United States v. Abdulmalik Abdulla, 4th Cir. (2015)
United States v. Abdulmalik Abdulla, 4th Cir. (2015)
No. 14-4868
No. 14-4877
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:14-cr-00050-RDB-1; 1:14-cr-00050-RDB-2)
Submitted:
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
December 3, 2015
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Abdulmalik
Abdulla
and
Ahmed
Mohssen
appeal
their
request
for
minor
or
minimal
role
adjustment.
the
Fifth
Amendment
when
the
district
court
struck
During voir
Amendment
invalid reasons.
because
Juror
58
was
excused
for
allegedly
that she had not personally seen food stamps traded for cash,
she was not closely familiar with anyone who had, and she could
be a fair and impartial juror, the court abused its discretion
in striking her for cause.
3
We
review
district
court's
determination
whether
to
United
It is
to
the
law
and
fairly
judge
the
evidence.
United
The trial
judge
to
is
best
impartially.
situated
to
determine
competency
serve
deciding
whether
to
excuse
juror
for
cause.
389
F.3d
111,
115
(4th
Cir.
United States v.
2004).
The
appellate
careful
impartial,
to
and
see
that
permitted
the
jury
sufficient
obtained
is
information
fair
to
and
come
in
the
exercise
of
his
discretion
to
exclude
from
the
jury
persons who have formed fixed opinions about the case and are
not fair and impartial jurors within the contemplation of the
law.
merit,
they
do
considered
that
the
Government
or
the
not
entitle
jurors
them
response
defense.
Because
to
relief.
could
the
cut
juror
The
court
against
stated
the
that
happens
all
the
time,
she
could
presume
that
the
facts
alleged were true based on her perception that food stamp fraud
is rampant in Baltimore.
The
strike
could
have
preserved
the
Defendants
due
the court was also concerned that Juror 58s knowledge of the
widespread
food
likely
convict
to
stamp
fraud
because
may
food
have
stamp
caused
fraud
her
to
be
less
is
an
everyday
stated that she could be fair and impartial, there was a real
possibility of partiality based on her preconceived impression
and opinion.
court violated their due process rights, their counsel did not
take the opportunity to question Juror 58.
in
potential
the
best
position
to
evaluate
jurors
We have
reviewed the record and find that the court did not abuse its
discretion.
Next, the Defendants contend that the district court erred
in determining the amount of loss at sentencing at nearly $1.2
million.
also
do
not
address
the
district
The
courts
assessing
challenge
to
the
district
courts
factual
findings
conclusions de novo.
for
clear
error
and
its
legal
U.S.
calculating
district
loss,
court
given
the
need
the
loss
only
available
attributable
make
to
reasonable
information.
and
loss
calculation
methodologies
defendant,
estimate
United
of
States
a
the
v.
thoroughly
Rutledge,
and
U.S.
Department
Stanley Wojtkonski.
reasoning.
items
that
of
Agriculture
Special
Agent
have
changed
the
cost
of
goods
sold
and
We
appropriately
therefore
conclude
determined
that
that
the
the
district
estimated
loss
court
from
the
Defendants scheme was over $1 million and did not clearly err
in determining the loss amount.
The court also did not err in rejecting Mohssens request
to
split
the
conspiracy
or
sentencing
for
loss
between
scheme
the
to
471,
498
(4th
defraud
entire
conspiracy or scheme.
Cir.
the
Defendants.
can
be
foreseeable
Members
held
loss
of
responsible
caused
by
a
at
the
(In
calculating
fraud
loss,
procured,
or
willfully
8
caused
by
defendant;
and
foreseeable
furtherance
of
the
acts
and
jointly
omissions
undertaken
of
criminal
others
in
activity.
jointly
operated
Sams,
thus
the
Defendants
quite
district
in
the
courts
offense
determination
is
reviewed
regarding
for
clear
defendants
error.
United
To
the
evidence,
that
he
is
entitled
9
to
mitigating
role
adjustment in sentencing.
quotation
marks
omitted).
The
court
examines
whether
the
was
certainly
more
than
witnesses
approximately
testified
half
testified
that
co-owners
of
of
the
Mohssen
Sams.
that
time.
told
her
Further,
minor
ran
Mohssens
although
minimal
Mohssen
that
or
he
the
store
girlfriend
and
Mohssen
Abdulla
also
were
attempts
to
he
only
had
approximately
$23,000
disbursed
to
his
decreased culpability.
court did not clearly err in determining that Mohssen was not
entitled to the role in the offense reduction.2
11