United States v. Hashi

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4742
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ISAAC ABDI HASHI,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00095-CMC-1)
Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States
Attorney, Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isaac Abdi Hashi pled guilty to assault on a federal
officer by means of a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. § 111(a),
(b) (West Supp. 2008), and was sentenced to a term of 210 months
imprisonment. Hashi appeals his sentence, contending that the
district court clearly erred in finding that his offense
involved more than minimal planning. We affirm.
Hashi was in federal custody awaiting deportation when
he spoke with Deportation Officer Norman Bradley about his case.
Bradley then left Hashi’s cell to talk with other detainees.
Hashi mixed a solution of baby oil, hand lotion, and water in a
cup and heated it in a microwave. He took this to where Bradley
was talking to a detainee and threw the hot, oily mixture in
Bradley’s face. Bradley suffered burns to 80% of the cornea in
his left eye, severe cornea abrasion, and second degree burns to
his face. When Hashi was interviewed immediately after the
attack, he calmly explained how he mixed the solution, heated
it, and threw it on Bradley. In a subsequent interview, Hashi
said he had planned the attack because he was angry at all
immigration officers.
In sentencing Hashi, the district court found that the
offense involved more than minimal planning because Hashi’s
conduct amounted to more than a simple form of assault. The
court found that the attack was planned, rather than impulsive,
2
and that the combination of ingredients Hashi used made the burn
more serious.
The sentencing court’s factual determination that the
offense involved more than minimal planning is reviewed for
clear error. United States v. Pearce, 65 F.3d 22, 26 (4th Cir.
1995). Application Note 2 to USSG § 2A2.2 defines more than
minimal planning as “more planning than is typical for
commission of the offense in a simple form.” The Note explains
that waiting to assault the victim when no witnesses are present
is an example of minimal planning, while luring the victim to a
particular place for the purpose of attacking him or concealing
the defendant’s identity are examples of more than minimal
planning.
Hashi argues that his offense was essentially
spontaneous, that he used only materials that were supplied to
him and made no effort to conceal his conduct, and that his case
is thus distinguishable from other cases in which the defendant
made more elaborate preparations for an assault. We note that
undisputed information in the presentence report indicated that
Hashi’s decision to combine and heat several substances together
created a substance more harmful than any of the ingredients
would have been if used separately. The record does not
establish with certainty that Hashi anticipated this result, but
his conduct indicates something more than minimal planning.
3
Therefore, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred
in deciding that Hashi’s actions constituted more than minimal
planning.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the
district court. 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
4