N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. WALEED AHM ED, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50123

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00943-PSG-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Philip S. Gutierre z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s and SESSIONS, ** Distric t Judge
. W a le e d Ahm e d a

ppe a ls his 132 mo nth se nte nc e for c onspira c y to c om m it wire fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1349. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a) a

nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# FIL ED OCT 27 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa tion.The distric t c ourt e xpre ssly a dopte d the fa c tua l findings of the pre se nte nc e re port (PSR), whic h sa

tisfie s the re quire m e nt tha t it m ake fa c tua l findings. Se e Unite d State s v . Gadson , 763 F.3d 1189, 1220 (9th C i r. 2014). B e c a u se the PSR
se t forth fa c tua l findings a m ply supporting the

c onc lusion both tha

t a substa ntia l pa rt of Ahm e d’ s fra

udule nt sc he m e wa s c om

m itte d from

outsidethe Unite d State s and tha t the offe nse involve d sophistic ate d m e ans for purpose s of § 2B 1.1(b)(10) of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s, we re je c t Ahm e d ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt pla i nly e rre d by

im posing a two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r § 2B 1 .1(b)(10) without providing a

suffic ie nt e xpla

n ation or c onside ring Ahm e d’ s a rgum e nts. The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in im posing a two-le ve l e nh anc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e unde r § 3C 1.1 of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s . The PSR (a dopte d by

the distric t c ourt) m a de the fa c t ua l finding tha

t “ Ahm e d told thec oc onspira tor to de le te e vide nc e re lating to the insta nt offe nse whic h c ould be use d
a ga inst him se lf or a c oc onspira tor.” This finding wa s not c le arly e rrone ous, be c a use the e m a ils se nt by

Ahm e d from

prison c ould re a sona

bly be inte rpre te d a s atte m pting to era se e vide nc e of Ahm e d ’ s fra udule nt a c tivitie s a

nd to hidea sse ts de rive d from those a c tivitie s in orde r to he lp him in his fe de ra l c a se . Ac c ordingly , the d istric t c o urt did not c le arly e rr in im p osing a n e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 3C 1.1 for

2obstruc ting justic e by atte m pting to im

pe de the se nte nc ing proc e ss. Se e Unite d State s v . Pe te rse n , 98 F.3d 502, 508 (9th C ir. 1996). The distric t c ourt did not err in inte rpre ting § 3E1.1 of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s to re q

uire tha t a de fe nda

nt “ at le a st show c ontrition or re m orse ” in orde r to re c e ive a

re duc tion. Unite d State

s v . N ie lse n , 371 F.3d 574, 582 (9th C ir. 2004). The distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha t Ahm e d did not show suc h e m otions,
and tha t the e m a ils Ahm e d se nt from prison we re inc onsiste nt with a c c e pta nc e of
re sponsibility , wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Ahm e d

a two-le ve l re duc tion for a c c e pta nc e of re sponsibility

unde r § 3E1.1. Se e Unite d State s v . Innie , 7 F.3d 840, 848 (9th C ir. 1993); U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, n.5. Ahm e d’ s se nte nc e wa s not proc e dura l ly unre a sona

ble . The distric t c ourt sta te d tha t it ha d c o nside re d both pa rtie s’ se nte nc ing brie fs a

nd e a c h of the § 3553(a ) fa c tors, a

n d a c o urt doe s not a

buse its disc re tion by

foc using on the fa c t ors it de e m e d m ost im porta nt. Se eUnite d State

s v . Gutie rre

z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 2009). B e c a use the distric t c ourt ide ntifie d the inform ation that it c onside re d be fore im

p osing these nte nc e an d de sc ribe d its re a s ons for
va ry ing a bove the Guide l ine s ra

nge , its e xpla

nation wa s suffic ie nt to a llow for

3m e aningful a ppe lla te re v ie w. Se eUnite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). The distric t c ourt’ s im

position of a

n upwa rd va rianc e of 24 m onths a

bove the G uide line s ra

n ge wa s not substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not
c le arly e rr in c onstruing Ahme d ’ s e m a ils a s de m onstra ting a la c k of re spe c t

for the la w, a n inte nt to c om

m it a dditional fra

uds, a nd a n a b se nc e of re m orse . C onside ring thetota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de te rm ining tha t the se findings wa

rrante d a n a bove -Guide line s se nte nc e . S

e eUnite d State

s v . Hilge rs , 560 F.3d 944, 947–48 (9th C i r. 2009). AFFIRM E D
.

4