Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02322/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02322-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ali Ademi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 05-2322

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Ali Ademi,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Iowa.

Submitted: December 12, 2005

 Filed: February 15, 2006 

_________________

Before BYE, BEAM and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Ali Ademi pled guilty to one count of being an illegal alien in

possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5)(A) and

924(a)(2) and to one count of knowingly concealing, harboring and shielding from

detection an illegal alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(i). At

sentencing, the district court1

 granted the Government’s request for a six-level upward

departure pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines §§ 5K2.0 and 5K2.21 and

Appellate Case: 05-2322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010111
-2-

determined a total offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of I, resulting

in an advisory sentencing range of 37 to 46 months. The district court sentenced

Ademi to 47 months’ imprisonment–a sentence one month longer than the top of the

advisory guidelines range. Ademi appeals his sentence on various grounds.

Ademi argues that the district court violated the Sixth Amendment by making

findings of fact utilizing a preponderance of the evidence standard when imposing

sentence. However, judicial fact-finding using a preponderance of the evidence

standard is permitted provided that the guidelines are applied in an advisory manner.

United States v. Wade, No. 05-2181, slip op. at 2 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2006) (citing

United States v. Vaughn, 410 F.3d 1002, 1004 (8th Cir. 2005)). Because the record

establishes that the guidelines were applied in an advisory manner, the district court

did not err.

Ademi also challenges the § 5K2.21 upward departure. Section 5K2.21

provides that the court may depart upward to reflect the actual seriousness of the

offense based on conduct underlying a potential charge that was not pursued in the

case as part of a plea agreement or for any other reason and that did not enter into the

determination of the applicable guidelines range. In this case, the district court

considered whether Ademi’s uncharged assault on an illegal alien employee was an

appropriate basis for a § 5K2.21departure. Ademi first argues that the departure was

improper because the assault was unrelated to the offenses to which he pled guilty.

This argument is meritless because the facts indicate that the assaulted employee was

an illegal alien who was assaulted during the course of his employment by Ademi.

Because Ademi concealed, harbored and shielded illegal aliens by employing them

at his restaurant, the assault was related to Ademi’s violation of § 1324(a)(1). 

Second, Ademi argues that departure was improper because the district court

should not have considered the vulnerability of the assaulted employee for purposes

of § 5K2.21. He argues that since U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) separately provides for a

Appellate Case: 05-2322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010111
2

Although the district court provided its reasons for granting the upward

departure in calculating the guidelines range of 37 to 46 months, it did not provide

reasons for its one-month upward variance as required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3553(c)(2) for sentences outside the guidelines range. However, where the district

court fails to provide its reasons as required, we affirm the sentence if we determine

that the sentence is reasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(2),(3); United States v.

Kicklighter, 413 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2005).

-3-

2-level enhancement for a “vulnerable victim,” vulnerability may not be considered

under § 5K2.21 because a departure may not be based on a factor adequately taken

into consideration elsewhere in the guidelines. However, the record shows that the

district court did not apply the two-level “vulnerable victim” enhancement pursuant

to § 3A1.1(b)(1) but limited consideration of the vulnerability of the victim to its §

5K2.21 departure analysis. The district court found that Ademi’s uncharged conduct,

including beating an employee with a large metal spoon, causing bodily injury, and

threatening him with a knife after he sought to be paid his wages, justified an upward

departure under § 5K2.21. In making this finding, the district court also noted that the

employee was “particularly vulnerable” to this type of abuse because, as an illegal

alien, he could not report the assault to law enforcement. Ademi’s choice of victim

was a fact related to the uncharged conduct and, along with other facts found by the

court, demonstrated the actual seriousness of Ademi’s criminal actions. As such, the

district court did not err in considering the vulnerability of the victim as one of many

facts related to the uncharged conduct in determining whether a § 5K2.21 upward

departure was appropriate.

In addition, Ademi argues that his sentence was unreasonable and requests a

review pursuant to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). The reasonableness

of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Dalton, 404 F.3d

1029, 1032 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Yahnke, 395 F.3d 823, 826 (8th

Cir. 2005)). Ademi’s 47-month sentence was reasonable under § 3553(a).2

 Although

Ademi pled guilty to illegal possession of a firearm and harboring an illegal alien, his

Appellate Case: 05-2322 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010111
-4-

criminal conduct included physically abusing an employee. His violence was

particularly reprehensible because the employee, an illegal alien, could not complain

to authorities–as Ademi knew, being an illegal alien himself. Applying the § 3553(a)

factors to these facts and to the record as a whole, we find that Ademi’s sentence,

which exceeded the advisory guidelines range by only one month, was reasonable

given the nature and circumstances of the offense, the personal characteristics of the

defendant, the seriousness of the offense, and the need to protect the public from

further such violence and exploitation by the defendant. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2322 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/15/2006 Entry ID: 2010111