Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01053/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01053-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adil Gasim Al-Dabbi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1053

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Adil Gasim Al-Dabbi, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 6, 2006

Filed: August 10, 2006

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration

in light of Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Having reconsidered Adil

Gasim Al-Dabbi’s sentence, we reinstate our panel opinion and affirm the sentence.

The facts of this case are set forth in United States v. Al-Dabbi, 388 F.3d 1145

(8th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, vacated by 126 S. Ct. 590 (2005), and we repeat and

supplement the facts here only as relevant to Al-Dabbi’s Booker claim.

Appellate Case: 04-1053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/10/2006 Entry ID: 2076867 
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, then Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Nebraska.

2

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

3

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

-2-

Al-Dabbi was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. In preparing

the presentence investigation report, the probation officer attributed 1.49 kilograms

of cocaine base to Al-Dabbi, found that his base offense level was 36, recommended

a four-level enhancement for role in the offense and a two-level enhancement for

obstruction of justice, and determined his criminal history category was II. The

resulting offense level of 42 carried a sentencing range of 360 months to life

imprisonment. Al-Dabbi did not object to any of these findings. 

In its preliminary findings, the district court1

 determined that the obstruction of

justice enhancement was not warranted and that a two-level enhancement for role in

the offense was appropriate. The government objected, and the district court denied

the government’s objection to the denial of an obstruction of justice enhancement, but

stated that it would consider the extent of the role enhancement. At sentencing, the

district court found that a three-level role enhancement was appropriate and

determined that Al-Dabbi’s total offense level was 39, that his criminal history

category was II, and that the sentencing range was thus 292 months to 365 months.

The district court sentenced Al-Dabbi to 292 months’ imprisonment and five years’

supervised release. 

Because Al-Dabbi failed to object to the sentence enhancements based on

Apprendi,

2

 Blakely,

3

 or the Sixth Amendment, we review the claim for plain error.

United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 549 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct.

266 (2005). We remand for resentencing only if Al-Dabbi establishes that there was

Appellate Case: 04-1053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/10/2006 Entry ID: 2076867 
-3-

error that was plain and that affected his substantial rights. United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993); Pirani, 406 F.3d at 549. To show that the sentence affected

his substantial rights, Al-Dabbi must show that the district court likely would have

granted a lesser sentence had the district court not treated the guidelines as mandatory.

Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553. 

Although the district court plainly (and understandably) erred in treating the

guidelines as mandatory when it enhanced Al-Dabbi’s sentence, Al-Dabbi has failed

to establish that the error affected his substantial rights. Al-Dabbi argues that because

he was sentenced at the bottom of the guidelines range, the district court would have

likely given him a more favorable sentence if the Guidelines had been treated as

advisory. In Pirani, however, we held that sentencing at the bottom of the range “is

insufficient, without more, to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the court

would have imposed a lesser sentence absent the Booker error.” Id. 

Next, Al-Dabbi argues that this case should be remanded because the district

court reversed its tentative findings and because it was uncertain about Al-Dabbi’s

exact role in the conspiracy. The district court, however, found that Al-Dabbi

“performed various managerial roles” and concluded that a three-point enhancement

for role was proper. Sentencing Tr. at 4. Before hearing from the parties at the

sentencing hearing, the district court stated that “I’m inclined to think that a sentence

at the low end of the guideline range in this case, which is certainly not low, is

appropriate.” Sentencing Tr. at 5. Having reviewed the record as a whole, we see no

indication that the district court would have sentenced Al-Dabbi differently had it

viewed the guidelines as merely advisory. “[W]here the effect of the error on the

result in the district court is uncertain or indeterminate—where we would have to

speculate—the appellant has not met his burden of showing a reasonable probability

that the result would have been different but for the error.” Pirani, 406 F.3d at 553

(internal quotation omitted). 

Appellate Case: 04-1053 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/10/2006 Entry ID: 2076867 
-4-

The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1053 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/10/2006 Entry ID: 2076867