The H onor abl e W i l l i am K
. Ses si ons I I I , C hi ef J udge of

t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct C our t f or t he D i st r i ct of * V e rm o n t, sittin g b y d e sig n a tion
. 0 5
- 4 7 2 4
- c r ( L ) , 0 5
- 6 1 7 1
- c r ( CON) U ni t ed St at es v. Li n G uang, Shi Y ong W ei
UNI TED S TATES COU RT OF APP EALS F O R T H E SE C O N D C IR C U IT

A ugust Ter m , 2006 (A rgu ed : M arc h 12 , 2 0 0 7 D ec i d ed : D ec em b er 1 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) Do c k e t No s . 0 5
- 4 7 2 4
- c r ( L ) , 0 5
- 6 1 7 1
- c r ( CON)

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA,

Appel l ee ,

– v . – L IN G U A N G an d S H I Y O N G W E I, D e fe n d a n ts-A p

p e llan ts .

B e fo re : M c L A U G H L IN a n d W E S L E Y , C irc u it J u d g e s, and S E S S IO N S , D i st ri ctJudge

. * A ppeal f r om j udgm ent s of

convi ct i ons of

cons pi r acy t o comm i t ext or t i on and s ubst ant i ve c ount s of ext or t i on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 1951 e nt er ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i st r i ct C our t f or t he Sout her n D i st r i ct of N e w Y o rk (B e rm a n , J. ) f ol l ow i ng a j ur y t r i al
. The convi ct i ons ar e a f f i r m ed, but bec aus e w e c oncl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t l acke d s uf f i ci ent f act s t o f i nd at s ent enci ng t hat a vi ct i m s ust ai ned pe r m anent bodi l y i nj ur y, t he sentences ar e vac at ed an d t he ca ses ar e r em and ed for f urt her pr oce edings. P A U L A . G O L D B E R G E R (S ta c e y V a n M a ld e n , of couns elon t he br i ef ), N e w Y o rk , N Y , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p

p e llan t L in G uang. A L A N M . N E L S O N , L a k e S u c c e ss , N Y , fo r D e fe n d a n tA p p e llan t S h i Y

o n g We i. JEN N I FE R G
. R O D G ER S, A ss i st ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney, f or M I C H A EL J
. G A R C I A , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney f or t he S o u th e rn D istric t o f N e w Y o rk (M iriam E . R o c a h , D a v id R as ki n, C el es t e L. K oel evel d, A ss i st ant U ni t ed St at esHe also argues t hat the cumulative effect of tri al error s require s retri al. Because we 1 conclude thatthe distr ict courtdid not abuse i ts discr etion in admitting e vidence of the uncharged bad act s, and tria l counsel’ s stipula tion to the accuracy and a uthentici ty of the rec ord ing wa s n ot i ne ff

ect ive , w e d o n ot c on sid er this arg um ent.

2 A ttorn e y s, of

couns el ), N e w Y o rk , N Y , f or Appel l ee.
W IL L IA M K . S E S S IO N S III, D i st ri ctJudge : Fo llo wi ng a f

ourte en -day tr ial , a

jur y f ound de fe nd ants- ap pe llants Sh i Y on g W ei and Li n Gu an g g uil ty o f c on sp ira cyto c om m it e xto rti on , in

vio lat ion of 18 U. S. C. § 1 95 1. Sh i w as a lso
co nv ict ed of eig ht s ub stanti ve co unts o f e xto rti on , e ach inv olv inga d if

fe rent vi cti m , and

Li n w as
co nv ict ed of thr ee o f t he su bs tantiv e co unts o f e xto rti on , c ounts 2, 4 and 6. Th e Unit ed

St ate s DistrictCourt for the Southern Dis trictof New York (Berm an, J. ) entere d judgment of
co nv ict ion

in L in’ s ca se o n Aug us t 17 , 2 00 5, an d s enten ced him to 1 68 m onths ’ im

pri so nm ent, to b e f oll ow ed bythr ee y ear s’ s up erv ise d re lea se. Th e C ourt e nte red jud gm ent of

co nv ict ion

in Shi’s case on November 9, 2005, and sentenc ed him to 235 m onths’ imprisonment, to be followed by three year s’ supervi sed relea se. Both defendants were or dered to pay r estitut ion. Shi and Lin now appeal the ir judgments of conviction and t he sentences imposed upon them
. Li n ra ise s f

ive iss ue s o n a

pp eal . C ha lle ng inghis co nv ict ion , h e ar gu es t hat th e d ist

ric t
co urt ab us ed its dis cre tio n in

adm itt ing ev ide nc e o f L in’ s unc harge d b ad act s, an d th at tria l counsel’s fail ure to objec t to the admission of tapes a nd transcr ipts amounted to ineffective
ass ist an ce o f c ouns el. Ch all en gin g h is s enten ce, Li n argu es t hat f act ors wh ich

de ter m ine a 1 Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin es r an ge m us t be pro ve n b ey on d a

rea so na ble do ub t; that du e p roc ess required a n evidentia ry hearing t o resolve t he dispute overthe applic ation of Guideline
enhanc em ents; an d th at the senten cin g e nh an cem ents w ere no t su pp ort ed bysu ff ici ent ev ide nc e .3

Sh i ra ise s f

our is su es o n a

pp eal . C ha lle ng ing his co nv ict ion , h e ar gu es t hat th e d ist

ric t court should ha ve granted hi s motion for new trial based upon i neffective assist ance of counsel. Ch all en gin g h is s enten ce, Sh i ar gu es t hat th e d ist

ric t co urt ’s d ete rm inatio n th at a vic tim sustained pe rmanent injury was unsupport ed by the evidenc e; that i ts deter mination of the amount of loss was likewise unsupporte d by the evidence ; and that a s a resultthe order of restit ution lacke d a factual basi s. W e f ind no m eri t in

Sh i an d L in’ s ch all en ge s to the ir c onvic tio ns . T he ir c ha lle ng es t o the ir s en ten ces lik ew ise fa il t o p ers ua de , w ithon e ex cep tio n. W e ag ree wi th t he de fe nd ants that the distr ict courtlacked sufficient fact s to make a finding of perm anent bodily i njury to one of the vic tim s. Be cau se t

his err or c ou ld h av e af

fe cte d b oth

de fe nd ants’ senten ces , th eir cas es are remanded for further proceedings c onsistentwith this opi nion. BACKGROUND I. Th e Of

fen ses Be tw een 19 99 an d 2 00 3, Sh i Y on g W ei e ng ag ed in a cam pa ign of ex tor tio n d esi gn ed

to generate bus iness for his gi ft shop, which catere d to Chinese tour ists. The vic tims of the
ex tor tio n s ch em e w ere a ri va l gi ft sh op owne r, a

res taurant owne r, and

tou r gu ide s who we re coerced by force and t hreats of force to st eer b usiness to Shi ’s shop, known as the “No. 1 Gift Sh op .” Sh i en lis ted

Li n Guang an d a

gang of yo un g m enkn own a s th e “l itt le b rot he rs” to c arr

y out the int imidation. Many of the gang mem bers were youngerthan eighte en years old. Count 1, of which both Lin and Shi were convic ted, charged t hem w ith conspir acy to comm it extor tion.

A. Z hang Qing Hai (Count 2)4

Zh an g Q ingHa i cam e to the Un ite d S tat es f rom Ch ina in 1 99 7. He op en ed

a g if t sh op in
m idt own M anhattan in

19 99 that cater ed

m ain ly t o C hin ese tou

ris t gr ou ps , a s w ell as s tud ents
an d w ork ers at the Un ite d N ati on s an d th e C hin ese co ns ulate. Zh an g ty pic all y p aid

tou r gu ide s a
co mm iss ion

of be tw een fi ve an d tw enty p erc ent of sal es. Th e st ore , n am ed

Xi nhua , w as l oc ate d
on38 th St re et , l es s t ha n abl oc k a wa y fr om Shi’s stor e, which opened in May 2000. The t wo stores di rectly c ompeted for business. Zhang’s store was doing well, gener ating profits of m ore than $10,000 a month during his best months. In January 2001 Shi called Zhang a nd complained that his pr ices were t oo low. Zh an g p aid

no parti cu lar

att entio n, an d e nd ed

the cal l, b ut s ev era l m inutes lat er h e re cei ve d an
an onym ou s p ho ne cal l th at f irs t as ke d: “ Yo u w ant to liv e o r no t,” an d p roc eed ed to t hre ate n to break his l egs if he came outside. Zh an g c all ed

Sh i in anef fo rt t o re so lve the pro ble m , and the y a gre ed

to m eet at a restaur ant call ed the Jade Pal ace a lit tle after midnight. Short ly after Zhang arr ived, his table and the ne xt t ab le f

ill ed up wi th s up po rte rs o f S hi, so m e o f t he m tee na ge rs. Sh i id entif

ied the m as his “brothe rs.” This group pr oceeded to ri dicule him and threat en to shut down his st ore. Shi handed him a docum ent and a mem ber of the group tol d him that if he did not sign he would not be saf e. Zh an g re fu sed

to s ign wi tho ut r ead ing it and

ev ery on e at

the tab le s too d u

p. Zh an g w as af rai d th at “ so m eth ingdang ero us ” w as a bo ut t o h ap pe n. Sh i se nt t he m out, and arr an ge d th at Zhang could go home safely that night, buttold him to call and t ell Shi what he i ntended to do. Zh an g re cei ve d s ev era l threaten ingph on e ca lls fr om on e o f S hi’ s g an g, an d a

bo ut a we ek later Zhang’ s store was pl agued by the dail y presence of Shi’s ga ng in front of the store , taking photographs of the tourguides’ vehi cles and dis paraging Zhang’s wares. Business fell off.5

Af ter ap pro xim ate ly t

hre e w eek s o f t

his , S hi c am e to Zh an g’s sto re and de m an de d $ 1, 50 0 f

or h is little bro the rs. Zh an g p aid . T he yo uth s st op pe d a pp ear ing in f

ront of his sto re f

or a pp rox im ate ly thr ee m onths , th enthe yo uth s re ap pe are d and Sh i de m an de d and

rec eiv ed an oth er $ 1, 50 0 in protecti on money. Lin was involved in organizi ng the youths to ha rass Zhang. In M ay20 02 Zh an g o pe ne d a sec on d s tor e se ve ral blo ck s aw ay , h op ing to k eep his
owne rsh ip s ecr et and

esc ap e S hi’ s attentio n. In July a g an g o f t

he little bro the rs l ed

byLi n assaulte d Zhang near his se cond store. Shi was pr esent. The gang punched a nd kicked Zhang, sp ray ed a b lin din g li qu id i n h is f

ace an d le ft

him ble ed ing an d m oanin g in the str eet . Z hang wa s tak ento a ho sp ita l f

or t reatm ent of

his inj uri es. At

the ho sp ita l Z hang wa s ab le t o ri ns e o ut h is ey es and the y f elt be tte r. Z hang tes tif

ied that f rom that po int

on he fo un d it

dif fi cu lt t o re ad
ne ws pa pe rs b eca us e it hurt h is e ye s. Af

ter the ass au lt Z hang clo sed his sec on d s tor e. He stated that he los t $6 0, 00 0 in

red uc ed sal es a ft er S hi’ s g an g b esi eg ed his sto re, an d $ 50 ,0 00 as a res ult of the opening and closi ng of the second store
. B. Xiao Yung Fei (Count 3) Xi ao Yung Fe i cam e to the Un ite d S tat es i n 1 98 9. He he ad s th e C hin ese -A m eri can Fr ien ds hip As so ciatio n, an d c on du cte d to urs fo r de leg ati on s f rom Ch ina . A s p art

of his tou rs Xiao would take his gr oups to gift shops, for which he would r eceive a commission. In spring of 2001, Xiao twice encountered Shi at the Statue of Liberty. Both times Shi complained that Xiao was not gi ving him “face” by not bringing groups to Shi’s st ore. Shi embarrassed and frightened Xia o in front of his tour gr oups. Some tim e laterthe front window of his van was smashed. Tires were slas hed on three di fferent vehicles. In Ju ne 20 01 Xi ao wa s g iv in g ato uratth e U ni te d Na ti on s w he n S hi ac co st edhi m,6

insulted hi m and threatened to beathim up. Shi bragged that he had a gang of juveni les who wouldn’t face any penal ties if they wer e to inj ure or kil l someone. Shi proceeded to punch and attempt to choke him. The next day Xiao recei ved an anonymous phone call tell ing him that he ha dn ’t b een

be ate n e no ug h and

that th e ca lle r w as g oin g to bre ak his leg s. Xi ao vir

tua llysto pp ed giving tours
. C. Peter Yuan (Count 4) Pe ter Yu ancam e to the Un ite d S tat es i n 1 98 8. He wo rke d a s a t our gu ide fr om 19 93 to 2001, and current ly wholesales tickets to touris t destina tions in t he New York City area. Shi inv ite d Yuan to dinne r at

the Jad e P ala ce i n 1 99 9 o r early20 00 an d to ld h im he wante d Yuan to fi nd inv est ors fo r a n ewsto re S hi i nte nd ed to o pe n. Sh i’s wi fe bra gg ed ab out hi s und erw orl d
co nn ect ion s. Yu an , intim idated , s aid he ’d t hink a bo ut i t. H e d id n ot s eek

out inve sto rs, an d o ve r the next few weeks recei ved phone calls from Shi asking about his pr ogress in col lecting money. Yu antri ed

to avo id h im

but ev entua llySh i to ok

him ag ain to t he Jad e P ala ce and

co nf ronted Yu an , te lli ng him

that w itha p ho ne cal l he co uld have ten or t we nty “li ttl e b rot

he rs” the re. Yu an said he would try, but did not. Af ter Sh i op en ed

his gif t sh op , h e to ld Yuan th at h e m us t br ing his tou

rs o nly to h is s tor e, and threat ened to slas h his tir es if he refused. Yuan’s ti res were sl ashed, and he began br inging his gro up s to the No . 1 Gi ft Sh op . A ft er Yuan w as a cco ste d and thr eat en ed

bytw o o f S hi’ s young men, he stopped conducting tours
. Ne ve rth ele ss, Sh i de m an de d p rot ect ion m on eyif Yu anwante d to do bu sin ess in N ew York. For seven months Yuan paid $300 each month. Yuan attended anotherdinner at t he Jade Palace at Shi ’s invit ation, along wit h several ot her tour gui des. Shi demanded that the tour7

gu ide s ac co m

panyhim to a karao ke bar, whe re h e intro du ced Li n a s o ne of

his gang . L in thr eat en ed

to p ho tog rap h th e f

ace an d li cen se p lat e o f anytou r gu ide wh o d idn ’t p atr on ize Sh i’s sto re. In January 2002 Shi r equired Yuan to at tend a Chinese New Year banquetat the Jade Pa lac e al on g w ithab out f if ty o the r to ur g uid es. Whil e th eywe re e ati ng a g rou p o f t hir ty t o f ort y yo uth s d res sed in b lac k p ara de d into t

he res taurant an d s at d own at se ve ral tab les . L in w as among the group. At one point one of the group began c hanting a sl ogan, and all of the gr oup stood up and began chant ing together
. Sh i co nti nu ed

to t hre ate n Yuan o nc e h e b eg anwh ole sal ingtic ke ts, tel lin g h im he wo uld send his li ttle br others to hi s home to break his legs. I n the fall of 2002 Yuan essenti ally did not leave his home for fear of what Shi and his gang might do to him. At Zhang’s requestYuan m ade a digit al recor ding of Shi and Lin on Xiao’s re corder. The Government and the defense stipula ted to the a dmission of the recordings and a ccuracy of the English t ranslat ion, with one except ion, a phrase a ttribut ed to Lin, whose tra nslation he disputed. D. Lin Ji Tiang (Count 5) Li n J i T ian g c am e to the Un ite d S tat es f rom Ch ina in 1 99 4. He op en ed

a re sta urant i n mid-town Manhattan call ed Sun East. Shi wanted Lin Ji Tiang to send cust omers to his gift sh op . In 20 02 Li n J i T ian g h eld

a sm all Ch ine se N ewYe ar’ s p arty f or t our gu ide s at

his
res tau rant. H e invit ed

Sh i f or t he ne xt d ay , b ut S hi s ho we d u p o n th e f irs t day w ithsixor s ev en of his littl e brothers . Lin Ji Tiang did notdare to char ge them, although they were uninvi ted. Shi tried t o get Lin Ji Tia ng to throw a biggerparty for tour gui des of Shi’s selec tion.8

When Lin Ji Tiang pr otested t hat he couldn’ t afford this part y, Shi got angry and l eft. On occasion Shi would ar rive at t he restaur ant and tre at the kit chen as his own, cooking meals for himself. One tim e Shi hauled Lin Ji Tiang up the sta irs of his res taurant hol ding his arm behind his back. Twice Lin Ji Tiang found cement in the lock of his rest aurant. Once he found a penknife on the floor while Shi was i n his rest aurant. Shi sa id such a knife is us ed on people who do n’t lis ten , g est

uri ng wi th t

he kn if e as tho ug h h e w ou ld s lip it b etw een his rib s. Sh i al so sai d such a knife is used t o slash ti res. Lin Ji Ti ang was scared. Lin Ji Tiang’s restaur ant displa yed a sign adver tising t he No. 1 Gift Shop. When the sign fell down, Shi berat ed him and threatened to ge t his gang to be at him to death. He de m an de d $ 35 as t

he co st o f t

he sig n. Th e to ur g uid es s top pe d c om ingto h is r est aurant be cau se Shi was constantl y there and t hey were afraid to c ome. The restaurant was losi ng money, and Lin Ji Tiang was sca red all t he time, so he decided to cl ose the res taurant, i n October 2003. E. Xu Xin (Count 6) Xu Xi n c am e to the Un ite d S tat es f rom Ch ina an d w ork ed

as a tou r gu ide in 1 99 9. Af

ter Shi opened his st ore, he order ed Xu to bring his t ours there exclusivel y. When Xu failed to do so, Shi began call ing and threa tening to have his lit tle brot hers beat hi m up. Xu was angry and frightened. He learned from P eter Yuan thatShi and Lin knew where he li ved in New Jersey. Xu found his tires sl ashed and sugar pour ed in his gas t ank. Lin left a message on his answeri ng machine claiming credit for the damaged car. Xu left the tour busines s for awhile as a r esult of the threa ts and the har assment. F. Wang Jun (Count 7) W ang Jun came to the United Stat es from C hina in 1996. He worked as a t our guide9

fr om 19 98 to 2 00 3. Whe n S hi’ s st ore op en ed , h e to ok his tou rs the re a fe w t im es, but st op pe d doing so after an employee of the stor e told him not to mess with Shi. About two weeks laterthe tires on Wang’s van were sl ashed. His tir es were slas hed three more times over the summ er of 20 00 . D uri ng that ti m e h e re cei ve d re pe ate d te lep ho ne cal ls f rom Sh i threaten ing to d o w ors e than slash hi s tires . W ang also saw Shi atthe United Nati ons and Statue of Libert y writing down the lice nse plate numbers of tour guides ’ vans. G. Z hang Liang (Count 8) Zhang Liang came to the United Stat es from C hina in 1996. He began working a s a tour gu ide in s pri ng of

20 00 . O n h is f

irs t day o n th e jo b, Sh i ac co ste d h im at the St atu e o f L ibe rty and told him to bring his bus iness to t he No. 1 Gift Shop. Som e time later he was appr oached by two of Shi’s gang with the sa me m essage while he was at the Unite d Nations. Zhang Liang
co m pli ed wi th S hi’ s d em an ds out of fe ar o f t he co ns eq ue nc es. H. Z hang Fuchi (David Z hang) (Count 9) David Zh an g c am e to the Un ite d S tat es i n 1 99 0. He wo rke d a s a t our gu ide in N ewYo rk Ci ty f rom 19 99 to 2 00 1. Af

ter Sh i op en ed

up his sto re, he tol d Z hang to b rin g h is t ours the re, and not to any othe r store. Davi d Zhang continued to br ing his tour s to different stor es, and Shi thr eat en ed

to b eat him up an d b reak h is l eg s. He wa s threaten ed ag ain a f ewdays lat er, in an anonymous voicem ail. He recor ded the message, and gave the t ape to the pol ice. Some days lat er the sam e in div idu al c all ed an d threaten ed

him ag ain . S om e ti m e af

ter that tw o in div idu als jumped him , pulled his T- shirt overhis head, beathim up and ran away. After this David Zhang de cid ed that he did

no t w ant to wo rk a s a t our gu ide anym ore . H e to ok a v ari ety of m uc h lo we rpayin g jo bs the rea ft er. He ret urn ed to t he tou r gu ide bu sin ess wh enhe learne d th at S hi h ad be en10

arrest ed.

II. The Ineffecti ve Assistance of Counsel Claim and Rule 33 Motion Fo llo wi ng the co nv ict ion s o n M arc h 1 6, 20 05 , S hi’ s attor ne y wrot e to the dis tri ct c ourt, req ue sti ng that ne w c ouns el b e ap po int ed fo r S hi t o p urs ue Sh i’s cla im that hi s tr ial co un sel ha d be enco ns tit

uti on all y in ef

fe cti ve in h av ingfa ile d to ob jec t to the adm iss ibi lity o f t he rec ord ed conversati ons and theirtranscr ipts. Shi obta ined new counsel, who filed an e x parte re quest on May 27 , 2 00 5 f

or an e xp ert

to m ak e a f

ore ns ic e xam inatio n o f t

he tw o a ud io r eco rdi ng s to determine whether they ha d been alter ed or manipulated. Lin’s ne w counsel sought to j oin the motion. The distri ct court or dered the government to respond to the re quest, finding no basi s for
anexparte dis co ve ry a

pp lic ati on

po st- tri al. Th e g ov ernm ent op po sed Sh i’s req ue st f or l eav e to hire an exper t to analyz e the recor dings, pointi ng out first tha t Shi’s al legations of tampering wi th t he rec ord ing s w ou ld h av e g on e to the we ight rathe r th anthe adm iss ibi lit y o f t he ev ide nc e,
an d s eco nd

that any e rro r in

fa ili ng to o bje ct t o th e re co rdi ng s w ou ld n ot h av e b een pre jud ici al, given the te stimony of eight victims of Shi’s extorti on scheme and corroborati ng testimony of form er mem

bers of Shi and Lin’s gang. The distri ct court de nied the motion for a new trial on October 6, 2005. It found thatthe de cis ion no t to hir e an

expe rt w as a

str ate gic ch oic e, that th e d ef en se h ad vig oro us ly c ros sex am ine d P ete r Yuan who m ad e th e re co rdi ng s, that it fo un d Yuan’s tes tim ony c red ibl e, an d th at the ev ide nc e ag ain st the de fe nd ants w as o ve rwhe lm ingde sp ite the rec ord ing s. Th e d ist ric t co urt
co nc lud ed

that de fe ns e co un sel ’s p erf orm an ce w as n ot o bje cti ve ly u nre aso na ble
.11

III. The Presentence Investi gation Reports and the Sentenci ng Hearings Th e U nit ed

St ate s P rob ati on

Of fi ce p rep are d p res enten ce i nv est igatio n re po rts fo r L in
an d S hi, an d c alc ulated

Gu ide lin e se nte nc ing ran ge s f or b oth acc ord ingto t

he advis ory

Un ite d States Sente ncing Guideline s. For each convict ion of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1951, the base offense level was 18, pursuant to U.S. Sentenc ing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.2(a) ( 2005). Two levels were a dded for the us e o f e xp res s o r im

pli ed thr eat s o f d eat

h o r bo dil y in

jur y, pursu ant to § 2 B3 .2 (b) (1) . W ith the ex cep tio n o f C ount 7 , th e d istric t co urt fo un d th at the ex tor

tio ns inv olv ed

the us e o f m ino rs, and added two level s pursuant t o § 3B1.4. Fo r C ount 2 , th e ex tor

tio n invo lvi ng Zh an g Q ingHa i, t he dis tri ct c ourt c on clu de d th at Shi and Lin caused a l oss of m ore than $50,000, and adde d two levels pur suant to § 2B3.2(b)( 2)
an d § 2B 3. 1(b )(7 ). T he dis tri ct c ourt a lso co nc lud ed that Z hang su sta ine d p erm an ent bo dil y injury from his beating, and adde d six level s pursuant t o § 2B3.2(b)(4)(C). A. Lin’s Sentencing According to the Guidelines ana lysis, Lin’ s adjusted offense leve l was 33, based on the upward adjustments for use of threat s, minors, the loss and per manent injury suffered by Zhang Qing Hai, and an additi onal three -level i ncrease for his role as a manager or supe rvisor of criminal activi ty involving five ormore participants
. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Application of the gro up ingrul es a dd ed

tw o le ve ls f

or a tot al c om bin ed of fe ns e le ve l of

35 . A t C rim ina l History cat egory I, Lin’s Guideline ra nge was 168 to 210 months. At Li n’s senten cin g o n Aug us t 17 , 2 00 5, the dis tri ct c ourt a ck no wl ed ge d th e ad

vis ory
natur e o f t

he Un ite d S tat es S enten cin g Guid eli ne s, an d th at i t w as b ound to c on sid er the fa cto rsAlthough Lin was not char ged with or convic ted of Count 9 involving David Zhang, 2 the distr ict courtordered Lin t o make restitution ba sed on Lin’s convi ction on Count 1, the conspiracy c ount. 12 set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) i n determining a reasonable and appropr iate sent ence. The dis tri ct c ourt d eci de d th at a Fa tic o he ari ng to r eso lve dis puted senten cin g is su es w as unnecessary, gi ven the extens ive tri al test imony and the parties’ submissions. Se e U nited Sta tes
v. Fa tic o , 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1978). Th e d istric t co urt

co nc lud ed

that a s enten ce at th e lo w e nd of the Gu ide lin e rang e w as
rea so na ble , in lig ht o f t he § 3 55 3(a ) f

act ors . L in r ece ive d a

senten ce o f 1 68 m onths , p lus thr ee years of supervis ed releas e. The court orde red rest itution t o four victims: $113,000 to Zhang Qing Hai, $50,000 to Xiao Yung Fei, $2,000 to Pete r Yuan, and $10,000 to David Zhang. 2 B. Shi’s Sentencing Ac co rdi ng to t

he Gu ide lin es, Sh i’s ad

jus ted of fe ns e le ve l w as 3 4, ba sed on the up ward adjustments for use of threats , minors, the loss and permanent injury suffered by Zhang Qing Ha i, and anad dit ion al f

our le ve l in cre ase fo r hi s ro le a s an org an ize r or

lea de r of cri m ina l activit y that invol ved five or more participa nts. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Application of the grouping rule s to Shi’s convi ctions added four l evels for a tot al combined offense level of 38. At Criminal History cate gory I, Shi’s Guide line range was 235 to 293 months. At Sh i’s senten cin g o n N ov em be r 9, 20 05 the dis tri ct c ourt f oll ow ed a si m ilar an aly sis to that performed in Lin’s cas e. The distri ct court c onsidered t he Guideline det ermination, along with the sent encing factors l isted at18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and concluded tha t a sentenc e at the low en d o f t he Gu ide lin e rang e w as r eas on ab le and ap pro pri ate . A cco rdi ng ly, the dis tri ct c ourt sentenced Shi t o 235 months’ im prisonment, plus three years of supervis ed releas e. Restitut ion13

wa s o rde red

in t he am ount o f $ 17 5, 10 0, $1 13 ,0 00 to Z hang Qi ng Ha i, $ 50 ,0 00 to X iao Yung Fe i, $2,100 to Peter Yuan, and $10,000 t o David Zhang. DI SC US SI ON I. Denial of Moti on for New Trial Both Shi and Lin argue t hat the dis trictcourt err ed in denying motions for a new tria l on the gro un d th at tria l co un sel pro vid ed co ns tit uti on all y in ef

fe cti ve rep res entat ion

byfa ili ng to ch all en ge the adm iss ibi lit y o f r eco rdi ng s m ad e b y o ne of the vic tim s, an d th e tr an scr ipt s o f t ho se
rec ord ing s. Sh i al so arg ue s th at the dis tri ct c ourt e rre d in de ny inghis po st- tri al e x p art e re qu est fo r f un ds to h ire anexpe rt t o d ete rm ine wh eth er the rec ord ing s h ad be enalt ere d, an d in forwarding the defense’s request t o the govern ment for a response. Ru le 3 3(a ) of

the Fe de ral Ru les of

Cr im ina l P roc ed

ure pro vid es t

hat a tria l co urt

“m ay
va cat e any ju dg m ent an d g rant a n ewtri al i f t he int ere st o f j us tic e so req uir es. ” “T he tes t is wh eth er ‘ it w ou ld b e a m an if est inj us tic e to let

the gu ilty v erd ict

stand .’” Un ite d S

tates v . Sa nc he z , 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir. 1992) (quot ing Un ite d S tates v . R eed, 875 F.2d 107, 114 (7t h C ir. 19 89 )). Fo r a tria l ju dg e to grant a Ru le 3 3 m oti on , h e m

us t harbo r “‘ a re al c on cer n th at
aninn oc en t pe rso n m ayhave be enco nv ict ed .’” Un ite d S tates v . Par

kes , 497 F.3d 220, 232 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoti ng United States v. Ferguson , 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)). Denia l of a Rule 33 motion is reviewed for abuse of discr etion. Id. Th e tr ial jud ge ref

us ed to g rant S hi and

Li n a ne w tria l, s tat ing that he ha d n o c on cer n that an innoc ent party ha d been convicte d, and that the defendants had not met eitherprong of the Strickl and v. Washington standard. See Strickland v. Washingt on , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). W e review a cl aim of ineff ective as sistance of counsel de novo. Un ite d S tates v . F inley ,14

24 5 F .3 d 1 99 , 2 04 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 1). Un de r Strickl and , a “d ef en dant m us t de m on str ate ‘(1 ) th at
co un sel ’s p erf

orm an ce f

ell be low anob jec tiv e st an dard o f r eas on ab len ess , . . . an d (2 ) th at the re is a rea so na ble pro ba bil itythat, b ut f

or t he de fi cie nc y, the outco m e . . . wo uld have be en dif fe rent.’ ” Id. (alter ations in or iginal) (quoting McK ee v . U nited Sta tes , 167 F.3d 103, 106 (2d Cir. 1999)). A “‘strong pre sumption’” exists “‘ that counsel ’s conduct fall s within the wide range of reasonable professional as sistance ,’” given tha t “‘[t]here are countless ways t o provide effective assista nce in any given c ase’ and tha t ‘[e]ven the best cr iminal defense attorneys would not de fe nd a p art icu lar

cli ent in the sam e w ay .’” Un ite d S tates v . A gu irre , 9 12 F. 2d 55 5, 56 0 (2 d C ir. 1990) (alt erations in origina l) (quoti ng Strickl and , 4 66 U. S. at 6 89 ). D ef en se c ouns el h av e “a duty t o m ak e re aso na

ble inv est igatio ns or t o m ak e a r eas on ab le d eci sio n th at m ak es p art icu lar inv est igatio ns unne ces sar y. ” Strickl and , 4 66 U. S. at 6 91 ; ac co rd Ge rsten v. Se nk

ow ski , 426 F.3d 58 8, 60 7 (2 d C ir. 20 05 ). In t his cas e, ho we ve r, e ve n w ere Sh i an d L in t o e sta bli shthat th eir

co un sel unrea so na

bly fa ile d to em

plo y an e xp ert

to c ha lle ng e th e authe nti city o f t he tap es, an d unre aso na

bly fa ile d to object to t he admission of the recordings and transcr ipts, they ha ve failed to est ablish pre judice. As the dis tri ct c ourt a ccu rat ely po int ed out, t he ev ide nc e ag ain st t

he de fe nd ants “ wa s overwhelming.” The distric t court al so found that Peter Yuan’ s testi mony, as the authenticat ing wi tne ss, wa s su ff

ici ent to su

pp ort the adm iss ion o f t

he rec ord ing s und er R

ule 90 1 o f t

he Fe de ral Rules of Evidence, and thatdisputes overthe reli abilit y of the recordings or the accur acy of the trans lat ion

we nt t o th e w eig ht r ath er than th e ad m iss ibi lity o f t

he ev ide nc e. Mo reo ve r, L in’ s counsel vigor ously cross- examined Yuan on his identificat ion of Lin as the speake r on portions15

of the tape. He present ed an alternative tr anslati on for a particul ar porti on of the recording att rib ute d to Li n th at w as a lle ge d to be a threat. Gi ve n th at the jur

y h ad m ore than s uf

fi cie nt e vid en ce f

rom wh ich to f ind bo th de fe nd an ts’ gu ilt

wi tho ut t he adm iss ion

of the rec ord ing s an d tr an scr ipt s, co un sel s’ f ail ure to
sec ure the ser

vic es o f an e xp ert

to i nv est igate whe the r th e ta pe s sh ow ed

sig ns of tam pe rin g d id not prejudi ce Lin or Shi. Theirdecision t o stipulat e to the admission of the rec ordings and trans lat ion s w as a

str ate gic ch oic e th at c ou ld n ot h av e p rej ud ice d th em , g ive n Yuan’s av ail ab ili ty to a uth en tic ate the rec ord ing s, the trans lat ors ’ te sti m ony a s to the acc ura cyof the trans lat ion s, and the defense’s c ross-examination of both Yuan and the government translat or concerni ng disputed port ions of the recor dings and tra nscripts . Because the defendants cannot show pre jud ice , “ thi s co urt

ne ed no t co ns ide r th e o bje cti ve rea so na ble ne ss o f c ouns el’ s ac tio ns .” Un ite d S tates v . B irk

in , 3 66 F. 3d

95 , 1 01 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 4); ac co rd

Grein er v . We lls , 417 F.3d 305, 319 (2d Cir. 2005) (“ ‘[T]here is no reason for a cour t deciding a n ineffective assi stance cl aim . . . to address bot h components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient s howing on one.’” (al terati ons in origi nal) (quot ing Strickl and , 466 U.S. at 697)). As we do not find the stipul ation to t he admission of the recordings and transl ations or the failure t o obtain the s ervices of a forensi c audio expertto have caused pr ejudice t o the defendants, the dis trictcourt’s de nial of theirmotions for a new trial was not an abuse of dis cre tio n. Th e f

ail ure to g rant a p os t-v erd ict ap pli cat ion

fo r f un ds to h ire su chanexpe rt lik ew ise did

no t co ns tit

ute anab us e o f d isc ret ion , and the re w as n o e rro r in

the dis tri ct c ourt’ s refusal to consi der ex part e the post- verdict r equest for funds. II. Ad mis sio n o f U nc ha rg ed Ba d A cts Ag ain st L inThe distri ct court ruled pre-t rial and pr ior to the testimony that the e vidence thatone of 3 the ex tor tio n v ict im s w itn ess ed

Li n intim idate unru ly m ass ag e p arl or c us tom ers wa s ad m iss ibl e to s ho w the state o f m ind of the vic tim . In

giv ingthe lim iti ng ins tru cti on , th e d ist ric t co urt m ist ak en ly t old

the jur y th at the ev ide nc e w as a dm itt ed to s ho w L in’ s st ate of

m ind . Whe n ask ed if the ins tru cti on

wa s “a gre eab le t o th e lawy ers ,” ho we ve r, L in’ s attor ne y ans we red

“y es. ” 16 Li n argu es t

hat th e tr ial co urt

err ed in a dm itt ing ev ide nc e o f f our in cid ents o f p rio r ba d acts invol ving Lin. Specifical ly, the government offered evidence t hat one of the extortion vic tim s o bs erv ed

Li n c on fr ont unrul y c us tom ers at a m ass ag e p arl or c ontro lle d b y S hi w ithhis hand ins ide his jac ke t as if

he co nc eal ed

a g un ; th at L in and

oth ers ass au lte d a

fo rm er
co nf ed erate who ha d b etr ay ed Li n; t hat L in r ana g am

bli ng ho us e o wn ed

bySh i; and

that L in became the leader of the gang bec ause he reput edly beat up t he leader of a Taiwanes e gang. For thr ee o f t he inc ide nts the tri al c ourt g av e a l im iti ng ins tru cti on that th e ev ide nc e w as a dm iss ibl e to show a relat ionship of mutual trust bet ween Shi and Lin. W ith regar d to Lin’s re putation for 3 having beaten up t he Taiwanese gang le ader, no limiting ins tructi on was requested a nd none given. The tri al court e xcluded sever al other i ncidents pr offered by the government. A d istric t co urt ’s d eci sio n “ to a dm it ‘ oth er c rim es’ ev ide nc e und er R ule 40 4(b ) . . . w ill
no t be ov ert

urn ed on ap pe al a bs ent ab us e o f d isc ret ion .” Un ite d S tates v . R os a , 11 F.3d 315, 333-34 (2d Cir. 1993). I n a conspirac y case, “otheracts” evi dence is admissible a s background inf orm ati on , to de m on str ate the ex ist en ce o f a rel ati on sh ip o f m

utu al trus t, o r to “en ab le the jur y to u nd ers tan d h owthe ill eg al r elatio ns hip be tw een the co -co ns pir ato rs d ev elo pe d. ” Un ite d Sta tes v. Pi

po la , 8 3 F .3 d 5 56 , 5 66 (2d Ci r. 1 99 6). Th e S eco nd

Ci rcu it’ s “i nc lus ion ary

ap pro ach ” to the adm iss ion of oth er a ct e vid en ce “al low s su chev ide nc e to be adm itt ed fo r any p urp os e o the r th an to d em on str ate cri m ina l pro pe ns ity .” United States v. LaFlam , 369 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2004) (percuriam).17

To determine whether a dist rict cour t properl y admitted other actevidence, the rev iew ingco urt

co ns ide rs whe the r (1 ) it

wa s o ff ere d f or a pro pe r pu

rpo se; (2) it wa s re lev ant to a m ate ria l is su e in dis pute; (3) its pro bativ e v alu e is su bs tantia lly outw eig he d b y it s p rej ud ici al e ff ect ; an d (4 ) th e tr ial co urt gave anap pro pri ate limiting instruction to t he jury if so reque sted by the defendant
. Id. Evidence of the four uncharged i ncidents was pr operly admitted. The evide nce was not of fe red to s ho w L in’ s cr im ina l pr op en sity, but to sh owthe ex ist en ce o f t he ill eg al r elatio ns hip between Shi and Lin and how itdeveloped. The tr ial courtfound that the evide nce was not unfairly prej udicial, a nd gave limiting inst ructions a s requeste d by the defendants. We find no abuse of discret ion. III . Se nt en cin g I ssu es Lin and Shi chall enged the appli cation of sentenc ing enhancements for their r ole in the of fe ns e, us e o f m ino rs t o c om m it the of fe ns es, pe rm an ent in

jur y to on e v ict im , and

the los s
am ounts . In

ad dit ion , L in argu ed

that th e enhanc em ents c ou ld n ot b e ap pli ed un les s th eywe re pro ve n b ey on d a

rea so na ble do ub t, and

bo th d ef en dants arg ue d th at a Fa tic o he ari ng wa s necessary t o determine challenge d facts. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Fa tic o , 5 79 F. 2d 70 7 (2 d C ir. 1978). Li n’s arg um ent th at the fa cts up on wh ich a se nte nc ing co urt

cal cu lat es t

he ap pli cab le Gu ide lin e rang e m

us t ei the r be adm itt ed

or f ound bya jury b ey on d a

rea so na ble do ub t pe ris he d with this Cir cuit’s c onfirmation in United States v. Salazar that “the statut ory

req uir em ent to de ter m ine a Guid eli ne s rang e, an d d o s o in the s am e m anne r as be fo re Bo ok er , necessari ly means that facts r elevant t o sentencing must be found by a prepondera nce of the evidence.” 489 F.3d 55 5, 55 7 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ) (p er c uri am ). Li n and Sh i’s co nte nti on

that th e se nte nc ing co urt wa s re qu ire d to giv e th em a Fa tic o18

he ari ng lik ew ise lac ks m eri t. “ ‘T he dis tri ct c ourt i s n ot r eq uir ed , b y e ith er the Du e P roc ess Cl au se o r th e f

ed era l S enten cin g Guid eli ne s, to h old a f ull -bl own e vid entiary h ear ingin
re so lv in g s en te nc in g d is pu te s. Al l t ha t i s r equi re d i s t ha t t he co ur t a ffo rdth e d efe nd an t s ome op po rtunit

y to reb ut t

he Go ve rnm ent’s all eg ati on s. ’” United States v. Phillips , 431 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 2005) (quot ing Un ite d S tates v . S lev in , 106 F.3d 1086, 1091 (2d Cir. 1996)). Lin a nd Shi submitted lette r briefs opposing t he Probation Depar tment’s calculat ion of their Guidel ine
ran ge s in its pre senten ce r ep ort s. At senten cin g th eir

att orn ey s ar gu ed

ag ain st t he enhanc em ents that they c urrentl y challenge. The distri ct court s tressed t hat it had he ard extensi ve trial testimony, had observed the de m ean or o f t

he wi tne sse s an d a sse sse d th eir cre dib ili ty o ve r a two -w eek tri al. It h ad

rev iew ed the su bm iss ion s o f a ll p art ies , a s w ell as t he pre senten ce i nv est igatio n re po rt, an d c on clu de d th at the ch all en ge d e nh an cem ents w ere warrante d. Li n and Sh i ha d n oti ce o f t

he pro po sed
enhanc em ents, inc lud ingthe ev ide nc e u po n whic h th e enhanc em ents w ere ba sed , and ha d an op po rtunit

y to dis pute the ev ide nc e. Th e o nly iss ue is whe the r th e ch all en ge d e nh an cem ents were based upon sufficient fact s. In r ev iew inga d istric t co urt ’s a pp lic ati on

of the Gu ide lin es t o th e sp eci fi c f act s o f a cas e,
we acc ord

de no vo rev iewto i ssu es o f l aw , and acc ep t it s f

ind ing s o f f

act un les s th eyare cle arl y
erroneous. Un ite d S

tates v . G ott i , 4 59 F. 3d

29 6, 34 9 (2 d C ir. 20 06 ). “ ‘Afi nd ing is c learly
err on eo us wh enaltho ug h th ere is e vid en ce t o s up po rt i t, t he rev iew ingco urt

on the entir e
ev ide nc e is lef

t w iththe de fi nit e an d f

irm co nv ict ion

that a m ist ak e h as b een

co mm itt ed .’” United States v. Cuevas , 496 F.3d 256, 267 (2d Cir. 2007) (quot ing United States v. Hazut , 140 F. 3d 18 7, 19 0 (2 d C ir. 19 98 )). “[ F] act ua l f ind ing s b ase d o n th e te sti m ony o f w itn ess es [ are ]19

entitl ed to specia l deference,” bec ause “asses sing the cr edibili ty of witnesses is distinct ly the pro vin ce o f t

he dis tri ct c ourt. ” Un ite d S tates v . B eve rly , 5 F. 3d

63 3, 64 2 (2 d C ir. 19 93 ); ac co rd Cuevas , 496 F.3d at 267. A. Us e o f Mi no rs Section 3B1.4 of the Sentenci ng Guidelines pr ovides for a two-le vel incre ase “[i]f the defendant used or at tempted to use a person l ess than ei ghteen years of age to comm it the of fe ns e. ” U .S .S .G . § 3B 1. 4. Th e App lic ati on No tes ind icate that “‘ [u ]s ed or a tte m pte d to us e’ includes di recting, c omm anding, encouragi ng, intimidating, counsel ing, trai ning, procuri ng,
rec rui tin g, or s oli cit ing .” Id. cmt. n .1 . L in argu es t hat th ere is n o re co rd e vid en ce t hat th e “l itt le brothers” were younger than e ighteen year s of age. The record demonstrates the contra ry, as the distri ct court not ed in citi ng the government’s August 1, 2005 submission. Among the num erous wi tne sse s who tes tif

ied ab out S hi’ s g an g o f “ little bro the rs, ” d esc rib ingthe m as “ kid s, ” w as Steven Han, a mem

ber of the gang, who testi fied that the membership ranged in age “[f]rom 15- year-old unt il the 20s.” Shi himself told one of his extorti on victims, Xiao Yung Fei, that the
m em be rs o f h is g an g w ere all juv en ile s b eca us e “i n A m eri ca, wh ena juve nil e in jur es o r ki lls someone, they don’t face any penalt y.” Extortion vi ctim Zhang Qing Hai testified tha t the kids
sent to loi ter

in f ront of his gif t sh op we re “ kid s, aro un d 1 4, 15 , 1 6, tee na ge r ki ds .” Th ere wa s no error i n adjusting Li n’s Guideline s offense level upward by two leve ls for use of a minor. B. Loss Amount Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B3.2(b)(2) and 2B3.1(b) (7)(C), the distri ct court i mposed a two-level e nhancement for a loss greate r than $50,000 but l ess than $250,000 sust ained by Zhang Qing Hai. Loss to a vict im in an extortion cas e “means any dem and paid plus any20

ad dit ion al c on seq

ue nti al l os s f

rom the of fe ns e. ” Id. § 2 B3 .2 cmt. n .5 . T he dis tri ct c ourt b ase d its de ter m inatio n o f l os s o n Z hang ’s t est im ony that he su ff

ere d $ 60 ,0 00 in l os t sa les , $ 50 ,0 00 in loss associ ated with the opening of a second stor e and paid $3,000 in pr otection money. The de fe nd an ts argu e th at a

dis tri ct c ourt m ayno t re ly u po n th e unc orr ob orated

tes tim ony o f a

vic tim as t o am ount o f l os s whe n th at am ount i s d isp ute d, an d th at the vic tim ’s o wn tes tim ony in dic ate d that hi s es tim ate wa s unre lia ble
. A “ dis tri ct c ou

rt n eed no t es tab lis h th e lo ss w ithpre cis ion but rathe r ‘n eed

on ly m ak e a
rea so na ble est im ate of

the los s, giv enthe av ail ab le i nf orm ati on .’” United States v. Carboni , 204 F.3d 39, 46 (2d Cir. 2000) (quot ing United States v. Jacobs , 117 F.3d 82, 95 (2d Cir. 1997)). Zh an g te sti fi ed

that in go od m onths he m ad e m ore than $ 10 ,0 00 in p rof its , b ut i n h is worst months, for exam

ple after Septe mber 11, 2001, he lost money. He testified that the extorti on began in earl y 2001, and he continued t o feel the effects of the inti midation campaign in lost pr ofits up to the t rial. This was because many tour guides who used to freque nt his shop sto pp ed bri ng ingthe ir t ours t o h is s ho p in sp rin g o f 2 00 1, an d n ev er r eturne d. Sh i w as arre ste d in November 2002. Zhang estimated that overal l, as a res ult of the thre e-week inti midation campaign in spring of 2001, he lost atleast $60,000. Zhang al so estimated that he lost $50,000 as a resul t of closing his s econd store a fter Shi’s gang as saulted hi m. Th e d istric t co urt

fo un d Z hang ’s t est im ony “ entir ely cre dib le. ” W e g ive str on g d ef ere nc e to findings based on cr edibili ty determinations. United States v. Johnson , 378 F.3d 230, 239 (2d Ci r. 2 00 4). Zh an g’s est im ate of $6 0, 00 0 in

los t sa les at h is f

irs t sh op is n ot u

nre aso na ble , g ive n the length of ti me that his business cont inued to suffer the effects of Shi and Lin’s intimidation campaign. The districtcourt’s c onclusion tha t the evide nce at tr ial est ablished t hat the ext ortion21

of Zh an g c au sed

a lo ss o f m ore than $ 50 ,0 00 wa s li ke wi se n ot u nre aso na ble , g ive n th e ad de d losses ass ociated wit h closing the second store after six months of operation, and t he protect ion
m on eypaym ents. “[V]iew[ ing] the ev ide nc e in the lig ht m os t f

av ora ble to t he Go ve rnm ent,” id. at 238, the distri ct court’ s relia nce on Zhang’s est imate of his losses was not cl early erroneous. C. Pe rma ne ntIn

ju ry Se cti on 2B 3. 2(b )(4 ) of

the Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin es p rov ide s f or an in cre ase in o ff

en se lev el i f anyvic tim

su sta ine d b od ilyinj ury , a cco rdi ng to t he ser iou sn ess of

the inj ury . “ Bo dil y injury,” defined a s “any significa nt injury; e.g., an injury t hat is pai nful and obvious, or is of a typ e f or whic h m ed ica l attentio n o rdi naril y w ou ld b e so ug ht, ” U .S .S .G . § 1B 1. 1, cmt. n . 1 (B ),
rec eiv es a tw o-l ev el i nc rea se. Id. § 2 B3 .2 (b) (4) (A ). “ Se rio us bo dil y in jur y, ” d ef ine d a s “i nju

ry inv olv ing ex tre m e p hy sic al p ain or t he pro tra cte d im

pa irm ent of

a f un cti on of a b od ilym em

be r, organ, or mental faculty; orrequiri ng medical intervent ion such as sur gery, hospita lizati on, or phys ica l re ha

bil itatio n, ” id. § 1B1.1, cmt. n.1(L), rec eives a four-l evel incr ease. Id. § 2B3.2(b)(4)(B). “ Permanent or life-thre atenin g bodily injury,” defined as “inj ury involving a
su bs tantia l ri sk

of de ath ; lo ss o r su

bs tantia l im

pa irm ent of

the fu nc tio n o f a

bo dil y m em

be r, org an , o r m ental fa cu ltythat is lik ely to b e p erm an ent; o r an

ob vio us dis fi gurem ent th at i s li ke ly to b e p erm an ent,” id. § 1B1.1, cmt. n.1(J), r eceives a s ix-level increase
. Id. § 2B3.2(b)(4)(C). An injury whose degree of seriousness fall s between the spe cified degrees may receive a three or fi ve -le ve l in cre ase . Id. § 2B3.2(b)(4)(D), ( E). Th e d istric t co urt

im po sed a si x-l ev el i nc rea se o n S hi’ s an d L in’ s b ase of fe ns e le ve l, concluding tha t Zhang Qing Hai had susta ined permanent injury t o his eyes duri ng the assaul t onA G ov ernm ent w itn ess wh o p art ici pated in t he ass au lt, He nry

Sh en , te sti fi ed

that 4 another gang member sprayed Zhang with pepper spr ay. 22 him bym em be rs o f S hi’ s g an g. Th e co urt rea ch ed thi s co nc lus ion

byap ply ingthe Gu ide lin es definition of permanent injury t o the facts as st ated by Zhang in his trial testimony. Zhang described t hat he was accost ed by a few people who began beating hi m. A s he struggl ed,
so m eth ing we nt i nto his ey es t hat hu rt trem en do us ly. He co uld no t op enhis ey es and

he co uld
no t se e. He de scr ibe d th e su bs tan ce a s w ate ry. He los t co ns cio us ne ss f or a tim e, an d w as t ak en 4 to a hospita l. He receive d stitche s for his wounds, but no medical trea tment for his eyes. Zhang went to the la vatory and washed outhis eyes with wat er, after which hi s eyes felt a l ittle better. Zh an g le ft

the ho sp ita l af

ter that. Z hang ’s t est im ony c on cer nin g th e p erm an en cyof

his inj ury
wa s as fo llo ws : Q. Mr. Zhang, did the be ating thatyou received t hat evening affect your ey esi gh t? A. Ye s. Who m ev er k no ws m e k

ne w that I l ike d to rea d n ew sp ap er a lot in the past. After t hat occasi on, it’s di fficult for me to read newspapers. And so fr om that po int

on , I d on ’t e ve n b uyne ws pa pe rs and I do n’t ev enrea d ne ws pa pe rs. Q. Why is it di fficult for you to read newspaper s now? A. If I sp en d m ore tim e in

rea din g, yo u k

no w, it hurt s m

y e ye s. Sh i a ndLi n a rg ue th atth es e fa ct s a re in su ffi ci en t e vi de nc e o f pe rma ne ntin ju ry . We be lie ve that th e d istric t co urt ’s a pp lic ati on

of the pe rm an ent bo dil y in

jur y e nh an cem ent to the se facts present s a predominantly factual i ssue, which we revie w for clear err or. Se e G ott i , 459 F.3d at 349 (cit ing Un ite d S tates v . S eli ou tsk y , 4 09 F. 3d

11 4, 11 8-1 9 (2 d C ir. 20 05 )); seeals o Un ite d S tates v . B ag

ge tt , 342 F.3d 536, 540 (6th Cir. 2003) ( reviewing finding of permanent or lif e-thre ate nin g b od ilyinj ury un de r cl ear ly e rro ne ou s st an dard) ; Un ite d S tates v . Pan die llo , 184 F.3d 682, 685 (7th Cir. 1999) ( conclusion t hat assai lants infli cted bodily i njury revi ewed for23

cle ar e rro r); United States v. Jacobs , 167 F.3d 792, 798 (3d Cir. 1999) (findings regarding pe rm an en t or

lif e threaten inginj ury

rev iew ed fo r cl ear err or) ; Un ite d S

tates v . Pric e , 149 F.3d 352, 353 (5th Cir. 1998) ( “severit y of a victim’s injurie s is a factual determination and thus reviewed for clea r error ,” construi ng permanent bodily injury). Bu t se e Pan die llo , 1 84 F. 3d at 685 (applying de novo r eview to questi on whether welts fell within Guideli nes’ definiti on of bodily injur y). Fo r th e in jur y to Zh an g’s ey es t o q

ua lif y a s p erm an ent or

lif e-thre ate nin g b od ilyinj ury under the Guidel ines’ definit ion, it must constitute “substa ntial i mpairm ent of the function of a bo dil y . . . org an. . . th at i s li ke ly t o b e p erm an ent.” U. S. S. G. § 1 B1 .1 , c mt. n .1 (J) . T he dis tri ct
co urt cle arl y e rre d in

fi nd ingthat Z hang ha d s us tai ne d a pe rm an ent in

jur y th at w ou ld t

rig ge r a six-leve l enhancement. Where substantial i mpairm ent is not obvi ous, something m ore than the ge ne ral ize d and

su bje cti ve im

pre ssi on of the vic tim

is r eq uir ed in t he way o f p roo f. He re Zhang’s test imony that it hurts hi s eyes to spend more time reading did notafford a sufficient basis for the di strictcourt to find tha t he had susta ined substant ial impairment of his eyesight. There is no quest ion that Zhang suffered subst antial i mpairm ent of his eyesightat the time of the assault. That Zhang cur rently has difficulty readi ng may constitute an impairment. Th ere is, ho we ve r, i ns uf

fi cie nt r eco rd e vid en ce t o w arr ant a f ind ingthat th e as sau lt r esu lte d in
su bs tantia l im

pa irm ent th at w as l ike ly t o b e p erm an ent. T he dis tri ct c ourt c ou ld n ot r eas on ab ly conclude on the s tate of the evi dence that t he impairment was both substantial and likely t o be permanent. Be cau se t he dis tri ct c ourt’ s f

act ua l f ind ing s ar e in su ff

ici ent to est ab lis h s ub stanti al impairm ent of Zhang’s eyesightthat is l ikely to be pe rmanent, we remand f or consider ation of24

the nature , severit y and likely dur ation of Zhang’s impaired eyesi ght. Se e U nited Sta tes v. Sp ine lli , 352 F.3d 48, 60 (2d Cir. 2003). D. On Remand At their se ntencing hear ings, both Lin and Shi obj ected to t he Guideline r ange adopted by the dis tri ct c ourt. Li n argu ed that he sh ou ld r ece ive a n on -Guid eli ne s se nte nc e. Th e d istric t court cal culated an offense leve l of 35 and Criminal History cate gory I, for a range of 168 to 210
m onths , and

im po sed a se nte nc e o f i m

pri so nm ent at

the low en d o f t he ran ge , 1 68 m onths , statin g: “ I am

senten cin g, ho we ve r, i n li gh t of the fa cto rs s et f

ort h in 18 U. S. C. Se cti on

35 53 (a) , and believe t hat the sent ence of 168 months and the other aspect s of the sentence t hat I have de scr ibe d is ap pro pri ate , re fl ect ingthe ser iou sn ess of the of fe ns e an d th e n eed

fo r pu nis hm ent, de ter ren ce and reh ab ili tat ion .” Shi argued thathis Guideline offense level should be 36, Cri minal History category I, for a sentenci ng range of 188 to 235 months. He also argued for a non-Guidel ines sente nce. The dis tri ct c ourt r eje cte d S hi’ s Guid eli ne s ca lcu lat ion , and his arg um ent f

or a no n-Guid eli ne s
senten ce, an d d ete rm ine d th at S hi’ s o ff en se l ev el w as 3 8, Cr im ina l H ist ory cat eg ory I, f or a
senten cin g rang e o f 2 35 to 2 93 m onths . T he dis tri ct c ourt i nd icated that it int en de d to im

po se a Gu ide lin e se nte nc e, an d im po sed the low en d o f t he Gu ide lin e rang e: in part bas ed on the arguments of defense counsel. I was goi ng to sentence at the hig h e nd of the gu ide lin e rang e b eca us e o f t he oth er f act ors that ar e p ert ine nt h ere un de r 35 53 (a) . B ut I wi ll s enten ce at 23 5 m onths , whic h is the low en d, wh ich also has some overlapping wit h the sentenc ing guideli ne range computed by de fe ns e co un sel
. The distri ct court r easoned: I th ink the senten ce i s ap pro pri ate giv enthe ser iou sn ess of the of fe ns es, the ne ed fo r pu nis hm ent, d ete rre nc e, an d re ha bil itatio n. I have co ns ide red all of the fa cto rsSh i al so arg ue d th at h e sh ou ld h av e b een af fo rde d a Fa tic o he ari ng to c ontes t th e lo ss 5 amounts, an issue that we have a lready addr esse d. 25 at 3 55 3(a ), i nc lud ingthe natur e an d c irc um stanc es o f t he of fe ns e an d th e h ist ory and charact eristi cs of the defendant. I thi nk this sent ence does reflec t the ser iou sn ess of

tho se o ff en ses . It wo uld pro m ote res pe ct f or t he law , p rov ide a ju st punishment, afford adequate deterr ence, protec t the publi c, and provide ap pro pri ate co rre cti on al treatm ent in the m os t ef

fe cti ve m anne r. An err or i n d ete rm ini ng the ap pli cab le Guid eli ne ran ge m ayren de r a s enten ce unreasonable
. Se lio uts ky , 4 09 F. 3d at 1 18 . Ared

uc tio n in the enhanc em ent f

or d eg ree of

bo dil y injury would re duce the offense levels for both Shi and Lin, alt hough Shi’s Guideli ne range might not be reduced below the r ange for which he argued, and t here is of course overlap in t he sentencing r anges. Because we do not know whetherthe distr ict courtwould have imposed the
sam e se nte nc es o f i m

pri so nm ent ha d it

cal cu lat ed

low er Guid eli ne ran ge s b ase d o n f act s supplying proof of a lesserdegree of bodily inj ury, we remand for re-calcula tion of Lin’s and Sh i’s Gu ide lin e rang es. Of co urs e, the dis tri ct c ourt h as d isc ret ion , o n re m an d, to r ese nte nc e at the low en d o f a re- cal cu lat ed

Gu ide lin e rang e b ase d o n e vid en ce o f t he de gre e o f Z hang ’s bodily injur y or anywhere withi n that re- calculat ed range, or t o impose a non-Guideline
senten ce. E. Restituti on Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1, the distr ict courtordered tha t Shi pay rest itution t o four victims: $113,000 to Zhang Qing Hai; $50,000 t o Xiao Yung Fei; $2,100 to PeterYuan; and $1 0, 00 0 to David

Zh an g, fo r a t ota l of

$1 75 ,1 00 . A lth ou ghSh i as ser ts t hat th e d ist

ric t co urt erred in de termining these amounts with respe ct to all four victims, his sole re maining argument 5 concerns the loss to Zhang Qing Hai, and t hus we address only t hat porti on of the restitution26

order. “[ W ]e rev iewres tit uti on ord ers de fe rentia lly ,” Un ite d S tates v . P or ter , 90 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 1996), and will not disturb a sentenci ng court’s de termination absentabuse of discret ion. Un ite d S tates v . Is ma il , 2 19 F. 3d

76 , 7 8 (2 d C ir. 20 00 ). A s d isc us sed ab ov e, we do no t f

ind cle ar error i n the distr ict court ’s deter mination of the amount of loss suffered by Zhang Qing Hai. The court did notabuse its di screti on in orderi ng restitution in the amounts nam ed. CO NC LU SI ON The judgments of conviction are affirmed. The sentences i mposed against Lin Guang on Au gu st 1 7, 20 05 an d a ga ins t S hi Y on g W ei o n N ov em be r 9, 20 05 are va cat ed , and the cas es remanded for resentencing.