## Facts

- The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc. (the Claims Conference) was a nonprofit that screened applicants and administered German-funded compensation programs for Jewish Holocaust victims.
- Over about 16 years, a large fraud scheme submitted reparation applications supported by altered identification documents and fabricated persecution stories, including fraud involving Claims Conference employees.
- The scheme caused roughly $57 million in improper payments.
- For about four years, Raisa Belgorodskaya collected passports and birth certificates and provided them to a Claims Conference employee who altered the documents to make applicants appear eligible.
- Belgorodskaya was paid about $300 for each fraudulent application she helped facilitate.
- Belgorodskaya submitted her own fraudulent application, falsely claiming she had lived in a Ukrainian ghetto, and she arranged for her children to receive two payments through the program.
- During the investigation, Belgorodskaya made two phone calls threatening a Claims Conference employee involved in the investigation and the employee’s daughter.
- Belgorodskaya pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and witness tampering.
- At sentencing, her attorney told the court about her age and medical conditions and submitted medical records from two doctors.
- The presentence report stated that Belgorodskaya had a “college degree in bookkeeping.” Belgorodskaya later claimed the report overstated her education, and her attorney did not challenge that description at sentencing.
- The sentencing court stated it had considered Belgorodskaya’s health, but concluded that her extended role in the fraud and her threats required a meaningful penalty that included imprisonment.
- The court imposed a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and two years of supervised release.
- Belgorodskaya later moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing based on (1) alleged failures to investigate and present mental and physical health evidence and (2) failure to correct the PSR’s education description.

## Issues

1. Whether sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate and present Belgorodskaya’s mental and physical health mitigation.
2. Whether sentencing counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to correct the PSR’s description of Belgorodskaya’s education.
3. Whether Belgorodskaya showed Strickland prejudice—i.e., a reasonable probability of a lower sentence absent the alleged errors.

## Decision

- The district court denied Belgorodskaya’s § 2255 motion.
- The court concluded counsel’s sentencing presentation regarding age and health, including submission of medical records, fell within reasonable professional assistance.
- The court concluded the challenged PSR education description was, at most, a minor point and did not establish constitutionally deficient performance.
- The court further held Belgorodskaya failed to show prejudice because the sentencing judge expressly considered her health but imposed imprisonment based on the seriousness and duration of her conduct and her threats; additional mitigation or a corrected education description would not likely have changed the sentence.

## Legal Principles

- To prove ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, a petitioner must show (1) deficient performance measured against an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent counsel’s errors.
- Judicial review of counsel’s performance is highly deferential; reasonable choices about what mitigation to present at sentencing generally do not amount to deficiency.
- In the sentencing context, prejudice requires a showing that better advocacy would likely have produced a lower sentence, not merely that additional information could have been presented.
- Counsel may reasonably present medical mitigation through selected records and summaries; the Constitution does not require counsel to obtain every possible medical record or contact every treating professional.
- Minor inaccuracies in background information in a presentence report do not support § 2255 relief where the sentencing decision turned on the defendant’s offense conduct and the alleged error had no meaningful effect on the sentencing rationale.
- Where the sentencing court states it considered the defendant’s mitigation but found imprisonment necessary due to aggravating conduct (such as long-running fraud and witness threats), a petitioner faces a high hurdle in showing Strickland prejudice.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Belgorodskaya*, the court denied § 2255 relief because sentencing counsel reasonably presented Belgorodskaya’s age and medical issues with supporting records, the uncorrected PSR education description was not significant to the sentencing outcome, and the sentencing judge’s stated reasons—her sustained participation in a major fraud scheme and her threats to a witness—defeated any showing that different lawyering would likely have produced a lesser sentence.


United States v. Belgorodskaya, 2014 WL 1796424 (2014)