United States v. Ahmad Mizani ( 1999 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-4354
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AHMAD MIZANI, a/k/a Eddie Slater, a/k/a Omid
Mizani, a/k/a Eddie Mizani,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-126-AW)
Submitted: October 20, 1999 Decided: December 15, 1999
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John M. Quinn, Michael J. McAuliffe, QUINN, MCAULIFFE, ROWAN &
MCLINDON, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia,
United States Attorney, Jan Paul Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmad Mizani pled guilty to one count of filing a false tax
return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(l) (1994) for which he was sentenced to
thirty months imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that the district
court clearly erred in calculating tax loss because the government
failed to deduct business expenses other than cost of goods sold in
arriving at gross income. Under the federal sentencing guidelines,
gross income is determined without regard to any deductions that
would have been available had the taxpayer filed a proper return.
See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2T1.3 (1992). See also
United States v. Valentino, 19 F.3d 463, 464-65 (9th Cir. 1994) (in
calculating gross income for purposes of determining tax loss,
unclaimed deductions such as depreciation are not to be taken into
account); United States v. Harvey, 996 F.2d 919, 920 (7th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in
failing to take into account other deductions which Mizani might
have been entitled to had he filed proper returns. See United
States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989) (factual
findings reviewed for clear error).
We therefore affirm Mizani's sentence. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -