2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-2-2010 

# U SA v . Ahm a d Ibr ahim P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 08-3101

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ahm a d Ibr ahim " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1220. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1220

### NO T P RE CE DENT I AL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

____________ No. 08- 3101

____________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. AH MA D IBRAH IM a/k/ aMI CH AE L R I AM ON DI a/k/ s PA TE L RAN AL ZO a/k/ aAM AD MA HO D, A h ma dI b r ah i m, Appe l l ant Ap pealfrom

the Unite d S tate s Dis tr ic t Cou rt fo r the Distri ct

of New Jer se y ( D. C. Cr i m i na l No. 07- c r - 00322- 1) Di s tr i c t Judge : Honor abl e W i l l i am J . Mart i ni Subm itte d U nd er

Th ir d C ir cuit

LA R 3 4.1(a) May 27, 2010 B ef o re: M cK E E , C h ief

Ju d g e, R E N D E L L an dG A R T H , C ircu it Ju d g es. ( Fi l e d: June 2, 2010) OPINI ON OF THE COURT RE ND EL L, Circ uit Jud ge. Aft e r pl e a di ng gui l ty

t o two c ount s of wi r e fr aud, one c ount of i de nt i ty

the ft , andI

brahim does not other

wise cha lleng e the reasona bleness of the sentenc e. 1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3231, and we have 2 jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

### one c ount of c ons pi r a c y

t o c omm i t

m a i l fr aud, Ahm a d I br ahi m wa s s e nt e nc e d t o 56 m onths ’ i m

pr i s onm e nt

and wa s or de r e d t o pr ovi de r e s t i t ut i on i n the am ount

of $ 3 0 3 ,2 0 1 .7 9 . T h e ap p licab le G u id elin e ran g e w as 3 3 to 4 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t. Ib rah im n o w ap p eals f

ro m h is sen ten ce o nth e g ro un dth at th e D istrict C o urt f ailedto gi ve the part i e s not i c e that the Court

wa s c ons i de r i ng ade part ur e fr om the Se nt e nc i ng G u id elin es, as requ iredb y F ed eral Ru le o f

C rim in al P ro cedure 3 2 (h ). We f in dth is 1 

### arg u m en t to b e w ith o u t m erit, an dw ill af f irm th e Ju d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o urt. 2 

### Ru le 3 2 (h ) p ro v id es th at “[ b ] ef o re th e co urt m ay

d ep art f ro m th e ap p licab le se ntenci ng rang e on a grou ndno t i dentifie d f or depart ure e it her i n the pres ente nce r eport or in a party ’s prehearing sub m is si on , the court m ust give the part ie s r ea sonable notic e that it is contem

plat ing such a depart

ure. ” How ever , i n light of the Sup re m e Cou rt ’s de c i s i on i n Un ited States v. Bo oker , 543 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , we have he l d that Rul e 32( h) d o es n o t requ ire a d istrict co urt to g iv e th e p arties n o tice th at it in ten d s to ex ercise its disc re ti on to vary

from the Guideli nes; rather , Rule 32(h) applie s only wh en a dis tr ic t co urt is ap p lyin g a d ep arture un d er th e G u id elin es. Uni te d States v . Vampi reNat i on , 451 F .3 d1 8 9 , 1 9 7 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ); see a lso Ir izarryv. Un ited States , 128 S. Ct . 2198, 2203 (200 8) . Ib rah im co n ten d s th at th e D istrict C o urt ap p lieda d ep arture un d er th e G u id elin es, r athe r than avar i anc e fr om

the Gui de l i ne s unde r

18 U. S. C. § 3553, a s author i z e d byWe also note that in this case the D istrict Court ex plicitly war ned counse l at the 3 beg inning of

the sentenc ing procee ding that it was consideringimposing an a bove-Guidelines sentenc e in light of

I brahim’s e x tensive criminal hist ory . I brahim and his counse l thus had an opportunity

to addre ss the District Court’s conce rns bef ore the Court imposed sentence . 

### Bo oker . We d isag ree. A lth o u g hth e C o urt d idu se a p h rase in d icatin g th at it w o u ld

“ de part upwar d” fr om

the Gui de l i ne r ange s pe c i fi e d i n I br ahi m ’ s pl e aa gr e e m e nt , App. A71, i t i s c l e ar that the Di s tr i c t

Court wa s varyi ng fr om

the Gui de l i ne r ange ba s e d on § 3553 and Bo oker . The Co urt e xp la ined at le ng th that

it was i m po si ng an abov eGui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e pr i m ar i l y be c aus e of the de fe ndant ’ s e xt e ns i ve c r i m i na l hi s t ory and his pra ct ic e of comm itti ng cr im es wh il e on p robati on or supervis ed re le as e. Th e Cou rt a l s o e xpl a i ne d that

al ong pr i s on s e nt e nc e wa s ne c e s s ary i n l i ght of the s e r i ous ne s s of the offe ns e , the ne e d t o de t e r I br ahi m fr om c omm i tt i ng furthe r

c r i m e s a ft e r

be i ng r e l e a s e d, and the need to protect

the pub li c from

him . Since the Cou rt

was a pp lying a vari ance from the Guideli nes, it

was not re qu ir ed to give the parti es no ti ce of it s i ntent t o v ar

y f r o m th e G u i d e l i n e s i nth i s w ay. 3 

### We w ill th eref

o re af f irm th e Ju d g m en t o f

th e D istrict C o urt.The Prese ntence Investig ation Report prepare d by the Probation Off

ice f ound that the 4 amount of loss was $303,201.72. U ni t ed St at es v. I br ahi m , N o. 08- 3101

G A R T H , J . , concur r i ng:

Ibra h im w as se n tenc ed to 5 6 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t and su p erv ised release fo r 3 y e a rs , a n d o rd e re d to p a yre s titu tio n o f $ 3 0 2 ,3 0 1 .7 2 . T he C our t , i n i t s s ent enci ng s t at ement , acc ept ed I br ahi m ’ s pl ea a gr eement and st at ed: " B ut r at her t han t ake is sue w i t h the probati on dep art m ent i n ter m s of t he loss amount and t he number of vi ct i m s , t he C our t w i l l acc eptt he gui del i nes agr eed t o byt he 4 p arti es f o r pu rpo ses o f a g u idelines an aly sis. " T h e C o u rt ’s ca lculati o n o f Ib rah im ’s off ense l evel und er t he G uidel i nes i nco rporat ed a d et erm i nati on of the am ou nt of t he loss , s ee U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) , and t he fi nal offe ns e l evel r efl ect ed t he C our t ’ s adopt i on of t he l os s amount t o w hi ch t he par t i es had agr eed – be t w een $70, 000 and $120, 000. See U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 (b)(1 )(E ). I h a v e a g re a t co n c e rn th a t th e re stitu tio n a sp e c t o f Ib ra h im ' s s e n ten c e is illeg a l, s i nce w e have hel d t hatt he amount of a r es t i t ut i on or derm aynot exce ed t he amount of t he l os s actual l ycaus ed. U ni t ed St at es vs . L eahy , 438 F. 3d 328, 337 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( en banc) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D i az, 245 F. 3d 294, 312 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . A s I r ead t he s ent enci ng t ranscr i pt of t he C ou rt , t he D i st ri ct C ou rt , i n d et erm i ning t he ap propri at e G uidel i nes,cal cul at ed a l os s of bet w een $70, 000 and $120, 000. Si nce t he G ui del i nes pr ovi de t hatt he

loss a m o u n t i s the g rea ter of ac tual o r i n tend ed loss, see U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1 . 1 cm t. n . 3 (A )(i ), t he ac t ual l os s as cal cul at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t coul d have be en no gr eat ert han $120, 000. Y ett he D i s t r i ctC our t i m pos ed a r es t i tut i on or deri n an amount of $ 3 0 2 , 3 0 1 . 7 2 . T h is sati sfies m e tha t t h e D ist ri ct C o u rt w as in erro r. H ow ever, Ibr ahim did not r ai se t his i ssue befo re t he D i st ri ct C ou rt , did not r ai se t h i s i s s u e o n a p p e a l a n d – u p o n f i l i n g a s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e C o u r t 's re q u e st th a t th e p a rties d isc u ss th e p o ss ib ili tyo f a n e rro n e o u s re stitu tio n o rd e r – f a iled to t ake i s s ue w i t h t he r es t i t ut i on or deri n t hatbr i ef. H ence , w hi l e I do not agr ee w i t h t he G over nm entt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ' s r es t i t ut i on or derw as appr opr i at e i n l i ght of 18 U . S. C . § 3664, as w el l as I br ahi m ' s agr eement i n t he pl ea a gr eement , I do agr ee t hat I br ahi m has for fei t ed anychal l enge t o t he r es t i t ut i on or derbyfai l i ng t o r ai s e t hi s i s s ue e ith e r b e f

o re th e D istric t C o u rt, o n a p p e a l, or b ysu p p lem e n tar ym e m o ra n d u m . S e e M a j. O p. atn. 4. I t her efor e conc ur i n J udge R endel l ' s opi ni on aff i r m i ng t he j udgm entof t he D istric t C o u rt.