United States v. Saani
397 U.S. App. D.C. 77
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Saani was a USAF contract specialist in Kuwait overseeing contracts for personnel needs, with annual expenditures of at least $1 million.
- An anti-corruption investigation in Kuwait led to prosecutions of eighteen individuals, including four Army Majors at Camp Arifjan.
- Saani wired $3.6 million to bank accounts globally, with at least $2.6 million to non-U.S. accounts he controlled.
- From 2003–2006 Saani spent $2,412,731 more than his known income, triggering a contract-by-contract review and some reissues.
- Saani pled guilty to five counts of filing false tax returns (years 2003–2007), admitting under oath that statements about foreign accounts were false.
- PSR calculated offense level 20 (loss $816,485), with +2 for sophisticated means and -2 for acceptance of responsibility; recommended sentencing range 33–41 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 5K2.7 disruption of a government function was properly applied | Saani argues no direct disruption of government resources occurred. | Government contends disruption is shown by the extensive investigation triggered by concealment. | Upward increase valid; conduct significantly disrupted a governmental function. |
| Whether denial of acceptance of responsibility credit was improper | Saani asserts timely plea and cooperation warranted § 3E1.1 credit. | Government contends denial was proper due to his reluctance to discuss finances and conduct. | Court cannot determine on record whether Fifth Amendment factors tainted § 3E1.1; remand for clarification. |
| Whether Fifth Amendment concerns affected the upward variance under § 3553(a) | Saani contends variance partly based on refusing to disclose funds source violates privilege against self-incrimination. | Government argues variance based on general deterrence and other non-incriminating grounds. | Record suggests Fifth Amendment grounds may have influenced variance; remand to clarify basis. |
| Whether remand to a different judge is necessary | Reported statements by the district judge raise concern about impartiality on remand. | Judge showed understanding and adherence to law; reassignment unnecessary. | No need to reassign; remand to evaluating judge is sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Saro, 24 F.3d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (plain-error review for failure to object to sentencing adjustments)
- United States v. Tann, 532 F.3d 868 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (application of plain-error standard in Guidelines reasoning)
- United States v. Bridges, 175 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (timeliness of plea not automatic § 3E1.1 credit right)
- In re Sealed Case, 350 F.3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (scope of information defendant must provide for acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Hicks, 978 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Fifth Amendment considerations in § 3E1.1)
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1999) (Fifth Amendment protections extend to sentencing phase)
- United States v. Howard, 1996 WL 30781 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (upward adjustment for disruption of governmental function)
- United States v. Burns, 893 F.2d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (disruption-based enhancement under § 5K2.7)
- United States v. Kennedy, 499 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2007) (Fifth Amendment considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Hicks, 978 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ( Fifth Amendment and sentencing guidance)