Opinion ID: 2977670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Yahia Alcharbaji and Fethi Younes

Text: On October 11, 2005, the joint jury trial of Younes and Alcharbaji began. During trial both defendants moved for a mistrial based on testimony by Barnhart about a Cincinnati/Kentucky investigation. The district court denied the motion. Both Alcharbaji and Younes were convicted of the conspiracy count of the stolen property indictment. The district court sentenced Alcharbaji to 24 months imprisonment, a $100 special assessment, and two years of supervised release. It entered a money judgment of $11,369.74 for the United States. Alcharbaji filed a timely notice of appeal. Younes’s PSR calculated an offense level of 26 and a criminal history category of I. It started with a base offense level of six and added twelve points for loss in excess of $618,000, four points 8 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 for between 50 and 250 victims, two points because Younes personally participated in business activity involving receiving and selling stolen goods, and two points because Younes was an organizer, leader, or manager. The PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 63 to 78 months. Younes made several objections to the PSR including the calculation of the amount of loss and the number of victims and the determination that he was in the business of receiving stolen property. The district court computed a Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months, from an offense level of 22 and a criminal history category of I, and sentenced Younes to 42 months imprisonment, a $100 special assessment, and two years of supervised release. It noted that it increased the offense level by two points because Younes was in the business of selling and receiving stolen property and also increased the offense level by another two points because Younes was a leader or manager. The district court used a criminal history category of I. The district court explained it had “considered all of the factors listed under 18 U.S.C. § 3553” and had “paid close attention and considered the nature and circumstances of this offense and the history and/or characteristics of the Defendant.” It elaborated: Obviously the Defendant has no prior record. The Court has however become very familiar with the nature of the circumstances of this offense. The Court also has not ignored the category of need for sentence, a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to afford an adequate deterrence, and to protect the public from further crimes and to provide the Defendant with the necessary type of a sentence. The Court has considered the kinds of sentences available and the Court also has considered all of these things in light of the advisory guidelines. The Court in comparing Defendants with regard to dispositions, obviously there are many many factors to take into consideration there. There are factors that we are all aware of that are laid out in the advisory guidelines, those kind of computations. 9 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 We are also aware of the fact that there are other types of motions, other types of factors that play into a sentence that a Defendant receives, those being 5K, 3553 motions that are brought to the court and ruled upon. The Court has considered all of these factors . . . . Younes filed a timely notice of appeal.