U.S. v. Ibrahim, 07-50153 (9^th Cir., April 14, 2008)

Defendant Tamer Ibrahim was a suspect in an ecstasy distribution ring. And a lucrative one at that. When police raided his apartment, they found $221,000 in a safe, $240,000 in a bag outside the apartment, and almost $30,000 scattered around the apartment. They also found some money on top of a dresser. After Ibrahim was convicted for his role in the drug ring, his presentencing report stated that the amount on top of the dresser was $485,000. Ibrahim’s sentence was calculated based on this amount, and the government then proceeded to forfeit the seized cash.

But the government mistakenly sent the forfeiture notice to Ibrahim’s brother, so the defendant later filed a motion to have his money returned on the ground that he did not receive adequate notice of the forfeiture. The district court granted summary judgment for the government, concluding that Ibrahim likely had actual notice, since his brother or their shared lawyer undoubtedly told him about the forfeiture action. On appeal, the Ninth reverses, concluding that the district court erred in dismissing Ibrahim’s claims at the summary judgment stage.

That brings us to the next issue: Ibrahim wants all the money listed in the presentencing report, including the $485,000 supposedly found on the dresser. But the government argues that this was a typo, and that they only found $485 on the dresser. Big difference. Ibrahim argued that the government is now judicially estopped from correcting this typo for asset return purposes, since the larger figure was used in his sentencing. But the Ninth rejects this argument. Ibrahim may be entitled to sentencing relief, but he is certainly not entitled to a $484,515 windfall resulting from a typo. Nice try, though.

Posted Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:20:13 and filed under Civ Pro, Sentencing, Decision of the Day. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.