N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SAM AM ADEO B ATTANI, a ka Allm a d Ava d Alhsa oiuje sam , aka Sam Am a de o B atta ni, a k a W issa m Ahm e d El-Assa di, aka W issa m Ahm e d Ela ssa di, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50036

D.C . No. 8:16-c r-00157-JLS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SAM AM ADEO B ATTANI, a ka Allm a d Ava d Alhsa oiuje sam , aka W issa m Ahm e d El-Assa di, a

k a W issa m Ahm e d Ela ssa di, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50040

D.C . No. 8:16-c r-00166-JLS-1 

# F IL ED
AUG 19 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ADAM AM ADEO B ATTANI,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50050

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00854-JLS-1

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. ADAM AM ADEO B ATTANI, a ka Aym an Ahm e d Assa di, a

k a Aym an Ahm e d El-Assa di,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-50053

D.C . No. 8:16-c r-00157-JLS-2

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jose phine L. Staton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 14, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

2B e fore : SC HR OEDER and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd M . WATSON, ** Distric t Judge
. B rothe rs Sa

m and Ada m B atta ni (“ De fe nda

nts” ) file d fra

udule n t tax re turns in the nam e s of de c e a se d individuals a nd funne le d the ille ga lly obta ine d funds through bogus ba

nk a c c ounts. The y

a ppe a l the se n te nc e s im

pose d following the ir guilty ple a s to c o nspira c y

to de fra ud the Unite d State s, fra

udule nt use of soc ia l
se c urity num be rs, a g g rav ate d ide ntity

the ft, a n d c onspira c y

to c om m it m one y la unde ring. The y a lso a

p pe a l the se nte nc e s im

pose d upon re v oc ation of supe rvise d
re le a se , arising from

the ir prior c onvic tions for ba nk fra ud, wire fra

ud, m a il fra

ud,
a c c e ss de vic e fra

ud, a nd m one y la unde ring. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it proc e dura l e rror in a

pply ing se nte n c ing
e nha nc e m e nts. The c ourt de sc ribe d diffe re nt c o nduc t for the sophistic ate d m e ans
and sophistic ate d m one y

la unde ring e nha

nc e m e nts. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 c m t. n.5(B ); Unite d State

s v . J oe y , 845 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (9th C ir. 2017). For the sophistic ate d m e ans e nha nc e m e nt, the distric t c ourt foc u se d on De fe nda nts’ e fforts to se t up the fra

udule nt sc he m e . For the sophistic ate d m one y la unde ring
e nha nc e m e nt, the distric t c ourt foc use d on De fe nda nts’ atte m pts to c onc e a l the
m one y a fte r the y

ha d fra udule ntly obta ine d it.

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. W atson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion. 3Nor did the distric t c ourt substa ntive ly e rr whe n it a pplie d the sophistic ate d
m one y la unde ring e nha

nc e m e nt. De fe nda

nts a dm itte d to tra

nsfe rring the fraudule nt ta

x re funds from

bogus a c c ounts in the

nam e s of de c e a se d individuals to ba nk a c c o unts unde r the i r c ontrol, a nd the n withdra

wing the funds to purc h a se silve r, write fra

udule nt c he c ks, or tra

nsfe r m one y

ove rse a s. This c onstitute s at le a st

“ two or m ore le ve ls,” or la y e ring, of c rim ina lly

de rive d funds. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(3) c m

t. n.5(A). The distric t c ourt did not err in im posing them a xim

um se nte n c e of 24
m onths be c a

use it prope rly

we ighe d the 18 U.S.C . § 3583(e ) fa c tors. De fe nda nts be ga n the ir se c ond m one y

la unde ring sc he m e a lm ost im m e diate ly a fte r ge tting out of prison for the i r first m one y la unde ring sc he m e . The distric t c ourt looke d at De fe nda nts history an d

c onc lude d tha

t the y we re an “ e x tre m e fina

nc i a l da nge r to the c om m unity ,” due to the c i rc um sta nc e s of the offe n se . The distric t c ourt wa s pe rm itte d to c onside r the se fa c tors unde r § 3583(e ). Se e Unite d State s v . Re y e s-Solosa , 761 F.3d 972, 974–75 (9th C ir. 2014). A high-end se nte n c e wa s
re a s ona ble , e s pe c ia lly

be c a u se De fe nda

nts c om m itte d the “ sam e offe nse tha t le d to the i m p osition of the

supe rvise d

re le a se in the first pla c e .” Id . at 975. Any e rror in a ssigning Sa

m B atta ni a c rim i na l history

point for his
c onvic tion unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tion 647(f) wa s ha rm le ss, be c a

use it did
4not c ha

nge his c rim i n a l history

c a te gory or Se nte nc i ng Guide l ine s ra nge . Unite d State s v . C ruz-Gramajo , 570 F.3d 1162, 1174 (9th C ir. 2009). The distric t c ourt e rre d in im posing supervise d re le a se c onditions 5, 6, a nd 14 be c a use the wording in those

c o nditions is unc onstitutiona lly va gue . Unite d State s v . Ev ans , 883 F.3d 1154, 1162–64 (9th C ir. 2018). E v ans wa s de c ide d a fte r the d istric t c o urt im

p ose d the se nte nc e in this c a se . W e the re fore re m and, a s in Ev ans , for the c o rre c tion of thec ha lle nge d c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se . AFFIRM E D in par t; RE M ANDE D in par t.

5