United States v. Zeaiter, No. 16-4066 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseDefendants challenged their sentences after being convicted of various crimes related to their involvement in a scheme to purchase and ship firearms to Lebanon for resale. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Defendant Ali was an organizer or leader of the conspiracy and by imposing a ten-level sentencing enhancement after finding that his offense conduct involved 200 or more firearms; the district court did not clearly err in denying acceptance of responsibility to Ali in light of his attempt to minimize his conduct and his frivolous objections to his relevant conduct; and Ali's sentence was substantively reasonable. The court held that the district court did not err by imposing a three-level sentence enhancement based on Defendant Bassem's role as a manager or supervisor or by finding that the conspiracy was otherwise extensive; the district court did not err in denying Bassem's motion to hold a hearing and in refusing to compel the government to file a substantial assistance motion; and Bassem's sentence was substantively reasonable. Finally, the court held that the district court did not err in denying Defendant Zeaiter a three-level mitigating role adjustment and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her a downward variance.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Colloton and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in imposing a four-level enhancement against defendant Ali under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(a) for his leadership or organizer role in the offense; no error in imposing a ten-level enhancement against Ali under Guidelines Sec. 2K2.1(b)(1)(E) because the offense involved more than two hundred firearms; the court did not err in denying Ali's request for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1(a) as he made frivolous objections to the PSR and attempted to minimize his conduct; Ali's below-guidelines range sentence was not substantively unreasonable; the district court did not err in imposing a three-level manager/supervisor enhancement against defendant Herz under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b); Herz has failed to show that the government's decision not to file a substantial assistance motion was based on an unconstitutional motive or was not rationally related to any legitimate government end; defendant Bassem's sentence was not substantively unreasonable; no error in denying defendant Zeaitner's motion for a three-level mitigating role adjustment under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2 cmt. n.3; nor did the court err in denying her motion for a downward variance.
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.