United States v. Khandrius, Shelikhova
613 F. App'x 4
2d Cir.2015Background
- Defendants Yuri Khandrius and Irina Shelikhova pleaded guilty to conspiracy-related health-care and money-laundering offenses arising from a large Medicare-fraud scheme; Khandrius was sentenced to 96 months, Shelikhova to 180 months.
- At sentencing the district court attributed nearly $77.5 million in intended loss to Khandrius by counting co-conspirators’ conduct under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3, resulting in an increased Guidelines range.
- Khandrius argued the district court improperly held him accountable for the entire conspiracy without particularized findings that the co-conspirators’ acts were within the scope of his agreement and foreseeable to him (Studley factors).
- Khandrius also requested a Fatico evidentiary hearing to challenge factual attributions; the district court denied the request.
- Shelikhova’s CJA counsel filed an Anders motion to withdraw; the government moved to dismiss her appeal based on an appellate-waiver in her plea agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly attributed co-conspirators’ fraud loss to Khandrius under U.S.S.G. §1B1.3 (scope of agreement) | Government: the record shows Khandrius played a large role, knew scope of scheme, and benefitted from clinic employment, so full loss is attributable | Khandrius: his role (posing as a doctor; paid as employee) did not show he agreed to or shared in the entire conspiracy; district court lacked particularized Studley findings | Vacated sentence and remanded: district court must make particularized findings that co-conspirators’ acts were within the scope of Khandrius’s agreement and were foreseeable before attributing their conduct |
| Allocation of burden to prove scope/foreseeability of co-conspirators’ conduct | Government: Khandrius bears burden to show loss fell outside his agreement | Khandrius: government must prove scope and foreseeability by a preponderance | Court: government bears burden to establish scope and foreseeability; Negron does not control here; remand required for proper findings |
| Denial of Fatico evidentiary hearing | Khandrius: factual disputes about scope warranted a Fatico hearing | Government/district court: defendant had opportunity to rebut; formal hearing not required | Denial not an abuse of discretion; defendant had procedural opportunity to contest facts; no due process violation |
| Validity of Shelikhova’s appeal / counsel withdrawal under Anders | Government: plea valid and appellate waiver bars appeal; move to dismiss | Shelikhova (pro se): responded but no meritorious issues shown | Anders motion granted; counsel permitted to withdraw; government’s motion to dismiss appeal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Studley v. United States, 47 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 1995) (sets framework for attributing co-conspirators’ conduct under Guidelines: scope of agreement and foreseeability)
- United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979) (defendant may request evidentiary hearing to dispute sentencing facts)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Rizzo, 349 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2003) (discussion of government’s obligation under §1B1.3 to prove co-conspirator acts fall within defendant’s agreement)
- United States v. Getto, 729 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2013) (clarifies that sentencing attribution under Guidelines is narrower than conspiracy law)