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

Heading: Amjad Salem

Text: On August 15, 2005, Salem entered a guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement. He pled guilty to the following counts in the stolen property indictment: count 1 (conspiracy); count 2 (interstate transportation of stolen property); count 3 (receipt and possession of interstate stolen property); and count 23 (unauthorized possession of federal food stamp access devices). He also pled guilty to count 1 in the money laundering indictment, conspiracy to launder money. The plea agreement stated, “The defendant understands that the Probation Department will conduct an advisory pre-sentence investigation and will recommend to the Court a sentencing guideline range. The defendant understands that the Probation Department’s recommendations are not binding on the Court and the terms of this Plea Agreement are not binding upon the Court or Probation Department.” Salem’s PSR calculated an offense level of 38 with a criminal history category of III. The PSR started with a base offense level of seven and added eighteen points for a loss more than $2,500,000, six points for more than 250 victims, two points because the offense involved receiving stolen property and Salem was in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, two points because Salem participated in relocating a fraudulent scheme to another jurisdiction to evade law enforcement, two points for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and four points because 6 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 transactions to evade reporting were made at different branches. The report subtracted two points for acceptance of responsibility and one point because Salem provided timely notification of his intent to plead guilty. It found the Guidelines sentencing range was 292 to 365 months. Defense counsel objected to portions of the PSR including the “amount of loss, role in the offense, criminal history and any recommendation regarding upward departure or consecutive sentence time.” The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing to resolve Salem’s objections. The government presented testimony from two co-defendants, Awwad Oweida and Fadi Mardini, and five OOCIC agents, Dean Blair, Daniel Osterfeld, Michael Gabrielson, Roger Hoff, and Mark Barnhart. At the hearing, Oweida indicated that Salem was his boss in the conspiracy. Furthermore, Mardini, stated that Salem controlled the organization. Barnhart testified Salem was the “boss” in the conspiracy, received the largest profits, and controlled the key decisions. According to Barnhart, Salem recruited persons to join the organization. Barnhart also testified that Salem purchased purportedly stolen property on forty-nine occasions from undercover agents and that these purchases had a retail value of $343,000.00. He further testified there were a total of 288 undercover transactions from Salem’s co-conspirators that had a retail value of about $618,000.00. He speculated that there were “hundreds if not thousands” of total victims. The government calculated the fair market retail value of products sold to the conspiracy was $1,078,123.83. It also examined five bank accounts that were part of the organization and concluded the total loss was $2,633,802.50. Salem did not offer evidence at the hearing. In calculating Salem’s offense level, the district court started with an offense level of seven. It found that the amount of loss was between $1,000,000.00 and $2,500,000.00 and enhanced the 7 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 sentence by sixteen points for this amount of loss. Additionally, the district court enhanced the sentence by four points because the offense involved 50 and 250 victims and by four levels because Salem had a controlling and aggravating role in the money laundering scheme. Ultimately arriving at an offense level of 34 and a criminal history category of III, it found that the Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months. The district court sentenced Salem to 132 months imprisonment, a $500 special assessment, and 3 years supervised release. The United States filed a civil forfeiture action against all property referenced in both of the indictments. The district court granted a default judgment and decree of forfeiture in the civil forfeiture action. The district court entered forfeiture money judgments against Salem in the amounts of $2,633,802.50 and $36,046.30. Salem timely filed a notice of appeal.