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

Heading: Abdelsalam

Text: Abdelsalam argues that the district court (1) failed to take his cultural background and upbringing into account, (2) failed to properly consider the possibility of no need for imprisonment, (3) failed to consider a downward departure for family ties and responsibilities under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6, (4) lacked a sufficient factual basis to apply a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4) for being a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, and (5) lacked a sufficient factual basis to apply a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1(b)(2)(B) for involvement in an offense with more than 50 victims. Initially, we note that Abdelsalam’s argument that the district court failed to take his cultural background and upbringing into account and failed to consider the possibility of a sentence without 18 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 imprisonment is not supported by the record. Abdelsalam’s counsel recounted his background and upbringing, including that he had been raised in a different culture, that he was a recent immigrant to America, and that he was eighteen at the time he participated in the criminal organization. His counsel also argued that imprisonment was unnecessary because of Abdelsalam’s “particular characteristics” and respect for the law. The district court explicitly considered these arguments, explaining, “The Court understands the age of this young man and the Court however does not believe that he lacks necessarily sophistication with regard to what was occurring. It occurred for a significant period of time.” The argument that the district court should have given Abdelsalam a downward departure for family ties and responsibilities under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 also fails. This court does not “review decisions of a district court not to depart downward ‘unless the record reflects that the district court was not aware of or did not understand its discretion to make such a departure.’” United States v. Puckett, 422 F.3d 340, 345 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 329 (6th Cir. 2002)). The transcript of the sentencing hearing contains no indication that the district court was unaware it could depart downward. Thus, the argument is not subject to this court’s review.2 Abdelsalam’s argument that the district court lacked a sufficient factual basis to apply a twolevel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4) for being a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property lacks merit. His plea agreement stated, “The parties further agree that the 2 Furthermore, we note that U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 states, in relevant part, “family ties and responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted.” See United States v. Lozano-Alvarez, 226 F. App’x 531, 534 (6th Cir. 2007). Like the Guidelines, policy statements like this remain advisory in nature. 19 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 offenses involved receiving stolen property and the Defendant was involved in the business of receiving stolen property, resulting in a two level increase pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(4).” The factual basis for the guilty plea, which Abdelsalam agreed was accurate, stated that the offenses involved stolen merchandise and explained that Abdelsalam’s role was that of “low-level assistant, and laborer,” who unloaded, sorted, and removed tags from stolen merchandise for other members of the conspiracy. Thus, the factual basis for the plea provided facts that support the application of the enhancement. Furthermore, that Abdelsalam stipulated to the application of the enhancement in his plea agreement likely prevents his challenge on appeal. See United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025, 1028 (6th Cir. 1995) (holding that defendants waived their right to appeal an enhancement to their sentences when their plea agreements contained sentencing calculations including the enhancement). Abdelsalam’s argument that the district court lacked a sufficient factual basis to apply a fourlevel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1(b)(2)(B) for involvement in an offense with more than 50 victims also fails. He argues that application of the enhancement violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), because “it was not based on facts admitted by him or proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.” The PSR stated, “Based upon the defendant’s role as an employee at the warehouse, the number of consumers his behavior impacted is unknown. As such, agents and the government estimated based upon the amount purchased by the defendant that his behavior impacted between 50 and 250 consumers.” Abdelsalam failed to produce evidence calling into question these facts and thus his argument does not succeed. See United States v. Lang, 333 F.3d 678, 681 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[a] defendant cannot show that a PSR is inaccurate by simply denying the PSR’s truth. Instead, beyond such a bare denial, he must produce 20 United States v. Abdelsalam, 05-4063 some evidence that calls the reliability or correctness of the alleged facts into question. If a defendant meets this burden of production, the government must then convince the court that the PSR’s facts are actually true. But the defendant gets no free ride: he must produce more than a bare denial, or the judge may rely entirely on the PSR.” (citation omitted)). Moreover, the Supreme Court recently stated that its “Sixth Amendment cases do not automatically forbid a sentencing court to take account of factual matters not determined by a jury and to increase the sentence in consequence.” Rita, 137 S. Ct. at 2465-66. A challenge to the district court’s estimation of the total number of victims also fails. This factual finding is evaluated for clear error. United States v. Walton, 908 F.2d 1289, 1301 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that an estimation of the amount of drugs attributable to one defendant was not clear error). The plea agreement stated that Abdelsalam’s sentence would be enhanced for this number of victims, and the PSR explained that the estimation was based upon his criminal acts. The district court did not clearly err in this estimation. Applying the presumption of reasonableness, Abdelsalam’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Abdelsalam to 24 months, a sentence at the low end of his Guidelines range. We thus conclude that Abdelsalam’s sentence was reasonable.