USA v. Hassan Jamal Elsaddique, No. 07-12316 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT NOV 02, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 07-12316 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 07-00039-CR-JTC-1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus HASSAN JAMAL ELSADDIQUE, a.k.a. Ricky Eugene Austin, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (November 2, 2007) Before BIRCH, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Hassan Jamal Elsaddique appeals his fourteen-month sentence for using a false name in a firearms application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Elsaddique argues that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable because: (1) the court improperly treated his long employment history involving twenty-five different employers in ten different states between 1996 and 2005 as an aggravating factor; and (2) there was no need to imprison him at all because there was no victim, he has only an old and relatively minor criminal history, and a prison sentence would destroy his new forward progress. After United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), we review a defendant s sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005). [A] sentence may be reviewed for procedural or substantive unreasonableness. A sentence may be unreasonable if it is the product of a procedure that does not follow Booker s requirements, regardless of the actual sentence. Additionally, a sentence may be substantively unreasonable, regardless of the procedure used. United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006). [T]he party who challenges the sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable, in light of both the record and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Elsaddique first argues that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable 2 because the district court s comments, which focused on his lengthy employment history and missed opportunities, indicate that it had relied on an inappropriate aggravating factor to sentence him within the guideline range. However, one of the § 3553(a) factors requires the court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Elsaddique s employment history and series of missed opportunities fit squarely within this factor, and therefore it was reasonable for the district court to consider them in deciding not to vary from the guideline range. Elsaddique also contends that the fourteen-month sentence imposed by the district court was substantively unreasonable because: (1) there was no victim; (2) his criminal history was old and relatively minor; and (3) his youth, shattered dreams of playing professional basketball, ultimate discovery of the music business, and the birth of his daughter, all show that a prison sentence will only destroy his new forward progress. This argument, however, ignores the seriousness of the offense here. Whether or not there was a victim, Elsaddique used a false name to purchase three firearms. The act alone created a significant danger to the public, which is only increased by the possibility that he made the purchase on someone else s behalf someone who may have had a more serious and more recent criminal history. Moreover, the court s sentence was within the 3 guideline range of twelve to eighteen months, and it was well below the statutory maximum of five years imprisonment. It was therefore reasonable for the district court to sentence Elsaddique to fourteen months imprisonment. AFFIRMED. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
