United States v. Imad Al-Shouhati ( 2011 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0001n.06
No. 09-1332 FILED
Jan 03, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
IMAD AL-SHOUHATI, ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
) MICHIGAN
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
Before: NORRIS, COLE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Imad Al-Shouhati pled guilty to one count of distributing over
100 grams of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His plea agreement provided that his
relevant conduct for sentencing purposes would include 600 grams of heroin and at least 100 pounds
of marijuana. The parties disputed in the district court whether the marijuana amount should be
increased.
The district court held a two-day hearing on that issue. Al-Shouhati’s cousin, Mussa
Shohatee, testified that he supplied marijuana to Al-Shouhati over a “couple” of years. Although
Shohatee had earlier told the FBI that he had delivered hundreds of pounds of marijuana to Al-
Shouhati over the course of the conspiracy, Shohatee testified at the hearing that he had delivered
only 100 pounds to his cousin.
No. 09-1332
United States v. Al-Shouhati
FBI Special Agent Jeffrey Jacobs contradicted Shohatee on that point. Jacobs testified that
he had interviewed Shohatee on several occasions prior to Al-Shouhati’s arrest, and that Shohatee
had said then that he sold “multiple hundred-pound quantities” of marijuana to Al-Shouhati. Jacobs
(a certified public accountant) also analyzed Al-Shouhati’s finances and testified that Al-Shouhati
had possessed approximately $2.6 million dollars that could not be traced to any legitimate source.
After considering all the evidence, the district court found Jacobs’ testimony to be “very
credible” regarding the quantity of marijuana that Shohatee had delivered to Al-Shouhati. The court
found Shohatee’s testimony on this issue “not to be credible,” given his evasive demeanor and body
language while testifying “in front of the family[.]” The district court therefore rejected Shohatee’s
claim that he had delivered only 100 pounds of marijuana to his cousin. To “err on the side of
caution,” however, the district court found that “multiple-hundred pounds amounts means more than
one and I’m not going to take it beyond two hundred-pound amounts with regard to Mr. Mussa
Shohatee’s testimony.” The court also found that Al-Shouhati’s $2.6 million of unexplained wealth
was an “indicia of reliability” for adding the additional 100 pounds of marijuana. Finally, the court
found Al-Shouhati responsible for 21 pounds of marijuana discussed in a wiretapped phone
conversation, for a total of 221 pounds.
Al-Shouhati now argues that the district court erred in finding that his cousin delivered 200
pounds of marijuana to him, rather than only 100. We review that finding for clear error. United
States v. Swanberg, 370 F.3d 622, 624-25 (6th Cir. 2004).
Al-Shouhati’s basic contention is that the district court erred when it rejected Shohatee’s
testimony regarding drug quantity in favor of Jacobs’ testimony. But normally we do not review
-2-
No. 09-1332
United States v. Al-Shouhati
credibility determinations, see United States v. Gessa, 57 F.3d 493, 496 (6th Cir. 1995); and we see
no reason to review the district court’s well-reasoned determination here. Al-Shouhati also suggests
that in-court testimony is always more reliable than the witness’s prior statement, but the law is to
the contrary. See id. (upholding a district court’s finding that prior interview statements were more
credible than in-court testimony recanting those statements).
Al-Shouhati finally argues that the district court erred in finding that his unexplained wealth
was an additional indicia of reliability for the increased marijuana amount. To some extent this
argument is beside the point, since the district court’s credibility determination already provides
adequate support for that amount, and the court did not convert any part of the $2.6 million itself into
an additional drug quantity. The argument is also meritless on its own terms. Al-Shouhati’s
unexplained wealth far exceeded his reported income ($40,000 in 2005 and $85,000 in 2006) and
was not otherwise linked to a legitimate source. That wealth therefore supported the district court’s
finding regarding the marijuana amount. See United States v. Carter, 969 F.2d 197, 201 (6th Cir.
1992).
Thus, in summary, the district court in this case did exactly what it was supposed to do:
make a conservative finding of drug quantity based upon its own reasoned evaluation of the evidence
brought forth in an evidentiary hearing. The court’s judgment is affirmed.
-3-