U.S. v. Elmardoudi

• Decision Date: 12 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. 06-CR-112-LRR.,06-CR-112-LRR.
• Citation: 611 F.Supp.2d 879
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Abdel-Ilah ELMARDOUDI, a/k/a "George Labibe," "Jean-Pierre Tardelli," "Hussein Mohsen Safieddine" and "Abdullah,", Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

611 F.Supp.2d 879

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Abdel-Ilah ELMARDOUDI, a/k/a "George Labibe," "Jean-Pierre Tardelli," "Hussein Mohsen Safieddine" and "Abdullah,", Defendant.

No. 06-CR-112-LRR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division.

March 12, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kandice A. Wilcox, Richard L. Murphy, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Christopher A. Clausen, Boliver Law Firm, Marshalltown, IA, for Defendant.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 884
                II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................. 884
                III. SENTENCING PROCESS ............................................................... 885
                IV. SENTENCING CALCULATIONS ..........................................................  885
                     A. 2000 Guidelines ............................................................... 887
                        1. Defendant is properly scored with a base offense level of 6
                            pursuant to USSG § 2F1.1 ............................................. 887
                        2. Defendant's offense level should be increased two offense levels for
                            more than minimal planning, pursuant to USSG § 2F1.1(b)(2) ........... 887
                        3. Defendant's offense level should be increased to offense level 12
                            pursuant to USSG § 2F1.1(b)(5) ....................................... 888
                           a. "Access device" ......................................................... 889
                           b. "Device-making equipment" ............................................... 889
                           c. "Means of identification" ............................................... 889
                           d. Application ............................................................. 890
                               i. Access devices ...................................................... 890
                              ii. Means of identification ............................................. 891
                              iii. Enhancement .........................................................891
                        4. Defendant's offense level should be increased two offense levels for
                            either relocation or sophisticated means, pursuant to USSG
                            § 2F1.1(b)(6) ....................................................... 892
                        5. Defendant's offense level should be increased three offense levels
                            for his role in the offense, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(b) ............. 893
                     B. 2007 Guidelines ............................................................. 896
                        1. Defendant is properly scored with a base offense level of 6
                            pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1 ............................................. 896
                        2. Defendant's offense level should be increased to offense level 12 for
                            the involvement of sophisticated means, pursuant to USSG
                            § 2B1.1(b)(9) ........................................................ 896
                       3. Defendant's offense level should be increased two offense levels for
                            the possession or use of an authentication feature, pursuant to
                            USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10) .................................................. 897
                

                4. Defendant's offense level should be increased three offense levels
                            for his role in the offense, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(b) ............. 898
                     C. Acceptance of Responsibility .................................................. 898
                     D. Ex Post Facto Clause Analysis ................................................. 899
                     E. Criminal History Determination and the 2007 Sentencing Guidelines
                         Range ........................................................................ 900
                        1. The court shall grant an upward departure for under-representation
                            of Defendant's criminal history, pursuant to
                            USSG § 4A1.3(a)(1) ................................................... 900
                        2. Defendant's 2007 Sentencing Guidelines range ............................... 901
                     F. Adjustment and Departure Issues ............................................... 901
                        1. The court shall not grant a downward departure, pursuant to
                            USSG § 5K2.16 or USSG § 5K2.23 .................................. 901
                           a. USSG § 5K2.16 ...................................................... 901
                           b. USSG § 5K2.23 ...................................................... 902
                        2. The court shall not grant an upward departure for endangering
                           national security, public health or safety, pursuant to USSG
                           § 5K2.14 ............................................................. 903
                        3. The court shall grant an upward departure of nine offense levels
                            for the seriousness of an underlying potential charge not pursued
                            under USSG § 5K2.21 .................................................. 904
                  V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 907
                

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the sentencing of Defendant Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi on his plea of guilty to one count of misuse of a fraudulently obtained Social Security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A).

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2006, Defendant was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa in a two-count Indictment. Count I charged Defendant with conspiring, between about June and September of 2001, to commit various offenses involving the making and use of false government identification documents for foreign nationals residing in the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count II charged Defendant with, on or about August 30, 2001, using a falsely obtained Social Security number with intent to deceive for the purpose of obtaining a State of Iowa identification card and to obtain a bank account at the Marquette Bank in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A).

On July 9, 2007, Defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles and pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. On July 10, 2007, 2007 WL 2022002, the court entered an order accepting Defendant's plea of guilty to Count II. On October 31, 2007, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") filed a presentence investigation report ("PSIR") and also prepared a sentencing recommendation.

On December 10, 2007, Defendant appeared at a sentencing hearing ("Hearing") before the undersigned. Assistant United States Attorney Kandice Wilcox represented the government. Defendant was personally present and represented by Attorney Christopher Clausen. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the court took under advisement the issues presented and reserved ruling until the entry of this Sentencing Memorandum. On December 28, 2007, the government filed a Sentencing Memorandum ("Government's Memorandum") (docket no. 100), and Defendant filed a Sentencing Memorandum ("Defendant's Memorandum") (docket no. 101). The matters discussed in the instant Sentencing Memorandum are fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SENTENCING PROCESS

The Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory. United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1002 (8th Cir.2005) (discussing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)). They are advisory. Id. However, the Supreme Court recently explained

a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable [Sentencing Guidelines] range. [See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007)]. As a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the [Sentencing Guidelines] should be the starting point and the initial benchmark. The [Sentencing Guidelines] are not the only consideration, however. Accordingly, after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party. In so doing, [the district judge] may not presume that the [Sentencing Guidelines] range is reasonable. [See id.] [She] must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented. If [she] decides that an outside-[the Sentencing Guidelines] sentence is warranted, [she] must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance. We find it uncontroversial that a major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. After settling on the appropriate sentence, [she] must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); cf. United States v. Sitting Bear, 436 F.3d 929, 934 (8th Cir.2006) (outlining a threestep process). In light of Gall's guidance, the instant Sentencing Memorandum is primarily designed to provide a more detailed understanding of the court's reasoning on the contested advisory Sentencing Guidelines issues; it is not comprehensive. For example, the court's analysis of each of the factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is outside the scope of this document. The Supreme Court has stated:

The appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say, depends upon the circumstances. Sometimes a judicial opinion responds to every argument; sometimes it does not; sometimes a judge simply writes the word "granted" or "denied" on the face of a motion while relying upon context and the parties' prior arguments to make the reasons clear. The law leaves much, in this respect, to the judge's own professional judgment.

Rita...