NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ Nos. 16-1446 and 16-1520 ______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. YAROSLAV CHURUK, a/k/a SLAVKO, a/k/a YAROSLAV BOTSVYNYUK, Appellant in No. 16-1446 ______________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MYKHAYLO BOTSVYNYUK, a/k/a MISHA, a/k/a MYKHAILO CHURYK, a/k/a MYKHAYLO CHURUK, Appellant in No. 16-1520 ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Crim. Nos. 2-10-cr-00159-005 and 2-10-cr-00159-003) District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond ______________ Argued October 22, 2019 BEFORE: GREENAWAY, JR., PORTER, and COWEN, Circuit Judges (Filed: January 9, 2020) ______________ William M. McSwain Daniel A. Velez (Argued) Michelle Morgan Office of the United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Attorneys for Appellee Alan J. Tauber (Argued for Appellant Yaroslav Churuk) 1390 Upland Terrace Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Mark E. Cedrone (Argued for Appellant Mykhaylo Botsvynyuk) Cedrone & Mancano 123 South Broad Street Suite 810 Philadelphia, PA 19109 Attorneys for Appellants ______________ OPINION* ______________ COWEN, Circuit Judge. ____________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 In these consolidated appeals, Yaroslav Churuk (“Churuk”) and Mykhaylo Botsvynyuk (“Mykhaylo”) (collectively “Appellants”)1 appeal from their respective convictions for conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Mykhaylo also challenges his sentence. We will affirm. I. On March 17, 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment against five brothers—Churuk, Mykhaylo, Omelyan Botsvynyuk (“Omelyan”), Stepan Botsvynyuk (“Stepan”), and Dmtyro Botsvynyuk (“Dmytryo”) (collectively the “Botsvynyuks”). Count One charged the Botsvynyuks with conspiracy to conduct a racketeering enterprise in violation of § 1962(d) (while Counts Two and Three charged Omelyan with extortion under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Count Four charged Stepan with Hobbs Act extortion). Viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the government” (Mykhaylo’s Brief at 9 n.6 (citing United States v. Kemp, 500 F.3d 257, 284 (3d Cir. 2007))), Appellants together with their brothers, operated an international human trafficking ring (i.e., the “Botsvynyuk Organization”) that recruited young Ukrainian men and women to work for them with the promise of good paying jobs and a better life in the United States. Instead, the Botsvynyuk Organization held the workers under conditions of peonage and involuntary servitude, using violence and threats of violence to keep them 1 The use of first names throughout the opinion is not out of disrespect for any individual but to help distinguish family members with the same last name. 3 in line. These men and women were smuggled into the United States through Mexico. They were told that they owed substantial debts for their travel to the United States. Once they arrived in Philadelphia, the Botsvynyuk Organization forced the victims to work long hours cleaning commercial buildings and private residences and subjected them to deplorable living conditions as well as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals