United States v. Igor Grushko
50 F.4th 1
11th Cir.2022Background
- Brothers Igor and Denis Grushko (with coconspirator Vadym Vozniuk) ran a scheme using stolen credit‑card data, fake IDs, and staged Target.com purchases/pickups and returns to convert merchandise into Target gift cards and high‑value electronics, netting over $110,000.
- Secret Service investigation tied a rental car plate to Igor and surveillance to the neighborhood; a grand jury indicted the three and arrest warrants issued.
- During an early‑morning arrest operation, agents detained two unidentified men outside the Grushkos’ residence, heard noises inside, pried open a padlocked door, conducted a protective sweep, and observed device‑making equipment in plain view; agents later obtained a search warrant and seized additional evidence.
- A superseding indictment added counts for possession of access devices, device‑making equipment, false identification, and aggravated identity theft; juries convicted Igor and Denis on all counts.
- Each brother was sentenced to a total of 145 months (121 months on most counts plus a consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft), restitution, supervised release, and appealed raising Fourth Amendment, voir dire, Guidelines, and sentencing‑reasonableness claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Grushko) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warrantless entry and suppression | Entry was lawful to execute arrest warrants because agents reasonably believed Igor was inside; evidence in plain view supported warrant | Entry was unlawful; defendants were arrested outside and agents lacked probable cause to enter and search the home | Entry and protective sweep were lawful under Magluta/Bervaldi framework; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Franks challenge to warrant (false statements/omissions) | Affidavit was not knowingly or recklessly false; no material omissions that would vitiate probable cause | Agent Workman misrepresented identity certainty and omitted facts to secure warrant | No Franks violation shown; magistrate’s probable cause stands |
| Voir dire comments about forensic evidence and witness number | Comments were harmless and did not lower the government’s burden; court repeatedly instructed burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Comments improperly suggested fingerprints/forensics not required and minimized burden, requiring new venire | Remarks were ill‑advised but not reversible; overall jury instructions and repeated statements preserved the reasonable‑doubt burden |
| §2B1.1(b)(11)(A) device‑making‑equipment enhancement / double counting | Enhancement proper because Commission intended cumulative application and it addresses a distinct sentencing concept | Enhancement impermissibly double counted conduct already punished by conviction under §1029(a)(4) | Enhancement upheld; no impermissible double counting under Suarez principles |
| §3B1.1 aggravating‑role (organizer/leader) | Sufficient evidence of leadership/control (planning docs, spreadsheets, recruiting/use of Vozniuk, payments) | Brothers claim equal involvement or insufficient control to warrant enhancement | §3B1.1(c) enhancements affirmed; district court did not clearly err in finding organizers/leaders |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness (loss calculation, obstruction, explanation) | Sentences justified by seriousness, scope, lack of remorse, deterrence, and restitution; court stated it would have imposed same sentence even if enhancements reduced | Court miscalculated loss, misapplied obstruction, failed to explain sentence adequately; sentence substantively unreasonable | Court’s explanation sufficient; under Keene court said it would impose same sentence absent guideline errors, so any Guideline errors harmless and 145‑month sentence is substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry to effect an arrest in a home is presumptively unreasonable)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standards for showing a warrant affidavit contains intentional/reckless falsehoods or omissions)
- United States v. Magluta, 44 F.3d 1530 (11th Cir. 1995) (officers may enter residence to execute an arrest warrant if facts reasonably indicate suspect is inside)
- United States v. Bervaldi, 226 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) (common‑sense factors for assessing reasonableness of belief suspect is inside residence)
- United States v. Williams, 871 F.3d 1197 (11th Cir. 2017) (plain‑view seizure and scope of search once suspect is believed present)
- Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (permissive inferences v. mandatory presumptions under Due Process)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt)
- United States v. Suarez, 893 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 2018) (double counting and when multiple Guidelines provisions may properly apply)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (district court must provide sufficient explanation for a sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (harmlessness where district court states it would impose the same sentence despite Guideline errors)