USA v. Nozadze et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
DANIEL NOZADZE,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CR-490 (WFK)
On March 21, 2025, Daniel Nozadze ("Defendant") pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4), which was charged under a six-count
Indictment. Plea Agreement ("Plea") at ,r 1, ECF No. 82; 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 time served; one (1) year of supervised release
with both the standard and special conditions of supervision; and a $100.00 mandatory special
assessment.
I. Background
Factual Background
At numerous points between January 2012 and November 2023, Defendant assisted
Moris Nozadze ("M. Nozadze"), his father, and Sergo Simonyan ("Simonyan"), M. Nozadze's
neighbor, in operating a business where they manipulated or rolled back vehicle odometer
mileage readings in exchange for payment. Sealed Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") at
,r,r 6-7, ECF No. 102. Vehicle odometers are instruments used for measuring and recording the
distance or mileage driven of a vehicle. Id. at ,r 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
1 Citations are to the docket in United States v Nozadze, 23-CR-490. 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.
1
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

the vehicle" that assists in "deciding on the safety and reliability of the vehicle[.]" 49 U.S.C. §
32701(a).
Defendant and Simonyan personally manipulated or rolled back odometers in exchange
for payment. PSR at '1[ 7. Specifically, Defendants manipulated odometers by one of two (or
both) methods: (1) decreasing the mileage already shown on the odometer, or (2) installing
devices known 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 at ,r,r 6-7; Government Sentencing Memorandum ("Gov't Sent'g
Mem.") at 1, ECF No. 122. Defendant also assisted M. Nozadze in communicating with
customers and ananging times, locations, and prices for odometer manipulation services. PSR at
Records from Bank of America regarding Fargo Auto Sales-as well as from Zelle,
Block Inc., Venmo, and tlu·ee undercover transactions-indicate at least 1,159 rollbacks or
Mileage Blocker Device installations were conducted between January 2012 and November
2023. See id. at ,r 8. The Government provided a conservative estimated loss totaling
$927,200.00. Id The U.S. Probation Office 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. at ,r 8 n.2. Instead, the Probation Office relied on an
estimate prepared by the Government. Id The Government "advised that Courts in many
districts have accepted a loss amount of $4,000 or more per vehicle in odometer fraud cases" and
so the Government "attributed a $4,000 value inflation to the [sic] each of the 1,159 vehicle
2
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
V.
DANIEL NOZADZE,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------X
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CR-490 (WFK)
On March 21, 2025, Daniel Nozadze ("Defendant") pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4), which was charged under a six-count
Indictment. Plea Agreement ("Plea") at ,r 1, ECF No. 82; 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 time served; one (1) year of supervised release
with both the standard and special conditions of supervision; and a $100.00 mandatory special
assessment.
I. Background
Factual Background
At numerous points between January 2012 and November 2023, Defendant assisted
Moris Nozadze ("M. Nozadze"), his father, and Sergo Simonyan ("Simonyan"), M.Nozadze's
neighbor, in operating a business where they manipulated or rolled back vehicle odometer
mileage readings in exchange for payment. Sealed Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") at
,r,r 6-7, ECF No. 102. Vehicle odometers are instruments used for measuring and recording the
distance or mileage driven of a vehicle. Id. at ,r 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
1 Citations are to the docket in United States" Nozadze, 23-CR-490. 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.
1
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

the vehicle" that assists in "deciding on the safety and reliability of the vehicle[ .]" 49 U.S.C. §
3270l(a).
Defendant and Simonyan personally manipulated or rolled back odometers in exchange
for payment. PSR at ,r 7. Specifically, Defendants manipulated odometers by one of two (or
both) methods: ( 1) decreasing the mileage already shown on the odometer, or (2) installing
devices known 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. at ,r,r 6-7; Government Sentencing Memorandum ("Gov't Sent'g
Mem.") at I, ECF No. 122. Defendant also assisted M. Nozadze in communicating with
customers and arranging times, locations, and prices for odometer manipulation services. PSR at
Records from Bank of America regarding Fargo Auto Sales-as well as from Zelle,
Block Inc., Venmo, and three undercover transactions-indicate at least I, 159 rollbacks or
Mileage Blocker Device installations were conducted between January 2 012 and November
2023. See id. at ,r 8. The Government provided a conservative estimated loss totaling
$927,200. 00. Id. The U.S. Probation Office 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. at ,r 8 n.2. Instead, the Probation Office relied on an
estimate prepared by the Government. Id. The Government "advised that Comis in many
districts have accepted a loss amount of $4,000 or more per vehicle in odometer fraud cases" and
so the Government "attributed a $4,000 value inflation to the [sic] each of the 1,159 vehicle
2
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

transactions involved in the scheme." Id. To account for "potential overcounting" and
"overestimate[s]," the Government reduced its estimate. Id.
The Government and the U.S. Probation Office have noted Defendant was not involved
in the odometer manipulations associated with the Fargo Auto Sales records, and so those
transactions were "not reasonably foreseeable to him." Id. at ,r 11; see Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 2-
3. Instead, Defendant was responsible for an estimated 554 transactions because he "was still a
minor" when M. Nozadze began the business and was only "later recruited ... into the
business." Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 2. The estimated loss attributable to Defendant is $445,600.00.
Id. at 3; PSR at ,r 11.
Procedural History
On November 28, 2023, a U.S. Grand Jury sitting in the Eastern District ofNew York
returned the six-count Indictment against Defendants, including three counts (Counts 1-2 and 5)
against Defendant. Indictment at ,r,r 12-15, 20-21. On December 13, 2023, Homeland Security
and Investigations agents an-ested Defendant. PSR at ,r 10. On March 21, 2025, Defendant pied
guilty to Count One of the Indictment, charging him with conspiracy to commit odometer fraud
in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4). Plea at ,r 1. Pursuant to the Plea, Defendant agreed not to
file an appeal or otherwise challenge his sentence if the Court imposed a term of 33 months'
imprisonment or below. Id. at ,r 4. Pursuant to the Plea, the Government agreed "no further
criminal charges will be brought against [Defendant] for, between January 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 Five of the Indictment, or (3)
installing mileage blocker devices, as charged in Count Two of the Indictment ... " Id. at ,r 5(i).
3
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Additionally, the Government agreed to move to dismiss the remaining counts of the Indictment
as to Defendant at the time of sentencing. Id.
On February 19, 2025, and May 9, 2025, M.Nozadze and Simonyan respectively pied
guilty to Count One of the Indictment, charging each with conspiracy to commit odometer fraud
in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 32703(4). M. Nozadze Plea Agreement at ,i 1, ECF No. 72;
Simonyan Plea Agreement at ,i 1, ECF No. 89. On January 13, 2026, the Court sentenced M.
Nozadze to thirty (30) months' imprisonment, one (1) year of supetvised release with both the
standard and special conditions ofsupetvision, and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment. See
M. Nozadze Sentencing Memorandum & Order at 1, ECF No. 116. Simonyan's sentencing is set
for March 19, 2026. See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 120.
II. Legal Standard
Congress set fmth 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 "sta1ting point and ...
initial benchmark" for a court evaluating a criminal sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,
49 (2007). If and when a trial court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing
Guidelines range, the cou1t "shall state-in open comt-the reasons for its imposition ofthe
particular 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 depatting "in a statement of reasons form." Id. The court's
statement of reasons "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 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

08-CR-332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *I (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010) (Weinstein, J.) (internal citation
omitted).
When determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider seven different
factors:(]) 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
unwananted 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 Court 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 January 24, 2002, in Brooklyn, New York to his father (and co
defendant) M. Nozadze and his birth mother, Yanna. PSR at ,r 37. Defendant's parents
separated and divorced shortly after his birth and he remained in the care of his father until he
was age eight. See id at ,r 39. Defendant does not maintain a relationship with his birth mother.
id at ,r 37. He also does not have a close relationship with his father, and the two do not
communicate regularly. id M. Nozadze has partially paid for Defendant's attorney's fees,
although Defense counsel indicated Defendant has been forced to pay a portion of the bills on his
5
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

own. See id. at 'j 37; Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum ("Def's Sent'g Mem.") at 5-6, ECF
No. 121.
Defendant's father later remarried, after which Defendant, his father, and his stepmother
moved to New Jersey. PSR at 'j 39. Defendant's stepmother had a biological son, and together,
Defendant's stepmother and Defendant's father had two daughters. See id. at 'j'j 38-39.
Defendant's stepmother repo11edly treated him differently from his stepbrother and verbally
abused him multiple days per week. Id. at 'j 39. This different treatment included being called
inappropriate names, being excluded from family activities, and being given inedible food. Id.
Defendant stated his father was aware of the abuse yet did not intervene, although Defendant
often heard his father arguing with Defendant's stepmother regarding the treatment. Id. The
verbal abuse continued until Defendant was age sixteen, although he moved out when he was
younger. Id. at 'I 3 9.
When Defendant turned eight, his father and stepmother separated and Defendant began
residing with his paternal grandparents in Brooklyn, New York. Id. at 'I 40. Defendant
described feeling loved by his grandparents and his upbringing under their care as great. Id.
Defendant has never married nor had children, however, he is currently in a romantic
relationship with an individual who lives in Brooklyn, New York. Id. at 'j'j 41--42. Defendant's
partner is a graduate student, and they share a good relationship that began in 2021. Id. at 'j 42.
Defendant's partner is aware of the instant case and remains supportive of him. Id. In a
telephone interview, Defendant's pm1ner described him as an altruistic, helpful, and
compassionate person. Id. at 'j 43. She believes Defendant's arrest helped him understand the
severity of his conduct. Id. Although she does not assert it serves as an excuse, she believes
Defendant's upbringing played a role in his conduct in the instant offense. Id. Defendant's
6
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

partner reported he has accepted responsibility for his actions, is remorseful, and would like to
use his experience to guide other young individuals away from violating the law. Id.
Defendant's partner, friends, and father submitted letters of support prior to his sentencing
hearing. See Def s Sent' g Mem. at 6-11.
Defendant has resided with his stepbrother in a two-bedroom, one-bathroom, apartment
in Brooklyn, New York since September 2024. PSR at ,i 44. His father, stepmother, and half
sisters reside in Florida. Id. at ,i,i 37-38.
2. Educational and Employment History
Defendant earned his high school diploma in June 2020 after attending a school in New
York, New York. Id. at ,i 49. Defendant reportedly has experience as an opera singer. See Defs
Sent'g Mem. at 2-3. When he was approximately age twelve, Defendant began taking opera
lessons and thereafter took part in various performances. Id. at 3. Defendant was accepted to
SUNY Purchase and the Manhattan School of Music, but the COVID-19 pandemic and his
inability to afford the tuition prevented his attendance. Id.
As previously mentioned, Defendant worked for his father prior to 2017. See supra Part
I; PSR at ,i 54. From 2017 to 2019, Defendant was a lifeguard in Brooklyn, New York, and
worked full- or part-time depending on whether school was in session. See PSR at ,i 53. From
January 2024 to February 2024, Defendant worked as a health coach for a company
administering hearing, vision, and dental exams. Id. at ,i 52. Defendant left this position due to
his inability to financially support himself on the $20.00 to $50.00 per patient he earned. Id. In
2023, Defendant and four other individuals created a business brokering sales of pre-owned and
new vehicles. Id. at ,i 50. Defendant's income from this employment fluctuates, but he reported
earnings between $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 per month. Id. Since 2024, Defendant has also worked
7
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

"off the books," picking up and delivering vehicles for a dealership in Brooklyn, New York at a
rate of$150.00 per day. Id. at ,r 51.
Besides the above employment infmmation, Defendant has not provided a personal
financial statement to evaluate his ability to pay a fine. Id. at ,r 59.
3. Prior Convictions
Defendant does not have any prior juvenile adjudications or adult criminal convictions.
See id. at ,r,r 30-35.
4. Physical and Mental Health
Defendant is healthy and has no reported history of serious health issues. Id. at ,r 46.
Defendant also reported no history of mental or emotional health conditions, suicidal ideation, or
gambling issues. Id. at ,r 47.
5. Substance Abuse
Defendant did not report a history of drug use or excessively consuming alcohol. Id. at ,r
48. A drug test conducted on May 6, 2025-as part of Probation's presentence investigation
did not reveal the use of illicit substances. Id.
6. Nature and Circumstances ofthe Offense
The Coutt's previous statements address the nature and circumstances surrounding the
instant offense. See supra Pait I.
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 dete1Tence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from fu1ther crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant
8
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 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 more than 500 fraudulent odometer manipulations, causing an estimated $445,600.00
in losses. PSR at 111; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 2. 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. The Comi'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 Comi's sentence is "sufficient, but not
greater than necessaiy" 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 pied guilty to one count of conspiracy to
commit odometer fraud in violation of 49 U.S.C.§ 32703(4). Plea at ii 1.
Defendant faces a maximum term of three years' imprisonment 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
sentenced to up to one year of imprisonment without credit for pre-release imprisonment or time
previously served on post-release supervision. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e). Defendant is eligible for a
te1m of probation of one to five years. 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(l). Unless extraordinaiy
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).
9
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

In addition to facing terms of imprisonment and supervised release, Defendant faces a
maximum fine of$250,000.00. 18 U.S.C.§ 3571(b)(3). Defendant has not demonstrated he is
unable to pay a fine. PSR at 1 59. 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 forth in the guidelines[.]" Id § 3553(a)(4)(A).
The patiies agree as to the applicable Guideline provision in this case. All patiies agree
the applicable guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2N3.l, which directs the Court by way of cross reference
to U.S.S.G.§ 2B 1.1-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); see Sealed Second
Addendum to PSR ("Am. PSR") at 120, ECF No. 115; Defs Sent'g Mem. at 15 (referring to
U.S.S.G. § 2N3.1); Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3. U.S.S.G.§ 2Xl.1-governing Conspiracies,
Attempts, and Solicitations-does not apply to Defendant's sentencing because the conspiracy at
issue "is expressly covered by another offense guideline section." U.S.S.G.§ 2Xl.l(c)(l).
Instead, Defendant has a Base Offense Level of 6 per U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1. See§ 2Bl.l(a)(2).
The pmiies agree ce1iain adjustments apply to Defendant's Base Offense Level. First,
U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l)(G) adds 12 levels because the total loss stemming from the offense,
based on the Government's estimates and Defendant's plea agreement, was greater than
$250,000.00, but less than$550,000.00. U.S.S.G.§ 2Bl.l(b)(l)(G); see Am. PSR at 121; Defs
Sent'g Mem. at 12; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3.
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

Second, U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) adds 2 levels because the offense involved ten or
more victims.2 U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(2)(A)(i); see Am. PSR at ,i 21A; Defs Sent'g Mem. at 12;
Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3.
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.l. See Am. PSR at ,i,i 26-28; Defs Sent'g Mem. at 12; Gov't Sent'g Mem. at
3. 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 of
U.S.S.G. § 4Cl.l(a)(l)-(l1), and so 2 levels are subtracted. See U.S.S.G. § 4Cl.l(a). In sum,
Defendant's Offense Level is 15.
Defendant's Criminal History Categ01y is I because he has no history of convictions or
sentences. See U.S.S.G. § 4Al.1; PSR at ,i 32; Am. PSR at ,i 61; Defs Sent'g Mem. at 11;
Gov't Sent'g Mem. at 3.
Pursuant to the Guidelines Sentencing Table, an Offense Level of 15 and a Criminal
History Category ofl results in a Guidelines range of eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months'
imprisonment.
Probation recommends a below-Guidelines sentence of two (2) years' probation and a
$100.00 mandatory special assessment. Probation Sentencing Recommendation at 1, ECF No.
102. The Government recommends an unspecified below-Guidelines sentence and, in the event
a non-incarceratory sentence or a sentence of time-served is imposed, a term of probation or
2 Initially, the U.S. Probation Office did not include a 2-point enhancement for the number of victims
involved. See generally PSR. After the Government objected in a sealed filing to the failure to add this
enhancement, the U.S. Probation Office issued the Sealed Second Addendum to the PSR and agreed the
enhancement applies. See Sealed Government Objection to Presentence Investigation Report at I, ECF
No. 104; Am. PSR at I, ,r 21A.
11
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

supervised release including a special condition of I00 hours of community service. Gov 't
Sent'g Mem. at 5. Defense counsel recommends a below-Guidelines, non-custodial, sentence
with one (I) year of supervised release. Defs Sent'g Mem.at 19. This Court appreciates the
sentencing arguments raised by all parties and seriously considered each in tum.
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). Defense counsel
has directed the Court's attention to now-repealed U.S.S.G.§ 5Hl.1. See Defs Sent'g Mem. at
12-13, 18. U.S.S.G.§ SHI.I, which was removed effective November I, 2025, provided as
follows:
Age may be relevant m determining whether a departure 1s
warranted.
Age may be a reason to depart downward in a case in which the
defendant is elderly and infinn and where a form ofpunishment such
as home confinement might be equally efficient as and less costly
than incarceration.
A downward depaiture also may be warranted due to the defendant's
youthfulness at the time of the offense or prior offenses. Ce1tain risk
factors may affect a youthful individual's development into the mid-
20' s and contribute to involvement in criminal justice systems,
including environment, adverse childhood experiences, substance
use, lack of educational oppmtunities, and familial relationships. In
addition, youthful individuals generally are more impulsive, risk
seeking, and susceptible to outside influence as their brains continue
to develop into young adulthood.Youthful individuals also are more
amenable to rehabilitation.
The age-crime curve, one of the most consistent findings in
criminology, demonstrates that criminal behavior tends to decrease
with age. Age-appropriate interventions and other protective factors
may promote desistance from crime.Accordingly, in an appropriate
case, the court may consider whether a form of punishment other
than imprisonment might be sufficient to meet the purposes of
sentencing.
12
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

U.S.S.G. § 5Hl.1 (repealed Nov. 1, 2025).
Although repealed, the U.S. Sentencing Commission mentioned the removal ofU.S.S.G.
§ 5Hl.1-along with the removal of other departures and policy statements for specific personal
characteristics-"does not limit the information courts may consider in imposing a sentence nor
does it reflect a view from the Commission that such facts should no longer inform a court for
purposes of determining the appropriate sentence." U.S.S.G Ch.3, Pt.A, intro. comment. The
U.S. Sentencing Commission has further explained it "envisioned and framed [the] 2025
amendment to be outcome neutral, intending that judges who would have relied upon facts
previously identified as a basis for a departure would continue to have the authority to rely upon
such facts to impose a sentence outside of the applicable guideline range as a variance under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)." Id.
The Court acknowledges U.S.S.G.§ 5Hl.1 and considers its underlying rationale and
policy. The parties have not drawn the Court's attention to any other applicable policy
statements. Finding no others 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).
Defense counsel has raised certain considerations related to sentencing disparities. First,
Defense counsel notes M. Nozadze-the individual who organized the odometer scheme,
involved Defendant in the scheme, and principally benefitted from the scheme-received a
below-Guidelines sentence of thirty (30) months' imprisonment. See Defs Sent'g Mem. at 18.
Defense counsel also argues Defendant will suffer collateral consequences while his father will
13
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

be able to stmt anew once dep01ted. Id. at 18-19. These potential collateral consequences
include ineligibility for student loans, the loss of Defendant's cunent business if he loses his
driving license, restricted access to business loans, and ineligibility for government assistance.
Id. at 18; see also PSR at ,r 74. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, and
considering the other six§ 3553(a) factors, the Court's sentence avoids unwan·anted sentence
disparities.
G. The Need to Provide Restitution
Finally, the seventh§ 3553(a) factor requires the Court 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.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons set fo1th above, the Court sentences Defendant to time served; one (1)
year of supervised release with both the standard and special conditions of supervision; and a
$100.00 mandatory special assessment. This sentence is sufficient, but not greater than
necessmy to accomplish the purposes of§ 3553(a)(2). The Cornt does not impose a fine given
Defendant's present financial circumstances.
The Comt expressly adopts the factual findings of the Sealed Presentence Investigation
Report and Addenda thereto, as corrected herein, to the extent those findings are not inconsistent
with this opinion.
Dated: February 2, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
SO ORDERJ;D. /
HW,°WIL� KUNTZ, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
s/WFK
Case 1:23-cr-00490-WFK Document 123 Filed 02/02/26 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>