United States v. Nadirashvili
655 F.3d 114
2d Cir.2011Background
- From Feb 2004 to Mar 2005, government investigated a suspected weapons trafficking ring with confidential source Davis.
- Solomonyan, Spies, Nadirashvili, Chvelidze, Vorobeychik, and Kharabadze were recorded in wiretaps discussing weapons procurement, pricing, and shipping.
- Davis instructed Solomonyan and Spies to obtain firearms and related items; Solomonyan sought price lists and associated deals with various contacts.
- Solomonyan and Spies obtained at least eight firearms; one individual, McQueen, supplied three firearms with others obtained later.
- For sentencing, the district court increased Solomonyan’s base offense level by two increases under § 2K2.1(b) for conspiracy involving a destructive device and for conspiracy involving at least 200 firearms.
- Appellants were convicted of conspiracies and trafficking offenses involving foreign defense articles and domestic firearms, with varying prison terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for domestic firearms trafficking | Nadirashvili, Chvelidze, Vorobeychik challenged sufficiency; Solomonyan and Spies joined. | Defendants argue lack of knowledge/intent to engage in a business of firearms dealing. | Sufficient evidence supports convictions; appellants held out as sources or aided Solomonyan. |
| As-applied vagueness of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(1)(A)(ii) | Kharabadze contends language vague as applied to him. | Kharabadze argues 'facilitates' ambiguity for price information. | Conduct clearly falls within statute; vagueness challenge rejected. |
| Reasonableness standard for offense level enhancements under § 2K2.1(b) | District court used preponderance to apply enhancements. | Solomonyan asserts improper standard; relies on reasonable certainty. | Vacate sentence; remand to apply reasonable certainty standard for enhancements. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carter, 801 F.2d 78 (2d Cir. 1986) (defining 'engaged in the business' of firearms under § 921(a)(21)(C))
- United States v. Berry, 644 F.2d 1034 (5th Cir. 1981) (concerning sales necessary to prove business-like dealing in firearms)
- United States v. Hardwick, 523 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for sufficiency review; heavy burden on defendant)
- United States v. Savarese, 404 F.3d 651 (2d Cir. 2005) (reasonable certainty standard in sentencing determinations)
- United States v. Nadi, 996 F.2d 548 (2d Cir. 1993) (as-applied vagueness considerations)
- United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2009) (evidence viewed in light most favorable to the government)
- United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) (void-for-vagueness principles in criminal statutes)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (due process and vagueness principles in criminal statutes)