United States v. Ali Khan

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Ali Khan

571 F. App'x 603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 2014

Docket13-30068

StatusUnpublished

This text of 571 F. App'x 603 (United States v. Ali Khan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Ali Khan, 571 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Ali Dwayne Khan appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Khan also appeals his sentence and the district court’s refusal to award him a downward sentencing adjustment.

During Khan’s trial, the admission of testimony regarding his prior conviction was error. Its erroneous admission is harmless if the “government provides a fair assurance that the error did not substantially sway the verdict.” United States v. Weiland 420 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir.2005). Here, the jury watched a video of the drug transaction which pictured Khan and captured his words; it also heard extensive testimony about Khan’s involvement in the drug transaction. We conclude that the reference to Khan’s status as a felon did not substantially sway the verdict.

We review for clear error the district court’s determination that Khan did not accept responsibility for purposes of a downward sentencing adjustment. United *604 States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1284 (9th Cir.2006). Here, the district court did not commit clear error in refusing to award a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility after considering Khan’s assault on a guard while in custody and his conviction on three counts to which he had pleaded not guilty. The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). The district court articulated its reasons for imposing Khan’s sentence and these reasons are not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that can be drawn from the record. See id., n. 8. The district court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Ali Dwayne Khan appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute; possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; and possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Khan also appeals his sentence and the district court’s refusal to award him a downward sentencing adjustment.

During Khan’s trial, the admission of testimony regarding his prior conviction was error. Its erroneous admission is harmless if the “government provides a fair assurance that the error did not substantially sway the verdict.” United States v. Weiland 420 F.3d 1062, 1078 (9th Cir.2005). Here, the jury watched a video of the drug transaction which pictured Khan and captured his words; it also heard extensive testimony about Khan’s involvement in the drug transaction. We conclude that the reference to Khan’s status as a felon did not substantially sway the verdict.

We review for clear error the district court’s determination that Khan did not accept responsibility for purposes of a downward sentencing adjustment. United *604 States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1284 (9th Cir.2006). Here, the district court did not commit clear error in refusing to award a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility after considering Khan’s assault on a guard while in custody and his conviction on three counts to which he had pleaded not guilty. The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069, 1086 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc). The district court articulated its reasons for imposing Khan’s sentence and these reasons are not illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that can be drawn from the record. See id., n. 8. The district court did not abuse its discretion. We therefore affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 F. App'x 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ali-khan-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack