United States v. Satti

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 15, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-40555
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSAMA HAROON SATTI,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CR-25-ALL
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Osama Haroon Satti appeals his conviction and sentence for
being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm. He argues
that (1) the Government violated the plea agreement, (2) the
district court clearly erred in imposing a four-level enhancement
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) (2003), and (3) the
district court’s non-Guideline sentence was unreasonable.
We review de novo whether the Government’s conduct violated
the terms of the plea agreement, United States v. Saling, 205

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-40555
-2-
F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2000), and hold that the Government’s
conduct was consistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding
of the agreement’s upward-departure notice provision. See United
States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). Satti’s
breach argument therefore fails.
Reviewing the district court’s § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B) enhancement
for clear error, United States v. Creech, 408 F.3d 264, 270 n.2
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 777 (2005), we hold that the
district court’s finding that Satti unlawfully sought to obtain
between eight and twenty-four firearms was plausible in light of
the record as a whole. See § 2K2.1(b)(1)(B), comment. (n.9);
United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230, 238 (5th Cir. 2001).
Finally, the district court followed the proper procedure
for imposing a non-Guideline sentence, and its fact-specific
reasons were consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006).
The length of time that Satti had been illegally residing in this
country at the time of the offense, his desire to obtain numerous
silencers “in the near future,” and his desire to obtain C-4
explosives were not facts taken into account under the
Guidelines. Therefore, his sentence did not produce an
unwarranted disparity and was not unreasonable. See id. at 709.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --