Opinion ID: 220580
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Significant Disruption of a Governmental Function

Text: In ruling from the bench the district court said it would be an understatement to describe Saani's actions as having a disruptive effect upon a governmental function. Referring to the elaborate affidavit submitted by a government investigator, the district court found Saani's failure to report his income caused the Government to investigate contracts involving millions and millions of dollars. In view of the huge disruptive effect, the district court concluded increasing Saani's offense level by four was more than warranted. Saani argues the district court clearly erred in applying that provision because (i) it was not his false tax returns that caused the disruption of the contracting offices in Kuwait and, even if it was, (ii) the district court failed adequately to justify the size of the increase.
Saani argues that under § 5K2.7 of the Sentencing Guidelines the Government must establish a direct link between the defendant's misconduct and the alleged disruption by showing, for example, the defendant used government property or personnel to further his crime. See, e.g., United States v. Burns, 893 F.2d 1343, 1347 (D.C.Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991) (affirming increase pursuant to § 5K2.7 where supervisor used administrative resources such as time and personnel to divert government funds). Here, because there was no misuse of government resources, Saani argues the Government cannot identify any effect his failure to report income had upon the contracting offices in Kuwait. Indeed, as his crime was discovered only after the Government's investigation into allegations of corruption in Kuwait had begun, Saani argues his conduct could not have caused the investigation. Nor, Saani adds, may he be punished under § 5K2.7 for prolonging an investigation that was already under way because the portion of the investigation that occurred after Saani's tax crimes were discovered was fruitless. These arguments are not convincing. Although the Government was initially conducting a broader investigation into allegations of corruption in the Kuwaiti contracting office for reasons unrelated to Saani's crimes, it was, according to the affidavit of the government investigator, Saani's failure to report the existence of his foreign bank accounts [and his actual] income, his pattern of concealment [that] led to further inquiry and scrutiny of his contract actions. It is irrelevant that the ensuing investigation was fruitless. Section 5K2.7 permits a district court to increase the defendant's offense level where the defendant's conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a governmental function; it does not require that the disruption be of any particular type or consequence. Unlawful conduct necessitating an unusually burdensome or prolonged investigation of a government office may suffice as a significant disruption under § 5K2.7 regardless whether the investigation proves fruitful. Cf. United States v. Howard, No. 95-1443, 1996 WL 30781, at  (2d Cir. Jan.26, 1996) (affirming increase in a defendant's sentence per § 5K2.7 where defendant's theft of evidence caused several federal agencies to undertake a sprawling investigation). As a result of Saani's conduct the Government was forced to review contracts involving millions of dollars. This task was so complex that the investigative team required the assistance of two senior officials at the Kuwaiti contracting office, who had to be diverted from their ordinary duties. The district court did not err clearly in finding that Saani's conduct significantly disrupted a governmental function.
Saani argues the district court also erred by failing to explain why his conduct warranted an increase of four levels instead of some lesser number. The district court found the disruptive effect of Saani's conduct was huge and particularly harmful because it disrupted the Government's functioning during a time of war. Saani did not ask at his hearing for a more elaborate explanation and the district court's failure to provide one sua sponte was not so plain an error  if it was an error at all  that the trial judge and [the] prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it. United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283, 286 (D.C.Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)); see also United States v. Tann, 532 F.3d 868, 872 (D.C.Cir. 2008) ([o]rdinarily an objection not made in the district court is reviewable on appeal only for plain error).