US v. Igor Borodin, No. 13-4862 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4862 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IGOR BORODIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00258-FDW-1) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christopher C. Fialko, RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Igor agreement, Borodin to counterfeit pled trafficking trademarks guilty, in owned motor by pursuant vehicle automobile to a airbags plea bearing manufacturers, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2320(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2014) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012) (Count One), and transporting hazardous materials, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46312 (2006) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count Two). The district court sentenced Borodin within the advisory Guidelines range to eighty-four months imprisonment on Count One and a concurrent sixty-month term on Count Two. Borodin timely appealed. Counsel has filed a brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Borodin s sentence was unreasonable in light of his history and characteristics and because his sentence was greater than the sentences imposed on defendants in other jurisdictions convicted of trafficking in counterfeit trademarked airbags. Borodin filed a pro se supplemental brief reiterating these contentions and asserting that the Government breached the plea agreement. Finding no error, we affirm. We review the district court s sentence, whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines 2 range [for reasonableness,] . . . under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. (2007). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 This standard of review involves two steps; under the first, we examine the sentence for significant procedural errors, and under the second, we review the substance of the sentence. 2007) United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. (analyzing Gall, 552 U.S. at 50-51). Significant procedural errors include failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [(2012)] failing to factors, consider selecting a the [18 U.S.C.] sentence § on based 3553(a) clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If there are no significant procedural errors, we then consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances. If the sentence is within or below the properly Id. calculated Guidelines range, this court applies a presumption on appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 289 (4th Cir. 2012). rebutted only unreasonable United States if when v. the defendant measured shows against Montes-Pineda, 3 445 United States v. Such a presumption is that the F.3d § the sentence 3553(a) 375, 379 is factors. (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Borodin s within-Guidelines sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. We further conclude that the Government did not breach the plea agreement. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Borodin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Borodin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Borodin. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
