Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06272/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06272-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohammed Ali Alsubaey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

' ,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

. I LED 

Unic d ~tes ~\nt of Appeals ,. af,th Cir~·tJ.it 

APR 2 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6272 

(D.C. No. CR-90-37-R) 

( W. D. Okla. ) 

MOHAMMED ALI ALSUBAEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Mohammed Ali Alsubaey appeals his sentence imposed following 

his guilty plea. We affirm. 

Alsubaey contends the district court judge erred by (1) 

enhancing his offense level by four as an adjustment for his role 

in the offense; and (2) failing to reduce his offense level by two 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6272 Document: 010110031711 Date Filed: 04/02/1991 Page: 1 
' 

for accepting personal responsibility for his criminal conduct 

under the relevant provisions of United States Sentencing 

Commission Guidelines Manual (1989) (hereinafter Guidelines). 

Because Alsubaey contends the district court's misapplication of 

the Guidelines arose from erroneous fact findings, we apply a 

clearly erroneous standard of review. See United States v. 

Roberts, 898 F.2d 1465, 1468-69 (10th Cir. 1990)(mixed questions 

closer to fact questions reviewed under standard approaching 

clearly erroneous); United States v. Wach, 907 F.2d 1038, 1040 

(10th Cir. 1990)(acceptance of responsibility reviewed under 

clearly erroneous standard). 

Alsubaey's contention regarding the enhancement of his 

offense level by four as an adjustment for his role in the offense 

has no factual basis. The sentencing transcript as well as the 

Presentence Report clearly reflect that Alsubaey received an 

enhancement of only two levels for his role in the offense. Rec., 

vol. II, at 11 20 (presentence report made offense level adjustment 

of "+2" pursuant to Guidelines§ 3Bl.l(c)); rec., vol. III, at 54 

(sentencing judge indicated Alsubaey receiving two point 

enhancement, and Alsubaey's trial counsel signified objections 

regarding enhancement had been resolved). 1 

1 Alsubaey also argues on appeal that the district court erred 

in considering his role in criminal conduct based on conduct for 

which he was not convicted. We do not address this argument as it 

stems, in part, from Alsubaey's erroneous view that he received an 

enhancement of four levels pursuant to§ 3Bl.l(a), rather than two 

levels pursuant to§ 3Bl.l(c), and because this objection was not 

presented below to the district court judge. See rec., vol. III, 

at 54; Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976) (generally, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6272 Document: 010110031711 Date Filed: 04/02/1991 Page: 2 
A ' • 

We also affirm the district court's determination that 

Alsubaey refused to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct 

in a truthful fashion. With respect to Alsubaey's testimony at 

sentencing, the district court judge stated: "I must say I find 

Mr. Alsubaey's testimony patently unbelievable." Rec., vol. III, 

at 48-49. Guidelines,§ 3El.l(a), Application Note l(C), 

expressly states that the voluntariness and truthfulness of 

admissions are appropriate factors in determining whether a 

defendant qualifies for an acceptance of responsibility 

adjustment. We find no error in the district court's denial of 

the two point reduction. See also Wach, 907 F.2d at 1040 

(sentencing judge is in "unique position to evaluate a defendant's 

acceptance of responsibility") (quoting Guidelines, § 3El.1 

(commentary)). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

appellate court will not consider issue not raised below). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6272 Document: 010110031711 Date Filed: 04/02/1991 Page: 3