US v. Isaac Hashi

Filing 920090316

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4742 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ISAAC ABDI HASHI, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00095-CMC-1) Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 16, 2009 Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Isaac Abdi Hashi pled guilty to assault on a federal officer by means of a dangerous weapon, 18 U.S.C.A. 111(a), (b) (West Supp. 2008), and was sentenced to a term of 210 months imprisonment. district court Hashi appeals his sentence, contending that the clearly erred in finding that his offense involved more than minimal planning. We affirm. Hashi was in federal custody awaiting deportation when he spoke with Deportation Officer Norman Bradley about his case. Bradley then left Hashi's cell to talk with other detainees. Hashi mixed a solution of baby oil, hand lotion, and water in a cup and heated it in a microwave. He took this to where Bradley was talking to a detainee and threw the hot, oily mixture in Bradley's face. Bradley suffered burns to 80% of the cornea in his left eye, severe cornea abrasion, and second degree burns to his face. When Hashi was interviewed immediately after the attack, he calmly explained how he mixed the solution, heated it, and threw it on Bradley. In a subsequent interview, Hashi said he had planned the attack because he was angry at all immigration officers. In sentencing Hashi, the district court found that the offense involved more than minimal planning because Hashi's The conduct amounted to more than a simple form of assault. court found that the attack was planned, rather than impulsive, 2 and that the combination of ingredients Hashi used made the burn more serious. The sentencing court's factual determination that the offense involved more than minimal planning is reviewed for clear error. 1995). minimal United States v. Pearce, 65 F.3d 22, 26 (4th Cir. Application Note 2 to USSG 2A2.2 defines more than planning as "more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form." The Note explains that waiting to assault the victim when no witnesses are present is an example of minimal planning, while luring the victim to a particular place for the purpose of attacking him or concealing the defendant's identity are examples of more than minimal planning. Hashi argues that his offense was essentially spontaneous, that he used only materials that were supplied to him and made no effort to conceal his conduct, and that his case is thus distinguishable from other cases in which the defendant made more elaborate preparations for an assault. We note that undisputed information in the presentence report indicated that Hashi's decision to combine and heat several substances together created a substance more harmful than any of the ingredients would have been if used separately. The record does not establish with certainty that Hashi anticipated this result, but his conduct indicates something 3 more than minimal planning. Therefore, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in deciding that Hashi's actions constituted more than minimal planning. Accordingly, district facts court. legal before We we affirm the sentence imposed by the the the the dispense with are oral argument because in aid and contentions the court adequately argument presented not materials and would decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?