United States v. Majeed Bazazpour
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17027
6th Cir.2012Background
- Bazazpour, a Canadian citizen born in Iran, was convicted by jury on six counts from a 21-count indictment in Youngstown, Ohio.
- Counts included conspiracy to commit mail fraud, arson, money laundering, and aiding and abetting those crimes.
- Jury found him guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16; the building names and involved co-defendants are disclosed in the opinion.
- District court imposed concurrent terms for several counts and a consecutive term for aiding and abetting arson, totaling 240 months.
- The court ordered three years of supervised release, restitution of $778,648.64, and a $600 special assessment.
- On appeal, Bazazpour challenges the money-laundering statute, sufficiency of evidence, and the reasonableness of sentence, including an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §1957(f)(1) | Bazazpour argues money-laundering statute vague/overbroad. | The government contends statute sufficiently defines crime with knowledge mens rea. | No plain error; statute constitutional as applied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for money-laundering conspiracy and arson | Insufficient overt acts to prove conspiracy/aro magbed. | Overt acts and plan evidenced by deposits and fires; jury could convict. | Evidence adequate to sustain conspiracy to money-launder and conspiracy to commit arson; aiding and abetting arson sustained. |
| Sentence and obstruction of justice enhancement | Enhancement appropriate for obstructive conduct; commitment justified. | Some conduct predates investigation; misstatements may not constitute obstruction. | Remanded for findings on obstruction enhancement; convictions affirmed, sentence vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (void-for-vagueness requires definite statute)
- United States v. Haun, 90 F.3d 1096 (6th Cir. 1996) (vagueness review applies to money-laundering statute)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error framework components)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (2005) (overt act/ conspiracy not require overt act for §1956(h))
- Hynes v. United States, 467 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2006) (no overt act needed for conspiracy to launder)
- Hilliard v. United States, 11 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 1993) (credibility not weighed on appeal; jury may credit part of testimony)
- Powers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 83 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 1996) (evidence evaluation and witness credibility guidance)
- United States v. Baker, 19 F.3d 605 (11th Cir. 1994) (statutory interpretation of §1957 with deposited funds)
- United States v. Brown, 237 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2001) (obstruction enhancement requires post-investigation conduct)
- United States v. Baggett, 342 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2003) (pre-investigation obstructive acts not basis for §3C1.1)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (perjury findings require specific factual predicates)
- United States v. Sassanelli, 118 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 1997) (necessary to encompass all perjury predicates for enhancement)
- P? Pearce v. United States, 531 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2008) (permissible to presume reasonableness within Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review standards for sentences)
- United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2011) (appellate review of obstruction/ credibility matters)
- Santillana v. United States, 540 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court’s departure discretion under duress not reviewable absent error)