ABOVE: D&R Sports Center

---

Mark Komoroski, owner of D&R Sports Center in Nanticoke, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty in August 2009 to illegally exporting rifle scopes and other optics to Russia. He was sentenced to 32 months in jail and ordered to pay a $10,000 fine.

Earlier this month Komoroski filed a motion to vacate the sentence arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. According to that motion, his attorneys never advised him that, following the logic of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Pulungan, he could only be convicted of the export offense if he knew that the export of the rifle scopes and optics required a license. Komoroski claims that had he known that he would have applied for licenses. He further alleges that he would not have pleaded guilty if he knew that this knowledge was a requirement for conviction.

Setting aside a guilty plea is usually quite difficult. First, in the plea hearing, if conducted correctly, the defendant will be asked to state in open court and under oath that he knew that the export was illegal. That makes it difficult for the defendant to say later that he didn’t know his actions violated the law without setting up the classic question as to whether the defendant was lying in open court or in the motion to set aside the guilty plea. But there is no transcript of the guilty plea available in the docket for the case, so it’s impossible to say whether this is a problem here or not.

Another issue is whether other evidence would permit an inference that the defendant knew the export was illegal. Usually this evidence is readily satisfied by export declarations that provide a false description of the item being exported. Most of the docket here is sealed, apparently because Komoroski’s Russian co-defendant is alleged to be connected in some fashion to notorious Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout. But one contemporary news report suggests that Komoroski’s shipping declarations described the items accurately.

Finally, although not mentioned in Komoroski’s motion, the presiding judge said something more than a little troubling in the sentencing hearing:

It’s a pretty clear case for a prosecutor in a case such as this to recognize, as everybody in this room recognizes, that the conduct is prohibited, there’s a reason the law was passed and the defendant himself — why he didn’t appreciate why that law prevented him from doing what he did and why he allowed himself to be persuaded to do what he did and in effect destroyed his life, affected the life of his family and affected the life supporting business.

(Emphasis added.)

The judge here seems to be admitting that Komoroski didn’t understand that his actions violated the law. If that’s true, Komoroski shouldn’t be sitting in a federal prison cell. But Komoroski is representing himself pro se, his own lawyers having told the press that they thought that the 32-month sentence was fair.