United States v. Sam Battani ( 2019 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 19 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50036
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
8:16-cr-00157-JLS-1
v.
SAM AMADEO BATTANI, aka Allmad MEMORANDUM*
Avad Alhsaoiujesam, aka Sam Amadeo
Battani, aka Wissam Ahmed El-Assadi,
aka Wissam Ahmed Elassadi,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50040
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
8:16-cr-00166-JLS-1
v.
SAM AMADEO BATTANI, aka Allmad
Avad Alhsaoiujesam, aka Wissam Ahmed
El-Assadi, aka Wissam Ahmed Elassadi,
Defendant-Appellant.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50050
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-00854-JLS-1
v.
ADAM AMADEO BATTANI,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50053
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
8:16-cr-00157-JLS-2
v.
ADAM AMADEO BATTANI, aka
Ayman Ahmed Assadi, aka Ayman
Ahmed El-Assadi,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 14, 2019
Pasadena, California
2
Before: SCHROEDER and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and M. WATSON,**
District Judge.
Brothers Sam and Adam Battani (“Defendants”) filed fraudulent tax returns
in the names of deceased individuals and funneled the illegally obtained funds
through bogus bank accounts. They appeal the sentences imposed following their
guilty pleas to conspiracy to defraud the United States, fraudulent use of social
security numbers, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit money
laundering. They also appeal the sentences imposed upon revocation of supervised
release, arising from their prior convictions for bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud,
access device fraud, and money laundering.
The district court did not commit procedural error in applying sentencing
enhancements. The court described different conduct for the sophisticated means
and sophisticated money laundering enhancements. See U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1 cmt.
n.5(B); United States v. Joey, 845 F.3d 1291, 1295–96 (9th Cir. 2017). For the
sophisticated means enhancement, the district court focused on Defendants’ efforts
to set up the fraudulent scheme. For the sophisticated money laundering
enhancement, the district court focused on Defendants’ attempts to conceal the
money after they had fraudulently obtained it.
**
The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
3
Nor did the district court substantively err when it applied the sophisticated
money laundering enhancement. Defendants admitted to transferring the
fraudulent tax refunds from bogus accounts in the names of deceased individuals to
bank accounts under their control, and then withdrawing the funds to purchase
silver, write fraudulent checks, or transfer money overseas. This constitutes at least
“two or more levels,” or layering, of criminally derived funds. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2S1.1(b)(3) cmt. n.5(A).
The district court did not err in imposing the maximum sentence of 24
months because it properly weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors. Defendants
began their second money laundering scheme almost immediately after getting out
of prison for their first money laundering scheme. The district court looked at
Defendants history and concluded that they were an “extreme financial danger to
the community,” due to the circumstances of the offense. The district court was
permitted to consider these factors under § 3583(e). See United States v.
Reyes-Solosa, 761 F.3d 972, 974–75 (9th Cir. 2014). A high-end sentence was
reasonable, especially because Defendants committed the “same offense that led to
the imposition of the supervised release in the first place.” Id. at 975.
Any error in assigning Sam Battani a criminal history point for his
conviction under California Penal Code section 647(f) was harmless, because it did
4
not change his criminal history category or Sentencing Guidelines range. United
States v. Cruz-Gramajo, 570 F.3d 1162, 1174 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court erred in imposing supervised release conditions 5, 6, and
14 because the wording in those conditions is unconstitutionally vague. United
States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162–64 (9th Cir. 2018). Evans was decided after
the district court imposed the sentence in this case. We therefore remand, as in
Evans, for the correction of the challenged conditions of supervised release.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED in part.
5