* The Honorable J oseph M. Hood, S enior United States District J udg e for the Eastern District of

Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0050n.06 Filed: January

15, 2008 NO. 06-4561 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

AB DOULAHI

OUMAR CI SSE, ) ) Defendant-

Appellant, ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED ) STA TE S DI STR I CT C OU RT F OR v. ) THE SOUTHERN D I STRI CT OF ) O H IO UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintif f-Appellee

. )

Be fore : KEI TH and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; and HO OD, Senior District Judge. * PER C URI AM. Def

endant- Appellant Abdoulahi Ouma r Cisse (“D efe ndant”) appea ls the sentenc e imposed by

the district court upon his plea of g uilty to a cha rg e of Wire F raud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The district c ourt sentenc ed Def endant to 63 months imprisonment, three y ear s of su pe rv ise d r e le a se , r e sti tut ion in t he a mou nt of $2 ,7 77 ,6 61 .4 1, and a $1 00 .0 0 s pe c ia l a sse ssm e nt. Def endant a ppeals his sentenc e of 63 months imprisonment and re stitut ion in the amount of $2,777,661.41. He c laims that it is unreasona ble bec ause the district court er red in de termining the applica b l e ad visory

sentenc ing guideline ra

ng e as it did not require the United States to prese nt evidenc e conc erningthe amount of loss even thoug h Def endant disputed the loss amount attributedA SI M car d is a remova ble computer

chip place d in a ce llular phone that store s information 1 about the customer ’s ac count. Cellular telephone service providers use SI M car ds for billing a nd trac king. Cisse and the United States ag ree d that the amount of the loss would be de termined by the 2 d i s t ri ct co u rt at t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. 2 to h im. De fe nd ant a lso c la ims that a 63 -m on th s e nte nc e wa s n ot p ro c e durally and su bs tanti ve ly
rea sonable a s the district court failed t o provide a leg al and f actua l basis for the guideline ca lculation and fa iled to a

rticulate its finding s under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). De fe n d an t re qu es t s t h at h i s s en t en ce b e va ca t ed an d re m an d ed t o t h e di s t ri ct c o u r t
. In response , the United States of Ame rica has ar g ued that the guideline rang e wa s proper ly calc ulated
and that th e se nte nc e wa s re a so na ble and pr op e rl y su

pp or te d by the dis tr ic t court ’s art ic ulatio n of i ts finding s. F or the re a so ns wh ic h f

oll ow , th e op ini on

of the dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED

. I. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Actin g i n conce rt with others, Cisse boug ht SI M car ds and used infor mation from stolen 1

cre dit reports in order

to fraudule ntly

establ is h c e ll u la r te lep h o ne ser

vice whic h allowed inter

national
ro am i n g. The SI M car ds were then sent over seas whe re the y wer e used a

nd roaming char g es inc ur re d, re su lti ngin l os se s to c e llu lar t e le ph on e c omp anie s in the Un ite d St a te s. Cis se wo rk e d w ith others in this scheme , althoug h he was not f ound to ha

ve had any

direc t involvement in the oversea s char g es incurr ed by

virtue of the use of the SI M car ds. Th e Gr and Jury fo r the Sou the rn Di str ic t of Oh io re tur ne d a tw o- c ount ind ic tme nt ag a ins t Cisse, charg ing him with Wire Fr aud. He pled g uilty to one count of W ire Fraud pursuant to a plea
a g re e me nt, and

the re ma ini ng c ount wa s dism iss e d. Th e Pr e se nte nc e I nv e sti g a tio n Rep or t ( PSR) 2 identified the ba se off

ense le vel as 7, a

nd then adde d three enhanc ements: 2 levels bec ause a
su bs tanti a l pa

rt of the fr a ud sc he me wa s c omm itt e d f

ro m outsi de the Un ite d State s, 2 le ve ls b e c a us e3

the of fe ns e inv olv e d tr a ff

ic kin g in u

na uth or ize d a c c e ss d e vic e s, and 18 le ve ls be c a us e the of fe ns e inv olv e d a

tot a l lo ss o f $ 2, 77 7, 66 1. 41 (m or e tha n $2, 50 0, 00 0 but le ss tha

n $7, 00 0, 00 0) . T hr e e le ve ls
we re the n s ub tr a c te d fo r a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , re su lti ng in a tot a l of fe ns e le ve l of

26 . With the addition of points related to a prior state conviction, Cisse was plac ed in Criminal History Categ ory I I I

. Following a ser ies of thre e sente ncing hear ings, dur ing w hich Cisse objected to the assig nment of the c riminal history points, the district c ourt lowere d the Criminal History Categ ory from Categ ory

I I Ito Categ ory I and sentenced Cis se at the lowest end of the applica

ble ra ng e, i.e., 63 months im prisonment and re stitut ion in the amount of $2,777,661.41. II. Jurisdi ction The district cour

t had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231 because Def en d ant was char g ed with and c onvicted of of fense s ag ainst the laws of the United States, including violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. This Court has jurisdiction ove r the instant a ppeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which conf

ers a ppellate jurisdiction over

final orde rs of the district c ourt. III. Stand ard of Review This Court reviews a

cr im in a l se ntence for r easona bleness. United States v. Mc Gee , 494 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 )

. Se nte n ces pr operly calc ulated under

the SentencingGuidelines ar e cr edited with a re buttable pre sumption of reasona bleness. Id

. (c i t i n g Rita v. United States , 127 S.Ct . 2456, 24 62 -6 3 ( 20 07 )) . Ase nte nc e is unr e a so na ble if the dis tr ic t c ourt

fa ile d to c on sid e r t

he a pp lic a ble Guideline rang e or those fac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

. United States v. Cage , 458 F.3d 537, 540 (6th Cir. 2006)

. The fa ctual finding s used when a pply ing the SentencingGuidelines ar e revie wed f

or cle ar error , while l eg al conclusions of the district court ar e re viewed de novo. United States v. Galloway , 439 F.3d 320, 322 ( 6th Cir. 2006).4

IV . Ana lys is A. Los se s A tt r ibut abl e to Ci sse Def endant a rg ues his s en t en ce is unre asonable beca use the district cour

t relied on fa ctual finding s contained in the PSR when it assigne d a los s amount to him even thoug h the United States did not and could not establish that Cisse w as, himself, responsible for eac h and ever y dollar re ported lost. He claims that the PSR and , b y extension, t he district cour t errone ously

conclude d that any cellular phone ac count which wa s opened a nd utiliz ed with cr edit i n formation st olen from Union Savings B ank wa s loss personally attributable to him. Th e Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s sp eci fi cal ly pr ov ide that w he re c ri min a l a c tiv ity is j oin tly
un de rt a ke n, wh e the r o r n ot c ha rg e d a s a c on sp ir a c y , a

de fe nd ant b e ars re sp on sib ili ty fo r r e a so na

bly f o r e s e e a b l e a c t s o r

o m i s s i o n s o f

o t h e r s o c c u r

r i n g i nf u rt h e r an c e o f

t h a ta c t i v i t y. U

NI TED S TA TES S EN TENC I NG G UI DEL I NES , § 1B1.3( a)( 1)(B ). Def endant admitted that he was playing a role in the fra ud scheme , that others we re involved, a nd that he knew

how the fr aud sche me worke d. He doe s
no t di sp ute the PSR’ s con c lus ion that a loss of $2 ,7 77 ,6 61 .4 1 is ultim a te ly a ttr ibuta ble to a c c ounts set up using credit reports stolen from the Union Savings Bank dur ing the specific time frame alleg ed in the indictment. Specifica lly , those losses wer e sustained by v i rt u e o f roaming c harg es
acc umulated on phony cell phone acc ounts set up using c redit re ports stolen by Cisse’s acc omplice from the ba

nk and fr om whom Ciss e admitted he obta ined cr edit repor ts. Whethe r Ci s s e is d ir e c tl y

r e s p o n s ib le f

o r th e u lt im a te lo s s a mo u n t i s o f n o c o n s e qu e n ce beca use, as the district judg e acknow ledg ed during the sentenc ing hear ing, “ [h] e [Defe ndant] started the fire by

initiating the purc hase of the ce ll phone ac co unts and . . . ac quiring the SI M car ds and sending them overse as. I

think he buy s responsibility for whatever

happens a s a re sult of his acts.” The district judg e rea sonably relied on the PSR which attributed $2,777,661.41 in fraud losses to the Def endant. I t follows that the sentenc e is rea sonable with re g ard to the c alculation of loss.5

B. The Se nt e nc e Wa s N e it he r P r oc e dur all y N orSubst ant ive ly U nr e as ona ble Def endant claims that the district c ourt failed to pr operly addre ss and rule on his objec tions to the loss amount c alculation. As discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the district court proper ly relied on the loss amount calcula tion, applied the prope r g uideline ra ng e, and ha

nded down
a rea sonable sentenc e. I n rea ching its de cision, the district c ourt held three separ ate s en t en ci ng he ari ng s in wh ic h Cis se ’s ob je c tio ns to the los s c a lc ulatio n we re dis c us se d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt , in its finding s, rea sonably

deter mined that it would rely

on the i nformation presented by the United States
o f A m e r i c a t h r o u g h t h e P S R r at h e r t h an t h e D e f e n d an t ’ s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e s c o p e o f

h i s a c t i v i t y. Fur ther, ther e is no merit to Def enda n t ’s ar g ument that the district court fa iled to give a proper acc ounting of § 3553(a) fac tors, thus failing to addre ss his request for a downwa

rd var iance

. When a def

endant r aises an a

rg ument in seeking a downwa rd varia nce, the re cord must re flec t that the ar g ument was “considere d” and that the di strict court articulated a basis for r ejec ting it. United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I n the cour se of the pr ocee dings be fore the district court, De fenda nt cited three fa ctors that he fe lt s up po rt e d a

do wn wa rd va ri anc e fr om t

he a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e ra

ng e , a s f oll ow s: (1) Cisse’s history

of phy sical abuse and emotional abuse that he suffe red a s a child at the ha nds of his fa t h er an d his father ’s 10 wi ve s; (2) A lack of

evidenc e that Cisse rece ived a substantial fina ncial benef it from his participation in the sale of SI M car ds; and (3) Cisse’s lack of pr ior criminal re cord or criminal conduc t. Th e re c or d sh ow s that fa c tor s “ 2” and “ 3” we re dis c us se d at le ng th d ur ingse nte nc ing . Wh ile fac tor “1” was not mentioned e x plicitly , the “context and the rec ord m ake clear that the sentenc ing judge considere d the evidenc e and ar g uments.” Rita v. United States , 127 S.Ct . 2456, 2469 (2007). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g e , p ri or

to t he imp os iti on

of Cis se ’s se nte nc e , s ta te d th e fo llo wi ng :6 For the re cord, the Court has reviewed – and ce rtainly the Court – the rec o r d w il l r e f le c t a f te r thr e e h e ar in g s th e Co u rt’ s r e v ie w e d the prese ntence repor

t and a l l ad d endums to it. I ’ve r eviewe d the objections and any response to the objections and I ’ve r uled on those. Considering that the district court judge then proce eded to discuss the g ravity of the off ense, the re i s n o ev i d en ce t h at t h e C o u rt f a i l e d t o ap p ro p ri at el y

co n s i d er t h e f ac t o rs ar gu edfo r s ee k i n g a do wnwa rd va ri anc e and

art ic ulate a ba sis fo r re

je c tin g the m. R a the r, the dis tr ic t c ourt su ff ic ie ntl y
art ic ulate d it s r e a so nin g in d e c idi ngto i mpo se a se nte nc e on

Cis se so as to all ow f

or re a so na ble

a pp e llate re vie w b y

thi s Co ur

t. U lti ma te ly , th e se nte nc e wa s p ro c e dural ly and su bs tanti ve ly

rea sonable a

nd will not be disturbed. V. Conclusion Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g e pr e sid ingov e r t

his ma tte r fo un d the pe rf

e c t meta ph or . O nc e a

pa rt y starts a fir e, he or

she has to be responsible for the results of his actions, whatever they may be. He might have just easily have said that the defendant “made his own bed” or “dughis own g rave ,” but the sit uatio n in wh ic h Ci sse fo un d h ims e lf is m os t a

ptl y c omp are d to a wi ldf

ir e – g ro wi nga s it burned its way outside of t he sphere in which C isse lived and operated. Much l ike s omeone at the edg e of a dry fore st w ith a book of matches, Cisse r emains responsible for the da mag e ca used by the fi re that he sta

rt e d, e ve n th ou g h so me on e e lse may have fa nn e d th e fl a me s. Ha

vin g ple d guil ty

to h is role in starting the fire , Cisse had ample opportunity to present his objec tions to t he di s t ri ct cour t

ov e r t he c ours e of

the thr e e he ari ng s d e dic a te d to hi s se nte nc ing , a nd the re c or d s ho ws that hi s arguments were hear d and conside red by the district c ourt in determining his sentence . His sentence will stand. For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.