579 F. App'x 485
6th Cir.2014Background
- Safeen Sadiq and co-conspirator obtained and used credit cards in others’ names; Sadiq pled guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and was sentenced to 21 months.
- Plea agreement stated restitution, dismissal of other charges, and that the district court would determine sentencing factors; it included waivers and no fixed guideline range.
- Sadiq admitted fictitious employment and addresses for two victims and used cards for cash advances and purchases; total loss estimated at $166,726.71.
- Presentence report set offense level at 15 with a 10-point loss enhancement and a Guideline range of 18–24 months; objections were raised to loss amount and minor-role adjustment.
- District court overruled loss objections, declined acceptance of responsibility, and issued a within-range sentence of 27–33 months but sentenced to 21 months; restitution of $166,726.71 and $100 special assessment.
- Sadiq moved to withdraw plea, to amend sentence under Rule 35(a), to seal pleadings, and for an extension; notice of appeal filed before district court ruled on these motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review plea-withdrawal denial | Sadiq (Sadiq) appeals denial despite premature notice | Court properly denied withdrawal after sentencing; appeal timing defective | We lack jurisdiction; premature appeal aborts review of withdrawal motion |
| Acceptance of responsibility | Sadiq entitled to 2–3 level reduction for acceptance | Declined due to lack of genuine acceptance; statements conflicted with plea and conduct | District court did not clearly err; no acceptance-of-responsibility reduction |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Immigration status and deportation considerations warrant downward variance | Court considered § 3553 factors; deportation not a basis for variance | No abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable under § 3553 factors |
| Rule 35(a) resentencing motion | Argued reframing restitution and deportation factors merited correction | No arithmetical/technical error; factors improperly raised as errors | District court correctly denied Rule 35(a); no clear error |
| Seal of pleadings and related motions | Record confidentiality and safety concerns warrant sealing | No substantive basis; timing issue with notice of appeal | We lack jurisdiction to review denial of sealing; appeal timing defective |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bonahoom, 484 F.3d 1003 (8th Cir. 2007) (premature appeal limits review of post-plea motions)
- United States v. Vasquez, 121 F. App’x 17 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished; premature notice of appeal restricts review)
- United States v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir. 1990) (acceptance of responsibility judged by district court with deference)
- United States v. Genschow, 645 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2011) (clear-error standard for acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Arroyo, 434 F.3d 835 (6th Cir. 2006) (immigration status not a basis for downward variance)
- United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (Rule 35(a) corrections are narrow and limited)
- United States v. Ortiz, 741 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2014) (post-appeal Rule 35(a) disposition requires amending notice to appeal)