09 -1 37 1- cr

United States v. Ahmad Kanan , UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT AM ENDED SUM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s um m ary or der do not have prec edent i al ef f ect . C i t at i on t o a s um m ary or der f i l ed on or af

t er January 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e llate P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d th is c o u r t’s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W hen ci t i ng a s um m ary or der i n a docum ent f i l ed w i t h t hi s court , a part y m ust ci t e e i t her t he Federal A pp en dix or a n el ectron i c d ataba se (w i t h t he n otat i on “su m m ary or de r”). A p arty cit i ng a sum m ary ord er m ust se r v e a c o p y o f it on a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circui t, held at t he 2 Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Street, in t he City of New York, on 3 the 2 day of August, two thousand ten.

nd 4 5 PRESENT : 6 7 RALPH K . W INTER, 8 JOSEPH M. McLAUG HLIN, 9 DEBRAANN LIVING STON 10 Ci rcu it J ud ges . 11 12 13 14 UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA 15 Ap pe lle e , 16 17 -v. - No . 0 9-1 37 1-c r 18 19 AHMAD K

ANAN 20 Defendant-Appell ant . 21 22 23 Nancy J. Creswell (Paul J. Van de Graaf, on thebr ief ), on behalf of 24 Tristra m J. C offin, United Stat es Attorney for the Dist rict of 25 Vermont, for Ap pe lle e . 26 27 Sally Wasserman, NewYork, NY, for Defendant- Appellant . 28 29 30 Ap pe al f

rom a Mar ch27, 200 9, jud gm ent of the Un ite d S tat es D istric t C ourt f or t he Di str ict 31 of Verm ont (Sessions , J. ). UPON DU E CONSI DE RA TI ON , it is h ere by ORDERED, ADJUD GED, 32 AND DE CREED that the judgment of the districtcourt be AFFIRMED.W e n ote as an in iti al m att er that, a s b oth parti es a gre e, Kanan h as n ot t hro ug h h is p lea 1 ag ree m en t w aiv ed

his rig ht t o a

pp eal eithe r th e te rm

of his senten ce o r th e am ount o f h is o rde red restit ution. Cf

. United States v. Pearson , 570 F.3d 480, 485 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 1 De fe nd ant-App ell ant A hm ad Kanan a pp eal s f rom a March 27 , 2 00 9, jud gm ent of

the Un ite d 2 States DistrictCourt for the Districtof Verm ont (Sessions , J. ), sentencing him to imprisonment for 3 a term of 37 months on each of three counts, to run concurrent ly, with accompanying resti tution of 4 $2 14 ,0 42 .4 2. Kanan argu es th at po rti on s of the re sti tut ion

wer e im pro pe rlycal cu lat ed

an d th at h is 5 senten ce w as p roc ed ura llyan d s ub stanti ve ly u nre aso na ble . W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ f am ili ari ty w ith 6 the un de rly ing fa cts , p roc ed ura l hi sto ry, an d s pe cif

icatio n o f t

he iss ue s o n a

pp eal . 1 7 This Court ordina rily re views a rest itution or der forabuse of discret ion. Un ite d S tates v . 8 Fi or e , 3 81 F. 3d

89 , 9 7-9 8 (2d Cir. 2004). H ow ev er, be cau se K an anob jec ted on ly t o th e lo ss 9 cal cu lat ion

be fo re the dis tri ct c ourt and no t to the res tit

uti on am ount – an d fa ile d, m ore ov er, to rai se 10 the issues now before us at the sent encing heari ng – we review o nly for plain error. Se e U nited 11 Sta tes v. Co ria ty , 30 0 F. 3d 2 44 , 2 52 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 2); cf. Un ite d S

tates v . B oy d , 222 F.3d 47, 49 (2d 12 Cir. 2000). Under our st andard for plain- error r eview, “‘ther e must be (1) error, ( 2) that i s plain, and 13 (3) that af

fe ct[ s] su bs tantia l ri gh ts. ’ If

th ese three c on dit ion s are m et, ‘an ap pe llate c ourt m aythe n 14 exercise its disc retion t o notice a forfeite d er ro r, b ut onl y if (4) the error seri ously affects the 15 fa irn ess , int eg rity o r pu bli c re putat ion

of jud ici al p roc eed ing s. ’” Un ite d S tates v . N uc ci , 364 F.3d 16 419, 421 (2d Cir. 2004) (a lterat ion in origi nal) (quot ing Jo hn so n v. Un ite d S tates , 520 U.S. 461, 467 17 (1997)) (internal q uo tat ion m ark s o m itt ed ). An e rro r is pla in i f at th e ti m e o f t his Co urt ’s 18 co ns ide rat ion

it i s “c lear” o r “o bv iou s. ” Id. 19 Th e f

irs t ob jec tio n ra ise d b y Kanan is that th e d istric t co urt im pro pe rlyinc lud ed

a lo ss t o 20 E*Trade of $3,306.26 in its re stitut ion calcul ation withoutassuring t hat the sum had not alrea dy 21 be enacc ounte d f

or. In a cco rdanc e w iththe plea agre em ent, th e am ount of rest itutio n w as i nit ial ly3

1 derived from t he a mount of actual l oss calcul ated in the Presentence Report (“PSR”). At the 2 senten cin g h ear ing , th e p ros ecutio n re po rte d an a dd iti on al v ictim , E *T rad e, an d p rov ide d 3 documentation from the victim of its loss. There was no trans action or l oss that coul d correspond 4 to the amount claimed by E*Trade enumerated in t he PSR. Nor, given that res tituti on was based on 5 act ua l lo ss, no t inten de d or to tal loss , co uld the sum hav e bee n “d ou

ble -co unted ”; i f E *T rad e w ere 6 the po ore r f

or t he fraudu lent tr an sac tio n, the entity o n th e o the r en d w ou ld n ot h av e su sta ine d an 7 act ua l los s. It wa s no t, th ere fo re, plai n e rro r f or t he dis tri ct c ourt t o in clu de thi s am ount i n th e o rde r 8 of restitut ion. 9 Kanan also object s on two grounds to t he inc lusion in t he re stitut ion owed of the ta x refunds 10 he rec eiv ed

fr om th e Int ern al Re ve nu e Se rvi ce (“I RS ”). Ini tia lly , he argu es t hat th e in div idu als in 11 whose names the fraudulent ta x re tu rn s we re filed are the victi ms to whom restitution should be 12 pa id, rathe r t

han the IR S. Th is arg um ent m isc on cei ve s Kanan’s s ch em e: any m on ies p aid to hi m 13 bythe IR S w ere b ase d on who llyf als if ied p ap erw ork , no t s tol enf

rom o the rs. T he re i s n o c red ibl e 14 all eg ati on

that K an ancau sed

the IR S t o iss ue re fu

nd s to him

that w ere act

ua llyow ingto i nd ivi du als 15 who had not filed for them and would not have claimed them otherwise. Kanan al so argues tha t the 16 dis tri ct c ourt f

ail ed to r eso lve pro pe rlywh eth er f ive ref un d c he ck s, the proceed s o f whic h w ere 17 all eg ed ly n ev er r ece ive d b y th e d ef en dant, sh ou ld h av e been i nc lud ed in t he res tit uti on . B eca

us e 18 the ini tia l ob

jec tio n w as t o th e lo ss c alc ulatio n, a po int whi chwa s re so lve d b y s tip ulatio n b etw een 19 the parti es, the dis tri ct c ourt d id n ot c om m it p lai n e rro r in

acce pti ng the cal cu lat ion s o f t he PS R a s 20 to resti tution. 21 Kanan also argues that the r estitut ion ordered t o New York and Massachusett s is not 22 authorize d by his gui lty plea because he did not plead to s tate ta x fraud. The Supreme Court held, 23 in Hu

gh ey v . U nited Sta tes , 4 95 U .S . 41 1 (1 99 0), that “the lan gu ag e an d th e st ruc tur e o f t

he [V ict im4

1 and Witness Protection Actof 1982] m ake plain Congres s’ intent to authorize an award of restituti on 2 on ly f

or t he los s ca us ed b y the s pe cif

ic co nd uc t t hat i s the b asi s of

th e o ff en se o f c onvic tio n. ” Id. 3 at 413. This Court has examined Hu gh eyin one major case, Un ite d S tates v . O lad

im eji , 463 F.3d 4 15 2 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ), i n whic h w e h eld that a p lea to p os ses sio n wi th int ent t o de fr au d o f u na uth ori zed 5 “ac ces s de vic es” (S oc ial S ecu rity num be rs an d cre dit

c ard s) pe rm itt ed

th e dis tri ct co urt to order 6 res tit

uti on fo r lo sse s re su lti ng fr om the us e of those creditcards. Id. at 158-59. This hol ding 7 res ult ed

fr om our de ter m inatio n th at C on gre ss, in d ef ini ng a “vic tim ” of

the re lev ant of

fe ns e as “ a 8 pe rso n d ire ctl y and pro xim ate ly h arm ed

as a res ult of the c om m iss ion of anof fe ns e f or whic h 9 res tit

uti on m aybe ord ere d in clu din g, in t he cas e o f an of

fe ns e that i nv olv es as ane lem ent a sch em e, 10 co ns pir acy , o r patte rn of crim ina l act ivi ty, anypers on dire ctl y harm ed

bythe de fe nd ant’s cri m ina l 11 co nd

uc t in the co urs e of

th e sch em e, c on sp ira cy , or patte rn, ” 18 U .S .C . § 3 66 3A (a) (2) , inten de d to 12 inc lud e lo sse s “r esu lti ng fr om harm fu l ac ts co mm itt ed

in th e co urs e of

inc ho ate cri m es, ” Olad

im eji , 13 463 F.3d at 159. 14 Kanan w as c harge d w ithvio lat ing18 U. S. C. § 1 34 4, wh ich pro vid es t

hat: 15 16 Who ev er k no wi ng ly e xe cutes , o r attem pts to e xe cute, a sc he m e o r ar tif ice 17 (1) to defraud a financ ial inst itution; or 18 (2) to o bta in any of the m on ey s, fu nd s, cre dit s, ass ets , s ecu

rit ies , o r ot

he r 19 property owne d by , or un de r t he c us tod y or co ntr ol of

, a fi nanc ial in sti tut ion , by 20 m ean s o f f als e o r f rau du lent pr ete ns es, rep res entat ion s, or p rom ise s; 21 shall be f ine d no t m ore th an$ 1, 00 0, 00 0 or im pri so ne d no t m ore th an3 0 ye ars , or 22 both. 23 24 Like t he cr ime at issue i n Olad im eji , thi s is a “sc he m e” cri m e. An d “ [i ]t is c lear un de r th e st atute 25 that a defendant convict ed of devising a scheme to defraud must be sentenced to r estitut ion of the 26 pr oc ee ds of t he fr au du le ntac ti on , e ve n t ho ug h t he lo ss was caus edno t b y t he de vi si ng of t he sc he me 27 alo ne but by

its im ple m entat ion .” Olad

im eji , 463 F.3d at 159. It is f ar from “clear” or “obvi ous,” 28 ho we ve r, t

hat f ili ng fa lse taxret

urn s wi th th e state w iththe res ult that il leg all y o bta ine d c he ck s ar e5

1 de po si te d i n afak e a cc ou ntwit h a fi na nc ia l i ns ti tu ti onis no t pa rtof the imp le ment at io n o f a s ch eme 2 of bank fraud. W e therefore find tha t the dist ri ct c ourt did not c omm it plai n error i n including 3 restit ution to New York and Massa chusetts a s part of Kanan’s over all res tituti on. 4 Th e d ef

en dant’ s f ina l ar gum ent on

ap pe al i s th at the dis tri ct c ourt i m properly denied

him 5 Guidelines po int s f or a cceptance of responsibi lity and t hat the over all sent ence was procedur ally and 6 substanti vely unreasonable. We review a distri ct court’ s gr an t or denial of acceptance of 7 responsibi lity points for clear error . Se e U nited Sta tes v. Se we ll , 25 2 F. 3d 64 7, 65 2 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ). 8 “[A ] d istric t co urt ’s d ete rm inatio n in thi s re gard s ho uld

no t be dis tur

be d unle ss i t is ‘w ithout 9 fo un datio n. ’” United States v. Taylor , 4 75 F. 3d 65 , 6 8 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ) (q uo ting United State

s v. 10 Ha rri

s , 1 3 F .3 d 5 55 , 55 7 (2d

Cir. 199 4)) (int ern al qu otatio n m ark s om itt ed ). Th e dis tri ct c ourt h ere 11 pro pe rlyco ns ide red the arg um ents of

the de fe ns e that Kanan wa s dis tra ug ht and de sp erate and

that 12 he wa s m ore ov er c on fu sed at the pro ff

er, an d n on eth ele ss c oncluded that “he w ent to law 13 enforcement and he didn’t tel l the truth.” Thi s do es notrise to t he level of a deci sion “without 14 foundati on.” Mor eover, the obj ection to t he sentence wit h respect t o procedural and substanti ve 15 unrea so na

ble ne ss c on sis ts s im

ply of a d isa gre em ent w iththe wayin wh ich the di str ict

co urt we igh ed 16 the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The distri ct court i mposed a sentence that was well below the 17 properly calcu lat ed gu ide lin es r an ge ; in

fa ct, it g ranted

the de fe nd ant a f

our-l ev el d ownw ard 18 ad

jus tm en t f

rom of fe ns e le ve l 25 on

the gro un d th at the senten ce at th at l ev el w as t oo high . G ive n 19 that this Co urt

aw ard s d istric t ju dg es c on sid era ble lat itu de wi th r esp ect

to s enten cin g and

that a 20 sentence within the guidelines range i s typical ly consider ed to be reas onable, seeUni ted States v . 21 Sa vo ca , 59 6 F. 3d 154 , 16 0 (2 d C ir. 20 10 ), t he senten ce h ere wa s re aso na ble an d w e th ere fo re a ff

irm 22 it.6

1 All arguments not otherwis e discussed i n this summ ary or der are found to be moot or without 2 m eri t. W e n ote that th e d istric t co urt ha s th e dis cre tio n o n a

m oti on to r eco ns ide r or

am en d it s 3 res tit

uti on ord er t o c on sid er whe the r to inc lud e th e am ounts dis puted he re, an d m aym ak e f act ua l 4 findings as to whether Kanan received the proceeds of the five disputed IRS checks and whether the 5 state t axref

un d c he ck s w ere d ep os ite d in the b anks and a cco unts nam ed

in C ount T wo of

Kanan’s 6 ind ictm en t, a

qu est ion on wh ich the go ve rnm ent’s Olad

im ejitheory depends. For the fo regoi ng 7 reasons, the judgment of the districtcourt is he reby AFFIRMED. 8 9 FOR THE COURT : 10 Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk 11