 Delta Ave., Suite 105

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

(513) 252-2733

(513) 252-2751

mpinales@pinalesstachler.com

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 12 of 13 PAGEID #: 1517
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served via this Court’s 

electronic filing system on all counsel of record on this 4

th day of May 2022.

/s/ Stephanie F. Kessler

STEPHANIE F. KESSLER (0092338)

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 232 Filed: 05/04/22 Page: 13 of 13 PAGEID #: 1518