# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rgued Decem ber8, 20 08 Deci ded J uly6, 20 09 B efo re F R ANK H. E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e WI L L I AM J. B A U E R, Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 1575 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. RAI D THA H I R, D ef endant-Appellant
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es D istri ct C ou rt forthe E astern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n.
N o. 05 CR 28 3 C h ar les N . C lev er t, Jr. , Judg e .
O R D E R Rai d Th ahi r ple aded gui l ty to one count o fco nspir acy to com m i t o ffenses ag ai nst the Unite d Sta tes in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 3 71. The c onspi ra cy cente re d on a schem e t o defr aud the W om en and I nfa nt Chil dren ( “W I C”) prog ra m . Thahi r’ s s entencing guidel i nes r an g e was 7 8 to 9 7 m o nths , b utthe di st r i ctc o ur t se nt en ce d hi m t o the s ta tu to r y maxi m um of 6 0 m on th s. O nap p ea l T h ah ir ra ise s fo u r c h alle n ge s t o h is s en te n c e. B ec au se n on e o f h is ar gum ents persuade us the di str i ct c ourter re d, w e a ffi rm hi s s entence . N ON P R E C E D E N T I A L D I S P OS I T I ON T o b e cite d o nly in ac c ord anc e w ithFed . R. App . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 1575 Page 2 I . B a c kg r o und The W I C pr o g r am i s a fede r al l y funde d wel f ar e pr o g r am des i g ne d t o he l p i ndi g en t m ot h er s o b ta inw h ole so m e a n d n u tr itio u s fo od for th em se lve s a n d th eir infa n t c h ild re n . Und e rthe p r o g r a m W I C r e c i pi e nt s a r e i s s ue d v o uc he r s tha ta r e r e de e mab l e a tWI Cappr o ve d v en do r s f o ra ppr o ve d f o o d i te m s su cha s i nf an t f o r m ul a. Afte re xc ha ng i ng approve d goo ds f orW I C voucher s, autho ri zed ve nd or s deposi t the vo uchers i n exchange f orpaym ent fro m the W I C progr am . The pr ogr am ’ s r egul ati ons re quir e, am ong othe r thi ngs, thatW I C-approv ed vendor s m ai ntai n i nventory r eco rds o fthe W I C-approv ed go od s t h atth ey se ll. Thahirpl eaded gui l ty to conspi ring to co m m i t o ffenses ag ai nst the U ni ted S tat es i nv o l vingfr au d o n the W I C pr o g r am. T ha hi ra nd hi s br o th erF ua d Za he ro wned a nd o per at ed M i k e’ s F o o ds, a c o nv en i en ce s to r e i n Ke no sh a, W i sc o ns i n. T ha hi ra l so o wned a nd o per at ed F as t an d F r i en dl y M ar k et, a ne arbyc o nv en i en ce s to r e i n Ke no sh a, wi tha di ffer en t br o th er . Bo ths to r es wer e l i ce ns ed unde rthe W I C pr o g r am to a cc eptW I C v o uch er s, a nd th ro u gh bo th st or es T h ah ir an d h is b ro th er s w er e a b le t o c om m it fra u d on th e W IC p r o g r a m. S p e c i fi c a l l y, T h a h i r ’ s s t o r e s w o u l d f a l s e l y r e p o r ts a l e s o fWI C
- a p p r o v e d i t e ms w hen i n f act the s tor es’ W I C rec i pie nts had e xchanged thei r voucher s forei thercas h orf or beer, ci garette s, can d y, an d other n on-W I C -app roved good s. Th ah ir an d his cocon sp irators w ou ld als o leg itim at ely ex c h an ge W IC -ap p ro ve d goo d s fo r W IC vo u c h er s, b u t th en w ou ld b u y b ac k th es e g oo d s a t th e o th er co n ve n ien c e s to re ata su b st an tia l d isc ou n t a n d ag ain re portf al se sal es. Thahi r and his br othe rs would al so pu rchas e s tol en W I C-approv ed g o o ds fr o m dr uga ddi ct s o rthi ev es , r emov e m ar k i ng s r ev ea l i ngtha t th eywer e st o l en, a nd then pl ace the i tem s o n the sto re s’ shel ves f orr esa l e. I n J une 200 3, wh i l e thi s fra ud ule nt o perat i on was ong oing, the W I C progr am se rv ed re cor ds re quests on Thahi r’ s tw o sto re s t o exam i ne the i r supp l i eri nvoi ces f orthe peri od between M ay 2000 and J une 200 3. Thahi r turned t o A mj ad Sal em , ano therco conspi ra tor, to cre ate f al se i nvoi ces docum enting sa l es ofi nfa nt f or m ula
. The invoi ces pu rpor ted to be fr o m “ M i dwes t W ho l es al e” a nd f al se l y r efl ec te d s al es o fi nf an t f o r m ul a dur i ng2 00 1 an d 2002
. Thahi r l ate r dir ecte d his br othe rs to subm i t these f al se i nvoi ces to W I C i nvest i gat or s. I nAu g u s t2 0 0 3 S a l e m p u r c h a s e d 6 0 c a s e s o fi n f a n tf o r mu l a fr o m u n d e r c o v e rl a wen f o r ce m en t ag en ts , who t o l d S al em th atthe c as es wer e st o l en . T ha hi rl at erb o ught 28 case s o ff or m ulafro m S al em , 15 o fwh i ch w er e fro m the und er cove r sal e. In M ay 2004 fed er al a ge n ts ex ec u te d a se ar c hw ar ra n t o nbo th M ike ’s F oo d s a n d Fa stan d Frie n d ly M ar k et . T he i rs ea r chunc o ve r ed th r ee f al se pur ch as e o r der s fr o m M i dwes t W ho l es al e, f o ur bl an kpur ch as e o r der s fr o m Hal l ahW ho l es al e, i nv o i ce s fr o m S al ahW ho l es al e, a nd nu mer o us r e c e i pt s fr o m l o c a lg r o c e r y s t o r e s r e fl e c t i ngp ur c ha s e s o fWI C- a pp r o v e d g o o ds w i th W I C voucher s a nd foo d stam ps. Agents al so uncover ed 5, 771 cans o fi nfa nt f or m ula,N o. 08
- 1575 Page 3

som e o fwh i ch bor e s ecuri ty tag s a nd st or e m ar ki ngs ind i cating tha t they ha d been s tol en fr o m s to r es o ut si de W i sc o ns i n. The go vernm ent fi l ed a three

- count ind i ctm ent a gainst Thahi r. Count One char ged Thahirwith c onspi ra cy to com m i t o ffenses ag ai nst the U ni ted S tat es i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 3 71. Nam el y, Thahi r conspi re d to posse ss and sel lst ol en go ods in vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. § 2 315, and conspi re d to m ake f al se docum ents du ring a gov er nm ental i nvest i gat i on o ffra ud i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 1 001. Counts Tw o and Th re e cha rg ed Thahirwith using f al se docum ents i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 1 001. Thahi r ple aded gui l ty to the c onspi ra cy count, and the U ni ted S tat es l ate r dism i sse d C ounts Tw o and Th re e. The cour t dete rm i ned that Thahir ’ s a pp l i cabl e guidel i nes r ange w as 78 to 97 m ont hs , bu t beca us e the statu tory m ax im um w as 60 m ont hs i n p rison, th e cou rt i m posed the m axi m um o f60 m onths f ol l owed bythr ee yea rs o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. F i ve days a fterhi s s entencing hea ring, Thahi r fi l ed a m oti on under Rul e 3 5 o fthe Fe de ral Rul e s of C rim ina l P roc edu reas kin g th e c ou rtto m od ify th e jud gm en t b y re c om m en d in g th atT h ah ir p articipate i n th e B ure au of Prison s’ 500-hou r dru g-treatm en t progra m . Th e cou rt co nduc te d a he ar i ngo n the mot i o n a nd de ci ded to modi fy the j udg m en t as r eque st ed. T he cour t s ua sponte then re vi si ted i ts or i gi nalse ntence. The j ud ge sta ted thathe ha d gi ven i nsuffi ci ent wei ght t o the f act that Thahirm ay be depor ted and ther ef or e decr eas ed Thahir ’ s s entence fro m 60 m onths to 48 m onths. The g ove rnm ent obj ecte d to the m odi fi ed se nt en ce , a r g ui ngtha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t l ac k ed j ur i sdi ct i o n t o r es en te nc e Tha hi r . T he dist ri ct c ourtag re ed w i th the go vernm ent, vac ate d the 48

- m onth s entence , and re i nstat ed the o ri gi nal60
- m onth s entence .

II . A n alysis T h ah ir ra ise s fo u r c h alle n ge s t o h is s en te n c in g, ea c hof w h ich is d isc u ss ed be low
. We r e v i e w a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o no fth e s e n t e n c i n gg u i d e l i n e s d e n o v o , a n d we re vie w th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fa c tu al d et er m in at ion s u n d er lyin g its ap p lica tio nfor c lea r er ro r. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns , 54 4 F
. 3d 820, 83 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. “ Clea r er ro r exi sts o nl y when, after re vi ew i ng al lthe evi dence, we are l eft with a defi ni te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en m ade. I fther e a re two perm i ssibl e v i ew s o fthe evi dence, the f act fi nd er ’ s cho i ce between them i s no t cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ” U nite d States v. Hatte n-Lubi ck, 52 5 F
. 3d 575, 58 0 (7th C ir. 2008). A. L e a de r s hi p E nha nc e me nt Tha hi rfi r sta r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d no t ha ve a ppl i ed a f o ur - po i ntN o. 08
- 1575 Page 4

l eader shi p enhancem ent under U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 1( a)
. A fo ur- poi nt enhancem ent under § 3 B1. 1( a) i s a pp ro pri ate wh en the defendant i s a n “o rg ani zero r l eadero fa cri m i nal ac tiv ity th atinv olv ed five or m or e p ar tic ip an ts or w as oth er w ise ex te n siv e.” Th ah ir appears to ar gue that ( 1) the cri m i nalact i vi ty did not“invol ve[ ] fi ve orm or e par ti ci pants o r w as othe rwis e e xtensi ve” and (2 ) he was notan “ or gani zero r l eadero fa cri m i nalact i vi ty. ” N eit h er co n te n tio nis p er su as ive
. A s forthe num bero fco nspir ato rs , the dist ri ct c ourtwas j usti fi ed i n concl ud i ng tha t Thahir ’ s tw o bro ther s, wh o al so m anage d the s tor es and subm i tte d fa l se i nvoi ces to i nvest i gat i ng autho ri ti es, were i nvol ved i n the conspi ra cy. Ind eed, bo th br othe rs adm i tte d th ei rpa r ti ci pat i o n whe n the y pl ea ded g ui l tyt o c o ns pi r ac y c ha r g es a g ains t th em f o rthe sa m e c on d u c t. Fu rt h er , th e c ou rtco rre c tly fou n d th atSa lem w as a m em b er of th e c on sp ira c y. Tha hi ra dm i tt ed th athe pur ch as ed g o o ds fr o m S al em su spe ct i ngtha t th eywer e st o l ena nd that Sal em hel ped him f abr i cate f al se i nvoi ces to decei ve W I C i nvest i gat or s. Despi te Tha hi r ’ s as se r ti o ns t o the c o nt r ary, the c o ur t al so pr o per l y c o nc l ude d tha t Ra l ph Ba r to n, on e o f T h ah ir’s em p loy ee s a t M ike ’s F oo d s, w as a m em b er of th e c on sp ira c y. B ar to nto ld fede r ali nv es ti g at o r s th athe he l ped pr o ce ss s to l eng o o ds fr o m s us pec te d dr uga ddi ct s an d thi eve s. Bar ton expla i ned that he would i nventory the go ods, “cl ean” them o fm ar ki ngs in d ica tin g th atth ey w er e s to len, an d th en p lac e th em on th e s h elv es for re sa le. Th ah ir d id no t o bj ec t to hi s pr es en te nc e r epo r t ( “P S R” ) , whi chc o nt aine d thi s i nf o r m at i o n r eg ar di ng Barto n. Accordi ngl y, the cour t di d not co m m i t cl earer ro r by concl ud i ng tha t Bar ton w as “c r i m i na l l y r es po ns ibl e f o rthe c o m m i ss i o n o fthe o ffen se ” an d thus was a pa r ti ci pan t i n the c on sp ira c y. See U .S.S.G . § 3B 1.1 cm t. n .1. I nc l udi ngTha hi rhi m se l f, the n, the c o ur t pr o per l y i den ti fi ed fi ve pa r ti ci pan ts i n the c on sp ira c y. W e h av e n o t ro u b le c on c lu d in g th atth e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otcle ar ly er r in deter m i ni ng tha t the co nspir acy i nvol ved “fi ve orm or e par ti ci pants o r w as othe rwis e extensi ve. ” Id. § 3B 1.1( a). Lik ew i se, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not cl ear l y e rri n fi nd i ng tha t Thahi r w as an “or gani zer ” o r “l eader ” under § 3B1. 1( a)
. The purpos e o fthi s e nhancem ent, as we have n ot ed , i s “ to as sig nrela tiv e re sp on sib ility ” a m on g th os e p ar tic ip at in g in cr im in al a c tiv ity
. U nite d States v. M ank ie w icz , 122 F.3d 399 , 406 (7th C ir. 1997). Th e guid eli ne s com m en tary speci fi es the fol l owing f acto rs to co nsi der in deter m i ni ng wh ethera defe nd ant i s a l eadero r o r g an i ze r : “ th e ex er ci se o fde ci si o n mak i nga utho r i ty, the na tu r e o fpa r ti ci pat i o n in the com m i ssi on o fthe offense, the re crui tm ent o facc om pli ces, the cl ai m ed ri ght t o a l ar ger sh ar e o fthe fr ui ts o fthe c r i m e, the de g r ee o fpa r ti ci pat i o n in pl anni ngo ro r g an i zingthe offense, the nature and sco pe ofthe i l l ega lact i vi ty, and the degre e o fco ntro land author i ty ex ercised over others.” U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1.1 cm t. n.4. A s this com m en tary also ind icates, “[ t]oN o. 08
- 1575 Page 5

quali fy foran a dj ustm ent under thi s s ecti on, the defe nd ant m ust hav e be en the o rg ani zer

. . . o fo ne o r m or e o therpart i ci pants. ” Id. § 3B 1.1 cm t. n .2; s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Hol l i ns , 49 8 F .3d 62 2, 63 3 n .5 (7t hC ir. 20 07 ). I n l i ght o fthi s s tandard, the re cor d contains am ple ev i dence to support the di str i ct cour t’ s co ncl usi on that Thahi r contr ol l ed one orm or e par ti ci pants. F i rs t, Thahi r adm i tte d i n hi s a pp el l ate br i efthathe was “the o ne wh o i s m ostcul pabl e” i n the conspi ra cy. He w as th e s ole d efe n d an t in ch ar ge of op er at in g b ot hst or es th atco m m itt ed th e fra u d on th e W IC prog ra m . He al one conta cted S al em and tr avel ed to Ohio to have S al em cr eat e f al se i nvoi ces f orthe sto re s. Li kewis e, Bart on r efer re d to Thahiras the “bos s” and “own er ” o f th e s to re s, w h ich is a s tr on g in d ica tio n — alt h ou gh n otco n tr ollin g, see U
. S. S. G. § 3 B1. 1 cm t. n. 4— that Thahiro ccupie d a l eader shi p posi ti on in the conspi ra cy. Base d on thi s e vi dence, the di str i ct c ourtwas j usti fi ed i n concl ud i ng tha t Thahi r w as an o rg ani zero r l eaderunder § 3 B1. 1. Tha hi rr el i es he av i l y o n U nite d States v. M ank ie w icz , 12 2 F
. 3d 399, i n hi s e ff or t t o d efe atth e a p p lica tio nof th e § 3B 1.1 en h an c em en t. T h atca se is ea sily d ist in gu ish ab le. M ank ie w icz inv olv ed a d ru g t ra n sa c tio nin w h ich th e d efe n d an t a sk ed h is fa th er to h elp unlo ad m ar ij uana fro m a tr uck and to acc om pany an unsuspecte d und er cove r i nfo rm ant t o a m ee tin g. W e h eld th atth os e t w o “ re q u es ts ” w er e t oo m in im al t o e st ab lishlea d er sh ip und er§ 3B1. 1: “[ T]hi s r el ati onshi p i s [ not] the sor t o f‘ re aland dir ect i nfluence, ai m ed at furth ering the crim inal activity, ’ [ U ni t e d S t at e s v. M us t re ad, 42 F. 3d 1097, 1103 (7th C ir. 1994 ) ] , thatthe enhancem ent was intended to pu ni sh. ” 122 F. 3d at 405- 06. Thahi r’ s r ol e a s a l ea deri n thi s co ns pi r ac y was f armor e ex te ns i ve tha n the de fen dan t’ s i n M ank ie w icz
. Thahiro w ned both parti ci pati ng st or es, was the centr alfi gure i n the fra ud ule nt sc hem e, pr o cur ed f al se i nv o i ce s, ha d hi s br o th er s su bmi t f al se i nv o i ce s to i nv es ti g at i ngo ffi ci al s, a nd ad m itt ed to be in g th e m os t c u lp ab le m em b er of th e c on sp ira c y. B. D en ial of R ed u ction for A cce p tan ce of R esp on sib il ity Thahirnext ar gues that the di str i ct c ourti m proper l y deni ed a r educti on under § 3 E1. 1 foracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty. To be e l i gibl e fora tw o- l eve lr educti on under § 3 E 1.1 (a), a d efe n d an t m u st“c lea rly d em on st ra te [] ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility for h is offense. ” The sect i on’ s co m m entar y s tat es that “a defe nd ant who f al sel y deni es, o r fr i vo l o us l y c o nt es ts , r el ev an t co nduc t th atthe c o ur t det er m i ne s to b e true ha s ac te d i n a m an n er inc on sis te n t w ith ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility .” U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t. n .1(a ). “R ele va n t c on d u c t,” in t u rn, in c lu d es “a ll rea so n ab ly for es ee ab le a c ts . . . of ot h er s in further ance ofthe j ointl y undert ake n cr i m i nalact i vi ty. ” Id. § 1 B1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B)
. We r ev i ew the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s re fu sa l to g ra n t a § 3E 1.1 red u c tio nfor c lea r er ro r. U nite d States v. A cost a , 53 4 F .3d 574, 58 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); s e eal s o U
. S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1 cm t. n. 5 ( “[ T]he deter m i nati on o f th e sen ten cing j ud ge is en titl ed to great de ferenc e on review
. ”).N o. 08
- 1575 Page 6

T h e d ist ric t c ou rtoffe re d tw o re as on s w h y T h ah ir sh ou ld n otrec eiv e a § 3E 1.1 red uc tion. Fi rst, th e j ud ge believed that Th ah ir li ed abou t the exte ntof his broth er Za he r’s in vo lve m en t in th e c on sp ira c y. D u rin g h is p lea h ea rin g a n d w h ile u n d er oa th , Th ah ir sta ted thathe was “v er y, ve ry, ve rysur e that m y b ro ther, Fuad [ Zaher] , was not i nvol ved i n thi s. ” Thahirthen tol d the j ud ge that he, r atherthan Zaher, handed the f al se docum ents to investigatin g offici als. Th e d istri ct cou rt de term ined that thes e statem en ts w ere knowingly untr uthful ; i nd eed, Zaherl ate r adm i tte d his r ol e in subm i tting f al se i nvoi ces to W I C i nv es ti g at o r s. S ec o nd, Tha hi rt r i ed to i nfl ue nc e Bar to n n o t to c o o per at e wi ththe gov er nm ent. W hi l e W I C offi ci al s were i nvest i gat i ng Thahi r’ s s tor es, Thahi r tol d Barto n that “i t would notbe i n [ Barto n’s ] bes t inter est ” t o tal k t o the o ffi ci al s. Thahi r tol d Barto n th atif B ar to nw en t t o jail, T h ah ir w ou ld ta ke ca re of B ar to n ’s fa m ily an d p ay B ar to n ’s b ills. The f ol l owing day, Thahi r offer ed Barto n a s ubstanti alr ai se, fro m $3 25 per w eekto $4 50 per w eek
. A gain, we find no cl earer ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a nal ysi s. As to hi s s tat em ents about Fuad Zaher’ s invol vem ent, Thahi r cl ai m s that he w as “m er el y e xpressing hi s o pini on inth is m at te r” w h ile at th e s am e t im e a c c ep tin g h is ow nres p on sib ility
. P er h ap s t h is is true , a l th o ugh we do ubti t; i n a ny e ve nt, Tha hi r ’ s ch ar ac te r i za ti o n a t be sti s m er ely o ne p erm issible i nt erp retation of his statem en t. I t w as at least eq ua ll y pe rm issible f or the cou rt to co n c lu d e th atT h ah ir w illfu lly at te m p te d to m in im ize h is b ro th er ’s ro le in th e c on sp ira c y. Su c ha st at em en t w ou ld co n st itu te a “fa lse [] d en i[al]” of “r ele va n t c on d u c t,” w h ich is ge n er ally “in c on sis te n t w ith ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility .” U .S.S.G . § 3E 1.1 cm t. n .1(a ); see also U nite d States v. Francis , 39 F. 3d 803, 80 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( hol ding that denia lo fr educti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty i s warr anted wh en defendant m i ni m i zes co conspi ra tor s’ roles in a con sp iracy). Th ah ir also had a strong m otive fordow np layi ng his brothe r’s in vo lve m en t; if th e c ou rtco n c lu d ed th atZ ah er w as n ota m em b er of th e c on sp ira c y, it m i ght ha ve re fused to applythe § 3 B1. 1( a) enhancem ent b ecause the conspi ra cy i nvol ved few er th an five p ar tic ip an ts . W e al so thi nkthe di st r i ctc o ur t appr o pr i at ely e va l ua te d Tha hi r ’ s i nt er ac ti o ns wi th B ar to n . T h ah ir ar gu es on ap p ea l th ath e d id n ottry to int im id at e B ar to nbu t ra th er to ld Bar to n tha t he di d no t ha ve t o v o l unt ee ra ny i nf o r m at i o n t o i nv es ti g at i nga utho r i ti es . T he re cor d bel i es Thahir ’ s a rgum ent. Thahi r dir ectly t ol d Barto n that he sho uld notspeakwith i nvest i gat or s; he a l so gave Bart on a subst anti alr ai se f orno apparent re aso n other than to d iss u ad e B ar to nfrom ex p os in g th e fra u d
. L ike w ise , Th ah ir to ld B ar to nth ath e w ou ld cushi on Bar ton’ s f al li fBart on’ s co nd uct subj ecte d him to cr i m i nall i abi l i ty. Even though th e g ov er n m en t d id n otse ek a se p ar at e e n h an c em en t fo r ob st ru c tio n, th is e vid en c e c lea rly su gg es ts th atT h ah ir tr ied to ob st ru c t o r im p ed e th e a d m in ist ra tio nof j u st ice
. Se e, e . g. , U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1 cm t. n. 4( a) ( unlawful l y influenci ng a w i tness )
. Und erthe gui del i nes, such c on d u c t “ or d in ar ily in d ica te s t h atth e d efe n d an t h as n otac c ep te d res p on sib ility for h is cri m i nalco nd uct. ” Id. § 3E1. 1 cm t. n. 4. The di str i ct c ourthad a s ound basi s o n w hi ch toN o. 08
- 1575 Page 7

concl ud e that Thahi r w as not el i gibl e forthe re du cti on foracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty. C. Cal culat i ng t he A m ount o fLoss Thahirnext chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s ca l cul ati on o fthe am ount o fl oss . Und er th e g ui del i ne s, “ [ t] he c o ur t ne ed o nl y make a r ea so nabl e es ti m at e o fthe l o ss . T he sente nci ng j ud ge i s in a uni que posi ti on t o ass ess the evi dence and est i m ate the l oss bas ed up on that e vi dence. F orthi s r eas on, the cour t’ s l oss deter m i nati on i s e nti tl ed to appropri ate defer ence. ” Id. § 2B 1.1 cm t. n.3(C). “To b e rej ecte d , a district cou rt’s c alc u lat ion m u stn oton ly b e ‘in ac c u ra te bu t o u ts id e th e re alm of p er m iss ible com pu tat i ons. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 51 7 F
. 3d 953, 96 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U nited St at e s v. Pe t e rs on- Knox , 4 71 F
. 3d 81 6, 8 22 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) )
. T he di st r i ctc o ur t det er m i ne d the am ount o fl oss i n thi s ca se exceeded $4 00, 000, but Thahirbel i eve s the l oss sho uld have falle nbe tw ee n$2 00 ,00 0 a n d $4 00 ,00 0. T h ah ir’s on ly a rg u m en t re ga rd in g th e los s a m ou n t is that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld nothave i ncl ud ed re cei pts fro m “S al ah W hol esa l e” i n i ts l oss cal cul ati on. Thahi r bel i eve s that the go vernm ent di d not s ustain i ts burden i n prov i ng tha t the r ecei pts fro m S al ah were i l l egi ti m ate . A fte r re vie w in g th e re c or d , w e c on c lu d e th atth e d ist ric t c ou rtw as j u st ified in fi nd i ng tha t the S al ah W hol esa l e r ecei pts were fra ud ule nt and coul d be a dd ed to the tot al am ount o fl oss . S al ah W hol esa l e was o w ned by S ubhi A hm ed, wh o had a hi sto ryo f deal i ng in sto l en go ods and w as deporte d a few ye ar s a go. Ahm ed al so own ed H al l ah W holesale, w hich w as located nex t d oor to Sal ah W holesale. I t is un d ispu ted that Th ah ir’ s st o r es ha d s ev er alb l an ka nd f al se i nv o i ce s fr o m Hal l ahW ho l es al e. F ur th er, g i ve n the tr anspor tat i on co sts o fl i quid f or m ula, i t a pp ear s unl i kely that Thahi r w oul d have pu rchas ed l egi ti m ate f or m ulafro m a Phil adel phia w hol esa l err atherthan one cl ose r to W i sco nsi n. Base d on thi s e vi dence, es peci al l y S al ah W ol esa l e’ s co nnecti on t o H al l ah W h ole sa le a n d th e in c rim in at in g H alla hW h ole sa le e vid en c e fo u n d in T h ah ir’s st or es , i t w as n otcle ar err or for th e d ist ric t c ou rtto co n c lu d e th atth e re c eip ts from Sa lah w h ole sa le w er e fra ud ule nt. D . The R easo nab l eness o ft he Sen t ence Thahirfi nal l y a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not a dequ ate l y c onsi der the f act that h e w ill l ike ly b e d ep or te d an d th e e n su in g h ar d sh ip to h is fa m ily. Th ah ir n ot es th ath e is th e s ole ca re giv er of h is th re e y ou n g c h ild re n, w h o a re all U .S. citiz en s, an d th atth eir m othe r, wh o i s no t a U
. S. ci ti zen, r esi des o utsi de the countr y. F urther, Thahi r ar gues that h is fa m ily re m ain in g in th e U n ite d Sta te s d oe s n oth av e th e m ea n s o r ab ility to su p p or t h is c h ild re n . T h e c on se q u en c es of T h ah ir’s ac tio n s fo r h is c h ild re nare tra gic , bu t T h ah ir w illN o. 08
- 1575 Page 8

l i kely f ace deporta ti on wh etherhe i s s entence d to 60 m onths ora l ess erte rm o f i m pri sonm ent. M or eov er, the prem i se ofThahi r’ s a rgum ent i s wrong. W hen the dist ri ct j u d ge im p os ed th e 6 0-m on th se n te n c e, h e s p ec ifica lly ad d re ss ed T h ah ir’s fam ily sit u at ion
. The j udg e to l d Tha hi rtha t hi s “c o nduc t as a f athe ri s admi r ab l e. ” The j udg e al so s ai d he had rec ei ved and re vi ew ed a l ett erfro m Thahi r’ s s on a nd “was ve ryto uched by i t. ” Furtherm or e, i t was wellkno w n thr oughout the pr oce edi ngs that Thahi r w oul d l i kely b e deporte d as a r esul t o fhi s cr i m e. Neverthel ess , the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that “after wei g hi nga l lthe f ac to r s he r e, a nd t ak i ngi nt o a cc o unty o url ac ko fc an do r, a nd the co ns eque nc es o fthi s cr i m e, Iha d t o r ej ec t y o urr eque stf o ra s en te nc e wel lb el o w the gui del i nes, and cer tainl y l ess than the s tatutor y m axi m um i n thi s ca se. ” The cour t l i kewis e st at ed th atthe 6 0- m o nth s en te nc e was ne ce ss ary “ [ e] ve n in the f ac e o fmy c o nc ern abo ut the wel f ar e o fyo ur chi l dren. ” Thahir ’ s a rgum ent that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to co nsi der T h ah ir’s d ep or ta b ility or fa m ily sit u at ion is sim p ly u n te n ab le on th is re c or d
. Fi nal l y, Thahi r sugge sts thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s ua sponte deci si on t o re sente nce h i m d e mo n s t r a t e s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r i g i n a ls e n t e n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab l e . We d isa gr ee . T h ah ir co n c ed es th atth e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n oth av e jur isd ict ion to res en te n c e h im up on Thahi r’ s Rul e 3 5( a) m oti on; a j ud ge’ s chang e o fhear t doe s no t co nsti tute “ar i thm eti cal, te chnic al, o r othe r cl earer ro r. ” F ED . R. C RIM . P . 35(a ); s e eal s o i d. ad visory com m i tte e no tes ( The rul e “ i s no t intended to aff or d the co urt the o pp or tuni ty to re consi der the a pp l i cati on o r i nter preta ti on o fthe sente nci ng guidel i nes o r f orthe cour t s i m plyto c h an ge its m in d ab ou t th e a p p ro p ria te n es s o f th e s en te n c e.” ); U nite d States v. P orre tt a , 116 F. 3d 296, 30 0 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. The j ud ge re al i zed hi s e rr orand re i m posed the or i gi nal sente nce; thathe i m proper l y r eco nsi dered the o ri gi nal60
- m onth s entence does not und er m i ne the r eas onabl eness o fthatse ntence. A F F I RME D .