United States v. Hussein Nazzal, 644 F. App'x 655

Background

Nazzal pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) for arranging fraudulent marriages; his plea admitted arranging two false marriages but did not expressly admit the abuse allegations involving Z.C. and H.M.
The PSR described additional offense conduct: a marriage involving Mike Murry and Z.C., physical/sexual abuse of Z.C. and her son H.M., threats to report them to immigration, and unpaid work in Nazzal’s restaurant; the PSR identified Z.C. and H.M. as victims.
At sentencing Nazzal withdrew objections to the PSR “as part of a global agreement,” did not object when the court treated Z.C. and H.M. as victims at the restitution hearing, and cross‑examined their witnesses; he later (in briefing) objected to their victim status.
The district court held a restitution hearing, refused to admit a belated expert report (Dr. Abramsky) and denied a continuance, then ordered restitution of $79,107 to Z.C. and $222,399 to H.M.; Nazzal appealed.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed forfeited objections for plain error and the restitution order for abuse of discretion; it affirmed, finding (under plain error review) that the harms were sufficiently related to the conspiracy and that the court properly considered financial factors and provided a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government / Victims)	Defendant's Argument (Nazzal)	Held
Were Z.C. and H.M. "victims" eligible for restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(2)?	Their harms (abuse, threats, lost wages, psychological injury) were caused by Nazzal to conceal and facilitate the fraudulent‑marriage scheme and thus are direct and proximate.	The abuse and threats were not part of the conspiracy to defraud the U.S.; they were independent criminal acts or collateral blackmail, so they are not compensable as restitution for the § 371 conviction.	Affirmed: under plain‑error review, the district court reasonably found the harms sufficiently related to the conspiracy and thus compensable.
Was Nazzal’s objection to victim status waived/forfeited and what standard applies?	(Gov) Nazzal affirmed withdrawal of PSR objections and didn’t object at restitution; forfeiture applies.	Nazzal contends he preserved or later raised the issue; the specific consequence matters.	Court applied plain‑error review (forfeiture, not waiver) and found no clear error under controlling law.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by ordering restitution without adequately considering Nazzal’s inability to pay?	Victims argued restitution amount was supported and PSR covered Nazzal’s finances; ability to pay not disproven by Nazzal.	Nazzal argued negative net worth and cash flow made restitution improper.	Affirmed: district court relied on PSR and statutory factors; Nazzal failed to meet burden to prove lack of resources.
Did the court prejudicially surprise Nazzal by excluding Dr. Abramsky’s report / denying continuance?	Court and victims noted late disclosure and inability to cross‑examine; earlier continuances had been granted; victims would be prejudiced by further delay.	Nazzal said he only learned there would be testimony and intended to rely on Abramsky’s report prepared earlier; exclusion deprived him of meaningful response.	Affirmed: court provided reasonable opportunity to respond; late production by Nazzal (report dated earlier but disclosed day before) and absence for cross‑examination justified exclusion and denial of continuance.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Evers, 669 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2012) (restitution only when authorized by statute)
United States v. Elson, 577 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2009) (restitution may cover conduct that was part of the conspiracy beyond the overt‑act conviction)
In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (harm must be closely related to the offense; noninherent harms not compensable)
United States v. Coppenger, 775 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 2015) (forfeiture vs. waiver; procedural fairness at restitution hearings)
United States v. Allen, 529 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 2008) (objecting at sentencing; distinguishing forfeiture from waiver)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain‑error review framework)
United States v. Blanchard, 9 F.3d 22 (6th Cir. 1993) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for restitution and defendant’s burden to prove inability to pay)
United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2000) (district court discretion over restitution hearing procedures)
United States v. Lazarenko, 624 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing restitution and co‑conspirator victims; distinguishes Sanga)
United States v. Sanga, 967 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (circumstances where a technical co‑conspirator may still recover restitution)