*

This decision was originally issued as an “unpublished decision” filed on May 27, 2010. On July

19, 2010, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 10a0217p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAHIB ISMAEL-YASIR AL-CHOLAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

-

N

No. 08-2532

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

No. 07-20562-001—George C. Steeh, District Judge.

Argued: April 23, 2010

Decided and Filed: May 27, 2010*

Before: GUY, BOGGS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: David Herskovic, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Appellant. Leonid Feller,

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: David Herskovic, Gerald M. Lorence, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for

Appellant. Leonid Feller, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit,

Michigan, for Appellee. 

_________________

OPINION

_________________

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Rahib Ismael-Yasir Al-Cholan was caught in a

sting operation attempting to purchase the sexual services of a twelve-year-old girl.

Al-Cholan was subsequently convicted of traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose

1
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 2

1

While Hanna testified in English at Al-Cholan’s trial, all of his conversations with Al-Cholan

were in their native Arabic.

of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). He makes three

arguments on appeal: (1) that he was unlawfully entrapped; (2) that his custodial statements

to police should have been suppressed because he did not understand the arresting officers’

English-language Miranda warning; and (3) that the district court improperly imposed a

sentence enhancement for a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. All

three arguments lack merit, and we therefore affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Al-Cholan is an Iraqi native and a former tank mechanic in the Iraqi army under

Saddam Hussein. He immigrated to the United States in 1995 after deserting the army and

spending a brief period in Saudi Arabia. For the next twelve years, he lived in Dearborn,

Michigan, where he married, fathered two children, and worked as a self-employed auto

mechanic. In 2002, he incorporated his own business, Cholan, Inc. The following year, he

became a United States citizen. By all outward appearances, Al-Cholan was an upstanding

individual living the American dream.

But the truth was substantially darker. In October 2007, when Al-Cholan was 45

years old, he befriended Michael Hanna, a 24-year-old Lebanese immigrant, and, according

to Hanna, admitted to him that he harbored a predilection for sex with underage girls and

boys. As Hanna testified, Al-Cholan claimed that “Lebanese people . . . know how to get

. . . young children” for sex and asked him several times to procure a child.1

 Concerned,

Hanna related this request to his guardian, who passed it on to the Department of

Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division (“ICE”). ICE

agents then set up a sting operation using Hanna as a cooperator.

On November 7, 2007, while agents listened in, Hanna told Al-Cholan that he

knew of a twelve-year-old girl being prostituted by her uncle in Toledo, Ohio for $100

per session. According to Hanna, Al-Cholan responded that “he [could not] go to

Toledo because he [was] afraid that the police would catch him on the road if he ha[d]

a minor” and asked “if [the girl] could come over here.” Hanna said that she could not.
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 3

Al-Cholan asked if any other children were available; Hanna said no. With no

persuasion or pressure from Hanna, Al-Cholan then decided to accept the offer.

Since Al-Cholan’s truck was out of commission, he asked Hanna to drive him

to Toledo. En route, Al-Cholan boasted to Hanna that he had had over 100 prior sexual

experiences with minors, both in Iraq and in Michigan. At some point, ICE agents

realized that the recording device Hanna was wearing had malfunctioned, and directed

Hanna via cellular telephone to stop at a gas station. There, the agents met Hanna and

fixed the device as Al-Cholan waited obliviously in the car. While at the station,

Al-Cholan asked Hanna to purchase Vaseline and condoms, and Hanna did so. After the

two men resumed driving, Al-Cholan continued to detail his past sexual molestation of

children and his plans to “spend the night” with the twelve-year-old girl.

At approximately 10:00 p.m., Al-Cholan and Hanna arrived at a motel in Toledo,

where an ICE agent was posing as the girl’s uncle. Al-Cholan paid the agent and briefly

conversed with him in English, then attempted to enter the room to which the agent had

directed him. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested.

While still on the scene, an agent read Al-Cholan his Miranda rights in English,

and Al-Cholan signed an English-language Miranda waiver form. ICE agents then

interviewed Al-Cholan for about ten minutes before transporting him to a nearby police

station for further questioning. During this second stretch of questioning, Al-Cholan told

several inconsistent stories before admitting that he had come to Toledo to rendezvous

with a twelve-year-old girl. After he acknowledged this – about five minutes into the

station-house interview – Al-Cholan began “act[ing] like he didn’t speak English” and,

for the first time, requested an interpreter. The agents immediately terminated the

interview.

Al-Cholan was subsequently indicted on one count of traveling in interstate

commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2423(b). He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground of entrapment, and the

district court denied his motion. He also moved to suppress his custodial statements,
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 4

arguing that his Miranda waiver was invalid because of his allegedly limited

understanding of English. After an evidentiary hearing, this motion, too, was denied.

Following a jury trial in July 2008, Al-Cholan was found guilty. He did not

request a jury instruction on entrapment, and none was given. In August 2008,

Al-Cholan moved for “a new trial or outright dismissal” on entrapment grounds, among

others. The district court denied the motion. In November 2008, the district court

sentenced him to 112 months’ imprisonment; the sentence included a five-level

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) for having demonstrated a pattern of activity

involving prohibited sexual conduct. This timely appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

A. Entrapment and Related Defenses

Using (and at times conflating) three related but distinct legal theories, Al-Cholan

attacks the fundamental fairness of the sting operation that led to his arrest. These three

theories are: (1) the traditional entrapment defense recognized by the Supreme Court in

Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), and its progeny; (2) the

due-process-based “outrageous government conduct” defense, which the Court hinted

at in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), but has never officially recognized;

and (3) the “manufactured jurisdiction” defense pioneered in United States v. Archer,

486 F. 2d 670 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J.), but scarcely applied since.

This constellation of related claims is technically governed by two different

standards of review. “Outrageous government conduct” was not specifically argued

below, so we review this claim only for plain error. See United States v. Dedman, 527

F.3d 577, 591 (6th Cir. 2008). Nor did Al-Cholan request an entrapment jury instruction

below, so to the extent that he challenges the district court’s failure to issue such an

instruction sua sponte, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Presley, 349

F. App’x 22, 29 (6th Cir. 2009). Meanwhile, we review de novo the district court’s

denial of Al-Cholan’s pre-trial and post-trial motions based on the purely legal issues of

entrapment as a matter of law and manufactured jurisdiction. See United States v.
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 5

Utesch, 596 F.3d 302, 306 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Budd, 496 F.3d 517, 530 (6th

Cir. 2007).

1. Traditional Entrapment

In United States v. Sorrells, the Court first recognized an entrapment defense

under federal criminal law – not as a constitutional imperative, but as a matter of

statutory interpretation – reasoning that it “was [not] the intention of the Congress in

enacting [the Prohibition Act]” that the statute be used to prosecute otherwise innocent

persons “lure[d]” into violating it by law-enforcement agents. 287 U.S. at 448. In

subsequent decisions, the Court has recognized that the Sorrells entrapment defense is

generally available under other provisions of the federal criminal code, while noting that

the defense is “not of a constitutional dimension.” Russell, 411 U.S. at 433; see also

Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992); Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58

(1988); Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958).

As we have construed the entrapment defense, “[t]he central inquiry . . . is

whether law enforcement officials implanted a criminal design in the mind of an

otherwise law-abiding citizen or whether the government merely provided an

opportunity to commit a crime to one who was already predisposed to do so.” United

States v. Pennell, 737 F.2d 521, 534 (6th Cir. 1984). Thus, “[a] valid entrapment

defense requires proof of two elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and

(2) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant to engage in the criminal activity.”

United States v. Khalil, 279 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 2002). In determining whether a

defendant was predisposed to commit the offense, the following factors are relevant:

[t]he character or reputation of the defendant, including any prior

criminal record; whether the suggestion of the criminal activity was

initially made by the Government; whether the defendant was engaged

in criminal activity for profit; whether the defendant evidenced

reluctance to commit the offense, overcome only by repeated

Government inducements or persuasion; and the nature of the

inducement or persuasion supplied by the Government.
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 6

United States v. Moore, 916 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v.

McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1112 (6th Cir. 1984)).

Setting aside the question of inducement, Al-Cholan’s entrapment defense fails

because the evidence incontrovertibly establishes that he was predisposed to commit the

offense. Al-Cholan approached Hanna unprompted and asked him several times to

procure a child. According to Hanna’s testimony and Al-Cholan’s own recorded

statements, Al-Cholan had molested numerous children in the past. And while

Al-Cholan momentarily hesitated about driving to Toledo, he evidenced no reluctance

about having sex with the proffered child, and overcame any initial hesitation about the

interstate travel with no “Government inducements or persuasion” whatsoever.

In the face of this evidence, Al-Cholan argues that, while he may have been

predisposed to molest children, he was not “predisposed to travel[] across state lines”

in order to do so, since all of the alleged prior instances of molestation occurred within

the state of Michigan or overseas, the out-of-state situs for the rendezvous was suggested

by the government, and Al-Cholan initially demurred at the proposed location. In other

words, he argues that “predisposition” cannot be shown under Sorrells and its progeny

without specific evidence of inclination to commit every element of the precise crime

of conviction, including any federal jurisdictional predicate.

We decline to endorse this narrow and hyper-technical view of predisposition.

As the Second Circuit has explained, “[p]redisposition evidence . . . [must be based on]

conduct . . . ‘near enough in kind to support an inference that [the defendant’s] purpose

included offenses of the sort charged,’ although it is not necessary that the past conduct

be precisely the same as that for which the defendant is being prosecuted.” United States

v. Brand, 467 F.3d 179, 200 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Harvey, 991 F.2d

981, 994 (2d Cir. 1993) (in turn quoting United States v. Sherman, 200 F.2d 880, 882-83

(2d Cir. 1952) (Hand, J.))). In fact, Brand involved the very offense at issue here –

traveling across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity with a

minor. Id. at 182. There, the Second Circuit, applying the aforementioned standard,

found that the defendant’s mere possession of images of child pornography was conduct
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 7

2

Al-Cholan’s unsupported assertion that he “did not know that . . . Toledo was not in Michigan”

is of absolutely no consequence to the predisposition inquiry, whatever the level of specificity required.

The violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 does not necessitate knowledge that the predicate act of travel involves

crossing a state boundary, see United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 676-77 (1975); rather, the interstate

element is merely “jurisdictional,” United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438, 450 (6th Cir. 2006).

“near enough in kind to support” a predisposition to travel across state lines to have sex

with children. Id. at 200 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, of course, the

predisposition evidence is still closer in fit to the crime of conviction – more than close

enough, we hold, to defeat Al-Cholan’s entrapment defense. See also United States v.

Nelson, 847 F.2d 285, 287 (6th Cir. 1988) (holding that defendant’s possession of

several books describing explicit underage sex indicated a “predisposition to purchase

pedophilic materials” via the mails).

What is more, even under Al-Cholan’s strained interpretation of “predisposition,”

he must lose. While Al-Cholan briefly hesitated to drive to Toledo, he explicitly voiced

his preference that the girl be brought to Michigan instead; this preferred course of

conduct was itself a violation of the same statute Al-Cholan was ultimately convicted of

violating. See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) (stating that it is a federal offense to “knowingly

transport[ a minor] in interstate or foreign commerce . . . with intent that the individual

engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged

with a criminal offense”); 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) (“conspir[acy] to violate subsection (a)

. . . shall be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation”).

Accordingly, under either de novo or plain-error review, Al-Cholan’s entrapment

defense fails.2

2. Outrageous Government Conduct

In addition to the Sorrells theory of entrapment, Al-Cholan argues that the

government’s conduct was “so outrageous that due process considerations would bar a

conviction” whether or not he was predisposed to commit the crime. The Supreme

Court has never applied this constitutional variant of entrapment, but has suggested in

dictum that it may be available in extreme situations where “[t]he law enforcement

conduct . . . [is] shocking to the universal sense of justice. . . .” Russell, 411 U.S. at
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 8

431-32 (citing Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)); but see Hampton v. United

States, 425 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., writing for a three-Justice plurality)

(stating that “[t]he remedy of the criminal defendant with respect to the acts of

Government agents, which, far from being resisted, are encouraged by him, lies solely

in the [traditional] defense of entrapment,” not in due-process principles).

In this circuit, we have never applied the “outrageous government conduct”

defense, and have stated that “there are . . . strong reasons for concluding that such a

defense simply does not exist . . . .” United States v. Tucker, 28 F.3d 1420, 1427 (6th

Cir. 1994). Even if this defense is still available in theory, “in practice, courts have

rejected its application with almost monotonous regularity.” United States v. Santana,

6 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1993). In light of the “moribund” state of this defense, ibid., the

district court did not commit plain error in failing to raise it sua sponte.

3. Manufactured Jurisdiction

Al-Cholan also invokes the doctrine of “manufactured jurisdiction,” which was

recognized by the Second Circuit in United States v. Archer. In that case, the defendants

were being prosecuted under the Travel Act for a corrupt scheme that occurred entirely

within the state of New York, other than the fact that, on one occasion, an undercover

agent posing as a participant in the scheme went to New Jersey “for the sole purpose of

[engaging one of the defendants] in an interstate telephone call” to satisfy the Travel

Act’s jurisdictional predicate. 486 F.2d at 674.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Friendly concluded that the Sorrells

entrapment defense was unavailable because the defendants were predisposed to commit

the offense. Id. at 682. He briefly considered the due-process-based defense adverted

to in Russell, but found its applicability inconclusive. Id. at 676. In the end, he

concluded that reversal was required on a third ground:

Whatever Congress may have meant by [“uses any facility in interstate

or foreign commerce”], it certainly did not intend to include a telephone

call manufactured by the Government for the precise purpose of

transforming a local bribery offense into a federal crime. . . . [W]hen
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 9

Congress [passed the Travel Act] . . . , it did not mean to include cases

where the federal officers themselves supplied the interstate element and

acted to ensure that an interstate element would be present.

Id. at 681-82.

However, Archer’s rule against “manufacturing jurisdiction” can fairly be

described as an aberration. Even the Second Circuit itself has effectively limited Archer

to its facts. See United States v. Burdette, 86 F. App’x 121, 127 (6th Cir. 2004)

(“[C]ourts that have construed Archer have taken pains to limit its applicability and to

explain that ‘manufactured jurisdiction’ as an independent doctrine is a dubious

concept.” (quoting United States v. Wallace, 85 F.3d 1063, 1065-66 (2d Cir. 1996))); see

also United States v. Podolsky, 798 F.2d 177, 181 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.) (“The

course of decisions casts doubt . . . on the vitality of the independent principle

announced [in Archer] that forbids the ‘manufacture’ of federal jurisdiction . . . .”).

 The case law distinguishing Archer – and, with vanishingly few exceptions,

“Archer has been cited only to be distinguished,” Podolsky, 798 F.2d at 180 – has made

clear that

the “manufactured jurisdiction” concept is properly understood not as an

independent defense, but as a subset of three possible defense theories:

(i) the defendant was entrapped into committing a federal crime, since he

was not predisposed to commit the crime in the way necessary for the

crime to qualify as a federal offense; (ii) the defendant’s due process

rights were violated because the government’s actions in inducing the

defendant to commit the federal crime were outrageous; or (iii) an

element of the federal statute has not been proved, so federal courts have

no jurisdiction over the crime.

Wallace, 85 F.3d at 1065-66 (internal citations omitted).

As we have already held, the first two of these possibilities have no application

in the instant case. And with respect to the third (jurisdictional) possibility, as the

Second Circuit has observed, “[c]ourts have refused to follow Archer when there is any

link between the federal [jurisdictional] element and a voluntary, affirmative act of the

defendant,” as there clearly was here – even where the government “introduce[d the]
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 10

federal element into a[n otherwise] non-federal crime . . . .” Id. at 1066. We have

employed this same reasoning in rejecting a claim of manufactured jurisdiction. See

United States v. Hudson, No. 93-2601, 1995 WL 234680, at *3 (6th Cir. Apr. 20, 1995)

(“Although [the government] agent suggested that opening a Canadian account would

be an effective way to launder money, defendant readily agreed to the scheme. . . . [T]he

manufactured jurisdiction defense fails where ‘[t]he government merely afforded the

opportunity, and the defendant chose to seize it.’” (quoting United States v. Peters, 952

F.2d 960, 963 (7th Cir. 1992))). Accordingly, the district court did not err by rejecting

this defense.

B. Adequacy of Miranda Waiver

Al-Cholan argues that the district court erred by refusing to suppress his

post-arrest statements, since his allegedly “minimal understanding” of English

undermined the validity of his Miranda waiver. We review the district court’s findings

of fact with respect to Al-Cholan’s suppression motion for clear error, and its ultimate

legal conclusion as to the waiver’s sufficiency de novo. United States v. See, 574 F.3d

309, 313 (6th Cir. 2009). Because Al-Cholan’s motion was denied below, we “review[]

the evidence in the light most likely to support the district court’s decision.” United

States v. Adams, 583 F.3d 457, 463 (6th Cir. 2009).

Statements made in response to custodial police interrogation must be suppressed

unless the suspect first waived his Miranda rights “voluntarily, knowingly and

intelligently.” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 572 (1987) (quoting Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966)). Both the voluntariness and comprehension aspects

of the waiver inquiry should be examined “primarily from the perspective of the police,”

such that where “[the] police had no reason to believe that [the defendant] misunderstood

the warnings, . . . there is no basis for invalidating [the] Miranda waiver.” Garner v.

Mitchell, 557 F.3d 257, 263 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

While it is true that “language difficulties may impair the ability of a person in

custody to waive [his Miranda] rights in a free and aware manner,” United States v.
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 11

3

Al-Cholan argues, based on his expert witness’s testimony, that the citizenship test requires an

elementary-school knowledge of English, while the Miranda warnings are written at an eighth-grade

reading level. Even assuming that this is true, and that the officers should have known as much,

Al-Cholan’s passing a test requiring at least an elementary-school knowledge of English by no means

forecloses the possibility that he had a higher level of fluency.

4

Under the Guidelines, “[a] defendant [has] engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited

sexual conduct if on at least two separate occasions, the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct

with a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5, comment. (n.4(B)(i)). These two separate occasions may include “the

instant offense,” and prior occasions need not have resulted in a conviction to qualify. Id. (n.4(B)(ii)).

“Prohibited sexual conduct” includes federal offenses involving the abuse of children and state-law

analogues. Id. (n.4(A)).

Heredia-Fernandez, 756 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir. 1985), the district court’s factual

finding that Al-Cholan understood English sufficiently well to render his Miranda

waiver voluntary, knowing, and intelligent is not clearly erroneous. At the time of these

events, Al-Cholan had resided in the United States for twelve years, and the agents knew

as much. As part of the naturalization process, he had passed an English proficiency test

and sworn under penalty of perjury that he could speak and understand English; the

agents knew this as well.3

 The agent posing as the girl’s uncle had a brief conversation

in English with Al-Cholan, which was captured on tape; during that conversation, the

agent specifically asked if Al-Cholan spoke English, and Al-Cholan answered “yes.”

Al-Cholan signed a written English-language Miranda waiver and, according to the

agents’ testimony, did not indicate any lack of comprehension at the time. Upon arriving

at the station-house, Al-Cholan completed an English-language medical questionnaire

with no difficulties. He conversed naturally with the agents in English during the

interviews. The first sign of any language barrier (whether feigned or genuine) arose

only after the damaging statements were elicited.

Accordingly, whether or not Al-Cholan truly understood the Miranda warnings,

the agents certainly had no contemporaneous reason to doubt that he did. Our inquiry

necessarily ends there. See Garner, 557 F.3d at 263.

C. Propriety of Sentence Enhancement 

Finally, Al-Cholan takes issue with the district court’s imposition of a sentence

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) on the basis of “a pattern of activity involving

prohibited sexual conduct.”4

 He styles his argument as a claim under Blakely v.
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 12

Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), since his sentence was enhanced “based on evidence

[not] presented to a jury.” Such a claim patently lacks merit, as there is no longer any

Sixth Amendment issue with judicial fact-finding under the now-advisory Guidelines.

See United States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 352 (2007) (“In many cases, the sentencing

judge, not the jury, will determine the existence of [sentence-enhancing] facts.”); United

States v. Bah, 439 F.3d 423, 426 n.1 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[J]udicial fact-finding . . . is

permitted provided that the guidelines are applied in an advisory manner.”) (cited with

approval in United States v. Ferguson, 456 F.3d 660, 665 (6th Cir. 2006)).

Although Al-Cholan’s brief makes a nod toward Blakely, the actual gravamen

of his argument is that there was insufficient evidence for the district court to have

concluded that such a pattern existed. District-court factual findings underlying the

imposition of a sentence are reviewed for clear error, United States v. Ward, 506 F.3d

468, 472 (6th Cir. 2007), and must be supported by the preponderance of the evidence,

Ferguson, 456 F.3d at 665.

There is more than enough evidence in the record to support the district court’s

determination. Primarily, Hanna testified that Al-Cholan had admitted to over 100

sexual experiences with minors in Iraq and in Michigan. Restricting our discussion to

conduct within the United States, these minors included a high school girl in Taylor,

Michigan; another girl he picked up on Telegraph Road in Detroit; and a Kuwaiti youth

who came to Al-Cholan’s garage to have his car fixed.

Al-Cholan objects to the hearsay nature of Hanna’s testimony, but hearsay

evidence is permissible in sentencing proceedings, provided the statements “have some

minimal indicium of reliability.” United States v. Manis, 344 F. App’x 160, 165 (6th

Cir. 2009) (stating that “this standard presents a relatively low hurdle” (internal

quotation marks omitted)). “[C]orroborating evidence can provide [hearsay] statements

with . . . sufficient indicia of reliability,” id. at 166, and Hanna’s testimony was amply

corroborated. Several of Al-Cholan’s statements about past sexual molestation were

caught on audio tape – including his statement that he “d[idn’t] go looking for [boys] as

much as girls,” but that he would take advantage of the opportunity if a boy “fall[s] into
No. 08-2532 United States v. Al-Cholan Page 13

the net,” and his story about receiving fellatio from a Kuwaiti youth. Additionally, the

government proffered as corroborative evidence a Dearborn police report which

described “a man matching Al-Cholan’s description, driving a green minivan also

matching Al-Cholan’s” having made advances on a seven-year-old girl near the same

Dearborn Walgreens where, according to Hanna, Al-Cholan trolled for children. Thus,

we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the sentence enhancement.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Al-Cholan’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.