T he Hon. Lou i s F. O ber dor f er, U ni t ed S t at es Di st r i ct Judg e f ort he Di st r i ct of C ol um bi a, si t t i ng b y * d e s i g n a ti o n .

T he def endan t , a nat ur al i z ed Am er i can ci t i z en, was i ndi ct ed u nderhi s Leb anese bi r t h na m e, 1 M ah m ou d M ust apha Saf a, wi t h t he a ddi t i onal desi gnat i on “ al so known as St ev e Saf a. ” T he r eco rd es t ab l i s he s , ho w eve r, t ha t at t he t i m e o f na t ura l i z ati on , hi s na m e w a s c ha ng ed t o S t eve S afa by orde r of a f eder al di st r i ct cour t

. Al t hough Saf a’ s at t or neycom pl ai ned at or al ar gum ent t hat , desp i t e r epeat ed r equest s, t he g ov er nm ent r ef used t o ut i l i z e hi s l eg al n am e, t he r ecor d f ai l s t o sho w t hat a m ot i on t o am end t he i ndi ct m ent was ev er f i l ed on Saf a’ s beh al f

. Never t hel ess, t he se nt enci ng p aper s i ncl ude a cop y of t he o r der gr ant i ng Saf a’ s “ pet i t i on f or nam e change ” on August 26, 1994, and i n t he i nt er est of cor r ect i ng t he r ecor d, we hav e op t ed t o use t he d ef endan t ’ s l egal nam e i n t he ca pt i on o ft hi s opi ni on.

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0238n .06 Fi led : M arch 30, 2007 06- 1187 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. STEVE S AFA , former ly kn ow n as Ma hmoud M ust apha S afa, 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: DAUGHT REY and ROGERS, Ci rcuit Judges, a nd OB ERDORFER, Distri ct Judg e. *
PERC UR IAM

. The defendant, Stev e Safa, w as found g uil ty by a jur y on o ne c ount 1 of makin g a false decl arati on before a g ra nd jur y and w as sent enced to s er v e 15 months in prison an d pa y

a f ine of $10 ,00 0. On ap pea l, the de fend antconte nds th at t he d istrict
cour t admi tted int o ev ide nce improper la y o p in ion tes ti mony

and faile d to cons ide r the06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 2 - nece s s a r

y fa c t o rs i n i mp o s i n g s e n t e n c e . F o r t h e re a s o n s s e t o u t b e l o w , w e find no re ve rs ib le e rro r a n d a f

f ir m t h e ju d gm e n to f

t h e d is t ri c tco u rtin it s e n t ir e t y.
FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
The ev ents g iv ing r is e to thi s p ro sec uti on beg an i n Sept ember 20 0 1 , w hen C hie f Dep uty Sher iff Ronal d Jones st opped a sp ort ut il ity v ehi cl e pul li ng a U -H aul trail er thatw as d ri f t in g f ro m o n e la n e o f

t ra f f i ct o t h e o t h e r o n n o rt h b o u n d I -7 1 in O ld h a m Co u n t y, Kentuc ky

. Inv est ig ati on rev eal ed th at t he v ehi cl e w as en route to D etroit , M ic hig an. Its dr iv er , M ohamad El -H arake, l ater g av e J ones cons ent to search the trail er , in w hic h the l aw enforcem entof

f icer foun d chewing tob acco, pipe tob acco, and 1,5 00 cartons of Marlboro ci g arettes , s ome w it h Kentuc ky tax st amps a ff ix ed to them, othe rs w it h no tax st amps a t all

. Acc ordin g to Deputy Jo nes, the pass eng er i n the v ehi cl e, S tev e Safa, ad mitt ed know ing there w ere c ig arettes i n the trail er , al thoug h Safa l ater tes ti fied a t tr ia l that he
nev er made s uch an admi ss ion to the d eputy

. Beca use El -H arake and Safa appeared to be eng ag ed in the i ll eg al transpo rt ati on of c ontraband ci g arettes , Jones detai ned both men and ev entual ly inv olv ed federal ag ents and ag enci es in the i nv est ig ati on. Subs eq uentl y , Sa fa w as summoned b efore a federal g ra nd j ur y l ooki ng i nto a possi ble conspi ra cy betw een El- Harake and other indi v idu als that inv olve d c i g a re tte- traff ic ki ng and other federal cr imes

. W hil e the defendant w as under oath before the g ra nd jur

y , Ass is tant Uni ted Stat es Atto rn ey R ober t C ares ask ed hi m a number
o f que st io n s, in clu d in g th e fo llo wing:06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 3 - Do y ou hav e any

reason to bel iev e that there w ere c ig arettes i n tha t U -H aul v an? Do y ou k now

Al i Far hat? Hav e y ou ev er

tal ked w it h Al i Far hat? Do y ou kn ow som ebo dy by the nam e of Fadi or Fa di Haydous? Le t me spell tha t. F-a-d-i H-a-y -d-o-u-s.
Safa re spond ed “ no” or “ no, s ir” to ea ch inq uir y . Al leg in g t hose answ ers t o be false, how ev er , t he g ov er nment ob tained a three- counti ndi ctmentag ain st the d efendant charging three instan ces of false sta tem ent s before the g rand jury in v iolation of

18 U.S.C. § 1623.
At t ri al, the g ov er nment offered t est imony thatSafa actual lyh e lp ed l oad t he cont ra band c ig arettes i nto t he U -H aul trail er rented by

El -H arake; thatthe defendant and Al i Far hat s eemed to kn ow eac h oth er ; and thatthe defendant k new F adi H ay dous, boug ht cont raba nd cigarette s f rom Hay dou s, and received large mo ney transfers tota ling at lea st $44, 0 0 0 f rom Hay dous. As si sta nt U nit ed St ates Att or ney C ares als o tes ti fied, o v er defense coun sel’s object ion, th at truth f ul answers from Safa du ring t h e g ra nd jury proceed ing s t o i nq uir ies co ncer nin g the defendant’ s k now led g e of ci g arettes i n the U -H aul trail er and Safa’s ac q uai ntanc e w it h Al i Far hat and Fadi Hay dous “ w oul d . . . hav e as si ste d the G ra nd J ur

y ’s inv est ig ati on” and that false answ ers “ had a natural tendency to influ ence, imp ede , or dissuad e the Grand Ju ry ’s inv estigation .”06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 4 - Taki ng the sta nd i n hi s o w n defense, Safa tes ti fied th at he kn ew thatEl -H arake w as t ra n s p o rt in g c ig a rs a n d c h e win g t o b a c c o o n t h e d a t e t h a tt h e y we re st o p p e d in K e n t u c ky, but t hat h e w as not aw are that cont ra band ci g arettes w ere al so in the t ra il er . Fur ther more, Safa deni ed k now ing Al i Far hat o r Fadi H ay dous, hav in g a n y b u sines s d eal ing s w it h Haydous, or be ing i nvolv ed in an y mon ey transfers w ith Haydo u s. Th e jury obviously credite d som e of

the de fend ant ’s testimo ny beca use th e jurors acquitted Safa of the f irst tw o c ounts of maki ng a fals e dec larati on before the g ra nd jur y and c onv icted h im o nly of fa lse ly d eny ing thathe k new F adi H ay dous, a s tatementthatw as mater ial to the g ov er nment’ s i nv est ig ati on of w ide -rang ing co nspi ra cy ch arg es.
After a hear ing , t he di str ict j udg e s entenc ed Safa to 15 months in pr is on and fined him $10 ,00 0. From th at jud gmen t, the defend antnow app eals.
DI SC US SION
In hi s first iss u e o n appea l, Safa ch all eng es the d eci si on of the dis tr ict j udg e to admittes ti mony

from As si sta nt U nit ed St ates A tt or ney C ares re g ardin g the effectthat state me nts giv en b y

the de fend antbefore the g rand jury had on the g o v ernm ent ’s inv est ig ati on i nto a n ong oin g co nspi ra cy . Acc ordin g to the d efendant, s uch testi mony amounted to an improper lay opi nio n inv olv ing a leg al conc lus ion , spec ifical ly w hether Safa’s g ra nd j ur

y tes ti mony

w as “mat er ial .”06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 5 - A district court’s ruling on the adm issibility of testim ony is rev iew ed b y this court on ly for an abuse of

di sc re ti on. See Trepel v. Road wa y Express, In c. , 194 F .3d 7 08, 7 16 ( 6th Cir. 19 9 9 ) (ci ti n g Gen. Elec. C o. v . Join er , 522 U .S. 1 3 6 , 1 4 1 ( 1997) ). “ An abu se of dis creti on ex is ts w hen t he di str ict c our t app li es the w ro ng l eg al sta ndard , m is appl ies the correct legal stan dard , or relies on clea rly erroneo us f indings of

fact.” Fi rs t T ech. Saf ety Sys ., Inc . v

. D epi net , 11 F.3 d 64 1, 64 7 (6th Cir. 199 3).
T o con v ict an in d ivi d u a l o f a v iolation of

18 U.S.C. § 1 623 , the g overnme nt m ust prov e bey ond a re asona ble doubt that the defendant “ (1 ) know ing ly made; (2 ) a m ate rially false decl arati on; (3) under oath; (4 ) in a proceed ing before or anci ll ar y to any co urt of the United State s.” United S tates v. Lee , 359 F.3d 41 2, 41 9 (6th Cir. 200 4) (emp hasis ad ded ). Thus, the mat er ial ity

of the d ecl arati on i s a n el ement of the offense that must be found by the j ur y . See United

State s v. Gaud

in , 515 U.S. 5 0 6 , 5 1 1 (19 95). Safa sub mits,
conse quently, that pro secut ion w itnesse s m ay no t of fer t heir opin ions as to w het her certa in state me nts m ade during g rand jury procee dings w ere i n d eed “mate rial” beca use su ch tes ti mony

co nv ey s “ the w it ness ’[ s] unex press ed, a nd per haps er ro neous , l eg al sta ndards to th e jury .” Tor

re s v . C ounty of Oak lan d , 758 F.2d 14 7, 15 0 (6th Cir. 198 5).
T he d efend antis corr ect in con ten ding thatw itness te stimo ny w ould improp erly invade the provi nce o f

the cou rt to explain the app licable law to th e jury if a wi tne ss w ere per mitt ed to define “mat er ial ity .” H ow ev er , the dist ri ct ju dg e in this case p ro per ly su sta ine d Safa’s obj ect ion to the q uest ion , “ Now , c an y ou br iefly , s ir , ex pla in to t he members o f the06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 6 - jury w hatdoe s it mea n for a question to be ma terial before the G rand Jury ?” Nev erthe less, Ass is tant Uni ted S tates Att or ney C ares w as all ow ed to tes ti fy to fac ts thatthe jurors cou ld accep t or reject in reachin g the ir conclus io n a s to w het her Sa fa’s state me nts w ere “mat erial.”
Al thoug h R ule 704 of the F ederal Rul es of Ev ide nce prov ide s t hat “ tes ti mony i n the form o f an op inion o r infe rence othe rw ise a d m is s ib le is not objection able beca use it
em brace s an ultim at e i ssue to be de cided by the trier of

fact,” w e ha v e con sistent ly recogniz ed th at “ opin ions phrased in term s of inad equate ly explored l egal criteria” shou ld be ex cl uded fro m evid e n ce. See Tor re s , 758 F .2d a t 150 ( q uoti ng Adv is or y C ommitt ee Notes to Federa l Rule of Ev iden ce 70 4). As ex plaine d in tho se Note s:
Thus t he q uest ion , “ Di d T hav e c apaci ty to make a w il l?” w oul d be ex cl uded, w hile the q uest ion, “Did T h ave su f f icient m ent al capa city

to know the nat ure and exten t o f

h is proper

ty and the n atural obj ect s o f his bounty and to formula te a ra ti onal sc heme of di str ibu ti on?” w oul d be all ow ed.
Id. Ex pla ine d di fferentl y , “ if the [w it ness ] ex press es an opini on us ing l eg al ter ms t hat fol low the s tatut es . . ., it is more li kel y to be hel d that the [w it ness ] i s g iv ing a l eg al conc lus ion

. In con t ra s t , . . . testimo ny tha t uses words that do not ha v e spe cializ ed legal me anin g is
more li kel y

to be admis sib le .” 4 Jac k B . W ein ste in & M arg aret A . Be rg er , W e i n s te i n ’s Fede ral Eviden ce , § 704.04[ 1] (J oseph M. M cLaug hli n, ed ., Ma tthew Bende r 2d ed. 2006) (citation s and foot not es om itted ).06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 7 - In t his ca se, the jur

y w as charg ed w it h the re spons ibi li ty to deter mine w hether

the alleged false sta tem ent s m ade b y S afa before the grand ju ry were so “m ate rial” as to af fect the g overnme nt’s investig ation into a po ssible consp iracy t o distribut e cont raba nd good s. In orde r to provi de e v iden ce up on which the jurors could base their conclu sion w ith regard to s uch an inq uir

y , the prosec uti on w as all ow ed to as k a n As si sta nt U nit ed St ates Att or ney
w hether Safa’s ans w ers, “i f fals e, woul d .

. . hav e influ enced , i mpeded, or di ss uaded t he Grand Jury ’s inv estigation ” and, if t ru e , “ would . . . ha v e assiste d the Grand Ju ry ’s inv est ig ati on.” Al thoug h those q uest ion s para phrased the d efini ti on of “ mater ial ” that the dis tr ict j udg e lat er charg ed to the jur y , they did not ask the w it ness to re ach the v er y l eg al and factu al conc lus ion s for w hic h the j ur

y w as re spons ibl e. Indeed, w it hout the i nformati on prov ide d by

the w it ness in resp onse to the chal len g ed ques ti ons, the jurors woul d hav e had
no infor ma ti on o n w hi c h to b as e th ei r v erdi c t be c au s e th ey

c ou l d no t ha v e i nt ui tiv ely
asc ertai ned t he rele v ance of Safa’s tes ti mony to the l arg er

co nspi ra cy inv est ig ati on. The dis tr ict j udg e, t herefore, proper ly forbade the prosec uti on w it ness from ex pla ini ng the
conc ept o f a “mat er ial q uest ion ,” but he proper ly al low ed th at s ame w it ness to tes ti fy that Safa’s respon ses to inq uir ies before the g ra nd j ur y di d i ndeed h av e an impact upo n the g ov er nment’ s i nv est ig ator y st ra teg ies

. W e find no abus e of di sc re ti on i n thi s reg ard.
In his seco nd issue , Safa con ten ds tha t the district judge impo sed a proced urally
u n re a s o n a b le se n t e n c e u p o n h im b e c a u s e t h e co u rtfa il e d t o a c k n o wle d ge it s a u t h o ri t y, other than under

a s entenc ing g uid eli nes sc heme, t o i mpose puni shmentthatv ar ied from the rang e of impr is onment e nv is ion ed by thos e now-a dv is or

y g uid eli nes. Ac cordin g to the06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 8 - defend ant , had the district judge take n into accou nt th e v arious facto rs li sted in 18 U.S.C. § 3553( a) , he w oul d hav e i mposed a s entenc e c all ing for p ro bati on, h ome dete nti on, o r some o ther

al ter nati v e to inc arcerati on for thi s first offense.
A s h a s n o w

b e e n w e l l
- d o c u me n t e d , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p re me C o u rti n United States v. Book

er , 543 U. S. 220 (2 005) , “i nv ali dated the mandator y use of t he Sen tenc ing Guide lines and held the y are now ‘ ef

fectively advisory .’” United S tates v. C oll ing ton , 461 F

. 3 d 8 0 5 , 8 0 7 (6 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). Co n s e qu e n t ly, we n o w re vie w a n y se n t e n c e im p o s e d b y a dis tr ict j udg e to deter mine w hether thatse ntenc e i s “ re asona ble ,” both procedu ra ll y and subs tanti v ely

. As w e ex pla ine d i n Col li ngton :
A s entenc e may

be p ro cedurall y

unreasona b le i f

“ the d is tr ict j udg e fail s t o ‘c onsi der ’ the a ppl ic abl e Gui del ine s ra ng e or neg lects to ‘ cons ide r’ the other factors l is ted i n 18 U. S.C . § 3 553( a) , and i nst ead s impl y se lects w hat t he jud g e deems an a ppropr iat e s entenc e w it hout suc h req uired c onsi derati on.” A sent ence ma y

be con sidered substa ntively unrea sona ble w hen the district cour t “ sel ect [s] the sent ence ar bit ra ri ly , bas [es ] t he s entence on imp ermissible facto rs, fail[s] to consid er p ertine nt § 355 3(a) facto rs or g iv [es] an unreason abl e amountof w eig ht t o any per ti nent factor .”
Id. at 808 (citations om itted ).
Unlike oth er cases th at ha v e foun d the ir w ay before us on app ellate rev iew , in this
cas e the di str ict jud g e did not a ll ow a s impl e reci tati on of the § 3553( a) factors t o s ubst it ute for a re asone d di sc uss ion and ana lysis of thos e c onsi derati ons. R ather , J udg e Tar now took the ti me nec ess a ry t o h o n o r the spi ri t, as w ell as the letter , of our pos t- Book

er decision s w ith an exten ded ex plan ation , as follows:06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 9 - Now , it’s myund erstan ding thatund er Book er I st a rtw it h tha t g uid eli ne ra ng e, w hic h i s 1 5 to 21 month s. And that’ s a lmos t presumpt iv ely presumed, to be redundant , i s p re sumed to b e r e a so n a ble

. I und ersta nd I hav e the dis creti on to find t hat it ’s eit her too hig h or too low and I can depar t in eit her direct ion

. And ha v i n g s a i d t h a t a n d h a v i n g c o n s i d e re d t h e fa c t t h a t M r . S a fa i s n ot a physical threat, and u nde rstand ing the imp ortan ce of fam ily , butalso und erstan ding a nd agreeing with th e Governme nt tha t ly ing to a Grand Ju ry is a v eryserious of

fense and it is a threa t to the entire system – an d w hile the ly ing w as not as ser iou s as it coul d hav e been if the jur y had conv icted him of all three cou nts – and I certainly reme mb er thatthe jury acquitted him of tw o c ounts

. And t hose tw o c ounts are no t bei ng us ed to co mpute or to ag g ra v ate h is se ntenc e or to chang e his sent ence upw ard – I ’m s ti ll faced w it h a conv icti on on Cou nt 3 of perj ur y , and the sta tute cal ls for a max imum of f iv e y ears. And I agree wi th you, Mr. S afa, I do n’t thin k y ou wi ll do this again. So, in ter ms o f d e t e r re n c e t o y o u , j u s tg o i n g t h ro u g h t h e p ro c e s s , fa c i n g the press ures of a tr ial and the n eg ati v e publ ic ity of bei ng ac cus ed of l y ing to a Grand J ur

y , hav ing to face y our

famil y and frie nds w ith t h a t hang ing ov er y our he ad, are serious de terrent s to yo u d oing this again. How ever, there has to be so me deter re nce to ot her peopl e. And w hil e I understa nd y ou hav e four smal l chi ldren and a famil y thatneeds y our prese nce, I also und erstan d tha t almo st e ve ryone w ho sta nds where y ou’ re st andi ng co uld sa y that. A n d i t has already been tak en i nto cons ide ra t i o n i n t e r ms o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s , b u tI ’ m a l s o t a k i n g i ti n to consid eratio n as a ba sis of g oing below the guidelines. I a m n o t p e rs u a d e d t h a t y o u r re l a t i o n s h i p t o y o u r fa mi l y i s mu c h di ff er ent than hopefull y

any one’ s rel ati onshi p to thei r family . Y our respon si bil it ies to y our famil y are v er y i mport ant, but n ot i rrepl aceab le. An d th e ad v an ta g e pe r ha ps o f h aving some as s et s i s t ha t i f an y o f t he m – and I ’m l ooki ng at a financ ial stat e m e n t that shows a net w orth of approx imat ely

$6 mi ll ion

. If any

of thos e as set s a re se ll abl e, pe opl e c an be hired to ei ther

r un y our

bus ine ss es or

to hel p w it h y our

famil y i n ter m s o f g etti ng them to t hei r docto r a p p o intments and g ro cer y sh oppi ng and the oth er things thatare inv olved in being a husb and and a fath er. Hav ing tak en i nto c onsi derati on th e factors o f 18 U. S.C. 3 553( a) and the g uid eli nes, pursuan t t o the Sent enci ng R eform Act of 1984, as to Cou nt 3,06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 10 - iti s th e s e n te n ce of the C our t t hat y ou, M r. Safa, w il l ser v e a p er iod of 15 months , w hic h is the bo ttom o f the g uid eli ne rang e, an d y ou s hal l be pl aced on su pervised release for a period of tw o y ears. A fine is ordered i n the amount of $10,000, pay abl e i mmediat ely

. There’ s a n a s s e s s m e n to f

$ 1 0 0 , wh ic h is a ls o p a ya b le im m e d ia t e ly.
W it hout q uest ion , t he di stri ct jud g e full y co nsi dered th e factors l is ted i n § 3 553( a) before i mposi ng se ntenc e upon the defendant. Fur ther more, he eng ag ed i n a reason ed anal y si s o f h o w th o se factors rela ted t o oth er co ncer ns ex press ed by Safa dur ing the sent enci ng hear ing

. The dis tr ict cour t thus cl ear ly

m et the s tandards setfor e sta bli shi ng pr ocedu ra l reason able ness.
W hen rev iew ing a senten ce to de term ine w het her it is substant ively re a s o n a b le , we sta rtw it h a p re sumpti on of reason ableness “ [w]hen the d is tr ict c our t i ss ues a w it hin
guidelines se nte nce. ” United State s v. Davis , 458 F. 3d 491, 496 (6 th C ir . 200 6) , petiti on for cert. f iled , (U .S. Nov

. 13, 2006) (N o. 06- 7784)

. The presumpt iv e reason abl eness of the 15- month s entenc e i n thi s c ase has not b een rebutt ed by any ev ide nce or

arg ument advance d by Safa. Altho ugh the defend antrequested impo sition of a sente nce th at did notinclude incarceratio n, th e district judge felt tha t a prison te rm w as ap prop riate, even in
a case i n w hic h the l ik eli hood t hat t he defendant w oul d c ommit addi ti onal cr imes w as extremely

l ow , s impl y

to emphasi z e to the p ubl icat- larg e the s er iou snes s o f ly ing under oath and t he drast icco nseq u ences thatw il l re sul t from suc h di srespect for the j udi ci al sy ste m as a w hol e.06-1187

Un ited S tates v . S afa

- 11 - The dis tr ict jud g e in thi s matter re cog niz ed the adv is or y nature of t he se n te nci ng g uid eli nes and hi s a uthor ity to impos e any

reason abl e sentenc e just ified bya cons ide ra ti on of the ap plicable statu tory sente ncing facto rs. W e con clude thatthe cou rt adequa tely jus ti fied th e s entenc e i mposed.
CO NC LU SION
For the re asons se t out abov e, w e AFF IR M the jud g ment of t he dis tr ict c our t i n i ts
e n t ir e t y.