United States v. Jawad "Joe" Quassani
593 F. App'x 627
9th Cir.2015Background
- Defendant Jawad Quassani was convicted by jury of mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and sentenced to 37 months.
- On appeal Quassani challenged several trial and sentencing rulings: alleged government vouching, failure to require/prove materiality as an element of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, refusal to replace an allegedly biased juror, Guidelines treatment and role adjustment, amount-of-loss calculation, and the forfeiture order.
- Quassani did not object at trial to the prosecutor statements now characterized as vouching; appellate review therefore proceeded for plain error.
- The district court used the Sentencing Guidelines as the starting point, denied a two-level minor-participant adjustment, and calculated loss without crediting lenders’ credit bids; it ordered criminal forfeiture equal to loan amounts obtained by fraud.
- The government defended the prosecutor’s remarks as non-vouching or responsive to attacks on witness credibility, argued materiality is not an element of a § 1349 conspiracy, maintained the juror could be impartial, and supported the district court’s loss and forfeiture determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Quassani) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial vouching | Government improperly vouched for witnesses, prejudicing jury | Remarks were not vouching, responsive to credibility attacks, or harmless | No plain error; statements not improper or not prejudicial (affirmed) |
| Materiality as element of § 1349 conspiracy | Materiality must be proved/instructed as element of conspiracy; insufficient evidence otherwise | § 1349 does not include materiality as a separate element; mail/wire counts addressed materiality | Rejected Quassani’s claim; materiality is not a separate element of conspiracy under § 1349; instructions on mail/wire fraud were proper |
| Juror replacement/bias | District court erred by refusing to replace juror whose relationship with AUSA suggested bias | Juror explicitly stated ability to be impartial; differences in descriptions were not necessarily dishonesty | No abuse of discretion; no actual or implied bias; McDonough claim not established; factual finding of juror honesty not clearly erroneous |
| Sentencing adjustments, loss, and forfeiture | Court overstated role (denied minor-role reduction), miscalculated loss by ignoring credit bids, and ordered excessive forfeiture | Court properly used Guidelines as benchmark, credited evidence of significant role, permissibly declined to rely on credit bids, and correctly ordered forfeiture equal to loan proceeds | Affirmed: Guidelines use appropriate; no minor-role adjustment; loss calculation and forfeiture upheld (forfeiture equals loan amount; §981(a)(2)(C) inapplicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dorsey, 677 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.) (plain-error review when defendant failed to object at trial)
- United States v. Saybolt, 577 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.) (discussing materiality as element for conspiracies framed as "to defraud")
- United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.) (standard for implied juror bias requiring extraordinary circumstances)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (Sup. Ct.) (juror duty to answer voir dire honestly; remedy when material misrepresentation shown)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (Guidelines as starting point and benchmark in sentencing)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir.) (credit bids may not reflect collateral value where loan amount is fraudulently inflated)
- United States v. Newman, 659 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (forfeiture of fraud proceeds equals loan amount)
- United States v. Casey, 444 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir.) (criminal forfeiture mandates forfeiture of proceeds of criminal activity)