UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4666
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL QUEEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-4704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SOUFIAN AMRI,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00050-LMB-1; 1:17-cr-00050-
LMB-2)
Submitted: September 28, 2018 Decided: October 4, 2018
Before MOTZ, AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cary Citronberg, ZWERLING/CITRONBERG, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia; Dontae L.
Bugg, BUGG LAW FIRM PLLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellants. Joseph Attias,
National Security Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C.; Tracy Doherty-McCormick, Acting United States Attorney, Gordon D.
Kromberg, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Soufian Amri and Michael Queen appeal their
convictions and resulting 24-month sentences imposed following a bench trial on
conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), obstruction of justice, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) (2012), and false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)
(2012). On appeal, Amri and Queen challenge the district court’s reliance on evidence
outside the stipulated record and the sufficiency of the evidence underlying their
convictions, along with the district court’s decisions to deny Amri’s motion to suppress
and to apply a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for the federal crime of terrorism
pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3A1.4(a) (2016).
“This Court reviews evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will only
overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.” United States v. Cone, 714
F.3d 197, 219 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore,
“[e]videntiary rulings are subject to harmless error review.” United States v. McLean, 715
F.3d 129, 143 (4th Cir. 2013). To find an error harmless, “we need only say with fair
assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from
the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
We first conclude that the district court did not err when it cited Amri’s education
level and business background in its memorandum opinion. We reject the contention that
this constitutes a structural error and find any such error harmless in light of the stipulated
3
evidence. Relatedly, we conclude that the stipulated evidence sufficiently supported each
of the convictions.
Next, we consider Amri’s challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress. When
reviewing a district court’s decision on a motion to suppress, we examine “the court’s
factual findings for clear error” and “its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v.
Kehoe, 893 F.3d 232, 237 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on
our independent review of the record, we perceive no error in the district court’s ruling.
Regarding the sentences imposed, we review any sentence, “whether inside, just
outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range,” through a “deferential abuse-of-
discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). We must first “ensure
that the district court committed no significant procedural error.” Id. at 51. “If, and only
if, we find the sentence procedurally reasonable can we consider the substantive
reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Federal sentencing law requires the district judge in every case to impose ‘a sentence
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with’ the purposes of federal
sentencing, in light of the Guidelines and other [sentencing] factors.” Freeman v. United
States, 564 U.S. 522, 529 (2011) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012)).
Nonetheless, “it is unnecessary to vacate a sentence based on an asserted guidelines
calculation error if we can determine from the record that the asserted error is harmless.”
United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 208
(2017). “To apply this ‘assumed error harmlessness inquiry’ we require (1) knowledge
4
that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the
guidelines issue the other way and (2) a determination that the sentence would be
reasonable even if the guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Regarding the first prong, the record makes clear that the district court would have
imposed the same sentence on Queen and Amri absent the disputed sentence enhancement.
Indeed, the district court observed that the terrorism enhancement “threw the guidelines
into outer space,” and the court essentially disregarded the enhancement during the
sentencing phase. (J.A. 397). * Rather, the district court imposed on Queen a “variant
sentence” well below the Guidelines range because the “guidelines [were] way too high
given [Queen’s] background and given the actual things” he did. (J.A. 409). Similarly,
the district court imposed on Amri a sentence far below the Guidelines range because the
terrorism enhancement made the range “ridiculous in terms of what is involved in this
particular case.” (J.A. 424-25, 431-32).
Regarding the second prong, we find the 24-month sentences imposed on Queen
and Amri substantively reasonable. The district court adequately explained its sentences
as required under § 3553(a). The district court detailed the reasons compelling the
sentences, namely the need for deterrence and the serious nature of the offenses. Because
the district court made it clear that it would have given Queen and Amri the same sentence
*
“J.A.” refers to Joint Appendix.
5
if the terrorism enhancement did not apply and the sentences imposed were substantively
reasonable, any alleged Guidelines calculation error is harmless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. 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
6