United States v. Rami Ghanem, 22-50266

Rami Ghanem, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was investigated after attempting to export military equipment from the U.S. to Libya and connecting with an undercover federal agent.
He pleaded guilty to multiple counts, including violating the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), conspiracy, unlawful smuggling, and money laundering, but went to trial on a separate charge of conspiring to transport and use surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
Ghanem was originally sentenced to 360 months in prison, but the conviction on the SAM conspiracy charge was vacated on appeal due to a defective jury instruction regarding venue.
On remand, with the SAM charge dismissed, the district court resentenced Ghanem to 360 months, significantly above the recalculated guideline range of 78–97 months, based on the scope and severity of his arms-trafficking activity.
Ghanem appealed, raising multiple procedural and substantive challenges to the increased sentence, including arguments regarding the consideration of dismissed charges, application of sentencing enhancements, and constitutional defects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Calculation of Guidelines Range / Acceptance Reduction	District court should have applied a two-level reduction for acceptance.	Ghanem minimized involvement; guilty plea alone is not dispositive.	No error in denying reduction; court properly weighed acceptance factors including Ghanem’s minimization of role.
Explanation for Upward Variance	The court failed to justify upward variance and consider § 3553(a) factors.	The district court gave a detailed rationale based on record evidence.	Sufficient explanation provided for the upward variance based on detailed facts and rationale.
Use of Dismissed Charge Conduct	Conduct underlying dismissed charges should not enhance sentencing.	Such conduct is valid relevant conduct under prevailing law.	Permissible to consider conduct underlying dismissed counts for upward variance under the advisory guidelines.
Constitutionality under Sixth Amendment (Booker)	Any fact used to increase sentence above guidelines needs jury finding.	Supreme Court precedent permits upward variances by judges post-Booker.	Sentence affirmed under current Booker framework permitting judges to find facts supporting substantive reasonableness of upward deviations.

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (made federal sentencing guidelines advisory and established reasonableness review for sentences)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved to jury)
United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidelines are starting point; reasonableness standard for review of variances)
United States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (courts must explain rationale for sentencing decisions, including variances)