United States v. Zaman
689 F. App'x 28
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Mahabubuz Zaman was convicted after a jury trial of: conspiracy to commit bank fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349), conspiracy to commit identity fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028(f)), and using a false passport (18 U.S.C. § 1543).
- The scheme involved creating sham companies and bank accounts, depositing counterfeit checks, and withdrawing funds before banks detected the fraud.
- At sentencing the district court imposed an 88-month prison term, three years’ supervised release, $300 assessment, $2,638,700.30 in restitution, and the same amount in forfeiture.
- The district court applied a four-level leadership-role enhancement and an 18-level enhancement for loss amount under the Guidelines.
- Zaman appealed, arguing the leadership enhancement and the loss attributable to him were improper and that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court properly applied a 4-level leadership enhancement | Gov't: court correctly found Zaman organized and directed jobs and exercised control | Zaman: court failed to consider exculpatory evidence and overstated his leadership | Affirmed: court considered relevant factors and found by preponderance that Zaman was a leader |
| Whether entire loss amount was attributable/foreseeable to Zaman | Gov't: as leader, Zaman is liable for all reasonably foreseeable acts and losses of co-conspirators | Zaman: not all losses were foreseeable to him | Affirmed: leader liability and foreseeability supported loss finding |
| Whether sentencing was procedurally unreasonable overall | Gov't: sentence procedurally sound and properly explained | Zaman: procedural errors in Guidelines application and factfinding | Affirmed: no procedural error found |
| Any other challenged arguments on appeal | N/A | Various other arguments raised by Zaman | Rejected as without merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Friedberg v. United States, 558 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- Cossey v. United States, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011) (examples of procedural sentencing error)
- Beaulieu v. United States, 959 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1992) (factors for leader-role enhancement)
- Brennan v. United States, 395 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review and burden for loss findings)
- Molina v. United States, 106 F.3d 1118 (2d Cir. 1997) (relevant-conduct foreseeability for conspirators)