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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?