United States v. Ghiassi, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18190

Background

In early 2011 Alicia Wiseman purchased eight handguns for Farshad Ghiassi and delivered them to him; ATF investigated and recovered nine firearms (including an AK-47 Ghiassi sold in an undercover buy).
Ghiassi, a prohibited possessor, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Count Two); Wiseman pleaded guilty to a false-statement firearm charge and was sentenced to probation.
At plea and sentencing proceedings, the parties disputed how many guns Ghiassi possessed: Ghiassi admitted possession of the AK-47 and two other guns (three total) but denied Wiseman’s account that she bought eight more for him.
The district court credited Wiseman’s testimony at her sentencing (that she bought eight guns for Ghiassi), plus corroborating evidence (surveillance, post‑arrest statements, recovered guns), finding Ghiassi responsible for nine firearms.
That finding triggered a four‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (8–24 firearms) and the court denied acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit under § 3E1.1 due to the court’s adverse credibility finding, yielding offense level 26 and a Guidelines range of 70–87 months.
Ghiassi appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he possessed eight+ guns and (2) due process violation from reliance on Wiseman’s sentencing testimony without cross‑examination; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports finding Ghiassi responsible for 8+ firearms	Ghiassi: only the AK-47 and at most two other guns; no evidence tying him to all nine firearms except co‑defendant’s statement	Court/Gov: Wiseman’s in‑court statements, Foreman’s testimony, surveillance, Ghiassi’s own admissions and Gamblin’s statements corroborate possession	Affirmed: preponderance met; district court’s factual finding not clearly erroneous
Whether reliance on Wiseman’s sentencing testimony without cross‑examination violated due process	Ghiassi: sentencing reliance on her statements denied him opportunity to confront an adverse witness	Court/Gov: sentencing not bound by Confrontation Clause; parties were on notice and had opportunity to contest; statements were reliable/corroborated	Rejected: no due process violation; cross‑examination not required at sentencing
Whether denial of acceptance‑of‑responsibility credit was proper	Ghiassi: he pleaded guilty and sought credit; denial improper absent clear proof of false testimony	Court/Gov: Ghiassi repeatedly disputed and falsely denied relevant conduct; credibility finding supported denial	Affirmed: denying § 3E1.1 credit not clearly erroneous
Standard of review for sentencing factual findings	Ghiassi: challenges factual finding	Court/Gov: findings reviewed for clear error; sentencing judge may consider hearsay and reliability controls	Applied clear‑error review; affirmed district court credibility determinations

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Davis, 682 F.3d 596 (7th Cir.) (preponderance standard for sentencing factfinding)
United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir.) (sentencing may consider otherwise inadmissible evidence)
United States v. LePage, 477 F.3d 485 (7th Cir.) (relevant‑conduct aggregation under § 1B1.3)
Williams v. Oklahoma, 358 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1959) (due process at sentencing permits consideration of evidence without trial‑type confrontation)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1949) (same principle regarding sentencing evidence and confrontation)
United States v. Harmon, 721 F.3d 877 (7th Cir.) (Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing)
United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904 (7th Cir.) (sentencing judge may credit hearsay if reliable)
United States v. Miller, 450 F.3d 270 (7th Cir.) (sentencing evidence rules and reliability)
United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614 (7th Cir.) (sentencing evidence and corroboration principles)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (guideline commentary cited for context)
United States v. Nunez, 627 F.3d 274 (7th Cir.) (sentencing evidence review)
United States v. Matthews, 520 F.3d 806 (7th Cir.) (momentary possession can establish § 922(g)(1) liability)
United States v. Etchin, 614 F.3d 726 (7th Cir.) (defendant may lose acceptance credit by falsely contesting relevant conduct)
United States v. Chen, 497 F.3d 718 (7th Cir.) (same principle on acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Black, 636 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.) (denial of § 3E1.1 credit reviewed for clear error)
United States v. Peterson, 711 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.) (plain‑error review where defense did not object at sentencing)