United States v. Tijani Saani, 794 F.3d 44

Tijani Ahmed Saani, a U.S. Air Force contract specialist in Kuwait, spent about $2.4 million more than known income from 2003–2006 and was indicted for filing false tax returns for 2003–2007.
Saani pled guilty to five counts of filing false tax returns without a plea agreement; indictment did not allege source of unreported funds.
At initial sentencing the district court denied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, citing Saani’s refusal to be forthcoming with Probation about his finances.
The court imposed an upward variance from the Guidelines (recommended 78–97 months) to 110 months, and imposed the maximum fine.
This Court in United States v. Saani, 650 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2011) vacated and remanded because the record did not make clear whether the district court impermissibly relied on Saani’s silence about the source of funds.
On remand the district court again sentenced Saani to 110 months, expressly stating refusal to disclose the source of funds did not influence its decisions; Saani appealed and this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in denying § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility credit	Saani: his guilty plea and prior admissions warranted the reduction; he should not be penalized for invoking Fifth Amendment about source of other funds	Govt/District: denial was proper because Saani failed to admit underreporting and was not candid with Probation; prior decision resolved this	Denied — law of the case: prior panel decision upheld denial; Fifth Amendment challenge forfeited on earlier appeal; no plain-error relief shown
Whether upward variance (to 110 mos.) was improperly based on Saani's refusal to disclose source of funds (self-incrimination claim)	Saani: upward variance was tainted if based on punishment for silence; also contends deterrence of other misconduct (manipulating contracts) is not a valid basis for higher tax sentence	Govt/District: variance was based on deterrence of tax evasion by officials entrusted with public funds, a permissible sentencing objective	Affirmed — district court on remand clarified it relied on deterrence (a permissible reason); no plain error because remand cured ambiguity

United States v. Saani, 650 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (prior panel vacated sentence and remanded to clarify whether silence about source of funds infected sentencing)
United States v. Brice, 748 F.3d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (failure to raise an argument on initial appeal forfeits it)
Yesudian ex rel. United States v. Howard Univ., 270 F.3d 969 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (law-of-the-case doctrine bars relitigation of issues decided on prior appeal)
United States v. Ginyard, 215 F.3d 83 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (plain-error review applies where defendant fails to object at re-sentencing)
In re Sealed Case No. 98-3116, 199 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (discussion of appellate standards for review when objections are not preserved)
United States v. Pinnick, 47 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (guidance on reviewing sentencing determinations and preservation of objections)