# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T



## No. 20-3006 September Term, 2020

F I L E D O N : M A

Y 18, 2021

U N I TE D S TA TE S O F A M E R I C A , A P P E L L E E

v.

I S S A M H U S S E I

N A B U -G H O S H , A

L S O K N O W N A S I S A M G H O S H , A

L S O K N O W N A S I S S A M H U S S I

N H A S S U N A , A L S O K N O W N A S S A M G H O S H , A P P E L L A N T

Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of Columbia (No. 1:15-c r-00139- 1)

Be fore : P I L L

A R D and W A L K

E R , Circuit Judges , and R A N D O L P H , Senior Circuit Judge

.

J U D G M E N T

This is an appea l from a sentenc e imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbi a. After briefing and arg ument, we have considere d the issues fully and deter mined that a published opinion is unnecessa ry

. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d).

We AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence

.

* * *

I n 2010, Fr iends Christian School neede d a $30 milli on construction loan. I ssam Abu-Ghosh offe red to help. The only catc h? Abu-Ghosh wanted $250,000 up front

. S o t h e school sent the
money , but the loan never came

. Abu-Ghosh made off with the deposit. Fr iends Christian was not the only borrowe r left in the lurch. Two y ear s — and a d o z en v i ctims — later, Abu-Ghosh had pockete d near ly

a million doll ars.

I ndicted on various fra

ud char g es, Abu-Ghosh pleade d g uilty to one count of conspirac y

. See 18 U.S.C. § 371. Bef

ore he was sentenced, Abu-Ghosh was arr ested for depositing phony chec ks

— a violation of Virg inia law and the conditions of his rele ase pending sentenc ing. For that rea son, the district court declined to reduc e Abu-Ghosh’ s sentenc e for “ac cepta nce o f responsibility .”A631–32; see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Abu-Ghosh a ppeals that de cision. 1

Abu-Ghosh had the burden to prove acc eptanc e of responsibility

. United States v. Le y va , 916 F.3d 14, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2019). He failed to car ry it. After an evidentiar

y hear ing, the court found that Abu-Ghosh had deposited “cle arly fictitious” chec ks and flouted its order “not t o write or deposit

an y ch ec k

. . . over $1,000 without prior approva l” — actions “inconsistent with acc ep t i n g responsibility .” A83, 583–623, 632. Abu-Ghosh conce des that such conduct is rea son enoug h to deny sentenc ing c redit.

There is no evide nce that the sentenc e rests on “constitutionally impermissible fac tor[s] .” United States v. Guillen
, 561 F. 3 d 527, 531 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Abu-Ghosh claims that the court “sente nced [hi m] more harshly ” beca use he invoked his Fifth Amendment privileg e during a prese ntence interview. Appellant’s Br ief 25. As proof, Abu-Ghosh cites the court’s war nings that his “conduc t” seeme d “inconsistent [wit h] acc eptanc e of responsibility .” A511–14. What conduct exactly ? The war

nings are unclea

r. Yet whateve r the court meant, i t p l ed g ed to “withhold judgme nt” until sentenc ing. A514. And when that day came , the court said nothing about the
prese ntence interview. Yes, the court ref used to let Abu-Ghosh surre nder voluntarily beca use he had “do[ne] an end run on the Probation Offic e’s revie w.” A647. But context shows that this “end run”

was Abu-Ghosh’ s failure to “contact [ ] t h e Probation Offic e” befor e depositing chec ks — not his choice to take the F ifth. A631.

Neither does the sentenc e ref lect “antipathy for g uilty pleas.” Reply Br ief 8 (cle aned up). T rue, at status confe renc es the court had repe atedly encour ag ed the parties to try their ca s e. Bu t 2 Abu-Ghosh has not shown that the court denied sentenc ing cre d i t as “v indictive punishment” for exercising his rig ht to p l ea d g uilty

. Appellant’s Br ief 39. When a district court offe rs valid and sufficie nt g rounds for a sentenc e — as it did here — “[w]e take the district court at its word.” United States v. Monze l , 930 F.3d 470, 485 ( D.C. Cir. 2019).

* * *

This dispositi on is unpublished. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). We direc t the Clerk to withhold the mandate until seven day s afte r any timely petition for rehe aring or rehe aring en banc is resolved. See Fe d. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. R. 41(b).

“I n deter mining whether a defe ndant qualifies [for acc eptanc e-of -re sponsibili ty sentenc ing 1

cre dit]
, appropr iate considera tions include

. . . withdrawa l from criminal conduct

. . ..” § 3E1.1 cmt 1(B ).

See A389–90 (M ay 5, 2016); A400–01 (J uly 27, 2016); A413–14 (Feb. 21, 2017); A428

2 (Apr. 24, 2017) ; A438–39 (June 26, 2017); A459–60 (Oct. 20, 2017)

.
2F OR THE COURT: Mark J. L ang er, Cler

k

BY : /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

3