United States v. Mohammad Khan, 701 F. App'x 592

Mohammad Adnan Khan and Mohammad Nawaz Khan (father and son) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud for running a scheme that caused the California EDD to pay unemployment/disability benefits to many people who were not entitled to them.
PSRs attributed large loss amounts: Adnan—actual $6.7M, intended $13.2M; Nawaz—actual $7.1M, intended $14.1M.
The district court overruled the Khans’ specific objections to the PSR loss estimates, adopted those figures, and applied a 20-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under §2B1.1 for losses exceeding $7M, producing sentences of 108 and 150 months.
The Khans appealed, arguing the district court (1) failed to make the express factual findings required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 when resolving their objections; (2) clearly erred in accepting PSR loss estimates to support the §2B1.1 enhancement; and (3) abused discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on loss.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, holding the Rule 32 findings were inadequate and the loss calculation was not shown to be a reasonable estimate, though the denial of an evidentiary hearing was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in resolving specific factual objections to PSR loss figures	Government: Court properly adopted PSR estimates and overruled objections without more	Khans: Rule 32 required express factual findings resolving their specific objections	Court: Reversed—district court failed to make the required explicit findings under Rule 32 and sentence must be vacated and remanded
Whether the district court properly applied a 20-level §2B1.1 enhancement based on PSR loss estimates	Government: PSR estimates were reasonable and adequate to show losses by a preponderance	Khans: Estimates were inflated, included legitimate EDD payments, and were unsupported	Court: Reversed—record lacks explanation/support that PSR loss estimates were reasonable; enhancement improperly applied
Whether denial of an evidentiary hearing on loss amounts was an abuse of discretion	Government: No hearing necessary; parties had discovery and opportunity to submit rebuttal	Khans: Hearing required to resolve factual disputes about loss	Court: Affirmed—no general right to a hearing; defendants had ample opportunity to rebut via discovery and submissions

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of Rule 32 compliance)
United States v. Doe, 705 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir.) (requirement for express factual findings when defendants raise specific objections)
United States v. Job, 851 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.) (strict compliance with Rule 32 required)
United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (district court may not simply rely on PSR when facts are contested)
United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (government bears burden to prove enhancements; standards for PSR reliance)
United States v. Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530 (9th Cir.) (government must prove loss by a preponderance; reasonable estimate standard)
United States v. Zolp, 479 F.3d 715 (9th Cir.) (reasonable estimate—no absolute precision required)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S.) (district court must correctly calculate Guidelines range before sentencing)
United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470 (9th Cir.) (no general right to evidentiary hearing at sentencing)