United States v. Amirhossein Sairafi

MEMORANDUM *** Amirhossein Sairafi appeals his sentence, which followed his guilty plea to conspiracy to violate and violation of the laws prohibiting transactions with Iran, 1 and to money laundering. 2 We affirm. Sairafi asserts that his sentence was unconstitutional because the guideline calculation relied upon a guideline which is unconstitutionally vague. See USSG § 2M5.1(a)(l). 3 While Sairafi did generally waive his right to appeal his sentence, he reserved the right to appeal that sen-fence on the ground of unconstitutionality, 4 and a claim of unconstitutional guideline vagueness is a cognizable claims. 5 To prevail, Sairafi must demonstrate that the guideline’s reference to “national security controls” 6 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. 7 That he is unable to do. The statutes make it clear that the President can declare that another country is an “unusual and extraordinary threat ... to the national security,” 8 and that doing so can lead to trade restrictions and export controls regarding the country in question. 9 A number of presidents have made that very determination about Iran, 10 and regulations which prohibit the sale or supply of “any goods, technology, or services” to that country, without a license, 11 have been, issued. The scope, purposes and bases of those determinations and regulations are pellucid. See United States v. Mousavi, 604 F.3d 1084, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2010); Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933-35 (9th Cir.2005); see also Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 578 F.3d 1133, 1139-40 (9th Cir.2009). Put *823 another way, the guideline did not fail “to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that it would apply to the conduct contemplated.” Johnson, 130 F.3d at 1354. Because of that lucency, Sairafi, who knew that he was evading export restrictions, cannot succeed on his vagueness claim. 12 AFFIRMED. Footnotes [***] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. [1] See 18 U.S.C. § 371; see also 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701-06; 31 C.F.R. § 560.204. [2] See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A). [3] All references to the sentencing guidelines are to the November 1, 2010, version. [4] See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir.2009); United States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Johnson, 130 F.3d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1997). [5] Johnson, 130 F.3d at 1354; United States v. Gallagher, 99 F.3d 329, 334 (9th Cir.1996). [6] USSG § 2M5.1(a)(1). [7] See Johnson, 130 F.3d at 1354. [8] 50 U.S.C. § 1701(a). [9] Id. at § 1702(a)(1)(B); see also id. § 1704; 50 U.S.C. app. § 2404. [10] See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13,059, Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Iran, 62 Fed.Reg. 44,531, 44,531 (Aug. 19, 1997); Presidential Notice, Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran, 75 Fed.Reg. 12, 117 (Mar. 10, 2010); see also Exec. Order No. 12,959, Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Iran, 60 Fed.Reg. 24,757, 24,757 (May 6, 1995); Exec. Order No. 12,957, Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources, 60 Fed.Reg. 14,615, 14,615 (Mar. 15, 1995). [11] See 31 C.F.R. § 560.204; see also id. § 560.203. [12] Incidentally, the district court did consider the nature of the goods improperly exported when it decided to grant Sairafi a downward variance from the Guideline range.