## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Rami Ikbal Saba for kidnapping Donald Dietz.
- At the time of trial and sentencing, Dietz had not been located and was presumed dead.
- The trial evidence supported findings that Saba kidnapped Dietz, that Dietz was not released within 30 days, and that Saba impersonated Dietz and assumed Dietz’s identity.
- After suffering an emotional breakdown while incarcerated, Saba made statements to fellow inmates that the government treated as an implicit admission of wrongdoing.
- The jury convicted Saba of kidnapping.
- At sentencing, the parties disputed whether U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(c)(1) required a cross-reference to the guideline tied to murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
- The government argued the record showed, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Saba killed Dietz in the course of the kidnapping and that the murder cross-reference should apply.
- The district court rejected the cross-reference, citing the lack of factual support connecting Dietz’s presumed death (and the circumstances of any death) to a murder during the kidnapping.
- The government appealed the district court’s refusal to apply the murder cross-reference.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in refusing to apply U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(c)(1)’s cross-reference to murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 based on the government’s circumstantial evidence that the missing kidnapping victim was presumed dead.
2. Whether, on this record, the government carried its burden at sentencing to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under § 1111 in connection with the kidnapping.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision not to apply the U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(c)(1) murder cross-reference.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that the record did not sufficiently tie Dietz’s presumed death to a killing that met the § 1111 murder standard for purposes of the guideline cross-reference.
- The government’s sentencing appeal was denied, and Saba’s sentence (calculated without the murder cross-reference) was left in place.

## Legal Principles

- At federal sentencing, guideline-relevant facts generally must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the party seeking a higher guideline range bears the burden of proof.
- U.S.S.G. § 2A4.1(c)(1) directs a court to apply a murder-based guideline only if the sentencing court finds that a kidnapping victim was killed under circumstances that would constitute murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.
- Proof that a kidnapping occurred and that the victim remains missing and presumed dead does not automatically establish that the victim was murdered, or that any death occurred in the course of the kidnapping, for purposes of the cross-reference.
- Appellate review gives deference to the district court’s sentencing factfinding; where the district court finds the evidence does not establish the necessary murder circumstances, the court of appeals will not disturb that conclusion absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not commit reversible error by declining to sentence Saba under the kidnapping guideline’s murder cross-reference where Dietz was missing and presumed dead, but the record did not adequately show—by a preponderance of the evidence—that Dietz was killed under circumstances constituting murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 in connection with the kidnapping.


United States v. Saba, 526 Fed. Appx. 489 (2013)