United States v. Sihai Cheng
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3728
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Between 2009–2011 Cheng caused at least 1,185 MKS Model 722A pressure transducers to be exported from the U.S. to Iran via China, concealing serial numbers and repackaging to evade export controls.
- Cheng participated in ordering, obtaining fraudulent U.S. export licenses, and coordinating a multi-country procurement/shipping network; he knew the transducers would be used in Iran's uranium enrichment.
- Extradited from the U.K., Cheng pleaded guilty to six counts: conspiracy to commit export violations (50 U.S.C. § 1705), conspiracy to smuggle (18 U.S.C. § 371), and four unlawful export counts.
- The parties agreed U.S.S.G. §2M5.1 applied; with a 3-level acceptance reduction Cheng’s guideline range was 46–57 months (offense level 23, CHC I).
- The district court applied a 6-level upward departure under Application Note 2 to §2M5.1 (extreme threat to U.S. security, volume, sophistication, multiple occurrences), raising the offense level to 29 and imposing a 108-month sentence.
- Cheng appealed as to substantive reasonableness, arguing the departure was improper (including impermissible double-counting), his sentence was disparate compared to others, and the sentence was greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Cheng) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an upward departure under Application Note 2 to §2M5.1 was permissible here | District court properly relied on extreme degree of threat, volume, planning, sophistication and multiple occurrences to depart upward | Departure improper because planning/sophistication not "extreme" and departure double-counted national-security concern already considered in base offense level | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; planning/sophistication supported departure and Guidelines permit considering the same factor for base level and departure (no impermissible double-counting) |
| Whether Cheng’s sentence was substantively unreasonable due to disparity with co‑defendants and other cases | Sentence reasonable given Cheng’s central, knowing role and threat to U.S. security | Sentence disproportionate because some co-conspirators faced no or lesser consequences and other defendants received shorter sentences | Affirmed: disparity arguments fail—co-defendants not similarly situated; cited comparator cases distinguishable on facts (fewer items, less sensitive items, different end-users) |
| Whether 108 months was greater than necessary under § 3553(a) (including deterrence) | Need for deterrence and protection of national security justified court’s weighing and sentence | Sentence excessive for deterrence and rehabilitation; defendant motivated by profit | Affirmed: district court adequately considered § 3553(a), gave detailed findings, and reasonably weighed deterrence and other factors; sentence not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (two-step reasonableness inquiry and deference to sentencing discretion)
- United States v. Zavala-Martí, 715 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive review)
- United States v. Nuñez, 840 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2016) (discussion of review standard for unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 1994) (double-counting principles and caution about implying prohibitions)
- United States v. Sepúlveda-Hernández, 817 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2016) (permissible reliance on a fact for multiple sentencing purposes)
- United States v. Wallace, 573 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2009) (defendant not entitled to lighter sentence because co-defendants received lighter sentences)
- United States v. Marceau, 554 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (same principle on co-defendant disparity)
- United States v. Ayala-Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (national disparity considerations)
- United States v. Reyes-Rivera, 812 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2016) (disparity review requires similar factual ‘camp’)
- United States v. Garcia-Ortiz, 792 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2015) (comparator must be in same camp)
- United States v. Arroyo-Maldonado, 791 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2015) (adequacy of district court’s §3553(a) explanation)
- United States v. Díaz-Arroyo, 797 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2015) (deterrence as important sentencing factor)
- United States v. Madsen, 809 F.3d 712 (1st Cir. 2016) (court may consider gravity and prevalence of the crime)
- United States v. Carrasco-de-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (defendant entitled to weighing, not a particular result)