USA v. Nozadze et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
SERGO SIMONYAN,
Defendant.
------------------ --------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
23-CR-490 (WFK)
On May 9, 2025, Sergo Simonyan ("Defendant") pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit
odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703( 4). Plea Agreement ("Plea") ,i 1, ECF No. 89;
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 forth by Congress
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant is hereby sentenced to eighteen
(18) months' incarceration; one (1) year of supervised release with both the standard conditions
and special condition of supervision; and a $100. 00 mandatory special assessment.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
At numerous points between June 2022 and November 2023,2 Defendant assisted his
neighbor Moris Nozadze ("M. Nozadze") and M. Nozadze's son, Daniel Nozadze ("D.
Nozadze," together with Defendant and M. Nozadze, "Defendants"), in operating a business
where they manipulated or rolled back vehicle odometer mileage readings in exchange for
payment. Presentence Investigation Report (the "PSR") ,i,i 6-7, ECF No. 113. Vehicle
1 Citations are to the docket in United States v. Nozadze, et al., 23-CR-490. Page 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.
2 The U.S. Probation Office ("Probation") indicates Defendant participated in the scheme between
January 2012 and November 2023. PSR 16. However, Defendant states he only participated between
June 2022 and November 2023, a fact the Government concedes. See Def. Sent'g Mem. at 4, ECF No.
128; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5 n.2, ECF No. 129.
1
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

odometers are instruments used for measuring and recording the distance or mileage driven of a
vehicle. Id. ,i 4. Congress determined "that ... buyers of motor vehicles rely heavily on the
odometer reading as an index of the condition and value of a vehicle"; buyers are "entitled to
rely on the odometer as an accurate indication of the mileage of the vehicle" that assists in
"deciding on the safety and reliability of the vehicle[.]" 49 U.S.C. § 3270l(a); see also PSR ,i 4.
Defendant and D. Nozadze personally manipulated or rolled back odometers in exchange
for payment. PSR ,i 7. Specifically, Defendants manipulated odometers by one of two (or both)
methods: (I) decreasing the mileage already shown on the odometer, or (2) installing devices
!mown as "mileage blockers, "mileage stoppers," or "speed filters" (collectively, "Mileage
Blocker Devices") to disable odometers and/or reduce the rate at which they accumulated
mileage. See id. ,i,i 6-7; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 1-2, ECF No. 129.
Records from Bank of America regarding Fargo Auto Sales-as well as from Zelle,
Block Inc., Venmo, and three undercover transactions-indicate at least 1,159 rollbacks or
Mileage Blocker Device installations were conducted between January 2012 and November
2023.3 Id. ,i 8. The Government provided a conservative estimated loss totaling $927,200.00.
Id. The U.S. Probation Office ("Probation") stated it "does not have specific information with
respect to the make and model of the vehicles, or the specific details of the various transactions"
involved in Defendants' odometer manipulation business and so it "cannot compute an
independent loss figure in this case[.]" Id. ,i 8 n.2. Instead, Probation relied on an estimate
prepared by the Government. Id. The Government "advised that comts in many districts have
accepted a loss amount of $4,000[.00] or more per vehicle in odometer fraud cases" and so the
Government "attributed a $4,000 value inflation to each of the I, 159 vehicle transactions
3 It is unclear how many transactions were conducted between June 2022 and November 2023, the
relevant period when Defendant pmticipated in the scheme. See generally PSR.
2
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

involved in the scheme." Id To account for "potential overcounting" and "overestimate[s]," the
Government reduced its estimate. Id.
B. Procedural History
On November 28, 2023, a U.S. Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment (the
"Indictment") against Defendants asserting the following: Count One against Defendant, M.
Nozadze, and D. Nozadze alleged conspiracy to commit odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C.
§ 32703(4); Count Two against D. Nozadze alleged installation of a mileage blocker device in
violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(1); Count Three against M. Nozadze alleged installation of a
mileage blocker device in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(1); Count Four against Defendant
alleged installation of a mileage blocker device in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(1); Count Five
against D. Nozadze alleged tampering with a motor vehicle odometer in violation of 49 U.S.C. §
32703(2); and Count Six against Defendant alleged tampering with a motor vehicle odometer in
violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(2). Indictment 11 12-23.
On December 13, 2023, Homeland Security and Investigations agents arrested
Defendant. PSR 1 10. On May 9, 2025, Defendant pied guilty to Count One of the Indictment.
Pursuant to the Plea, Defendant agreed not to file an appeal or otherwise challenge his sentence
if the Court imposed a term of thirty-six (36) months' incarceration or below. Plea 14. Pursuant
to the Plea, the Government agreed "no further criminal charges will be brought against
[Defendant] for, between Januaiy 2012 and November 2023, (1) conspiring to commit odometer
fraud, as charged in Count One of the Indictment; (2) tampering with motor vehicle odometers,
as charged in Count Six of the Indictment, or (3) installing mileage blocker devices, as charged
in Count Four of the Indictment[.]" Id 1 5(i). Additionally, the Government agreed to move to
dismiss the remaining counts of the Indictment as to Defendant at the time of sentencing. Id.
3
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

On Febrnary 19, 2025, and March 21, 2025, M. Nozadze and D. Nozadze respectively
pied guilty to Count One ofthe Indictment. M. Nozadze Plea Agreement ,i 1, ECF No. 72; D.
Nozadze Plea Agreement ,i 1, ECF No. 82.
On Januaiy 13, 2026, the Court sentenced M. Nozadze to thirty months' incarceration to
be followed by one year ofsupervised release with both the standard and special conditions of
supervision, and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment. See M. Nozadze Sent'g Mem. and
Order at 1, ECF No. 116.
On Januaiy 29, 2026, the Court sentenced D. Nozadze to time served to be followed by
one year of supervised release with both the standard and special conditions ofsupervision, 100
hours of community service, and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment. See D. Nozadze
Sent'g Mem. and Order at 1, ECF No. 123.
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 "staiiing point and ...
initial benchmark" for a comi evaluating a criminal sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
49 (2007). Ifand when a trial court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing
Guidelines range, the court "shall state-in open court-the reasons for its imposition ofthe
paiiicular 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 departing "in a statement of reasons form." Id. The court's
statement ofreasons "shall be a simple, fact-specific statement explaining why the guidelines
range did not account for a specific factor or factors under§ 3553(a)." United States v. Davis,
4
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

08-CR-332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *l (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 Court 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 Comt to evaluate "the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(l).
I. Family and Personal Background
Defendant was born on September 15, 1985 in the country of Georgia to the marital
union of his father Georgi Simonyan and his mother Susana Simonyan (nee Mikrtichyan).
PSR � 37. Prior to immigrating to the United States, Defendant and his family resided in Tbilisi,
Georgia where they lived in a lower-middle income neighborhood which was "safe and free of
crime." Id. � 3 9. Defendant's father worked in a fish market and his mother was a homemaker.
Id. Defendant described a "generally good childhood, devoid of abuse of any kind." Id.
Defendant grew up during the Georgian Civil War, which took place from 1991 to 1993.
See id. He recalls observing military personnel driving tanks through his neighborhood streets.
5
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

Id. Defendant did not report his parents experiencing issues with the militaiy, but stated his
family "was still impacted by the effects of the war." Id. For example, Government restrictions
were placed on the use of electricity, so Defendant's family only had access to electricity for two
hours per day. Id. Defendant's home did not have heat for several years during the winter
months and so he and his family "had to wear layers of clothing in bed to keep warm[.]" Id.
They also had to warm water using a fire outside in order to shower. Id.
Despite these conditions, Defendant reported his needs were always met and his parents
made sure he was always "well cared for." Id. Defendant's parents always made sure he and his
sister felt safe. Id.
In September 1999, Defendant and his father immigrated to the United States, residing in
Hanisburg, Pennsylvania for six months before moving to Brooklyn, New York. Id. ,r 40.
Defendant reported his life in Brooklyn "was difficult at first because of the language barrier[,]"
but he later took classes to learn English. Id. Records indicate Defendant became a naturalized
U.S. citizen on Januaiy 24, 2020. Id.
Defendant's father is sixty-five years of age and cunently lives in Brooklyn, New York.
Id. ,r 37. After immigrating to the United States, Defendant's father worked in construction and
later as a home attendant before retiring. Id. Defendant's father experiences chronic cardiac,
ankle, and knee issues but has received corrective surgeries. Id. Defendant's mother is sixty
four years of age and resides with Defendant's father in Brooklyn, New York. Id. Defendant's
mother works as a home attendant and is in good health. Id. Defendant supports his parents
financially by "assisting with their monthly expenses[.]" Id. Defendant maintains a "close
relationship" with his parents, both of whom are aware of the instant case and remain suppmiive.
Id.
6
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

Defendant has one sister, Yana Simonyan, who is thirty-seven years of age and also
resides in Brooklyn, New York. Id. 138. Defendant's sister works as a nurse practitioner and is
in good health. Id. Defendant shares a "close relationship" with his sister who is aware of the
instant case and remains suppmtive. Id.
On July 20, 2013, Defendant matTied Yuliya Simonyan who is thirty-seven years of age.
Id. 141. She resides in Brooklyn, New York and works as a physician's assistant. Id.
Defendant's wife is in good health. Id. Defendant and his wife have three children together:
Emily Simonyan, age nine, Elliana Simonyan, age five, and Elizabeth Simonyan, age two. Id.
All Defendant's children reside with his wife, are enrolled in school or daycare, and are in good
health. Id. Defendant's wife described him as a "kind and loving husband and father," noting
"he has a very close relationship with their three daughters." Id. 1 42. Defendant plays an
"active role" in the children's lives and helps care for them in the evenings while his wife works.
Id. Although Defendant's wife reported they "rel[y] on [his] presence[,]" Defendant's parents
live close by and his mother in particular spends a lot of time at their home helping with the
children. Id. Defendant's wife was surprised to learn of his involvement in the instant case, but
he was honest about his involvement and she remains supportive. Id. Defendant's children,
however, are not aware of the instant case given their young age. Id. 1 41.
In addition to the above, the Court has considered the letters of support Defendant's
friends and family have submitted on his behalf. See generally Def. Sent'g Mem, Ex. A, ECF
No. 128.
2. Educational and Employment History
Defendant attended school in Tbilisi, Georgia, and completed the equivalent of a ninth
grade education before immigrating to the United States. PSR 1 51. He did not attend school in
7
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

the United States, but he is fluent in the English, Georgian, Russian, and A1menian languages.
Id.
Prior to 2012, Defendant worked at a restaurant as a bus boy or waiter, at a car wash, and
at a cell phone store. Id., 57. He could not recall specific details of this employment. Id.
Between 2012 and 2013, Defendant performed work on cell towers for a company in
Carlstadt, New Jersey. Id. , 56.
From 2013 to 2017, Defendant worked on cell towers as a subcontractor, earning
$6,000.00 per month. Id.
From 2017 to 2024, Defendant worked in numerous restaurants and as an independent
vehicle repaitman. Id.
From 2024 to 2025, Defendant was a full-time repair technician responsible for servicing
dental chairs. Id. , 54.
From March 2024 to the present, Defendant has maintained a 50% pmtnership interest in
a company named Carousel Collision ("Carousel"). Id., 53. Carousel is an automotive body,
paint, and interior repair and maintenance business Defendant runs alongside his pmtner Zimro
Abayev. Id. Carousel has thirteen employees. Id. Documentation indicated Carousel earned
over $1.5 million in gross income for 2024 with expenses totaling approximately $917,000.00.
Id. Defendant repotted a gross monthly income of $7,000.00 generated from Carousel. Id.
3. Prior Convictions
Defendant has no prior juvenile adjudications nor any adult criminal convictions. See id.
,, 30-35.
8
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

4. Physical and Mental Health
In 2010, Defendant broke his right heel after falling from the second floor of a home
under construction, but has no residual issues related to this injury. Id. 146. On May 7, 2025,
Defendant underwent an endoscopy which revealed his stomach lining was eroding due to an
infection. Id. 145. In response, he reported being prescribed antibiotics to treat this issue. Id.
Otherwise, Defendant has no history of mental or emotional health conditions, and no
history of treatment for such conditions. Id. 1 47.
5. Substance Abuse
Defendant reported substance abuse issues stemming from his ankle injury in 2010. See
id. 148; see supra Part III(A)(4). After his ankle injury, Defendant was prescribed Percocet to
manage his pain. PSR 146. When his prescription ended, Defendant experienced withdrawal
symptoms and began acquiring Percocet through other means. Id. 1146, 48.
Defendant used Percocet until 2023 when he was arrested for the instant offense. Id. 1
48. He attended inpatient and outpatient treatment programs in Brooklyn, New York for an
unrecalled period of time as well as narcotics anonymous.4 Id. As a result of his treatment,
Defendant's wife reports Defendant no longer suffers from a Percocet addiction. Id.
Otherwise, Defendant reports he does not consume alcohol and denied any additional
substance abuse. Id. 1 50.
6. Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The Court's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Patt I.
4 During a presentence interview, Defendant mentioned attending court-mandated treatment for twelve
months in 2013 due to an arrest in Kings County, New York. PSR 149. Howevet; Probation did not
locate any arrests on Defendant's National Crime Information Center report. Id.
9
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 9 of 14 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 detenence 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 conectional treatment in
the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(2).
The Court's sentence recognizes the seriousness of Defendant's conduct. Defendant
engaged in a significant number of fraudulent odometer manipulations, causing an estimated
$927,200 in losses. See PSR 1 8. Not only did Defendant cause financial harm, but he also
threatened the safety of those who purchased tampered vehicles unaware of their true mileage
and threatened other cars on the road. See Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 4. 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 necessary" to comply with the purposes set forth in this factor.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
The third § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to detail "the kinds of sentences available"
for Defendant. 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(3). Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C.§ 32703(4). Plea 11.
Defendant faces a maximum term of three years' incarceration and no minimum term. 49
U.S.C. § 32709(b). Defendant also faces a maximum term of one year of supervised release. 18
U.S.C. §§ 3583(b)(3), 3559(a)(5). If a condition of release is violated, Defendant may be
10
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

sentenced to up to one year of incarceration without credit for pre-release incarceration or time
previously served on post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e). Defendant is eligible for a
term of probation of one to five years. 18 U.S.C. § 356l(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. 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(2).
In addition to facing te1ms of incarceration and supervised release, Defendant faces a
maximum fine of$250,000.00. 18 U.S.C. § 357l(b)(3). The Court is also required to impose a
mandatory special assessment of$100.00 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).
D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established for Defendant's
Offense
The fourth§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court to consider "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 fmth in the guidelines[.]" Id § 3553(a)(4)(A).
Defendant did not provide a specific Guidelines calculation in his sentencing
memorandum. See generally Def. Sent'g Mem. Probation and the Government agree the
applicable guideline in this case is U.S.S.G.§ 2N3.l, which directs the Court by way of cross
reference to U.S.S.G.§ 2Bl.1-the Guidelines provision for Theft, Property Destruction, and
Fraud-when the offense "involved more than one vehicle." U.S.S.G.§ 2N3.l(b)(l); PSR ,i 19;
Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3. Defendant has a Base Offense Level of 6 per U.S.S.G.§ 2Bl. l. See§
2Bl.l(a)(2); see also Plea ,i 2.
Probation and the Government agree certain adjustments apply to Defendant's Base
Offense Level. First, U.S.S.G.§ 2Bl.l(b)(l)(H) adds 14 levels because the total loss stemming
from the offense, based on the Government's estimates and Defendant's plea agreement, was
11
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

greater than $550,000.00, but less than $1,500,000.00. U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(H); PSR 120;
Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea 12.
Second, U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i) adds 2 levels because the offense involved ten or
more victims. U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i); PSR 121; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; see also Plea il
2.
Finally, all parties agree certain reductions apply for Defendant's timely acceptance of
responsibility under U.S.S.G. §§ 3El.l(a)-(b) and because he is a Zero-Point Offender pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 4Cl .1. PSR 1126-28; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea 12. Namely, 3 levels are
subtracted because Defendant demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his offense and did
so in a timely fashion. Additionally, Defendant meets the criteria ofU.S.S.G. § 4Cl.l(a)(l)-
(l l), and so 2 levels are subtracted. See U.S.S.G. § 4Cl .1 (a). In sum, Defendant's Total
Adjusted Offense Level is 17. PSR 129; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; Plea 12.
Defendant's Criminal History Catego1y is I because he has no history of convictions. See
U.S.S.G. § 4Al.1; PSR 132; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3; see also Plea 12. Although Defendant did
not provide a specific Guidelines calculation, he agrees he "lack[s] [a] criminal record[.]" Def.
Sent'g Mem. at 5.
Pursuant to the Guidelines Sentencing Table, a Total Adjusted Offense Level of 17 and a
Criminal History Category ofl results in a Guidelines range of twenty-four (24) to thirty (30)
months' incarceration.
This Court appreciates the sentencing arguments raised by all parties and seriously
considered each in turn.
12
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

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
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).
Defendant has raised certain considerations related to sentencing disparities. Namely,
Defendant argues the Court should impose on him the same sentence as his co-defendant D.
Nozadze. See Def. Sent'g Mem. at 4. Defendant states he and D. Nozadze "are similarly
charged and alleged to have engaged in similar conduct for a similar amount of time." Id. The
Government disagrees, noting D. Nozadze was responsible for fewer transactions and a smaller
amount of harm. See Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 5.
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 Comt to touch upon "the need to
provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C.§ 3553(a)(7). Restitution is not
applicable in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3663.
13
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court sentences Defendant to eighteen (18) months'
incarceration; one (1) year of supervised release with both the standard conditions and special
condition of supervision; 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 PSR, as corrected herein, to the
extent those findings are not inconsistent with this opinion. The Court advises Defendant he has
fomteen (14) days to appeal the order and judgment of this court from the date the order and
judgment are entered.
Dated: May 18, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
so oROERED./
�l,'ffAMF. KUNTZ, II
, tiN� STATES DISTRJCT JUDGE
14
s/WFK
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 135 Filed 05/18/26 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:
<pageID>