# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 15 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Yah y a Ja wad

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ced ar Ra pi ds

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 7
Fil ed : M arch 27 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, LOKEN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Yah y a Ja wad c h a ll en ge s hi s se nt en ce of 41 m on th s im pr is on m en t fo r

tra ffi ck in g in co un te rfei t m ark go od s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 23 20 (a)( 1)

, as se rti ng

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1

St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10

, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng th e va lu e of th e co un te rfei t go od s an d de nyin g 2

Ja wad an acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on , an d ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by se tt in g

a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se n t e n c e

. Hav in g ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to

28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af

fir m

.

I. BACKGRO UND

In Apr il 20 14

, th e Mi ch ig an Dep art m en t of St at e Po li ce ex ecu te d a tra ffi c st op

of Ja wad du rin g whi ch he co ns en te d to a se arch of hi s va n an d tra il er. As a res ul t of

th is se arch

, po li ce of

fic ers di sc ov ered an d s e i z ed a va rie ty of co un te rfei t pr op ert y , in cl ud in g pu rs es , sh oe s, an d be lt bu ck le s. The to ta l va lu e of th e co un te rfei t it em s was

es ti m at ed to be ap p r o x im at el y $1 40 ,06 0. Ja wad was co nv ic te d of po ss es si on of

co un te rfei t p ro pe rty in M ic hi ga n s ta te co ur t an d was req ui red to pa y a fi ne

.

Ja wad ag ai n cam e to th e at te nt io n of la w en fo rcem en t ap p r o x i matel y ni ne

m on th s l at er. Ja wad ran a li qu id at io n o r “ Cl eara nc e Sal e” i n a n a ba nd on ed st or e in

Ced ar Ra pi ds , Iowa , in Ja nu ary 2 01 5. Und erco ve r ag en ts fro m Hom el an d S ecu rit y

In ve st ig at io ns (HSI) pa id a $7 fee to ga in en try to th e ev en t, whe re e mp l oyees
id en ti fie d Ja wad as th e m an ag er. Ja wad ad m it te d m erch an di se in hi s bo ot h, su ch as

kn oc k- of f “ Bea ts by Dr. Dre” he ad ph on es an d ph on y de si gn er pu rs es , was

c o u nt erfe it

. HSI ag en ts se iz ed al l m erch an di se in Ja wad ’s po ss es si on , va lu ed at
$1 56 ,65 0. On Sep te m

be r 29

, 20 15

, Ja wad pl ed gu il ty t o a on e-co un t in fo rm at io n
ch arg in g hi m wit h tra ffi ck in g in co un t e r f ei t go od s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 23 20 (a)( 1)

. The m ag is tra te jud ge or de red Ja wad r e l e a s e d be fo re se nt en ci ng on a

pe rs on al reco gn iz an ce b on d wi th su pe rv is io n.

W hi le rel eas ed on su pe rv is io n, Jawad on ce ag ai n fo un d hi m se lf vi ol at in g th e

la w. In Decem

be r 20 15

, le ss th an th ree m on th s aft er Ja wad pl ed gu il ty in Io wa

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 2

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-fed eral co ur t, Kan sa s la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers at te nd ed a “

Nati on wid e Liq ui da ti on ”

ev en t in Top ek a, Kan sa s, to en su re th e ev en t co m pl ie d wit h st at e reg ul at io ns

. A

wom an co ll ect in g a $6 “ m em be rs hi p” fee at th e do or s to th e ab an do ne d gr oc ery st or e

to ld of fic ers Ja wad was in ch arg e of th e ev en t. The of fic ers ve rb al ly warn ed Ja wad

. Ja wad as su red th e of

fic ers he wou ld co m

pl y wit h al l ap pl ic ab le reg ul at io ns , in cl ud in g

m ak in g su re ve nd or s were no t se ll i n g co un te rfei t go od s. Und erco ve r of fic ers la te r

ret ur ne d to co nd uc t a co nt ro ll ed bu y

. The un de rco ve r of fic ers pu rch a s e d ha ts an d

su ng la ss es th at were de te rm in ed to be co un t e r fei t, in cl ud in g se ve ral pa irs of

co un te rfei t Ray-Ban su ng la ss es th e un de rco ve r of fic ers pu rch as ed di rect ly fro m

Ja wad

, al on g wit h cap s be ari ng lo go m ark s of Adi da s, Nor th Face

, Nik e, an d Und er

Arm ou r. Law en fo rcem en t th en ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt a n d s ecu red th e en ti re

pr em is es

. Onl y a po rti on of th e m erch an di se at th e sa le s ev en t was se iz ed be cau se

of th e sh eer a m ou nt of g oo ds in vo lv ed

.

Ja wad ad m it te d th e en tra nc e fees co ll ect ed wen t to hi m to “ of fs et so m e of th e

ex pe ns es th at he ha s to pa y ” in se tt in g up an d run ni ng th e sa le s eve nt

. W he n a sk ed

whe re he ob ta in ed th e m erch an di se , J awad wou ld on ly s ta te th e m erch a n d i s e c a me

fro m UPS. Bo xe s co nt ai ni ng m erch an di se reco ve red at th e s a l e s ev en t were
ad dr es se d to Yah y a Liq ui da ti on Sal e, th e na m e of Ja wad ’s b u s i n e ss , an d ot he r

pa pe rwo rk an d bu si ne ss su pp li es su ch as cred it card read ers were reg is te red to Yah y a

Ja wad or Yah y a Co ll ect io ns

. The to ta l va lu e of th e m erch an di se se iz ed was es ti m at ed

at $2 84 ,00 0.

Bac k in Io wa fed eral co ur t, Jawad was se nt en ced on Feb ru ary 22

, 20 16

. The

go ve rn m en t so ug ht an en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s) §§ 1B 1.3 (a)( 2) an d 2B 1.1

, tre at in g Ja wad ’s Mi ch ig an

co nv ic ti on an d t h e K an sa s sa le as rel ev an t co nd uc t in cal cu la ti ng th e in fri ng em en t

am ou nt of Ja wad ’s of

fen se of co nv i ct io n. The go ve rn m en t reco gn iz ed th e

ap pr ox im at el y $1 40 ,00 0 va lu at io n fro m th e Mi ch ig an co nv ic ti on , th e $1 56 ,00 0

va lu at io n fro m th e Io wa sa le

, an d th e $2 84 ,00 0 va lu at io n fro m th e Kan sa s sa le wou ld

-3

-qu al ify J awad fo r a fo ur te en -l e v e l en ha nc em en t, ho wev er, “ ou t of an ab un da nc e of

cau ti o n , p a r t i cu la rly rel at ed to th e Mi ch ig an am ou nt se iz ed si nc e we can ’t ge t ou r

ha nd s act ua ll y on it ,” th e go ve rn m en t on ly reco m m en de d a twel ve -le ve l

en ha nc em en t. See id

. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(G)-( H). Ja wad co nt en de d a te n- le ve l

en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te be cau se on ly th e m erch an di se Ja wad was pe r s o n al ly

res po n s i bl e fo r in th e Kan sa s sa le sh ou ld be in cl ud ed in th e to ta l va lu e be cau se

Ja wad ’s “ in vo lv em en t was li m it ed to acce pt in g th e $6 en t r y f ee an d th e it em s

co nt ai ne d i n” on ly his bo ot h. See id . § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(F)

.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th e Kan sa s sa le was rel ev an t co nd uc t to th e of fen se of

co nv ic ti on an d ag reed wit h th e go ve rn m en t th at th e va lu e of al l m erch an di se se iz ed

a t th at ev en t sh ou ld be in cl ud ed in th e to ta l va lu e of th e in fri ng em en t am o u n t f o r

pu rp os es of U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1

. Bec au se “ eas il y th e am ou nt fit s wit hi n m or e th an

25 0,0 00

, bu t le ss th an 55 0,0 00 ,” th e di st ric t co ur t ap p l i e d a t welv e-l ev el

en ha nc em en t.

Ja wad fu rth er arg ue d fo r a two -le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1(a ) be cau s e h e pl ed gu il ty an d was co m pl ia nt an d

fo rth co m in g wit h in ve s t i g a t o r s. The go ve rn m en t ob jecte d to th e red uc ti on ,

su gg es ti ng Ja wad cl earl y d i d n o t acce pt res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s act io ns be cau se he

pe rs is te d in a “ bl at an t re-o ffen se of th at whi ch he ha d pl ed gu il ty to

. . . in Io wa.” The

di st ric t co ur t ag reed wit h th e go ve rn m en t th at Ja wad di d no t acce pt res po ns ib il it y

. As

th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed

, “ [w]hen y ou are ou t on pr et ria l rel eas e, whi ch is tru st in g

so m eo ne to go ou t an d rem ai n free of cri m e an d he go es an d se ts up an ot he r sa le ou t

of st at e, th at arg u e s v e r y st ro ng ly ag ai ns t a br eak in se nt en ci ng fo r acce pt an ce of

res po ns ib il it y .” Acco rd in gl y , Ja wad ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l was 20

. W it h a cri m in al

hi st or y cat eg or y I, Ja wad ’s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng r a n g e w as 33 to 41

m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

-4

-Th e di st ric t co ur t th en in di cat ed it was in cl in ed to se nt en ce Ja wad ab ov e hi s

ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge an d th at “ th e m or e ap p ro pr ia te se nt en ce is

aro un d a fiv e y ear se nt en ce.” The di st ric t co ur t fo un d J awad ’s con du ct ex hi bi te d a

“ to ta l an d co m

pl et e la ck of res pe ct fo r th e la w s o f t h e Uni te d St at es ” an d

de m on st rat ed Ja wad is “ so m eb od y who co nt in ua ll y vi o l a t e s th e sa m e la w or

reg ul at io n ti m e aft er ti m e.” Ci ti ng a ne ed to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se an d

to de te r Ja wad fro m fu tu re cri m es , th e d i s t ric t co ur t se nt en ced Ja wad to 41 m on th s

im pr is on m en t. Ja wad fil ed th is ti m el y ap pe al

, (1 ) co nt en di ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d

in cal cu la ti ng hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge be cau se it (a) ap pl ie d a
twel ve -le ve l i nc reas e fo r th e am ou nt of lo ss whe n it erro ne ou sl y cal cu la te d th e lo ss

am ou nt

, an d (b ) fai le d to ap pl y a two -le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ,

an d (2 ) cl ai m in g h is sen te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

Tho ug h Ja wad do es no t co nt en d th e Kan sa s sa le it se lf sh ou ld no t be in cl ud ed

as rel ev an t co nd uc t, Ja wad as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou l d h a v e on ly in cl ud ed th e

eco no m ic va lu e of th e go od s fo r whi ch he was pe rs on al ly res po ns ib le d u r in g th e

Kan sa s sa le

, in st ead of in cl ud in g th e va lu e of al l m erch an di se se iz ed fro m th e ev en t,

whe n it cal cu la te d th e in fri ng em en t am ou nt of hi s of fen se an d rel ev an t co nd uc t

pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3

. W e rev ie w th e ap pl ic at io n of se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts

an d red uc ti on s de no vo , an d rev ie w th e un de rlyin g fact ua l ba si s, su ch as th e va lu e of

th e in fri ng em en t am ou nt

, fo r cl ear erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Bo rd ers , 82 9 F.3 d 55 8,

56 7 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ).

Sp eci fic of

fen se ch arac te ris ti cs , li ke th e in fri ng em en t am ou nt

, are de te rm in ed
by in cl ud in g “ al l act s an d om is si on s of ot h e r s t h a t were (i) wit hi n th e sc op e of th e joi nt ly und ert ak en cri m in al act iv it y , (ii ) in fu rth eran ce of tha t crim in al act iv it y , and
(ii i) reas on ab ly fo res ee a b l e i n co nn ect io n wit h th at cri m in al act iv it y .” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B 1.3 (a)( 1) (B); se e al so id

. § 1B 1.3 (a)( 2)

. Thu s, in cal cu la ti ng a de fen da nt ’s

ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ra n g e f or an eco no m ic of

fen se in vo lv in g th eft

,

-5

-pr op ert y da m ag e, or co un te rfei t go od s, th e de fen da nt “ can be he ld li ab le fo r an y lo ss

fro m act iv it ie s reas on ab ly fo res eeab le

, wit hi n th e sc o p e, an d in fu rth eran ce of

, th e
cri m in al act iv it y .” Bo rd ers , 82 9 F .3d at 5 68

.

B y hi s own ad m is si on , J awad was “ in ch arg e” of th e Kan sa s sa le s ev en t. A t

Ja wad ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e ev id en ce de m on st rat ed Ja wad he ld th e ke y s to th e
bu il di ng whe re t h e sa le s ev en t was he ld an d us ed th e en tra nc e fees to of fs et hi s

ex pe ns es in ru nn in g th e ev en t. The in ve st ig at or s al so fo un d “ [c]hec ks

, card read ers , bu si ne ss card s

. . . na ti on al li qu id at io n card s an d co nn ect io ns to web si te s” th at were

as so ci at ed wit h so m e va ria ti on of Ja w a d ’s n a me or hi s “ Yah y a” bu si ne ss

. The

sh ip pi ng la be ls on bo xe s of th e co un te rfei t m erch an di se fo un d th ro ug ho ut th e ev en t

sp ace were ad dr es se d to “ Yah y a Li q u i d a ti on Sal e.” It is cl ear fro m th is ev id en ce

Ja wad ha d a m ajor ro le in or ga ni zi ng an d arra ng in g th e Kan sa s s al es ev en t. As t he

or ga ni zer o f an ev en t s pe ci al iz in g i n t he sal e o f “ kn oc k- of fs ,” an d o f si m il ar ev en ts

aro un d th e co un try, Ja wa d c a n n o t cl ai m ot he r ve nd or s’ sa le s of co un te rfei t go od s

were no t reas on ab ly fo res eeab le or be y on d th e sc op e of hi s un de rta ki ng

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Ade

jum o, 77 2 F.3 d 51 3, 53 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ In de te rm in in g th e in di vi du al

de fen da nt ’s rel ev an t con du ct

, th e di st ric t co ur t m us t lo ok at wha t th e in di vi du al ha s

ag reed to do a n d whe th er th e act io ns of ot he rs in th e co ns pi racy were fo res eeab le

fro m hi s v an ta ge po in t.”)

.

The m ai n po in t of Ja wad ’s arg um en t ag ai ns t in cl ud in g al l go od s se iz ed at th e

Kan sa s sa le is th at th e di st ric t co ur t va lu ed th e co un te r f e i t g o od s “ [i]n a gl ari ng ly

in co ns is te nt m an ne r” by in cl ud in g on ly th e co un te rfei t go od s he pe rs on al ly he ld fo r

sa le in th e va lu at io n of go od s fo r th e Io wa sa le

. If an y th in g, th is arg um en t po in ts to

a po te nt ia l un de rv al ua ti on of th e in f r i n ge m en t am ou nt res ul ti ng fro m Ja wad ’s

cri m in al co nd uc t—

be cau se Ja wad was si m il arl y in ch arg e of th e Io wa sa le s ev en t, al l

co un te rfei t m erch an di se fro m th at ev en t reas on ab ly co ul d be in cl ud ed in cal cu la ti ng

th e am ou nt of th e in fri ng em en t. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err i n in cl ud in g th e fu ll

-6

-va lu e of th e go od s se iz ed in th e Kan sa s sa le i n J a wad ’s in fri ng em en t am ou nt an d

ap pl y in g a twel ve -le ve l en ha nc em en t.

The di st ric t co ur t si m il arl y di d no t err in de ny in g Ja wad th e req ue st ed two -le ve l

re d u c ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. A di st ric t co ur t can pr op erl y co ns id er

va rio us fact or s in de te rm in in g whe th er th e de fen da nt ha s ac c e p t e d res po ns ib il it y , in cl ud in g whe th er he “ tru th fu ll y ad m it t[e d] th e co nd uc t co m pr is in g th e of

fen se (s ) of

co nv ic ti on ” an d “ vo lu nt ar[i l]y ter m in at [ed ] or wit hd r[ew] fro m cri m in al co nd uc t or

as so ci at io ns .” U.S.S.G. § 3E1 .1 cm t. n.1 (A)-(B ). “ [W]e wil l rev ers e th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de ni al of a red uc ti on ‘onl y if it is so cl earl y erro n e o u s as to be wit ho ut

fo un da ti on .’ ” Un i t e d St at es v. Bi nk ho ld er, 83 2 F.3 d 92 3, 92 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )
(q uo ti ng Ade

jum o, 77 2 F.3 d at 53 6)

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ha d a st ro ng fo un da ti on

up on whi ch to ba se it s de ni al of an acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on

. W hi le

Ja wad di d ad m it th e co nd uc t un de rlyin g hi s co nv ic ti on , he di d no t vo l u n t a r i l y

te rm in at e o r wit hd raw fro m hi s in vo lv em en t in cri m in al co nd uc t. “ [C]on ti nu ed

cri m in al co nd uc t, ev en if m in or an d un rel at ed to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on , can m ak e

a se nt en ce red uc ti on for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y in ap pr op ria te .” Uni te d St at es

v. Ngo

, 13 2 F.3 d 12 31

, 12 33 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). Cert ai nl y , if s u b s e q u e n t m in or ,

un rel at ed cri m in al co n d u ct m ak es an acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty red uc ti on

in ap pr op ria te

, so to o do es co nt in ue d in vo lv em en t in th e sa m e cri m in al co nd uc t as th e

of fen se of c on vi ct io n.

Fi na ll y , Ja wad m ai nt ai ns hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W hi le

th e di st ric t co ur t di d se nt en ce Ja wad at th e to p of hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , “ ‘it

wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n,
ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e—a s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le .’ ”

Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba n c ) ( q u ot in g
Uni te d St at es v. Gard el li ni , 5 45 F

. 3 d 1 0 89 , 1 09 0 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )). “ Ja wad ’s t ot al

an d c om pl et e la ck of r es pe ct for th e la ws of th e Uni te d St at es ,” as th e di st ric t co ur t

no te d, an d Ja wad ’s di sr es pe ct fo r th e rig ht f u l pr op ert y rig ht s of ot he rs , ev id en ced

-7

-es pe ci al ly by Ja wad ’s co nt in ue d cri m in al co nd uc t whi le on pr et ria l rel eas e, jus ti fy th e

di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at Ja wad is “ at hi gh ris k to reci di va te be cau se [h e
do es n’t] c are.” W hi le th e di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed Ja wad ha s n o h is to ry of a lc oh ol

or su bs ta nc e ab us e, th e di st ric t co ur t se t a se nt en ce it fel t refl ect ed th e se rio us ne ss of

Ja wad “ st eal in g t he m ark of m an uf act ur ers who ha ve ex pe nd ed co ns id er[a bl e] tim e

an d m on ey

to de ve lo p t he m ark ” an d th en “ de cei v[ in g] t he cu st om er,” wh ic h c ou ld

ha ve a “ po te nt ia l im

pa ct on th e Am eri can eco no m y an d th e bu si ne ss pe op le th at wor k

ha rd to pr od uc e res po ns ib le an d re sp ect ed go od s.” Th e d is tri ct co ur t d id no t fa il to

co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or , gi ve si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ,

or co m m it a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e ap pr op ria te fact or s, an d th us di d

no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng Jawa d. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Fu nk e, 84 6 F.3 d

99 8, 1 00 0 (8 th Cir . 20 17 ).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm in all res pe ct s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-