Th e Ho n. R i c h ar d M i l l s , Un i t e d

S t at e s D i s tri c tJu d g e f

o r th e C e ntr a l D i s tri c to f

I l l i n o is, * sitti ngby designation. NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0657n .06 Fi led : Oct ob er 3 1, 20 08 07- 2531 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. ZAKIR HAKIM, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: D AU GH TREY and GILM AN , C ircui t J udg es; M ILLS, D is tr ict J udg e. *
PER C UR IA M. D efendant Z aki r Hak im plead ed gui lty to aid ing and abett ing bank theft, a Cl ass A mi sdemeano r, and w as sent enced to 12 month s i n pr is on. He now tak es is sue w it h the sev er ity

of that punis hment, cont endi ng both that the di str ict c our t fail ed to add ress Hakim’s obje ctions to t he su gg este d guideline range and thatthe sen ten ce impos ed w as unreason abl e. For the re asons deta il ed i n thi s o pin ion , w e di sag re e and affi r m.
Ha kim a d m itted a t hi s p lea hear ing that he “ w it hdrew

money from [ his ] c heck ing
accou nt kno w ing th at the f und s were n ot available.” Similarly , he con cede d tha t he also07-2531

Un ite d S tates v . H ak im

- 2 - assisted Jason S h u d e ll and T if fany Shud ell in makin g w ithdra w als of othe r unavailable f und s f rom th e Charte r One Ban k. In fa ct, all told, the def end ant and the Shud ells ill egally
w ithdre w $31 ,15 9 .35 f rom th e ba nk using the cred it card opt ion on the institu tion’s automate d tell er

m achi nes so that the transacti ons w ere proc ess ed w it hout the a cc ounts bei ng debi ted i mmediat ely

. In its p res en tence repo rt, the p roba tion o f f ice sugg este d tha t Hakim’s guideline base of fense lev el of

six be i ncrea sed by six add itiona l levels due to the mo net aryamo untlost by the bank in the c ri me, see U SSG § 2B1. 1 (b )( 1) (D ), and by tw o l ev els bec ause of the defendant’ s role as an o rg ani z er and lea der , seeU SSG § 3B1. 1( c)

. Con seq uentl y , ev en after the d efendant w as g ra nted a tw o- lev el dow nw ard adj ust ment for his ac cept a n ce of respo nsibility, his tota l of fense le v el of

12, in con junctio n w ith his criminal histo ry category of III, su bje cte d H aki m to a g uid eli ne s entenc ing rang e of 15- 21 month s. Bec ause the
ma x imu m pu nishm entallow ed b y statu te for the o f

fense of co nviction was only 12 m ont hs, how ev er , t h e di str ict c our t ev entual ly

i mposed a 12- month pr is on s entenc e, on e y ear of super v is ed rele ase, and ordered th e defendant to pa y rest it uti on to the bank in the a mount of $31,159. 35.
On a p p e a l, Haki m first ass erts that the d is tr ict j udg e er re d i n findi ng hi m to b e an org ani z er

and lea der

i n the cri me. P ri or

to the s entenc ing hear ing , H aki m’s or ig ina l couns el did l odg e a w ri tten obj ect ion to thi s § 3B1.1 adj ust ment becau se of his bel ief tha t, “u nder the fact s of thi s cas e, co- defendants w ere eq ual ly cu lpa ble , t hus eq ual ly

ac count abl e for07-2531

Un ite d S tates v . H ak im

- 3 - any substa ntiat ed loss in th is matt er.” How ever, atsente ncing Hakim failed to v oice th is
o bj e c t i o n , d e s p i t e b e i n g a ffo rd e d t h e o p p o rt u n i t y b y t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e t o h i g h li g ht “ any obj ect ion s, addi ti ons, cor re cti ons or del eti ons that [the defendant] w is h[ed] to br ing to [the judge’s] att ent ion.” In fact , t h e d efend ant ’s new coun sel ackno w ledged Hakim ’s “leade rship role in w hat could be conside red to have bee n a [sic] op portu nistic, relatively atav is ti c c ri me.” C onseq uentl y , t he defendant forfe it e d h is chal len g e to the s entenc ing deter minat ion , l eadi ng to our rev iew for p lai n er ro r onl y . See United Sta tes v. Bostic , 371 F.3d 865 , 872 -73 (6th Cir . 200 4) .
Al thoug h the defendant’ s first attor ney di d contes t t he “ lea dershi p” des ig nati on, t he respo nse o f

the pro bat ion de partm entto the defense object ion ind icated thatHakim “recr uit ed J ason Shudel l and Ti ffany Shude ll , as w ell a s d irect ing them in maki ng the fraudul ent b a n k tr a n sa cti ons. ” That as ser ti on w as not c ontes ted a t t he s ubseq uent sent enci ng hear ing

. Mo re ov er , nei ther H aki m nor

the att o rney

w ho represent ed hi m at sent enci ng l odg ed any

obj ect ion to the foll ow ing fact ual asser ti on th at w as als o c ontai ned in the p re sent ence re por t:
Jas on P. Shude ll admi tted to pa rt ic ipa ti ng i n the bank fraud s cheme under the d ir ect ion of HA KIM , and rece iv ed $7, 500 .00 ca sh com pen sation for his role in the o ff ense. I nv est ig ati on rev eal ed th at H A K I M i n s t r u c te d Jason P. Shu dell to open the accountat Cha rt er One Bank

and HAKIM provide d him with the ATM card

. HAKI M ad vised Jaso n P. Sh ude ll that he depo si ted mo ney into the a c c o u n ta n d not to touch it. H AKIM an d Jaso n P. Sh ude ll then made the ir

Apr il 2002 w ithdraw als tog ether at the M otor

C ity C asi no, MGM Grand Casino , and Charter One Bank loca tions.07-2531

Un ite d S tates v . H ak im

- 4 - (E mphasi s a dded.) Abse nt timel y object ion , the dist ri ct ju dg e w as jus ti fied i n c oncl udi ng from thes e s tatement s that the prepo nderance of the ev ide nce est abl is hed that Hak im w as ind eed a lea der

i n the offense. Thi s first all eg ati on of er ro r is , t herefore, w it hout meri t.
The defendant als o c ontends thathi s 1 2- month s entenc e i s u nreason abl e, bo th becau se the dis tr ict cour t emphasi z ed too heav il y Hak im’ s p astcr imi nal record i nst ead of his more pos it iv e c haract er is ti cs , and b e caus e c o- defendant J ason Shudel l re cei v ed a
mo re le nien t sent ence o f p roba tion rath er than a term o f incarceratio n. W e revi ew a district
c o u rt ’ s s e n t e n c i n g d e t e r m i n a t i o n fo r re a s o n a b l e n e s s , u s i n g t h e d e fe re n t i a l a b u s e - o fdis creti on s tandard. See United State s v. Pearce , 531 F .3d 3 74, 3 84 ( 6th C ir . 200 8)

. Our
rev iew in t his regard “ha s b oth a p roced ural and a substa ntive comp one nt.” United S tates v. Erpen beck , 5 3 2 F.3 d 42 3 , 4 3 0 (6t h Cir. 20 0 8 ) (ci ti n g Gal l v. United S tates , 128 S.C t. 586, 592, 597 ( 2007) ).
As a p ro ce d u ra l m a tt e r, t h e d ist ric t ju d ge m u stha ve ca lcu la te d th e guid e lin e s ra n ge proper ly , rec o gniz ed th e adv is or y natu re of the g uid eli nes, co nsi dered th e s entenc ing factors l is ted i n 18 U. S.C . § 3553( a) , avoi d ed reli ance on c lea rl y er ro neous facts , and
ex pla ine d the chos en sent ence adeq uatel y . See id. “In evaluating the substa ntive aspect of a sent ence, w e may appl y a rebutt abl e presumpt ion of re asona ble ness t o se ntenc es
w it hin the g uid eli nes. W e al so g iv e due deferenc e to the d is tr ict c our t’ s c oncl usi on th at t he sent ence im pose d is warrant ed by the § 3 553 (a) fa ctors.” Pea rce , 531 F .3d a t 384 ( ci ti ng07-2531

Un ite d S tates v . H ak im

- 5 - Gall and United S tates

v. Bolds , 511 F .3d 5 68, 5 81 ( 6th C ir . 2007 )) (int er nal q uotat ion
ma rks omitte d).
Con trar y to Hak im’ s conte nti on, the dis tr ict judg e adeq uatel y co nsi dered al l re lev ant § 3553( a) factors in im p o sin g the sen tenc e he did

. The ju dg e c ommented on the defendant’ s st a b le famil y bac kg ro und and note d bot h H aki m’s efforts to ob tai n a G ED degree an d his $2, 000 -per-mo nth jo b. Nevertheless, th e district court’s de cision to im pose upon t h e d e fendant the mostse v ere s entenc e per mitt ed by st atute w as infor med by Hak im ’ s e xt e n s i v e c r i mi n a l re c o rd
- - a re c o rd o f b o t h c o n v i c t i o n s a n d a r re s t s t hat
com prised 32 paragraph s of the pre sent ence report -- and hi s i n a b ility to reform h is beh avio r , ev en a fte r

e ar l i er c on v i c ti on s a nd g ran ts o f l en i en c y . A s s ta te d by t he d i strict ju d ge , “T h is t e ll s m e t h a tyo u m a y h a ve a r e a l p ro b le m c o m p lyi n g wit h t h e l a ws o f so c ie t y, notonly in the past , but in the f utu re.” Furthermo re, the court con sidered the seriou sness of the offense, the need to promot e respect for the l aw and prov ide j ustpuni shment , and the d esi re to deter

furth er unl awful c onduc t. Althoug h the distr ict cour t di d noti mpose the sent ence tha t def ense coun sel advocate d, that fact , by itself , doe s no tn e c e s s a rily est abl is h the j udg e’s fail ure to cons ide r appropr iat e, manda ted s entenc ing factors o r the impos it ion of an unreason abl e s entenc e. Moreover, the de fend ant ’s sent ence is notrende red un reaso nab le simply becau se Hakim’s co-de fend antw as place d on pro b a t io n rathe r than rece iv ing a prison sente nce si mil ar to Hak im’ s. The prov is ion s o f 18 U. S.C . § 3553( a) (6 ) cal li ng for t he av oid ance of07-2531

Un ite d S tates v . H ak im

- 6 - “u nw ar ra nted sent ence dis par it ies among defendants w it h s imi lar records w ho hav e been found g uil ty

of si mil ar co nduct ” are notdi re cte d to the e li minat ion of sent ence dis par it ies betw een any tw o si mil ar ly -s it uated defendants. Inde ed, “ [a] sampl e s iz e of tw o defendants is not suf f icient to show such a d isparity.” United S tates v. Sm it h , 510 F .3d 6 03, 6 10 ( 6th Ci r. 2007) , cer

t. denied , 128 S.C t. 1910 ( 2008)

. Rat her , “ § 3553( a) (6 ) is i ntended to
ensure tha t t here are no unw ar ra nted dis par it ies betw een the sentenc e of the defendant in qu e s t io n a n d t h e sen ten ces of othe r defend ant s in the aggreg ate .” Id. I n l ig ht of Hak im’ s e xtens iv e c ri minal r e co rd and the fai led pas t attempts to re form hi s c onduc t by
me asure s less sev ere tha n incarcerat ion, w e conclu de tha t any senten ce dispa rity thatis present in thi s matter is jus ti fied and that the 1 2- month s entenc e i s, therefore, re asona ble

. For the foregoing rea sons, we A FFIRM the judgmen t of conviction and the sen ten ce of i mp r i s on me nti mp os ed u po n H ak i m.