Bah v. United States of America

Filing 12

ORDER overruling Movant's 10 objections; and adopting the Magistrate Judge's 9 Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court; denying Movant's 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; directing that no Certificate of Appelability should issue; and denying in forma pauperis status on appeal. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 9/22/2015. (jah) Modified on 9/22/2015 (jah).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
MOHAMMED BAH,
Movant,

v.

)
Case No. CV615-002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)

(underlying CR613-010)

Respondent.
ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with

the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, doc. 8, to which

objections have been filed.

Doc. 10.

Accordingly, the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion
of the Court.

Bah's relevant objections1 don't differ in any significant respect

from his original 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion's arguments. Both boil down

1 Bah includes much irrelevant material that strikes at other "issues." See, e.g.,

doc. 46 at 4 (concluding that "the heart of the matter" is the principle that "loss
generally does not include sums that a victim would have paid to the defendant
absent the fraud"); id. at 5 (discussing "government benefits fraud" loss calculations
under the Guidelines); id. at 6 ("The sentencing court, then, should have determined

whether and to what extent legitimate claims were embedded in the fraud."). None
of those "issues," however, has the slightest relevance to Bah's sentencing, the
Court's Guidelines calculation, or his counsel's performance. Bah stole credit cards,

to his displeasure with the Court using intended loss instead of actual
loss in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range. See, e.g., doc. 46 at

1-2 ("Here nothing concludes that defendant knew the amount of the
credit cards so he could be held for the loss."). As the Magistrate Judge
made clear, however, the Guidelines recommend enhancing sentences

in fraud cases based on "the greater of actual loss or intended loss".

Doc. 9 at 4 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(l) & cmt. 3(A)).
The intended loss -- which in circumstances like those present

here may be measured by the total line of credit accessible, see United
States v. NosratiShamloo, 255 F.3d 1290, 1291 (llth Cir. 2001) - was

greater than the actual loss and accordingly used in calculating Bah's
Guidelines range. The Court did not err in doing so and Bah's trial
counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by declining to object on
that basis. Bah's objection therefore has no merit.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this ^?<PA<May of

cX^>A^.. 2015.
HONORABfcK J. RANDAL HALL

UNITED SPATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

not government benefits, and none of his conduct could be construed as "legitimate."
His objections on those grounds are baseless and thus OVERRULED.