Government Responds To Akram Musa Abdallah's Objections

Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 75

1 2 3 4 5 6

Filed 11/20/09 Page 1 of 3

DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona DAVID A. PIMSNER Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar No. 007480 Telephone (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

7 8 9 10

BARRY JONAS Trial Attorney Counter Terrorism Section Department of Justice 10th and Constitution Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20530 [email protected]

11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 14 15

United States of America, CR-08-0947-PHX-NVW

16 17 18 19 20 21

Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT

v. Akram Musa Abdallah, a.k.a. Abu Saiaf, Defendant.

The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to

22 the defendant’s objections to the Presentence Report. 23

In effect, the defendant only objects to the probation officer’s sentencing

24 recommendation. He does not object to the facts contained therein or to the guideline 25 calculation. The government requests that the Court adopt the offense conduct as it contains an 26 accurate rendition of the facts. Additionally, the government asserts that the Presentence Report 27 correctly calculates the recommended guideline range, pursuant to the United Stated Sentencing 28 Commission Guidelines. As such, the guideline calculation should also be adopted.

Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 75

1

Filed 11/20/09 Page 2 of 3

Moreover, defendant’s reliance on Booker and Gall is misplaced. Consistent with those

2 cases, it is the duty of the Court, and not the probation officer, to conduct the analysis and 3 sentence the defendant to a reasonable sentence consistent with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 4 § 3553. Furthermore, the probation Officer did not error in identifying that an eight-level 5 departure would be required in order to impose a guideline sentence consistent with the terms 6 of the plea agreement. In all, the objections are unfounded and are more properly characterized 7 as argument, to be addressed at the time of sentencing. 8

However, notwithstanding the Presentence Report’s recommendation, the government

9 believes that a sentence within an 18 to 24 month range is appropriate based on the facts and 10 circumstances of the case, in that it will provide just punishment and promote respect for the law, 11 as prescribed by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Respectfully submitted this 20th day of November, 2009.

12 13

DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney District of Arizona

14 15 16

s/ David A. Pimsner DAVID A. PIMSNER Assistant U.S. Attorney

17 18

s/ Barry Jonas BARRY JONAS Trial Attorney Department of Justice

19 20 21 // 22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 28

2

Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 75

Filed 11/20/09 Page 3 of 3

1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 I hereby certify that on November 20, 2009, I electronically transmitted the attached

4 document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal

5 of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant:

6 Joseph Shemaria 7 1801 Century Park East; Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90067 8 s/ David A. Pimsner 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3