Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ashraf HAMED and Abelrahim Nassar, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-24
Citations: 46 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 01-50400, 01-50612; D.C. No. CR-01-00046-R-1 CR-01-00046-R-1-03
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ashraf HAMED and Abelrahim Nassar, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 893–893

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ashraf HAMED and Abelrahim Nassar, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-50400, 01-50612.
D.C. No. CR-01-00046-R-1 CR-01-00046-R-1-03.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2002.
Decided Sept. 24, 2002.
Before THOMPSON, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable William W. Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court did not err when it denied Defendant Ashraf Hamed's ("Hamed") request for a two-point offense level reduction pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(b)(6). Section 2Dl.l(b)(6) cannot be used to reduce a sentence properly calculated under § 2D1.11. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.11(c)(l) (2000); United States v. Brownstein, 79 F.3d 121, 123 (9th Cir.1996); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D.1.11 cmt. statutory provisions, and App. A at 453 (2000).
The district court also did not err when it denied Defendant Abdelrahim Nassar's ("Nassar") request for an offense level reduction pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2. The undisputed facts in the presentence report reflect that Nassar not only participated in negotiations but also exercised decision-making authority. See United States v. Duran, 189 F.3d 1071, 1088-89 (9th Cir.1999); United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1266 (9th Cir.1998). The district court resolved the disputed issue of whether Nassar's role was minor and definitively ruled that Nassar "did not have a minor role in this." See United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558, 561 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we affirm Hamed's and Nassar's convictions and sentences.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.