* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20636

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SYED MOHSIN ABBAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-353-ALL

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Syed Mohsin Abbas pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit

bank fraud without the benefit of a written plea agreement. The district court

imposed a non-guidelines sentence of 48 months in prison, which was 15 months

above the advisory guidelines range maximum of 33 months and 12 months

below the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months.

Abbas argues that the district court erred in concluding that he had

victimized more than 10 but less than 50 financial institutions. This court

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 6, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-20636

2

reviews a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and

its factual findings at sentencing for clear error. United States v. Scroggins, 485

F.3d 824, 835 (5th Cir. 2007). 

In determining a defendant’s sentence, “[t]he district court is free to

consider all relevant evidence – even inadmissible evidence – as long as the

evidence relied upon has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its probable

accuracy.” UnitedStates v.Patterson, 962F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992) (internal

quotation and citation omitted). The presentence report (PSR) indicates that

Abbas’s scheme resulted in financial losses to 132 differentfinancial institutions

and that about 15 banks suffered the bulk of the losses. Abbas has failed to

present any evidence to rebut the information contained in the PSR. See United

States v. Davis, 76 F.3d 82, 84 (5th Cir. 1996). Consequently, Abbas has not

established that the district court clearly erred in determining that he victimized

10 or more (but less than 50) financial institutions. 

Abbas also argues that his non-guidelines sentence is unreasonable

because the district court improperly considered certain factors and failed to

adequately articulate the reasons for the upward variance. Abbas’s assertions

are belied by the record. 

The district court noted the substantial nature of Abbas’s role in the

scheme as well as the fact that no adjustment had been made under the

Guidelines for the “sophisticated means” employed by Abbas in carrying out the

conspiracy. In addition, the district court focused on Abbas’s character and

continued disrespect for the law when it described the fraudulent and criminal

nature of Abbas’s conduct while he was a fugitive in England. The court also

considered the significant undervaluation of the amount of money stolen as a

result of the conspiracy. Thus, the record reflects that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in sentencing Abbas because it properly considered the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and provided sufficiently detailed reasons for arriving

at the sentence imposed. See Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596-97
No. 07-20636

3

(2007); United States v. Williams, 517 F.3d 801, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008).

Furthermore, the extent of the variance from a guidelines sentence was not

unreasonable given the evidence before the district court. See United States v.

Simkanin, 420 F.3d 397, 419 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Daughenbaugh,

49 F.3d 171, 175 (5th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.