US v. Rohit Jawa

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00239-AJT-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000000888]. [16-4197, 16-4459]

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4197

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROHIT JAWA,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-4459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROHIT JAWA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00239-AJT-1)

Submitted:

December 30, 2016

Decided:

January 10, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 6

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt,
Kevin R. Brehm, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Whitney Dougherty Russell, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Rohit Jawa pled guilty to one count of aggravated identity
theft

and

eight

counts

of

wire

fraud.

The

district

court

sentenced Jawa to 48 months’ imprisonment and entered a general
order of forfeiture.

Jawa now appeals, challenging the district

court’s decision to sustain the Government’s objection to an
additional one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility
under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b) (2015), and
the district court’s finding on the amount of forfeiture.

We

affirm, but remand for correction of the forfeiture order.
Jawa first argues that the district court plainly erred by
allowing

the

Government

to

untimely

object

to

an

additional

one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility that was
contained in the presentence report (PSR).

He also asserts that

the district court plainly erred when it neglected to compel the
Government

to

§ 3E1.1(b).

file
Because

a

motion
Jawa

for

did

not

the

reduction

object

at

the

under

USSG

sentencing

hearing to the untimeliness of the Government’s objection or the
district

court’s

purported

error

in

denying

an

additional

one-level reduction under § 3E1.1(b), we review these issues for
plain error.

To establish plain error, Jawa must demonstrate

that (1) the district court committed an error; (2) the error
was

plain

or

obvious,

“rather

than

subject

to

reasonable

dispute”; (3) the error affected his substantial rights; and
3

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 4 of 6

(4) the error “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
States,

556

U.S.

129,

135

(2009)

Puckett v. United

(citation

and

internal

quotation marks omitted).
Beginning with the timeliness of the Government’s objection
to the third level reduction under § 3E1.1(b), it is unclear
that the Government’s objection was untimely.

Rule 32(f), Fed.

R. Crim. P., requires objections to the PSR to be made, in
writing, within 14 days of receiving the PSR.

The Government

verbally objected at the sentencing hearing, which occurred 10
days after it received the final PSR.
Nevertheless, assuming that the Government failed to comply
with

Fed.

authority
hearing
Given

R.
to

for

Crim.

P.

consider
good

Jawa’s

cause

failure

32(f),
a

“new
under

to

the

district

objection”
Fed.

R.

question

at

Crim.

the

court
the
P.

had

the

sentencing

32(i)(1)(D).

propriety

of

the

Government's objection at the sentencing hearing, “the district
court’s decision to hear the [G]overnment’s objection may be
treated as an implicit finding of the existence of good cause.”
United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2012).
Furthermore, the district court had an independent obligation to
determine

whether

Jawa

was

entitled

to

an

acceptance

of

responsibility reduction, United States v. White, 875 F.2d 427,
431

(4th

Cir.

1989),

and

therefore,
4

any

fault

in

the

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Government’s

Filed: 01/10/2017

objection

is

Pg: 5 of 6

not

a

sufficient

reason

for

us

to

grant Jawa relief, see Aidoo, 670 F.3d at 612 (declining to
exercise
objection

discretion
to

PSR

to

correct

because

any

district

plain
court

error

to

obligation

had

related

to

independently determine issue at sentencing).
Turning to the merits of Jawa’s claim under § 3E1.1(b), the
reduction

should

only

be

granted

by

the

district

court

upon

motion of the government, and the government “retains discretion
to determine whether the defendant’s assistance has relieved it
of preparing for trial” because “the Government is in the best
position” to do so.
346

(4th

omitted).

Cir.

United States v. Divens, 650 F.3d 343, 345,

2011)

(emphasis

and

internal

quotation

marks

However, a district court may compel the government

to file such a motion if it is withheld on improper grounds,
meaning some reason other than the fact that the defendant’s
failure to timely accept responsibility for his offense required
the government to prepare for trial.

Id. at 350.

Here the district court committed no plain error by not
compelling the Government to file a § 3E1.1(b) motion.

The

Government

the

identities

asserted
of

below

certain

that

victims

Jawa

after

denied

his

knowing

arrest,

failed

to

completely identify the accounts or victims that he defrauded,
and generally declined to provide assistance to the Government.
The

Government

also

insists

on
5

appeal

that

Jawa’s

lack

of

Appeal: 16-4197

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/10/2017

Pg: 6 of 6

assistance caused it to expend significant resources to prepare
for trial during the five months between Jawa’s arrest and his
guilty

plea.

Nothing

Government’s assertion.

in

the

record

clearly

contradicts

the

Therefore, even if we were to assume

error, any such error is not correctable on plain error review.
Next, Jawa contends that the district court plainly erred
in arriving at the forfeiture amount.

On appeal, the Government

concedes error and agrees that we should remand for correction
of the forfeiture order to reflect a total amount of $145,866.25
subject to forfeiture.

Because the parties agree that remand is

appropriate on this issue, and our independent review of the
record confirms that remand is proper, we remand for correction
of

the

forfeiture

order

to

reflect

a

total

amount

of

$145,866.25.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, but
remand for correction of the forfeiture order consistent with
this opinion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

6