United States v. Kamal Qazah
810 F.3d 879
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Qazah and Alquza conspired to receive, transport, and sell stolen cigarettes in interstate commerce and to launder the proceeds.
- Undercover agents supplied cigarettes as stolen goods; the conspiracy involved money laundering and related offenses.
- A controlled purchase was set for 1,377 cases and $1.8 million, but arrests occurred at Qazah’s home with cash and records recovered.
- A search warrant for Alquza’s residence mistakenly included Attachment B listing Qazah’s entities; magistrate reviewed the correct attachment via email but signed the physically incorrect version.
- The execution relied on a summary list based on the correct attachment; officers believed the warrant was valid despite the clerical error.
- Loss calculations at sentencing used retail value of cigarettes rather than wholesale value, leading to higher offense levels and longer sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the search of Alquza’s home was valid under the Fourth Amendment | Alquza contends the warrant was facially deficient due to wrong Attachment B and lacks particularity. | Alquza argues Leon’s good-faith exception should not apply because magistrate abandoned role and the warrant was defective. | Suppression not required; good faith reliance and non-abusive defect upheld. |
| Whether the district court erred in using retail value to compute loss under 2B1.1 | Prosecution argues use of greatest intended loss (retail) is proper. | Defendants contend wholesale value should govern loss, lowering offense levels. | Loss should be based on intended victims and circumstances; remand for recalculation. |
| Whether severance was required | Joint trial would prejudice co-defendant due to unrelated evidence. | Severance warranted to avoid unfair prejudice. | No abuse; denial of severance affirmed. |
| Whether obstruction of justice adjustment for perjury was proper | Court erred in applying 3C1.1 without explicit perjury findings. | Findings did not demonstrate all elements of perjury beyond reasonable doubt. | Findings sufficiently encompassed elements; enhancement upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 F.3d 897 (S. Ct. 1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 982 (S. Ct. 1984) (technical error does not always bar admission of evidence)
- Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419 (S. Ct. 2011) (deterrence-based evaluation of exclusionary rule)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (S. Ct. 2009) (negligence and deterrence in Fourth Amendment contexts)
- United States v. Gary, 528 F.3d 324 (4th Cir. 2008) (not merely rubber-stamping warrants; reasonable reliance)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (S. Ct. 1993) (requirement of explicit perjury elements for obstruction enhancement)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (S. Ct. 1993) (severance standard for joint trials)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Ruhe, 191 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 1999) (loss determined by harm to the victim)
- United States v. Machado, 333 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2003) (loss must be measured within the factual circumstances)