2005 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 7-19-2005 

# U SA v . El-Gh az ali P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3117

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . El -Gh azal i " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 826. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/826T he H onor abl e W i l l i am W Schw ar zer , Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge fort he * N or thern D i s tr i ctof C al i forni a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o. 03- 3117

_______________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM I L M OH D EL- GH AZA LI a / k / a J AM I L M . ELI GH AZA LI a / k / a J AM I L RA HM AN a / k / a J AM I L AB D- E L - RA HM AN Ja m il M o h d E l-G h a z a li,

A ppel l ant

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 01- cr - 00349) D i s tr i ctJ udge: L oui s H . Pol l ak

_______________ A r gued M ay25, 2004 B E FO R E : R O T H and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges , and

SC H W A R Z E R , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed J ul y19, 2005)2

ANNA M. DUR BI N ( AR GUE D) 50 R i t t enhous e Pl ace A r dm or e, PA 19003- 2276 C ouns el forA ppel l ant P AT RI CK L . M E E HAN U ni t ed St at es A t t orney E WALD Z I T T L AU ( AR GUE D) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney L A U R IE M A G ID D e p u ty U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y f o r P o licya n d A p p e a ls RO BERT A . ZAU ZM ER A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney Seni orA ppel l at e C ouns el 615 C hes tnutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

_______________ OP I NI ON

_______________ SC H W A R Z E R , Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge.

J ami l M ohd E l - G haza l i appea l s hi s convi ct i on form aki ng a fa l s e s t at ement in a lo a n a p p lic a tio n to th e B e rk s C o u n ty B a n k in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 0 1 4 a n d 2 . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on3

p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f irm th e c o n v ictio n , v a c a te the s ent ence , and r emand forr es ent enci ng.

F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY B ec au se w e w ri te on lyfo r th e p arti es, w e re cit e o n lytho se f ac ts th at are nece s s aryforourdi s pos i t i on. T he i ndi ctm ental l eged thatE l - G haza l i fal s el yans w er ed “no ” t o tw o q uest i on s on a B erks C ou ntyB ank l oan app l i cat i on aski ng w hetherhe w as a d e f e n d a n t in a n ys u its o r l e g a l a c tio n s a n d w h e th e r h e h a d e v e r b e e n d e c la re d b a n k ru p t. T h e ju ryf

o u n d E l-G h a z a li g u iltyo f f a lse lya n sw e rin g th e f

irst q u e stio n , b u t ac q u itt e d h im o n th e se c o n d . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied E l-G h a z a li’s m o tio n f o r a c q u itt a l. DI S CU S S I ON I . S UF F I CI EN CY OF P ROOF OF F DI C- I NS URE D S TA TU S

E l - G haza l i fi r s tchal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence thatatthe t i m e of the off ens e the B erks C ount yB ank w as an “i ns t i tut i on the ac count s of w hi ch ar e i ns ur ed bythe Feder al D epos i tI ns ur ance C orpor at i on” ( “FD I C ”) . 18 U . S. C . § 1014. T he governm entoffe r ed the t es t i m onyof a c om m er ci al l oan off i cerempl oy ed bythe bank a t the t i m e of the al l eged of fens e w ho t es t i fi ed thatthe bank’ s acc ount s w er e i ns ur ed byt he FD I C thr oughoutthe per i od of hi s empl oym ent . H e bas ed hi s t es t i m onyon the fa ctthat a t “e a c h o f

th e telle r w in d o w s th e re ’s a stic k e r sa y in g th a t th e d e p o sits a re f e d e ra lly i ns ur ed up t o $100, 000. ” H e adde d thathe w as “fa m i l i arw i th the w aythe [ba nk] c o n d u c te d its b u s in e s s in th e o rd in a ry c o u rs e o f a f f a ir s .”4 “ I n r e v i e wi n g th e s u f

f i c i e n c yo f

th e e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n we r evi ew the evi dence i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entas ver di ctw i nner . ” U n itedS ta tes v . A

p p lew h a ite , 195 F. 3d 679, 684 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . “W e mustaff i r m the convi ct i on[] i f a r at i onal tr i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound [the] defe ndantgui l tybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , and the ver di cti s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Id . ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . C o

y le , 6 3 F . 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 )). 18 U . S. C . § 1014 pr ohi bi t s “mak[i ng] anyfal s e s t at ementorr eport. . . for the purpos e of i nfl uenci ng i n anyw aythe ac t i on of . . . anyi ns t i tut i on the ac count s of w hi ch ar e i ns ur ed bythe Feder al D epos i tI ns ur ance C orpor at i on. ” Thus, t o obt ai n a convi ct i on, the governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtthatB erks C o u n tyB an k w as in su red b ythe F D IC . “P roo f o f [ F D IC -i n su red ] st atus is no t a m ere form al i ty ; i ti s an es s ent i al el ementof the fe der al offe ns e . . . . I ndeed, fede r al j ur i s di ct i on depends on thi s s t atus . ” U nited S tates v. P latenburg , 6 5 7 F . 2 d 7 9 7 , 7 9 9 (5th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ); se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . Sc h u ltz , 1 7 F . 3 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 5 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) (sam e). E l - G haza l i cont ends thatthe evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entbeca us e the governm entfai l ed t o offe rdocument aryevi dence of FD I C - i ns ur ed s t atus and the governm entw i tnes s l acke d per s onal know l edge, offe r i ng onl yconj ectur e bas ed on the stic k e rs o n th e telle rs’ w in d o w s. W e d isa g re e . A n F D IC -in su re d b a n k is re q u ire d to

“ d isp lay at e a c h p lac e o f b u sin e ss a sig n . . . [s tatin g ] th a t d e p o sits a re f e d e ra llyin su re d to $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 .” 1 2 U .S .C . § 1 8 2 8 (a )(1 )(B ). M o re o v e r, f o r th e b a n k to h a v e f

a lse lyh e ld itse lf5

o u t as f e d e ra llyin su re d w o u ld h a v e b e e n a c rim in a l o f f e n se . 1 8 U .S .C . § 7 0 9 p ro v id e s, in r el evantpart , that“w hoever . . . us es the w or ds . . . ‘ Feder al D epos i tI ns ur ance C o rp o ra tio n ’ . . . o r o th e rw ise re p re se n ts f a lse lyb ya n yd e v ice w h a tso e v e r th a t. . . it s depos i t s . . . ar e i ns ur ed . . . bythe [FD I C ] . . . s hal l be puni s hed [bya fi ne or i m pr i s onm ent ] . ” I n l i ghtof the s t atut orys cheme, the pr es ence of the r equi r ed FD I C deca l o n th e t e l l e r s ’ wi n d o ws , wh i c h c o u l d n o tb e l a wf u l l yd i s p l a y e d u n l e s s th e b a n k wa s F DI Cin su re d , rep re se n ts s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e o f F D IC -in su re d sta tu s o n w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e re lie d in re a c h in g its v e rd ic t. Cf . U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 610 F. 2d 1166, 1171 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( s t at i ng that“the w or d ‘ N at i onal ’ i n a bank’ s t i t l e i s vi r tual l yconcl us i ve evi dence thatthe bank i s fede r al l ychart er ed” be caus e i tw oul d be i l l egal fora nonc h a r t e r e d b a n k t o u s e th a two r d ) . Th u s , th i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Sc h u ltz , on w hi ch E l - G haza l i r el i es , w her e the courts t at ed thatan FD I C s ym bol on a depos i t or ’ s chec k “no m o re p ro v e s . . tha t th e b a n k . . . h a s F D IC in su ra n c e th a n a N a tio n a l B a sk e tb a ll A s s oci at i on l ogo on a j acke tpr oves thatthe w ear eri s a pr ofes s i onal bas ketbal l pl ay er . ” 17 F. 3d at726 n. 7. T hatcas e di d noti m pl i cat e the s t atut orys cheme r equi r i ng a di s pl ayof a s ig n a t th e b a n k ’s p la c e o f b u s in e s s . II. S U F F IC IE N C Y O F P R O O F T H A T E L -G H A ZA L I’S

STA TE M EN T W A S K N O W I N G LY FA LSE T he ques t i on on the l oan appl i cat i on as ked, “A r e y ou a def endanti n any s ui t s orl egal act i ons ?” A tthe t i m e w hen he a ns w er ed “N o, ” El - G haza l i knew thats er i ous fel onycr i m i nal char ges w er e pendi ng agai ns thi m i n the Phi l adel phi a C our tof C om m on6

Pl eas . H e cont ends thatbeca us e ther e i s a hi s t oryi n the court s of di s agr eementamong re a so n a b le p e o p le a b o u t th e m e a n in g o f “ su its o r le g a l ac tio n s,” a n d th e p ro se c u tio n d id n o t in tro d u c e e v id e n c e o f w h a t E l-G h a z a li u n d e rsto o d th e p h ra se to m e a n , the re is in s u f f ic ie n t p ro o f

a s a m a tte r o f

la w th a t h is a n s w e r w a s “ k n o w in g ly f a ls e .” “N or m al l y , i ti s forthe pet i tj uryt o deci de w hi ch cons truct i on the def endant p lac e d o n th e q u e stio n . H o w e v e r, . . . if a q u e stio n is e x c e ss iv e lyv a g u e o r ‘f u n d a m e n tally a m b ig u o u s,’ th e n th e a n sw e r to su c h q u e stio n m a yn o t, as a m a tter o f law , fo rm th e b a sis of a . . . fal s e s t at ementpr os ecut i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Ryan , 828 F. 2d 1010, 1015 ( 3d C ri.1 9 8 7 ) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). A q u e stio n is f u n d a m e n tallya m b ig u o u s “ w h e n it [is ] e n tirely unr eas onabl e t o expec tthatthe def endantunder s t ood the ques t i on pos ed t o hi m . ” Id . ( quot i ng U

n ite d S ta te s v . S la w ik

, 5 4 8 F . 2 d 7 5 , 8 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 7 )). T he w i des pr ead us e of the w or d “ac t i on” i n both the ci vi l and cr i m i nal c o n tex t re f

u tes E l-G h a z a li’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e re is d isa g re e m e n t am o n g re a so n a b le p e o p le as t o the meani ng of “l egal act i ons . ” W EB ST ER ’ S T HI R D I N T E R N A T IO N A L D I CTI ONARY ( 1971) defi nes “ac t i on” t o i ncl ude “a j udi ci al pr ocee di ng . . . for. . . the puni s hm entof a publ i c off

ens e. ” T HE R AN DO M H OU SE D I C TI ON ARY O F TH E E NG L I SH L AN GU AG E ( 2d ed. 1987) defi nes “ac t i on” as “a pr ocee di ng i ns t i tut ed byone partyagai ns tanother . ” B L ACK ’ S L AW D I C TI ON ARY ( 7th ed. 1999) defi nes “ac t i on” t o i ncl ude “[ a] ci vi l orcr i m i nal j udi ci al pr ocee di ng, ” ci t i ng E DW IN E. B RYANT , T HE L A W O F P L EAD ING UN DERTH E C O D E S OF C IV IL P R OC EDU R E 3 (2 d e d . 1 8 9 9 ), w h ich sta tes th a t “la w y e rs u su a llysp e a k o f p ro c e e d in g s in7

court s of l aw as ‘ act i ons . ’ ” T HE A MER I C AN H ER I TAG E D I C TI ON ARY O F TH E E NGL I SH L AN GU AG E (4 e d . 2 0 0 0 ) d e f in e s “ a c tio n ” a s “ [ a ]ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g w h o se p u rp o se is to th obt ai n r el i ef a tthe hands of the court . ” T HE O XF ORD E NG L I SH D I CTI ONARY ( 2d ed. 1989) d e f in e s th e ter m sim p lya s “ [ a ] le g a l p ro c e ss o r su it. ” D ictio n a ryd e f in iti o n s th u s a ttribu te a broad scope to “act i on s” w hich w ou l d incl ud e cri m i nal as w el l as ci vil proceed i ng s.

C our tdeci s i ons and tr eat i s es ar e t o the s ame effe ct . A ccor di ng t o the Supr eme C our t , “[t ] he w or d ‘ act i ons ’ m ayi ncl ude both ci vi l and cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs . ” C aha v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 15 2 U . S . 21 1, 21 4 (189 4). E l -G hazali ci t es U ni t ed Stat es v. C l eve land , 2 8 1 F . 2 4 9 , 2 5 2 ( S . D. Al a . 1 9 2 2 ) , a c a s e th a ta r o s e u n d e rth e p r o h i b i t i o n l a ws i n w hi ch the j udge obs erved that“the w or d ‘ act i on’ i s notor di nar i l yus ed t o i ndi cat e a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. ” Id . at253. T he Seventh C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s r ej ect ed that c o u rt’s in terp re tatio n in M as on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 1 F . 2 d 2 7 9 (7th C ir . 1 9 2 4 ), h o w ev er, s ta tin g th a t th e w o rd “ a c tio n ” a s u s e d in th e s ta tu te s h o u ld n o t b e s o n a rr o w ly co n s tru e d . Id . at280. T he courtci t ed B OU VI ER ’ S L AW D I CTI ONARY ( R aw l e’ s 3d ed. ) , defi ni ng “cr i m i nal act i ons ” as “[t ] hos e ac t i ons pr os ecut ed i n a courtof j us t i ce, i n the name of the governm ent , agai ns tone orm or e i ndi vi dual s acc us ed of a cr i m e. ” Id . T he co urtal so r efe rr ed t o t he var i ous defi ni t i ons of cr i m i nal act i ons found i n W ORDS AN D P HRAS ES . Id . See a l so Stat e v. Schom ber , 63 P. 221, 222 ( W as h. 1900) ( s t at i ng that“ci vi l and cr i m i nal a c tio n s a re in c lu d e d w ith in th e d e f in itio n o f th e te rm ‘a c tio n ’” ). F in a lly, C ORPUS J U R IS S EC UN DU M s t at es that“[A ] ci vi l act i on di ffe r s fr om a cr i m i nal act i on pr i m ar i l yi n thatt he8

form eri s forthe enf

or cementof a pr i vat e r i ght. . w hi l e the l att eri s forthe puni s hm entof a publ i c w r ong. ” 1 A C . J. S . § 6 8 a (1 9 8 5 ).

E l G h a z a li co m p lain s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e x c lu d e d f ro m e v id e n c e c e rta in Penns y l vani a s t atut orym at er i al s offe r ed t o s upportthe ar gum entthatthe l oan appl i cat i on w as ambi guous . I n i t s pos t - tr i al rul i ng deny i ng E l - G haza l i ’ s m ot i on foracqui t t al , the C o u rtfo u n d that ith ad erred an d stat ed that, h ad a n ew tr ial m o ti o n b ee n m ad e, th e C o u rt w oul d have gr ant ed i t . W e di s agr ee. B eca us e El - G haza l i does notcl ai m t o have r ead or be fa m i l i arw i th t hes e mat er i al s , the ques t i on i s w hetherthei rpr obat i ve ef fec tw oul d have underm i ned the j ury ’ s fi ndi ng thatE l - G haza l i pr oper l yunder s t ood the ques t i on. T he m a te ri a ls c o n s is t p ri n c ip a lly o f e x c e rp ts f

ro m T itle 4 2 , J u d ic ia ry a n d J u d ic ia l P ro c e d u re . See 42 Pa. C . S. § 101 et s eq . Sect i on 102 defi nes “ac t i on” forpurpos es of the J udi ci al C o d e a s “ a n ya c tio n a t law o r e q u ity .” It d o e s n o t d e f in e “ a c tio n ” a s b e in g lim ited to c iv il pr ocee di ngs . I ndeed, Par tV I I i s ent i t l ed “ C ivil A ct i ons and Pr ocee di ngs , ” i m pl y i ng that “act i on s” i n o ther con t exts m ayal so enco m pass cr i m i nal pr oceed i ng s. T hu s, even i f t hese m aterial s m igh t pro p erlyh av e b ee n ad m itted, th eir ex clus ion w as a t m o st ha rm less erro r.

T he appl i cat i on E l - G haza l i s i gned w as fora l oan of $100, 000, nota tr i vi al tra n sa c tio n . A t th e tim e h e w a s th e C h ief E x e c u tiv e O f

f ice r o f S h e n d i M a rk e ts in W i l l i ngbor o, N ew J er s ey , w i th an al l eged pe r s onal netw or th of $2, 642, 100. V i ew i ng t he r ecor d i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand dr aw i ng al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s in su p p o rt o f

th e v e rd ict, it ca n n o t b e sa id to b e “ e n tirelyu n re a so n a b le to e x p e c t th a t [ E l-9

G haza l i ] under s t ood the ques t i on[ ] pos ed t o hi m . ” S la w ik , 5 4 8 F .2 d a t 8 6 . I I I . VAL I DI TY OF THE S EN TE NCE

E l -G hazali w as sent enced un der then -effect i ve U . S . S . G . §2 F 1. 1. T he b ase offe ns e l evel underthe gui del i ne w as s i x. T o thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tappl i ed a s even- l evel enhanc ementunder§2F1. 1( b) ( 1) ( H ) on the bas i s of i t s fi ndi ng E l - G haza l i caus ed a l os s of at l ea st $1 2 0 , 0 0 0 b u t l ess th an $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 . A t th e ti m e o f th e se n tenc ing , the D istri ct C o u rt di d nothave the bene fi tof the Supr eme C our tdeci s i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , U S , 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , hol di ng thatm andat oryenhanc ementof a s ent ence underthe S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s, b a se d o n f a c ts f o u n d b yth e c o u rt a lo n e , v io late s th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. 12 5 S .C t. at 7 5 6 . B e c a u se E l-G h a z a li d id n o t p re se rv e th e e rro r b e lo w , p lain err or r eview app l i es.

W e hel d i n U

n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 0 7 F . 3 d 1 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 )(en b an c), thata def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s m ayhave be en af fec t ed w her e the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed b ytr e a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry ra th e r t h a n a d v is o ry. Id . at 1 6 4 . W e f u rth e r h e ld thatw her e mandat orys ent enci ng w as governed byan err oneous s cheme, pr ej udi ce c an be p re s u m e d a n d re m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g is a p p ro p ri a te .. Id . at165. A ccor di ngl yw e w i l l vaca t e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.

CO NC L US I ON Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, w e A F F I R M E l-G h a z a li’s c o n v ictio n , v a c a te h is s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.