United States v. Diamreyan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13612
2d Cir.2012Background
- Diamreyan appeals a 151-month sentence after three wire fraud counts, with a three-point§3B1.1(b) enhancement for managerial role and five+ participants.
- District court relied on emails to find Diamreyan as manager and to estimate five or more participants in the scheme.
- Email evidence included the milkymyx@yahoo.com account used for years; Diamreyan’s wife accessed it later; emails involved victims and scheme logistics.
- Fatico hearing evidence included emails, chats, and financial records; court found coordinated conduct with reloading victims and distributing roles.
- Guidelines calculations yielded offense level 34, criminal history I, with a 151–188 month range; sentence imposed was 151 months.
- Court reviews for reasonableness; substantial factors supported the enhancement and the overall sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did email evidence support managerial role? | Diamreyan exercised control via emails; deemed a manager by district court. | Unique emails alone cannot prove management without identifying participants. | Yes; emails support managerial role under §3B1.1(b). |
| Did the scheme involve five or more participants based on emails? | Record shows five or more participants identified by email handles. | Unidentified email addresses cannot establish participants. | Yes; record suffices to show five+ participants. |
| Are unique email addresses sufficient to determine non-defendant participation? | Unique addresses indicate separate participants in the scheme. | Addresses could belong to Diamreyan or others; not conclusively linked. | Yes; sufficient indicia support multiple participants. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995) (managerial role may apply when five+ participants involved)
- United States v. Al-Sadawi, 432 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2005) (managerial/supervisor role requires some control over others)
- United States v. Harper, 463 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2006) (participants may be identified by non-names if record shows existence)
- United States v. Conca, 635 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing; standards outlined)