Filed: Jan. 14, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-14-2005 USA v. Abuhouran Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1393 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. Abuhouran" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1564. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1564 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the Unite
Summary: Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-14-2005 USA v. Abuhouran Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-1393 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "USA v. Abuhouran" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1564. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1564 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United..
More
Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-14-2005
USA v. Abuhouran
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-1393
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Abuhouran" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1564.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1564
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-1393
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
AKTHAM ABUHOURAN a/k/a HOURAN
Aktham Abuhouran,
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Criminal No. 01-cr-00629-3)
District Judge: The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
___________
ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 2004
BEFORE: NYGAARD, ROSENN, and BECKER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed January 14, 2005)
Jerry S. Goldman, Esq. (Argued)
Jerry S. Goldman & Associates
1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
Two Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1411
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Appellant
Robert A. Zauzmer, Esq. (Argued)
Office of the United States Attorney
Suite 1250
615 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Counsel for Appellee
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Aktham Abuhouran, appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to one
count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, mail fraud and obstruction of justice.
Determinative here, however, is an appellate waiver in Abuhouran’s plea agreement,
upon which the government has moved to dismiss the appeal. We will grant the motion
and dismiss the appeal.
Abuhouran was involved in two bank fraud schemes. The first, which is not the
subject of this appeal, involved frauds perpetrated on the Bank of the Brandywine Valley
2
(BBV) in 1990 and 1991. Abuhouran was tried, convicted and sentenced for his part in
this scheme.
Germane to this appeal, is a counterfeit check scheme that Abuhouran perpetrated
while he was released on an electronic monitor between his conviction and sentencing in
the BBV case. He, his wife and brother Adam Abuhouran deposited over $2.5 million in
counterfeit checks into accounts they controlled in six banks. After making various
transfers designed to conceal the fraud, they then asked that the funds be wired to
accounts in Jordan. Only one bank actually wired the funds. At the request of
Abuhouran’s wife, PNC Bank wired $185,000 to an account in Jordan in the name of
Tony Abuhouran.
They then cut their electronic monitoring bracelets and attempted to flee the
country. Appellant’s brother, sister, wife and children were successful and fled to Jordan,
but Abuhouran was apprehended at Kennedy Airport.
A week later, Abuhouran was sentenced on his conviction in the BBV scheme. He
was later indicted with one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and obstruct justice, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and three counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1241.
Abuhouran and the Government entered into a plea agreement in which the
Government agreed to dismiss the mail fraud charges and Abuhouran agreed to plead
guilty to the conspiracy charge and agreed:
3
In exchange for the undertakings made by the government in entering this
plea agreement, the defendant voluntarily and expressly waives all rights to
appeal or collaterally attack the defendant’s conviction, sentence, or any
other matter relating to this prosecution, whether such a right to appeal or
collateral attack arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, or any other provision of law.
(App. at 9). The agreement provided two instances in which Abuhouran could appeal his
sentence, neither applies here.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Government was required to recommend
that all but 24 months of the 60-month sentence run concurrent with the BBV sentence.
The Government was not required to make this recommendation, however, if Abuhouran
failed to meet certain conditions. Specifically, Abuhouran was required to take all steps
“within his power” to assure the return of the funds to PNC Bank. Failure to return the
funds relieved the Government of its obligation under the agreement. 1
1 The provision stated: “8. The defendant agrees that, as a condition of this plea
agreement, he is obligated to take all steps, within his power, to assure that $185,000
which was wired from PNC Bank to an account in the defendant’s name at Arab Jordan
Investment Bank on August 14, 1997 is returned to the custody of PNC Bank (“PNC”)
prior to the date of sentencing in this case, including, without limitation, executing any
documentation reasonably required to secure such release, communicating with counsel
and other third parties of his position, withdrawing any pending litigation or appeal, not
filing any new litigation or soliciting or encouraging others to file new litigation, and fully
cooperating with counsel for PNC. . . . The defendant agrees to make every effort to
assure that Nasim Hattar, Izdehar Abuhouran, and any other person acting on the
defendant’s behalf or on behalf of Nasim Hattar and Izdehar Abuhouran, including
counsel, will likewise take all necessary steps to return the $185,000 to PNC. The
defendant agrees that if all of this money is not returned to PNC prior to the date of
sentencing, the government may declare a partial breach of this plea agreement, and is
relieved of its consent in this agreement to recommend that part of the 60 month sentence
(continued...)
4
The money was never returned. Abuhouran did sign legal documents releasing
any claim to the funds and did instruct his attorney in Jordan to end legal action to
retrieve the funds. 2 When PNC Bank attempted to claim the money, however, they
discovered that the money was no longer in the possession of the courts in Jordan. As a
result of a lawsuit against Abuhouran, the Jordan Court had released the money to a third
party. The Government contends that this third party was Abuhouran’s brother Adam.
The District Court found that because Abuhouran had breached the plea agreement, the
Government was not required to recommend the sentence provided for by the plea
agreement. The District Court found that Abuhouran did nothing to determine whether
Adam had the money or to convince Adam to return the funds; thus, he had not taken all
steps within his power to secure the return of the money. Thus, the District Court adopted
the Government’s recommendation and imposed a 60-month sentence, 42 months to run
consecutively with the BBV sentence and 18 months concurrently.
If an appellate waiver is entered into knowingly and voluntarily, it is a permissible
negotiating tool. Such a waiver is impermissible only when enforcing the waiver would
amount to a miscarriage of justice. In United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557, 563 (3d.
1 (...continued)
provided by this agreement run partially concurrently with the other federal sentence the
defendant is serving.” (App. at 7-8).
2 In legal proceedings regarding ownership of the funds, Abuhouran and his family
claimed the money belonged to them. PNC Bank claimed that the money was rightfully
theirs.
5
Cir. 2001), we adopted a series of factors initially set forth by the Court of Appeals for
First Circuit in United States v. Teeter, 257 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2001). The six factors we
must consider in determining whether a miscarriage of justice results by enforcing a
waiver are: (1) the clarity of the error, (2) the gravity of the error, (3) the character of the
error, (4) the impact of the error on the defendant, (5) the impact of correcting the error
on the Government and (6) the extent to which the defendant acquiesced in the result.
Khattak, 273 F.3d at 565 (citing Teeter,
257 F.3d 14).
All the Khattak factors presuppose error. We find none. First, the District Court
held a hearing and made factual findings that support the sentence imposed. Second,
Abuhouran still reaped the benefit of his plea bargain—the mail fraud charges were
dropped and he was given 18 months concurrent time. Third, the character of any error
would be in the District Court’s factual findings, in which we find no error. Fourth, even
had the court erred, Abuhouran still reaped the benefit of the bargain. Fifth, the impact
on the Government is that it would lose the benefit of its bargain— the waiver clause.
Finally, as to acquiescence, this issue was anticipated by Abuhouran. When Abuhouran
expressed his concern about what would happen if his reasonable actions were not
enough, the judge stated, “you are in the horns of the dilemma and if you don’t want to
take that step, we can go to trial on the matter.” (Sentencing Trans. at 16).
Finally, we note that a defendant who signs an appellate waiver may nonetheless
appeal if the government breaches its obligations under the plea agreement. United States
6
v. Moscahlaidis, 868 F.2d 1357 (3d Cir. 1989). This is not such a case. Here, the District
Court concluded, and we agree, that the Government did not breach its obligations under
the plea agreement. Because the government fulfilled its obligations under the terms of
the plea agreement, and it would not be unjust to enforce the appellate waiver, the
Government’s motion to enforce the appellate waiver and dismiss the appeal is granted.
7
