2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-23-2008 

# U SA v . S hei ka P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1127

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . S hei ka" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 61. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/61T he H onor abl e Thom as N . O ’ N ei l l , J r . , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 06- 1127

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GE M AL S HE I KA al s o know n as J i m m y, A ppel l ant O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey (H o n o rab le W il li am G . B assler) 0 5 -cr-00 0 6 7 -1

Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay12, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d R O T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d O ’N E IL L , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed D ece m ber23, 2008 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

M c K e e , C i r cui tJudge . G e m a l S h e ik a a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e f o r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it cre d it car d fr aud and mai l fr aud, cr edi tcar d fr aud and mai l fr aud. H e r ai s es 12 cl ai m s of err or i n t hi s appea l , s om e of w hi ch have s ub- par t s . W ear i l y , w e fi nd our s el ves i ns pi r ed y et a g a in to re p e a t th e w o rd s o f o u r c o llea g u e Ju d g e A ld ise rt: W ith a d e c a d e a n d a h a lf o f f e d e ra l a p p e lla te c o u rt e x p e ri e n c e b e h in d m e , I can s ayt hateven w hen w e r ever s e a tr i al cour ti ti s r ar e thata br i ef s ucce s s ful l ydemonstr at es t hatthe tr i al cour tcomm i t t ed more than one or t w o r ever s i bl e err or s . I have s ai d i n open courtthatw hen I r ead a n appel l ant ' s br i ef thatcont ai ns t en ortw el ve poi nt s , a pr es um pt i on ar i s es that th e re is n o m e rit to a n yo f th e m . I d o n o t sa yth a t itis a n irre b u ttab le pr es um pt i on, buti ti s a pr es um pt i on nevert hel es s thatr educe s the eff ect i venes s of appe l l at e advoc acy . A ppel l at e advoc acyi s m eas ur ed by e f f e c tiv e n e s s , n o t lo q u a c io u s n e s s . A l di s er t, “The A ppel l at e B ar : Pr ofes s i onal C om pet ence and Pr ofes s i onal R es pons i bi l i t y - A V i ew Fr om t he J aundi ced Ey e of O ne A ppel l at e J udge, ” C api tal U ni ver s i t y Law R evi ew 445, 458 ( 1982) . N evert hel es s , w e conc l ude thatone of the defe ndant ’ s cont ent i ons does have mer i t . W e w i l l ther efor e vac at e the j udgm entof s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. I. I n a s mu c h a s we wr i t e p r i ma r i l yf o rth e p a rt i e s wh o a r e f

a mi l i a rwi t h th i s c a s e , we n e e d n o t r e c ite th e f

a c tu a l o r p ro c e d u ra l b a c k g ro u n d in d e ta il. O ne of Shei ka’ s ar gum ent s i s thatthe di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yadded a tw o- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t to h is o f

f e n se lev e l u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 2 B 1 .1 (b )(1 0 )(C )(ii). A n in c re a se is3

r equi r ed undert hi s s ect i on i f “the off ens e i nvol ved . . . the pos s es s i on of 5 orm or e means of i dent i fi cat i on t hatunl aw ful l yw er e pr oduced f r om , orobt ai ned bythe us e of, another m eans of i dent i fi cat i on[. ] ” I d. Shei ka ar gues thatanycr edi tcar ds K hal ed N i j em or I s s am M at arm ayhave obt ai ned fr om ( ori n t he name of) the ca r dhol der s coul d notbe con si dered i n sup po rtof thi s enhan cem ent because t he creditcard ho l ders, them sel ves, w er e ac t i ve part i ci pant s i n t he s cheme. Shei ka r ai s ed thi s ar gum entats ent enci ng. T he A ppl i cat i on N ot e t o t hi s s ect i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes s t at es thatthe s ubs ect i on w i l l appl yonl yw her e “s uch a means of i dent i fi cat i on s hal l be of a n actual ( not fi ct i t i ous ) i ndi vi dual , ot hert han the def endantora per s on forw hos e conduc tthe defe ndanti s acc ount abl e . . . . ” U . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1, A ppl i cat i on N ot e 9( A ) . B eca us e the c re d it ca rd h o ld e rs w e re a c tiv e p a rticip a n ts in th e sc h e m e , S h e ik a is a c c o u n tab le f o r th e ir conductunder§ 1B 1. 3( a) ( 1) ( B ) , r ender i ng § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 10) ( C ) ( i i ) i nappl i cabl e t o t he o f f e n s e c o n d u c t. Cf

. Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Ne ws o me , 439 F. 3d 181, 187 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( fake dr i ver s l i cens es t hatdi s pl ay ed the pi ctur es of def endant ’ s co- cons pi r at or s cont ai ned in n o c e n t v ic tim s ’ p e rs o n a l id e n tif y in g in f o rm a tio n a n d , th u s , in v o lv e d “ a c tu a l . . . in d iv id u a l[ s] o th e r th a n th e d e f e n d a n t o r a p e rso n f

o r w h o se c o n d u c t th e d e f e n d a n t is ac co u n table u n d er § 1 B 1 . 3 ”). T he governm entconce des t he mer i tof thi s ar gum ent , butas s ert s thatShei ka i s not ent i t l ed t o a r emedy“bec aus e the err ordi d notaff ecthi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” W e r ej ect t hi s cont ent i on, beca us e w e have hel d t hat“w e w i l l r emand forr es ent enci ng ‘ unl es s [w e]4

co n clud e o n the re co rd a s a w h o le . . . that the e rror d id n o t aff ec t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s s el ect i on of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ’ ” U nited S tates v. L an gford , 516 F. 3d 205, 215 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng W

i l l i am s v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 3 U .S . 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 (1 9 9 2 )) (a ltera tio n in o ri g inal). T h e g o v ern m en t sug g ests o n lythat S h eika ’s co n d u ct co u ld h av e q u ali fied fo r a di ffe r entenhanc ement , s peci fi cal l yU . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 10) ( B ) ( i ) . H ow ever , the appl i cat i on of thats ubs ect i on s eems e qual l yques t i onabl e and w as , i n anyevent , not ar gued i n t he di s t r i ctcour t . N orar e w e per s uaded bythe governm ent ’ s s ugges t i on that Shei ka “ha s al r eadyr ece i ved a s i gni fi cantbr eak” beca us e the s ent enci ng j udge r ej ect ed th e P S R ’s re c o m m e n d a tio n o f e n h a n c e m e n ts f

o r a b u s e o f

tru s t a n d o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e . E a c h e n h a n c e m e n t s h o u ld b e c o n s id e re d o n its o w n m e ri ts a n d n o t in th e a g g re g a te . II. S in c e th e G u id e lin e c a lcu latio n w a s in c o rre c t in th is in sta n c e , w e c a n n o t b e c e rta in that the d istri ct co u rtw o u ld h av e im p o sed the s am e se n tenc e. F o r a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof I and off

ens e l evel of 27, the G ui del i nes r ecomm end 70- 87 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . B as ed on thi s cal cul at i on, the di s t r i ctcour ts t at ed that“i n l i ghtof al l of t he ci r cumst ance s , [a] s ent ence i n t he mi ddl e of the r ange i s appr opr i at e” a nd s ent ence d Shei ka t o 78 m ont hs . W i t h a corr ect ed off ens e l evel of 25, the G ui del i nes advi s oryr ange i s 57- 71 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . W e w i l l ther efor e r emand t o t he di s t r i ctcour tforShei ka’ s br i ef r ai s ed the fol l ow i ng addi t i onal ar gum ent s : ( 1) the di s t r i ctcour terr ed 2 in d e n y in g d e f

e n d a n t’s m o tio n to su p p re ss sta tem e n ts m a d e b yS h e ik a to th e F B I p rio r to i ndi ctm entorarr es t ; ( 2) t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng defe ndant ’ s m ot i on fornew t r i al “as t he evi dence of tw o cons pi r aci es w as a s ubs t ant i al var i ance fr om the i ndi ctm ent t hatundul ypr ej udi ced the def endant ; ( 3) the di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng a mot i on for j udgm entof ac qui t t al as t o countone; ( 4) the di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n deny i ng the mot i on for jud g m en t of

ac q u ittal as to co u n t th ree ; ( 5 ) th e d istri ct co u rterred in d en y ing d ef en d an t’ s m o tio n f o r a n e w trial b a se d o n a sle e p in g ju ro r; (6 ) th e d e f e n d a n t w a s d e p riv e d o f a f a ir t i r al bas ed upon the admi s s i on of evi dence r egar di ng s i m i l arpr i or“bad a ct s ”; ( 7) the d ef en d an t w as d ep ri v ed o f a fa irtr ial b ase d u p o n the a d m issi o n o f a ll eg ed ly“e x p ert t es t i m ony ” fr om a l aw w i t nes s r egar di ng s us pi ci ous act i vi t yon Shei ka’ s m er chang acc ount ; ( 8) defe ndantw as depr i ved of a fai rtr i al bas ed upon the admi s s i on of i nadmi s s i bl e bank r ecor ds ; ( 9) t he courterr ed i n al l ow i ng s um m aryt es t i m onyr egar di ng fr audul entcr edi tcar d t r ans act i ons ; ( 10) defe ndantw as pr ej udi ced bythe t es t i m onyof an FB I agentw ho opi ned as t o t he def endant ’ s gui l t( and couns el w as i neff ect i ve fornot m ovi ng fora mi s t r i al bas ed on thi s t es t i m ony , des pi t e corr ect i ve i ns t ruct i on gi ven byt he j ud ge); (11) the d i stri ctcou rterr ed in fi nd i ng for pu rposes of sent encing (a) the tot al l oss amount w as $417, 389. 29; ( b) t he numberof vi ct i m s w as 15; ( c) the off ens e w as s ophi s t i cat ed underU . S. S. G . § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 9) ( C ) ( i ) ; and ( d) defe ndantw as nota mi ni m al or mi n o rp a r t i c i p a n t ; ( 1 2 ) t r i a l c o u n s e l wa s i n e f f e c t i v e f o r3 7 d i f f e r e n tr e a s o n s ( wh i c h we w il l no t l istas th is i s n o t a pro p er su b ject fo r a d ir ec t app ea l) . 5 rese n tenc ing in li g h t of

this op inion . W e f

ind n o m eritin the rem aind er o f S h eika ’s con t enti on s. 2