United States v. Alireza Bakhtiari
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9361
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bakhtiari pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) and was sentenced to 51 months with three years of supervised release.
- From 2009–2012, Bakhtiari pursued civil actions against B.H., a St. Louis lawyer; a defamation suit in which Bakhtiari allegedly forged emails.
- B.H. sought inspection of Bakhtiari’s computer; Bakhtiari failed to comply, triggering sanctions motions and further investigations.
- A threatening email and a rifle display occurred, leading to further investigation and charges related to intimidating B.H. and obstructing the civil matter.
- At sentencing, the district court applied two enhancements: 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) for threats and 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) for extensive scope; accepted responsibility reduction was denied; appellate review followed.
- Bakhtiari challenges the enhancements, the denial of acceptance of responsibility, and the district court’s substantive reasonableness of the within-guidelines sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) applies. | Bakhtiari argues the email and rifle display were not threats. | Bakhtiari contends no serious threat; the enhancement requires only a threat to physical injury. | enhancement affirmed |
| Whether 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) applies for extensive scope. | Bakhtiari asserts planning was limited to downloaded photos and does not show extensive planning. | Bakhtiari engaged in extensive planning (false email, fake account, disguising actions). | enhancement affirmed |
| Whether the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction was correctly denied. | Bakhtiari remained remorseful and admitted guilt in plea. | Bakhtiari recanted guilt and did not express remorse; no acceptance reduction. | reduction denied |
| Whether the within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. | Mitigating personal characteristics warrant a lower sentence; district court should weigh them more. | District court properly weighed offense factors and imposed the low end of range; reasonable. | sentence affirmed as reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hoffman, 707 F.3d 929 (8th Cir. 2013) (review of factual findings for clear error and de novo legal application)
- United States v. Sanchez, 676 F.3d 627 (8th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes threats of physical injury from lesser threats)
- United States v. Duarte, 28 F.3d 47 (7th Cir. 1994) (guidelines threat distinction principle cited)
- United States v. Plumley, 207 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2000) (supports the interpretation of § 2J1.2(b)(1)(B) as prohibiting only serious threats)
- United States v. Shade, 661 F.3d 1159 (8th Cir. 2011) (recantation does not support acceptance-of-responsibility reduction)
- United States v. Wineman, 625 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2010) (rant denying responsibility defeats acceptance reduction)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (substantive reasonableness standard for guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Tonks, 574 F.3d 628 (8th Cir. 2009) (defers to district court on acceptance-of-responsibility evaluation)
- United States v. Wisecarver, 644 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2011) (broad discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Bordeaux, 674 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2010) (within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable)