Appendix — Zaia v. United States

PILED

941002 DE 5 1998

OEEICE OF Lik Chddels

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1994

NEERAN ZAIA,

Petitioner,

_—

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

SIXTH CIRCUIT

R. STEVEN WHALEN

Counsel of Record

Attorney for Petitioner

Suite 1817, Penobscot Building

645 Griswold Street

Detroit, MI 48226

(313) 964-0898

RECEIVED

DEC ~5 1994

OFFICE OF THE CLEKK

SUPREME COURT, U.S,

TABLE TO CONTENTS

Panel Opinion of U.S.

Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit

Judgment of U.S.

District Court for the

Eastern District of Michigan

Transcript of Taped

Conversation between

Petitioner and Undercover

Government Agent, 2-5-92

Page

la

37a

48a

la

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Nos. 93-1452, 93-1454

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appelle

NEERAN ZAIA and HAZIM SAEEGH,

e

Defendants-Appellants.

Decided and Filed Sep 2, 1994

BEFORE : KENNEDY and _ SILER, Circuit

Judges; and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM. Defendant Neeran Zaia

was convicted by jury trial on three

counts of bribery, seven counts of visa

fraud, and one count of alien smuggling;

she was sentenced to fifteen months of

imprisonment. Her co-defendant Hazim

Saeegh was convicted on one court of

bribery and received a sentence of eight

months. Zaia claims entrapment,

2a

insufficiency of the evidence, and

outrageous government conduct, as well as

jury misconduct and, finally, error in

the failure of the sentencing court to

grant her request for a downward

departure. Saeegh claims error in the

sentencing court’s failure to reduce his

base offense level due to his mitigating

role

in the offense.! We AFFIRM the

convictions and sentences as entered by

the district court.

Zaia, who is a former Iraqi citizen

and a Chaldean Catholic, operates a

| The commentary to Guidelines

section 3Bl.2 on "Mitigating Role"

provides that the defendant’s lack of

knowledge or understanding of the scope

and structure of the enterprise and of

the activities of others is indicative of

a role as minimal participant." U.S.S.G.

Section 3Bl1.2, comment. (n.1l). Moreover,

"a minor participant means any

participant who is less culpable than

most other participants, but whose role

could not be described as minimal." Id.,

comment.(n.3).

3a

travel agency in Detroit. In the wake of

the Persian Gulf War, she contracted with

other Chaldean Catholics living in Iraq

or Jordan to help them escape from

persecution and likely death at the hands

of the Iraqi or Jordan to help them

escape from persecution and likely death

at the hands of the Iraqi Secret Police.

She proposed to acquire Mexican or

Canadian visas for her clients, charging

up to $5000 per person for her expertise.

She escorted a group of sixteen such

persons from Amman, Jordan to the

Dominican Republic in October 1991.

Eventually, she obtained fraudulent

United States visas for twelve of them

and arranged for four others to travel to

the United States by was of Mexico. The

latter four eventually entered the United

States illegally without visas, where

they were

met by Appellant Saeegg and others.

4a

Zaia had obtained World Service

Authority (WSA) passports for the members

of her group, but was unable to obtain

visas’ for these passports, since the WSA

is a private organization whose passports

are not recognized by any government.

The United States Embassy in the

Dominican Republic refused to issue visas

for these passports. The group then

traveled to Nicaragua and Guatemala, but

had no better luck there. After failing

in her attempts to acquire Mexican or

United States visas for her clients, Zaia

took the group to Belize in January 1992.

There she approached Sue Williams, the

owner of the motel where the group was

staying, and asked for help contacting

someone "at the embassy that could help

them get visas to the United States."

She suggested that she and Ms. Williams

>A visa is a government-issued stamp

on a passport holder to visit or reside

in the issuing country.

5a

“both could make lots of money" if she

acquired the proper contact. Williams

contacted the United States Consul in

Belize, Rudolph Boone, who was already

aware of the Iraqis’ presence. He

testified at trial that he had learned

from an earlier State Department cable

that Zaia had already attempted to bribe

a Guatemalan official in order to obtain

visas for her group. When Boone informed

Washington of what was transpiring, two

special agents were sent to Belize City.

Boone was "wired" to record his

conversations and proceeded to approach

Zaia and offer his assistance in

obtaining visas for her group. All

conversations between the two were

recorded and later transcribed.

Their first meeting took place on

February 5, 1992, at Mom’s Restaurant,

owned by Williams. Boone attempted to

offer his services to Zaia. The

6a

government contends that it was Zaia who

first suggested paying Boone for the

visas. In response to Boone’s inquiry

("What’s in it for me?"), Zaia stated

that "[w]le’re going to make money, you

know." later Boone persisted by asking:

“How much is this worth to you?"; and:

“Well, what kind of money, what are we

talking about?" It was only then that

Zaia responded by specifically offering

to pay for the visas. Zaia gave Boone

four passports at that time, which

eventually involved five fraudulent

visas, resulting in the first five counts

of the indictment, on which charges Zaia

was acquitted. Zaia gave Boone money on

February 5 and 6, and again on February

10, for which she was charged with four

counts of bribery and also acquitted by

the jury.

More meetings followed, with Zaia

eventually paying Boone for twelve

7a

fraudulent visas. Of these, she was

convicted on charges stemming from the

seven visas obtained for passports given

to Boone on February 10 and 11, as well

as on the bribery charges arising from

the money she gave Boone on February 11

at two separate meetings. These

transactions were also the basis for her

conviction on the alien smuggling charge.

Some of the twelve Chaldeans with visas

then flew with Zaia to New Orleans, while

the others flew to Houston. The four

remaining members of the group_ had

already been sent into Mexico and told to

cross the Rio Grande River at night at a

spot near Brownsville, Texas, where they

met Saeegh and several of their

relatives. Two of the four testified

that it was Zaia’s idea to send them into

Mexico. Eventually, everyone traveled to

Detroit. Boone also came to Detroit,

where on February 20, 1992, he met with

8a

Zaia and Saeegh and discussed expanding

the fraudulent visa scheme to include

more Iraqis who wished to leave their

country. At that meeting, Saeegh

requested Boone’s help in an immigration

petition for an elderly Iraqi woman. The

next day, February 21, Zaia giving him

the immigration file for the Iraqi woman.

Zaia denies participating in this

transaction, for which she received her

final bribery conviction; Saeegh also

received his single count of conviction,

for bribery, on the basis of this

meeting.

II.

The defendants raise several issues

on appeal.

A. Did e district te

denyi . 2;

9a

Zaia moved at the conclusion of the

proof for a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal

based upon the defense of entrapment as a

matter of law. The district court denied

the motion and submitted the entrapment

issue to the jury. Entrapment as a valid

defense has two elements: (1)

“‘government inducement of the crime,’"

and (2) "‘a lack of predisposition on the

part of the defendant to engage in the

criminal conduct.’" United States v.

Barger, 931 F.2d 359,366 (6th Cir. 1991)

(quoting Matthews v. United States, 485

U.S. 58, 63 1988)). For a court to find

entrapment as a matter of law, the

testimony and facts must be

undisputed; a court may not choose

between conflicting testimony or

make credibility determinations.

Furthermore, the undisputed evidence

must demonstrate a "patently clear"

absence of predisposition. If

either of these elements is missing,

then the predisposition question is

for the jury to decide.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In making this determination, all

10a

evidence must be viewed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution. Id.

"The question of entrapment ‘is

generally one for the jury, rather than

for the court.’" United States v.

Harris, 9 F.3d 493, 497 (6th Cir. 1993)

(quoting Barger, 931 F.2d at 366).

However, “a defendant’s predisposition

must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,

and predisposition [is] the defendant’s

state of mind before his initial exposure

to government agents." United States v.

Clark, 957 F.2d 248, 250 (6th Cir. 1992)

(internal quotation marks omitted)

(emphasis added). "Where the government

s

simply gives the defendant an

opportunity to commit a crime,’ and the

defendant accommodates by committing a

crime, the entrapment claim is

unavailable." United States v. Kussmaul,

987 F.2d 345, 349 (6th Cir. 1993)

(quoting Jacobson v. United States, 112

lla

S. Ct. 1535, 1541 (1992)). Moreover, "it

has been held that the fact a government

agent proposed an illicit transaction...

is insufficient to establish entrapment."

Barger, 931 F.2d at 367.

Zaia cites to Jacobson, in which the

Supreme Court found that the defendant

had been entrapped, as well as the recent

Seventh Circuit decision in United States

v. Hollingsworth, 9 F.3d 593 (7th Cir.

1993), vacate eh’g_ e nce granted

1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 588 (7th Cir. Jan.

10, 1994) Hollingsworth relies upon

Jacobson to support the distinction

between a defendant’s being "willing" to

commit a crime, meaning that she desires

the outcome of the imagined illegal act,

and her being "“ready" to commit that

crime, meaning that she is prepared to

take the steps necessary to complete the

12a

actual crime. 9 F.3d at 598-99. The

case law in our circuit, however, is more

in line with the Hollingsworth dissent’s

reliance upon Jacobson for the

proposition that “predisposition is

demonstrated by the defendant’s ‘ready

commission of [a] criminal act.’"

Hollingsworth, 9 F.3d at 603-04, 1994 WL

236976, at *20 (Ripple, J., dissenting)

(quoting Jacobson, 112 S. Ct. at 1541)

(also citing Kussmaul, 987 F.2d at 349).

In Kussmaul, we rejected the defendant’s

argument that Jacobson requires that "the

Government’s proof of predisposition must

‘The original decision in

Hollingsworth, 9 F.3d 593, was vacated

and the case was heard en banc. The

subsequent opinion nevertheless reached

the same outcome as the original panel,

but specifically stated: "We do not

suggest that Jacobson adds a new element

to the entrapment defense - ‘readiness’

or ‘ability’ or ‘ability’ or

‘dangerousness’ in top of inducement and

«ee predisposition." United States v.

Hollingsworth, — F.3d _—_, 1994 WL

236976, *3 (7th Cir. June 2, 1994) (en

banc).

'

l3a

be established with evidence obtained

prior to its initial contact with the

targeted individual." 987 F.2d at 348.

We found no entrapment as a matter of law

because the sting operation which

ensnared the defendant "did not exhibit

the persistent and overzealous Government

pursuit of a reluctant and unresponsive

individual over an extended period of

time which so offended the Jacobson

Court." Id. at 349.

The same logic applies to this case.

A close reading of the transcript of the

first meeting between Zaia and Boone

indicates that, regardless of who first

Suggested that the visas could be

obtained for money, Zaia very quickly

warmed to the idea. She showed no

reluctance whatsoever to break the law.

In addition, a reasonable juror could

conclude that Zaia had already indicated

to Williams, as stated heretofore, that

l4a

she was willing to pay for United States

visas and to offer a bribe to the United

States Consul in order to obtain then.

Zaia argues that the strength of the

government inducement, under the

circumstances of impending deportation

and possible execution for some or all of

her clients, made it virtually impossible

for her to resist the government’s

entrapment. Citing Hollingsworth, she

argues that "the stronger the inducement,

the more difficult it is for the

government to prove predisposition."

Zaia also points to evidence in her favor

showing that she did in fact pursue

various legal means on behalf of her

clients, without success, prior to

resorting to bribery.

Viewing all of the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government,

however, justifies, the inference that

Zaia was not only predisposed to commit

15a

the crimes for which she was convicted

but was also planning to perpetuate her

scheme of using fraudulent visas to

enable other Iraqis to enter the United

States, even after she had _ safely

returned to Detroit with her sixteen

clients, so that as she told Boone,

"we’re going to make money, you know," or

as she told Williams, “we both could make

lots of money." A reasonable juror could

find from the evidence that Zaia was

contemplating a continuing course of

criminal activity. Such an inference

undermines her entrapment defense.‘ The

government presented sufficient evidence

at trial to enable a reasonable juror to

find beyond a reasonable doubt that Zaia

4 The government details other

evidence to the same effect (e.g. the

attempt to bribe a Guatemalan immigration

official prior to arriving in Belize; the

"inconsistent and false accounts she gave

to various people" concerning her group’s

travel plans).

l6a

was not entrapped by government agents.°

s. Was there sufficient evidence to

convict Zaia on the bribery charge

stemming from the Detroit meetings?

"In addressing sufficiency of the

evidence questions, this Court has long

recognized that we do not weigh the

evidence, consider the credibility of

witnesses or substitute our judgment for

that of the jury." United States v.

Hilliard, 11 F.3d 618, 620 (6th Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1099

(1994). Our role is to determine whether

all of the evidence-- viewing it in the

light most favorable to the government

and drawing all reasonable inferences in

> Zaia also argues that the fact that

she was acquitted on the earlier counts

and convicted only on the later ones

shows that the jury believed that she was

not predisposed to commit these crimes

from the beginning, prior to the

influence of the government agents, but

only became so after being induced into

criminal activity by the government. We

decline, however, to go behind the jury

verdict in order to dissect hypothetical

rationales for the jury’s disposition of

the various counts against Zaia.

17a

the government’s favor--could justify any

rational trier of fact in concluding that

which element of the crime has been

proven beyond a-— reasonable doubt.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19

(1979). See also United States v.

Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1474 (6th Cir.

1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2964

(1992); United States v. Head, 927 F.2d

1361, 1365 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 112

S. Ct. 144 (1991). If we determine that

the evidence could justify such a

conclusion, a claim based upon

insufficiency of the evidence must fail.

Moreover, the evidence presented by the

government "need not remove every

reasonable hypothesis except that of

guilt." United States v. Stone, 748 F.2d

361, 362 (6th Cir. 1984).

In this light, we reject Zaia’s

claim that she was "merely present” at

the Detroit Meetings and did not

18a

participate in the bribery scheme there.

She was videotaped handing Boone the $500

pay-off money. Her appeal on this point,

that the evidence is insufficient to

support a reasonable jury’s conclusion

that she was guilty of bribery, is

without merit. |

©. Was the district court’s failure to

clarify the jury instructions on

entrapment, when so requested by the

jury, a violation of Zaia’s

constitutional rights?

Zaia failed to object to the jury

instructions on entrapment at trial, so

we review her claim here under the

doctrine of plain error. MThe jury was

given the Sixth Circuit Pattern

Instruction 6.03 on entrapment, but

during the course of its deliberations,

it requested a clarification on. the

entrapment defense, which the district

court refused to give. Zaia did not

object to this refusal at that time. She

now argues, however, that the entrapment

19a

instruction was “misleading, or g[{a]ve an

inadequate understanding of the law." See

United States v. English, 925 F.2d 154,

158 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S.

1210, 501 U.S. 1211 (1991) (internal

quotation marks omitted). She argues

that the pattern instruction was

misleading in light of the Jacobson case,

which was decided after our pattern

instruction was written but prior to the

trial in this case.

We cannot agree. The pattern

instruction includes the following

statement: "The crucial question in

entrapment cases is whether the

government persuaded a defendant who was

not already willing to commit a crime to

go ahead and commit it." Pattern

Criminal Jur nstructions of the Sixt

Circuit section 6.03(4) (West 1991). We

do not see how Jacobson makes this

instruction misleading or an inadequate

20a

expression of the law, which is the test

for the correctness of jury instructions.

English, 925 F.2d at 158. It would be

anomalous for us to find one of our own

pattern instructions to be erroneous;

this is especially true when the test

here is whether the inadequacy of the

instruction rises to the level of plain

error, i.e., whether the error is "clear"

or "obvious." United States _v. Olano,

113 S. Ct. 1771, 1777 (1993).

"The trial court is vested with

broad discretion in formulating its

charge and will not be reversed unless

the charge fails accurately to reflect

the law." English, 925 F.2d at 158

(internal quotation marks omitted). The

jury was told that it could convict Saia

only if it could find beyond a reasonable

doubt that, despite the effects of

government persuasion, she was "already

willing to commit a crime." Jury

2la

Instructions sections 6.03 (emphasis

added). Such an instruction accurately

reflects the law of entrapment, even with

the gloss placed upon it by Jacobson.

D. Did __the government engage _in

outrageous conduct _in the investigation

of Zaia?

The Supreme Court has held that it

is possible for the conduct of law

enforcement agents to be so outrageous as

to violate a defendant’s due process

rights. United States v. Russell, 411

U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973). Such conduct

must be so egregious as to violate

fundamental fairness and to be "shocking

to the universal sense of justice." Id.

at 432; see also United States v. B er

931 F.2d 359, 363 (6th Cir. 1991).

Whether or not a due process violation

exists is a conclusion of law, which we

review de novo. See id.; United States

v. Levy, 904 F.2d 1026, 1029 (6th Cir.

1990) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1091 (1991).

22a

We have established a four-part test for

outrageous conduct: "(1) the need for the

police conduct as shown by the type of

criminal activity involved, (2) the

impetus for the scheme or whether the

criminal enterprise preexisted the police

involvement, (3) the control the

government exerted over the criminal

enterprise, and (4) the impact of the

police activity on the commission of the

crime." Barger 931 F.2d at 363.

The government points out that Zaia

was the one who first approached Williams

about making contact with an employee of

the United States embassy in Belize (the

“impetus” prong of the Barger test), and

that Zaia on her own, without any

government participation or knowledge,

sent four of her clients into Mexico

illegally, without, visas of any kind

(the "control" and "impact" prongs). It

was also Zaia who selected which

passports to give to Boone (the "control"

prong); and it was Zaia who created the

need for her illegal activities by

bringing her clients to Belize without

any realistic chance oof obtaining

legitimate visas for them (the "impetus"

prong). The government argues that, in

order to investigate Zaia’s apparent

interest in obtaining fraudulent visas,

it had no choice but to present someone

to be bribed, namely Boone (the "need"

prong). We conclude that Zaia showed

enough initiative in the conduct of the

criminal activities at issue here to

prevent our finding that the government

conduct in this case was so outrageous as

to "shock the universal sense of

justice."

6 It should be noted that a recent

Sixth Circuit panel decision has held, as

a matter of law, that the defense of

“outrageous government conduct” no longer

exists. United States v. Tucker, F.3d

, 1994 WL 363882 (6th Cir. July 15,

1994). The Tucker court explained that a

24a

E. Was it error for the district court

to refuse to conduct an evidentiary

hearing into allegations of jury

misconduct and false statements made

during voir dire?

Zaia makes two related claims of

juror misconduct: (1) her due process

right to a fair trial was violated

because of ethnic prejudice against her

on the part of certain members of the

jury, and (2) these jurors lied during

voir dire when they denied having any

prejudice against the defendants. Zaia

requests an evidentiary hearing

concerning these matters. When a

defendant makes an allegation of

misconduct during jury deliberations,

"(ijt is within [the trial judge’s]

discretion to determine what manner of

hearing, if any, is warranted." United

States v. Wilson, 534 F.2d 375, 379 (D.C.

defendant who now relies on the defense

of inducement is "limited to the defense

of entrapment and its key element of

predisposition.” Id. at *7.

25a

Cir. 1976). Zaia bases her claim on a

letter sent by juror Trudy Miller to

defense counsel, which states in

pertinent part: "I heard many statements

in that room that sounded prejudice

[sic], and of course they denied it!"

Both parties agree that F.R.E. 606(b),

concerning inquiry into the validity of a

verdict, precludes a juror’s testimony

and also a juror’s affidavit or statement

regarding "any matter oor statement

occurring during the course of the jury’s

deliberations," except with regard to

“extraneous prejudicial information" or

“outside influence...improperly brought

to bear."

The government argues convincingly

that the two stated exceptions are the

only ones recognized as allowing for the

possibility of an evidentiary hearing

concerning the validity of a verdict.

The allegations of prejudice made by

26a

juror Miller do not fall within either of

these exceptions. The Supreme Court

ruled in Tanner _v. United States, 483

U.S. 107 (1987), that the district court

had not erred by refusing to hold an

evidentiary hearing concerning a juror’s

post-verdict allegations accusing other

jurors of alcohol and drug abuse during

the course of the trial and the jury

deliberations. In the same vein, the

Seventh Circuit in Schillcutt v. Gagnon,

827 F.2d 1155 (7th Cir. 1987), reiterated

the importance of protecting the

"fruitful exchange of ideas and

impressions among jurors" by assuring

them that their comments "will not reach

a larger audience." Id. at 1159. Only in

cases of the "extremely rare abuse" that

has denied a juror her due process right

to a fair trial will an evidentiary

hearing be required. In Shillcutt, the

following statement was made by a juror

dine

27a

about the defendant and reported by a

fellow juror: "Let’s be logical; he’s a

black, and he sees a seventeen year old

white girl--I know the type." The court

held that this did not amount to the type

of "prejudice pervad[{ing] the jury room"

that would necessitate an evidentiary

hearing. Id. In the case at hand, there

is even less evidence of actual prejudice

against the defendant Zaia. Juror Miller

heard statements that "sounded [like]

prejudice." We decline on that basis to

interfere with the sound discretion

exercised by the district court in

denying Zaia’s motion for an evidentiary

hearing regarding jury misconduct.

Zaia also claims the district court

erred in denying an evidentiary hearing

based upon false answers to voir dire

questions. In McCoy v. Goldston, 652

F.2d 654 (6th Cir. 1981), we stated that

an evidentiary hearing on a juror’s

28a

alleged failure to disclose information

during voir dire will be held only if the

movant "has presented a_e sufficient

evidentiary basis to raise a fact issue

of prejudice, "id. at 659, and that "the

allegations in the moving papers must be

sufficiently specific, detailed, and

nonconjectural so that fact issues are

raised." Id. at 659 n.9 (emphasis

added). See also Marks v. Shell Oil Co.,

895 F.2d 1128, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990).

In the case at hand, Zaia has failed

to point to the specific and

nonconjectural fact issues required as a

basis for granting her motion for an

evidentiary hearing. The only basis for

her claim is the highly speculative

inference, drawn by a single juror, that

her fellow jurors harbored racial and

ethnic prejudice against the defendants.

The accusing juror admits, however, that

her fellow jurors, when confronted,

29a

denied the allegations of prejudice. We

will not disturb on such an insubstantial

basis the district court’s exercise of

discretion in denying Zaia’s request for

an evidentiary hearing regarding voir

dire impropriety.

F. Was it error for the sentencing

court to fail to use its discretionary

authority to grant Zaia’s request for a

downward departure in her sentence?

"A district court’s failure to

depart from the Guidelines range is not

cognizable on appeal...when the district

court properly computes the Guidelines

range, imposes a sentence that is not

illegal or did not result from an

incorrect application of the. Guidelines

range, and is not unaware that it had

discretion to depart from the Guidelines

range." United States v. Brannon, 7 F.3d

516, 521-22 (6th Cir. 1993). Zaia argues

that the district court was unaware that

it possessed the discretion to depart

form the Guidelines based upon section

30a

5K2.11, which allows a downward departure

when "a defendant [has committed] a crime

in order to avoid a perceived greater

harm." The sentencing court. did,

however, consider the possibility of a

departure under section 5K2.11, but

rejected it because "it isn’t the kind of

departure that 5K2.11 is talking about,

number one. And, number two, because it

was of a continuing nature. That she

still met and tried to initiate or to be

part of bribery, it kind of offsets

that." Zaia’s appeal on this issue is

therefore without merit.

D. Was it error for the sentencing

court to fail to reduce Saeegh’s

sentencing level due to his mitigating

role in his offense of conviction?

Saeegh argues on appeal that the

district court’s failure to reduce his

base offense level due to his mitigating

role in the offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G

section 3Bl.2, was clear error, as was

its failure to make specific factual

3la

findings regarding a matter in the

presentence report to which he objected,

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D).

"The district court’s findings of fact

regarding whether [defendant] is entitled

to [a] reduction will be reviewed only

for clear error. Defendant must prove by

a preponderance of the evidence that he

is entitled to the reduction." United

States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543, 554 (6th Cir.

1993) (citation omitted).

Saeegh argues that the district

court’s failure to decrease his offense

level contradicts various statements it

made at the sentencing hearing to the

effect that "Ms. Zaia was the organizer -

- she was the supervisor to a great

extent," and that "[Saeegh’s] role was

substantially iess than the other

defendant in relation to the criminal

activity." On the other hand, the

district court also found that Saeegh

32a

“to some extent--in relation to this

particular [i.e., apparently, in relation

to the activity forming the basis for his

sole count of conviction]- was motivated

by the fact that he did know what was

happening. I don’t think there’s any

question about it." (Emphasis added).

Earlier, the district court found that

"“there’s nothing in the testimony or

otherwise that would lead the Court to

believe that he’s entitled to either

anything mitigating or anything for

increasing."

The district court ostensibly relied

upon the videotape of Saeegh handing the

immigration file to Boone on February 21,

1992, recorded in Boone’s Detroit hotel

room, as well as upon Boone’s testimony

regarding Saeegh’s involvement, during

Boone’s Detroit visit, in the attempt to

obtain a fraudulent visa by offering

Boone a bribe. The government argues

Es —————————————

33a

that the district court’s statements

referred to by Saeegh concerned his role

in the overall scheme to help the

Chaldeans enter’ the United States

illegally, which role was admittedly

“substantially less" than that of Zaia,

but that the court also found that

Saeegh’s role in the Single count for

which he was convicted did not warrant a

mitigating role reduction. We agree.

Although the district court could have

more clearly stated the factual basis for

its conclusion that Saeegh was not

entitled toa reduction, it did find that

Saeegh had knowledge of the “particular

matter" involving his count of conviction

and based its decision, at least in part,

upon that finding.

The testimony of Boone established

that Saeegh "seemed very well acquainted

with all the events" involving the twelve

Iragis constituting Zaia’s group in

_ ESS "CCCs accra

34a

Belize, and that Saeegh participated

roughly as an equal with Zaia in the

discussions concerning the immigration

file at issue in his count of conviction,

although Saeegh rightfully points out

that Boone was unsure as to many of the

specifics of Saeegh’s involvement in

these discussions. There is apparently

no dispute that Saeegh did in fact hand

Boone the immigration file, for which he

sough special treatment, shortly before

he was arrested. Under a different set

of circumstances, we have held that a

sentencing court’s factual finding

concerning the quantity of drugs to be

counted against a defendant is "adequate"

even when limited to the single statement

that "*‘I think the jury chose to believe

the former [explanation of what the

defendant had done] and I think that is a

reasonable determination. ’" United

States v. Todd, 920 F.2d 399, 408 (6th

EE EEESS'S':' ~~~ rrr

H

j

j

35a

Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we find that

the sentencing court in the case at hand

also made an adequate factual finding in

rejecting Saeegh’s request for a

reduction in his sentencing level.

Finally, Saeegh has failed, on

appeal and apparently also at the

district court, to point to any factual

matter to which he objected in the

presentence report. His resort to Fed.

R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(D) is therefore

unavailing. Essentially, as the

government asserts, he is arguing that

the district court failed to make an

adequate factual finding concerning the

mitigating role issue. We addressed that

argument above and found it insufficient

to require resentencing for Saeegh.

36a

IIt.

For the reasons stated above, we

AFFIRM the convictions and sentences of

both appellants, as entered by _ the

district court.

37a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN District of MICHIGAN

HONORABLE BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE

(For offenses Committed On or

After November 1,

1987)

V.

NEERAN ZAIA Case No. 92-CR-80137-01-DT

(Name of Defendant) DAVID ESPER

Defendant’s Attorney

THE DEFENDANT:

{] pleaded guilty to count(s)

[x]was found guilty on count(s)6 thru 12,

17, 18, 19, 20/SS INDICTMENT after a

plea of not guilty.

Accordingly, the defendant is adjudged

guilty of such count(s), which involve

the following offenses:

Title & Section Nature of Offense

18:USC:1546(a) ; VISA FRAUD

18:USC:201(b) (1) BRIBERY

8:USC :1342(a)(1)(D) | ALIEN SMUGGLING

Date Offense Count

Concluded Number(s)

1-92 6,7,9,9,10,11,12

1-92 17, 18, 19°

38a

1-92 20

The defendant is sentenced as

provided in pages 2 through _5 of this

judgment. The sentence is imposed

pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of

1984.

{x] The defendant has been found not

guilty on count(s) 1 through 5, 13, 14,

15, 16 , and is discharged

as to such count(s).

[x] Count(s)_2l (is)tare}+

dismissed on the motion of the United

States.

[x] It is ordered that the defendant

shall pay a special assessment of $50.00,

for count(s) 6 thru 12, 17 thru 19 and

20, which shall be due [x] immediately []

as follows: for a total of $550.00

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that’ the

defendant shall notify the United States

attorney for this district within 30 days

of any change of name, residence, or

mailing address until all fines,

restitution, costs and special

assessments imposed by this judgment are

fully paid.

Defendant’s Soc. Sec. No.: 379-88-2533

Defendant’s Date of Birth: _July 1, 1963

Defendant’s Mailing Address:

Defendant’s Residence Address:

3767 Barg Drive

Sterling Heights, Michigan 48310

39a

—____MARCH 10, 1993

Date of Imposition of Sentence

/s/

Signature of Judicial Officer

BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

CT JUDGE

Name & Title of Judicial Officer

MAR 15 1993

DATE

40a

Defendant: NEERAN ZAIA

Case Number: 92-Cr-80137-01-DT

Judgment-Page __2 + £«©of 5

IMPRISONMENT

The defendant is hereby committed to

the custody of the United States Bureau

of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of

Fifteen (15) months on each Count 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12

Fifteen (15) months on each Count 17,

18, 19

Fifteen (15) months on Count 20

All terms of incarceration are to run

CONCURRENT with each other

{(] The court makes the _ following

recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:

[]The defendant is remanded to the

custody of the United States marshal

{]The defendant shall surrender to the

United States marshal for this district.

The court granted defendant’s motion for

bond pending appeal

[Jat am/pm on

[Jas notified by the United States

marshal.

{[]The defendant shall surrender’ for

service of sentence at the institution

designated by the Bureau of Prisons,

{]before 2 p.m. on

[Jas notified by the Unites States

marshal.

[Jas notified by the probation office.

4la

RETURN

I have executed this judgment as

follows:

Defendant delivered on to

at mv

with a certified copy of this judgment.

United States Marshal

By

Deputy Marshal

4

‘

4

zs

3

42a

Defendant: NEERAN ZAIA

Case Number: 92-Cr-80137-01-DT

Judgment-Page__3 of __5

SUPERVISED RELEASE

Upon release from imprisonment, the

defendant shall be on supervised release

for a term of Two (2) years on each

count: Counts 6 thru 12, 17, 18, 19, and

20 all terms of supervised release are to

run CONCURRENT to each other

While on supervised released, the

defendant shall not commit’ another

federal, state, or local crime and shall

not illegally possess a_é controlled

substance. The defendant shall comply

with the standard conditions that have

been adopted by this court (set forth

below). If this judgment imposes a

restitution obligation, it shall be a

condition of supervised release that the

defendant pay any such restitution that

remains unpaid at the commencement of the

term of supervised release. The

defendant shall comply with the following

additional conditions:

{x]The defendant shall report in person

to the probation office in the district

to which the defendant is released within

72 hours of release from the custody of

the Bureau of Prisons.

[]The defendant shall pay any fines that

remain unpaid at the commencement of the

term of supervised release.

{[x]The defendant shall not possess a

firearm or destructive device.

14. The defendant shall abide by all

standard conditions of supervised release

as outlined below and adopted by the

court.

43a

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

While the defendant is on supervised

release pursuant to this judgment, the

defendant shall not commit’ another

federal, state oor local crime. In

addition:

1) the defendant shall not leave the

judicial district without the permission

of the court or probation officer.

2) the defendant shall report to the

probation officer as directed by the

court or probation officer and shall

submit a truthful and complete written

report within the first five days of each

month;

3) the defendant shall answer truthfully

all inquiries by the probation officer

and follow the instructions of the

probation officer;

4) the defendant shall support his or her

dependents and meet other family

responsibilities;

5) the defendant shall work regularly at

a lawful occupation unless excused by the

probation officer for schooling,

training, or other acceptable reasons;

6) the defendant shall notify the

probation officer within 72 hours of any

change in residence or employment;

7) the defendant shall refrain from

excessive use of alcohol and shall not

purchase, possess, use, distribute, or

administer any narcotic or other

controlled substance, or any

paraphernalia related to such substances,

except as prescribed by a physician;

8) the defendant shall not frequent

places where controlled substances are

illegally sold, used, distributed, or

44a

administered;

9) the defendant shall not associate with

any persons engaged in criminal activity,

and shall not associate with any person

convicted of a felony unless granted

permission to do so by the _ probate

officer;

10) the defendant shall permit a

probation officer to visit him or her at

any time at home or elsewhere and shall

permit confiscation of any contraband

observed in plain view by the probation

officer;

11) the defendant shall notify the

probation officer within seventy-two

hours of being arrested or questioned by

a law enforcement officer;

12) the defendant shall not enter into

any agreement to act as an informer or a

special agent of a law enforcement agency

without the permission of the court;

13) as directed by the probation officer;

the defendant shall notify third parties

of risks that may be occasioned by the

defendant’s criminal record or personal

history or characteristics, and shall

permit the probation officer to make such

notifications and to confirm the

defendant’s compliance with such

notification requirement.

45a

Defendant: NEERAN ZAIA

Case Number: 92-CR-80137-01-DT

Judgment- Page_4 of 5

FINE

The defendant shall pay a fine of $__

. The fine includes any costs of

incarceration and/or supervision.

{] This amount is the total of the fines

imposed on individual counts, as follows:

The court waives all fines and costs

of incarceration, find the defendant

unable to pay

[] The court has determined that the

defendant does not have the ability to

pay interest. It is ordered that:

[] The interest requirement is waived.

{] The interest requirement is

modified as follows:

This fine plus any interest required

shall be paid:

{] in full immediately.

[] in full not later than

{] in equal monthly installments over

a period of months. The

first payment is due on the date of

this judgment. Subsequent payments

are due monthly thereafter.

[] in installments according to the

following schedule of payments:

46a

Defendant: NEERAN ZAIA

Case Number: 92-CR-80137-0i-DT

Judgment- Page __5 of 5

STATEMENT OF REASONS

{}] The court adopts the factual findings

and guideline application in the

presentence report.

OR

[X] The court adopts the factual findings

and guideline application in the

presentence report except (see

attachment, if necessary): for the 8

level increase pursuant to 2C1.1(b) (2) (B)

Guideline Range Determined by the Court:

Total Offense Level: 14

Criminal History Category: I

Imprisonment Range:_15 to_21 months

Supervised Release Range: 2 to_3

years

Fine Range: _$4,000.00 to__40,000.00

[x] Fine is waived or is below the

guideline range, because of

the defendant’s inability to

pay-

Restitution:$

[] Full restitution is not ordered

for the following reason(s):

[x] The sentence is within the guideline

:

oa

ad

*

ef

3

a

|

47a

range, that range does not exceed 24

months, and the court finds no reason to

depart from the sentence called for by

application of the guidelines.

OR

[] The sentence is within the guideline

range, that range exceeds 24 months, and

the sentence is imposed for the following

reason(s):

OR

The sentence departs from the guideline

range

[] upon motion of the government, as a

result of defendant’s substantial

assistance.

{] for the following reason(s):

48a

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY

SUBJECT: BOONE/ZAIA, BELIZE CITY

CASE No.: D56-15989

SA/CI: ROBERT VALENTE

tO iar Fs age

49a

FEBRUARY 5, 1992

MORNING MEETING

MR. VALENTE: This is special agent

Robert Valente, DSI/CR. The time is

10:30 a.m. on February 2, 1992. The

place is the American Embassy, Balize

City, Balize. We are testing Panasonic

recorder, model number RN 36, serial

number XEOIC 14562. The counter reading

is 005.

The following is a _ consensually

monitored conversation between American

Embassy Balize Consul, Ruby Boone and

Niran (Nancy) Zaia.

Mr. Boone, do we have your consent

to tape your conversation with Miss Zaia?

MR. BOONE: Yes, you have my full

consent to tape the conversation.

MR. VALENTE: The time is 10:44 a.m.

on [011] February ‘5, 1992. The

conversation will take place at Mom’s

Restaurant in Belize City, Belize. The

50a

counter reading is 010.

MR. BOONE: Hi Sue, how’re you

doing? (inaudible) Mi, Miss Zaia? Is

Nancy Zaia? This is,

MS. ZAIA: Yes.

MR. BOONE: Hi, I’m Mr. Boone. Can

I talk with you a bit?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, okay.

MR. BOONE: Can we go... I don’t

know Here; it doesn’t matter. Maybe in

the back? Hi, Kimberly.

MS. ZAIA: Okay. Regarding?

MR. BOONE: Well, can I -- Shut this

door?

MS. ZAIA: We can go in my room it’s

okay.

MR. BOONE: I’ve gotten work from

some people that you’re here.

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: And I wanted to talk to

you about your situation.

MS. ZAIA: Situation? What kind of

5la

Situation?

MR. BOONE: My friend out at the

airport says that you have a group here.

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: Can we close the door?

(Whereupon the door was closed.)

MR. BOONE: And um, you might need

some help and I was wondering what that

was. I am the counsel, the chief of the

section.

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: And ah, that’s it.

MS. ZAIA: You mean if I need help,

you mean, you can help?

MR. BOONE: With your group, ah --

MS. ZAIA: Well most of them, they

like to stay here.

MR. BOONE: Uh-hmm, they want to

stay here?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah. So they need do

some favor for them. Some people they

like to buy Belize passport because they

52a

like to

go and come back. Because if they go to

Jordan, it’s hard to come back here.

MR. BOONE: Uh-hmm.

MS. ZAIA: Because why? Because

they have passport Iraqi. They don’t

listen to come any time they want.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: They do investment here

or they do anything here, they need --

something to go and come back easy. Like

any time, like, you mean, the first time

it’s too hard to get visa to them because

they are Iraqi.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Yeah. They don’t get

visa, Because Mousa, Said Mousa, I talk

to him because his mom, she knows me, I’m

part Palestinian, so we are cousins, my

second cousin. I mean, they know my

mother.

MR. BOONE: Your cousins, yeah.

53a

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, So they guy he help

me - MR. BOONE : Not Israel, but

Palestine.

MS. ZAIA: Yeah.

MR. BOONE: Yeah, okay.

MS. ZAIA: So the guy help me to get

the visa here it’s no problem. But most

of the people they say, I mean, this is

hard, you cannot get passport just

because they ask for a lot of money. I

have to give --

MR. BOONE: You mean the economic

citizenship?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, they issue to them.

MR. BOONE: Yeah. |

MS. ZAIA: They issue to them. Z

talk with what they call Saris, what’s

his name?

MR. BOONE: Abounara (ph.)

MS. ZAIA: Abounara, yeah. He’s

very nice guy. I talk to him. I like to

54a

help you, but the government, they have

to pay $25,000.00. If they pay

$25,000.00 they have a different life, I

mean. Very nice place they saw before

Dominican Republic.

(Inaudible) without this money.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: It’s by the law.

MR. BOONE: You can buy the business

and do this and that?

MS. ZAIA: Right away and after six

months then I give you whatever you want.

So, you know a lot of pressure and a lot

of stories.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: About your idea? What do

you think you can help these people?

MR. BOONE: Well, I’m leaving here

MS. ZAIA: When you going?

MR. BOONE: I’m leaving here, - I’m

going to another post on a new assignment

55a

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: -- and, ah so I, - my

interest for this job is dwindling daily

and --

MS. ZAIA: I know everybody here,

even in government.

MR. BOONE: -- I have been told by a

friend and --

MS. ZAIA: They met someone here?

MR. BOONE: -- he has met you at the

airport and I’ve --

MS. ZAIA: You can help them for --

MR. BOONE: I believe I can.

MS. ZAIA: to issue passport?

MR. BOONE: I believe I can.

MS. ZAIA: You can?

MR. BOONE: Yes. I have, by the

way, I have a lot of friends that -- let

me finish, let me finish, from Lebanon,

okay. One of my best friends when I was

in the State Department in Washington was

56a

a lawyer, a Lebanese lawyer named Kafuri

(ph.) Tafique Kafuri (ph.); do you know

that name?

MS. ZAIA: Kafuri yeah. I know, I

know the last name.

MR. BOONE: Well, Kafuri’s all over

the place.

MS. ZAIA: All over, yeah.

MR. BOONE: And from Tafique’s

situation, and he came to Washington as a

displaced, stateless person, so I know

what that’s about, okay. We have

problems here with a lot of Chinese

coming in and I watch the Chinese.

But I understand, I think, the

Middle East situation and the different

way because of Tafique and ah, and he’s

used to say he was a warrior, you know,

he was a Christian and how difficult it

is in that part of the world to live

because he came from a fine family. His

father was a doctor; he was a lawyer, you

eet

57a

know. He had to practice law for King

aud (ph.) in Saudi Arabia for two years,

and so, there is this understanding, this

feeling.

So, if I can help you, let me know,

and ah --

MS. ZAIA: Yes, I need your help, but

what

kind like -- tell me truth, because you

know what? I like to help these people.

MR. BOONE: Well, you tell me. What

do you need?

MS. ZAIA: If you need me, if you

wan, you mean, I know that you said

you’re going to leave, I mean -~-

MR. BOONE: No, I’m not leaving

until June.

MS. ZAIA: I know.

MR. BOONE: This is al confidential.

MS. ZAIA: Every month, I got

different group. These people when they

come here, they like to go every month.

crassa nets nanmnsiigsn'scegsrnte Pte ™

are nena te ae eee

STL LNT PLCC Se ahah iii ea

re

58a

Somebody they like to go to the Canada;

Somebody they like to go the Mexico;

somebody they like to go to the U.S.A.

Somebody, they like to stay here, you

know. Each people is different.

MR. BOONE: And every month --

MS. ZAIA: Every month, yeah.

MR. BOONE: Well, I don’t know about

that, but, hey, you know --

MS. ZAIA: Yeah. But tes a travel

agency. I try to help everybody and I

can’t do that. When I talk with the

lawyer here, you know, Margaret, Said’s

sister, the lawyer, when I talk to her,

she said she had a talk with Embassy in

Mexico and she (inaudible) and ~-- maybe

she can get a visa for them. Some people

they can ...

MR. BOONE: Yeah, well, you see the

problem there is that to get a Mexican

visa okay, if you tell them you’re going

to -- they want to know where you’re

59a

really going to go and then they have a

tendency to send people away without

Mexican visas and say go to the U.S>

consular section and get a visa and then

come back; get a U.S. visa and then we’ll

give you a Mexican visa, so even that’s

hard.

MS. ZAIA: I know.

MR. BOONE: See, .without the U.S.

visa. And this is the problem Tafique

had. I mean, he had problems getting his

brother out and I helped his brother,

Nicholas, who went to dental school in

Philadelphia.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible). I know

sometimes it’s had to get the visa to

them.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: So what are you going to

do for them, either passport, either

visa, either. They can get a job

anywhere they want. I don’t care. It’s

aw tlhe ea ae eT Ate OT a he, te

he sa lille

60a

not my business --

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: -- where they get the

job. What if they don’t have no choice?

What are they going to do?

MR. BOONE: Well, what’s -- let’s be

for real, okay. What’s in it for me?

Now, I’m leaving here and --

MS. ZAIA: I know, but --

MR. BOONE: -- and everybody thinks

MS. ZAIA: I don’t know what are you

going to do for me. Just, - I told you

what the situation.

MR. BOONE: But do you need visas?

MS. ZAIA: I hope so.

MR. BOONE: I could help you.

MS. ZAIA: And I appreciate it.

This is business. We’re going to make

money, you know.

MR. BOONE: This is business.

MS. ZAIA: This is business.

ee

6la

MR. BOONE: To me, it would be a

business.

I have, - I mean, I understand Tafique’s

situation, but I put my career --

MS. ZAIA: I don’t know the first, -

your name.

MR. BOONE: Rudy, Rudy.

MS. ZAIA: Rudy?

MR. BOONE: Rudy.

MS. ZAIA: Rudy, my name is Nancy.

This

is business for others because I help

Many, many people in the Middle East.

They need help. They need to run away.

They need me.

MR. BOONE: I don’t know about all

of that.

MS. ZAIA: I know.

MR. BOONE: Okay?

MS. ZAIA: No, no, but you heard

what’s going on between -- Bush and

Saddam what’s going on, what’s happened

62a

to all the people.

MR. BOONE: And it’s going to flare

up again. Bush is going to need another

confrontation with Sadam --

MS. ZAIA: They going to start --

MR. BOONE: -- for the election.

MS. ZAIA: The people, they need to

sell the (inaudible). Well, they’re not

going to stay until they kill them a lot

of people, I mean, every family they

have, two or three people (inaudible).

MR. BOONE: Well --

MS. ZAIA: Visa or passport, you

know somebody, they say they can drive

and take them anywhere they want. I

don’t care.

MR. BOONE: You see, I have been

working with the Chinese. I’m interested

in Chinese, that’s what I’m -- Chinese

and Indian.

MS. ZAIA: Chinese is easy, It’s not

like these people.

erential

63a

MR. BOONE: No, no, no, the Chinese

are very different. They don’t get into

the society as much. They keep to

themselves so they never become American.

See, that’s my thing.

MS. ZAIA: Yeah.

MR. BOONE: When you say monthly, I

don’t know, see.

MS. ZAIA: I get monthly because

this is my job. I have to finish from

these people then I have to go back to

the

Jordan and bring the other people.

MR. BOONE: Okay, well, I’m the

chief of this section, so there’s nobody

beyond me. Everything comes through me.

MS. ZAIA: That’s good.

MR. BOONE: Okay? But at the same

time, I’m not going to jeopardize my

career just -- if you talk to anybody --

and they thing is, I lived in Balize for

two years. I know people talk --

64a

MS. ZAIA: I know.

MR. BOONE: You call Saaed, Saaed

will call --

MS. ZAIA: No, no, this is if you --

this is a group, listen, everybody they

know. Most of them they gone.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: I have the group, they

gave already they go back to Santa

Dominica but they cannot do nothing to

them. I’m honest with you. I have just

a few left. A few left, so if you can do

something

just between us, even if you can go back

to the America. If you like, it you like

to work with me, we’re going to work

together. Even Said, I don’t need him.

Like I said --

MR. BOONE: You can’t trust anybody

here.

MS. ZAIA: I know, I know.

MR. BOONE: You know --

ee ERE a on ON

MS. ZAIA: I got knowledge now.

MR. BOONE: Yeah. Okay.

MS. ZAIA: We gotta do, - even

lawyer, I don’t need lawyer. We -- just

show me where you gonna do it, but even

if you go to- the United States

(inaudible) the people from Jordan, they

send me all the passports to me I send

them to here. To get them visa.

(inaudible). Then I send them back to

Jordan.

MR. BOONE: This is an Iraqi

passport or Belize passports?

MS. ZAIA: No. I talk about Iraqi.

MR. BOONE: Iraqi.

MS. ZAIA: If you can make it Belize

passport, ooh, it’s good. You can do

that?

MR. BOONE: Well, I know people who

can because I’ve been working the other

end for so long that I know -~-

MS. ZAIA: You have the Belize?

~

sae Ne I OS ee

66a

MR. BOONE: I know people who can.

I’1ll give you a number and you take it.

MS. ZAIA: I don’t want. If they

can do it... you I don’t want to go and

ask. I ask all of the guy. They ask for

big money. How the gonna give them.

MR. BOONE: Big money.

MS. ZAIA: No way because

MR. BOONE: Well, I’1l1 tell .you

what. If you can show me some good

faith, I will do, too, and I’ll see two

or whatever, and we’ll see how it goes.

My problem is I have to do them

within the course of the day because I

have to do the end of the day tally

sheets and what I have to do is figure

out how to register an Iraqi as a non-

Iraqi on my sheet.

MS. ZAIA: Yeah.

MR. BOONE: It’ll show as a

Balizian, but I have to do that before my

accountant takes it. Because it’s a very

67a

controlled system; that’s the problen.

MS. ZAIA: I know.

MR. BOONE: See, so --

MS. ZAIA: So what do you want me to

show you?

MR. BOONE: Well, you want to work?

MS. ZAIA: Well, why not? I like to

believe me, believe me I’m honest with

you. I like to -- I mean --

MR. BOONE: But you can’t call me at

home.

MS. ZAIA: No.

MR. BOONE: And you can’t call me.

I don’t know how we can get in contact.

MS. ZAIA: Well, call me here.

MR. BOONE: Because you know the

Embassy phone --

MS. ZAIA: Okay. You know what, you

know, just give me a call anytime you

want, say Nancy, I want to see you,

downstairs

MR. BOONE: Okay, Now, maybe that’s

68a

a problem ‘cause everybody knows me. I

mean, I’m well known, you see. I’m well

known for going against all these --

well, Chinese. Everybody says I hate

Chinese. I don’t hate Chinese. But the

Chinese, there’s so many more of them.

MS. ZAIA: No, but there’s nobody

that cannot complain to you because

(inaudible) a whole lot of friends

(inaudible). We can do that.

MR. BOONE: How much is this worth

to you?

MS. ZAIA: I don’t know what you

gonna do to them. Because I don’t know

what you’re gonna do.

MR. BOONE: Well, if you want visas,

if that’s what you want --

MS. ZAIA: Visas to where?

MR. BOONE: To the U.S.

MS. ZAIA: You can do to U.S.?

MR. BOONE: Yes.

MS. ZAIA: Oh my God, How long that

69a

take?

MR. BOONE: I’ve gotta do it within

the course of the day because if the

reconciliation, see; the numbers have to

be -- it’s an easy process. And the

thing about why people don’t realize how

easy it is, is that we don’t keep records

of the issuances beyond six months.

MS. ZAIA: So you work with the U.S.

Embassy now.

MR. BOONE: I’m the chief of the

section.

MS. ZAIA: Oh, my God.

MR. BOONE: I am the consul --

MS. ZAIA: For the --

MR. BOONE: Yeah, I have been over

here. I’ve been scoping you out, Okay,

so you

know that, I mean, you know. I wanted to

get a sense of --

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: You don’t talk to Sue,

70a

you don’t talk to Sue.

MS. ZAIA: No, she don’t know

nothing.

MR. BOONE: Because in Belize, this

is where you talk to Saaed, Saaed’s going

to talk to everybody else.

MS. ZAIA: No, Saaed, no. I told

him I need to bring people here to invest

them some money and they going to do this

and that.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: So, you, what are you

going to do? How long it gonna take visa

for them?

MR. BOONE: Well, what kind of

money; what are we talking about?

MS. ZAIA: If you gonna get the

visa, if you get the visa because this is

A group.

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Like 15-16 people.

MR. BOONE: Go ahead.

7la

MS. ZAIA: Okay, so what do you

think it’s worth to get them? I got ll,

I got 11 today, I got 11.

MR. BOONE: Here?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, with me, 1l.

MR. BOONE: I’ve never done this

before, so.

MS. ZAIA: I know. I got 11. See

what you’re gonna do. See how much you

need. I’m ready to pay any --

MR. BOONE: How about $300.00 a

piece? You’re talking about multiple.

MS. ZAIA: I know, I know.

MR. BOONE: So that they come and

go.

MS. ZAIA: Three hundred, Belize or

America?

MR. BOONE: America, U.S. This isa

multiple --

MS. ZAIA: Okay, how long it gonna

take?

MR. BOONE: I have to close up my

72a

books

by 4:30, 5:00.

MS. ZAIA: You gonna let me know?

Okay.

MR. BOONE: I can -- if you want me,

I have to start the process.

MS. ZAIA: Okay, go ahead, start.

MR. BOONE: See, we are -- this is

why I can’t stay long because I’m the

chief of this section.

MS. ZAIA: But there’s no problem

for visa to they go to the America?

MR.- BOONE: What?

MS. ZAIA: There’s no problem?

MR. BOONE: No, they hop on a plane.

They don’t have -- see, with the U.S.

visa they don’t even have to go through

Mexico by road.

MS. ZAIA: You can go to the Miami?

MR. BOONE: You put them on Taca

(ph.), you put them on American Airlines,

blah, blah, blah.

73a

MS. ZAIA: Okay. So you’re going to

do visa and passport Iraqi?

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: If you give them to me,

- give me two and I will bring back visas

and then we will --

MR. ZAIA: You need two passports?

MR. BOONE: Well, we’ll start off

with two. I’m going to see how it plays

because my secretary goes over ny

reconciliation and if she sees. any

problem, okay, she won’t see the Iraqi

passport, therefore, she will see just

two notes to the effect that these

passports -- they will be recorded as

Balizian.

MS. ZAIA: Okay, I know, I

understand.

MR. BOONE: Okay, yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Okay, let’s go

downstairs. We’ll make some coffee and

74a

then I’m going to bring you~ two

passports.

MR. BOONE: Go downstairs, okay.

You don’t say a work to Nancy, Okay?

MS. ZAIA: I know, I know, believe

me, believe me, honest. You mean, give

me a promise you are honest with me. I

don’t want nobody to play games with me.

MR. BOONE: Your people will go. I

am the chief of the section, okay.

MS. ZAIA: I don’t know you.

MR. BOONE: No, I’m the chief of the

section see. All right.

MS. ZAIA: But why you scared to

give me your home number.

MR. BOONE: Because my phone is

hooked into the Embassy.

MS. ZAIA: Okay.

MR. BOONE: See?

MS. ZAIA: But in the future, if I

like to call you from America what do I

do? If I talk to you like hi, how are

es A A Ta

75a

you; how’s everything?

I told you -- I told you all my job.

They got to send you, two T-shirts.

(inaudible).

MR. BOONE: I have a girlfriend,

Okay.

MS. ZAIA: When I hold her I need to

talk with Rudy and you mean --

MR. BOONE: Yeah, she -- yeah, and

then I will go back and I will call you

back from her house.

MS. ZAIA: Call me collect anytime

you want to. I give you my number, I

give you everything.

MR. BOONE: Okay, I don’t plan to

stay in the foreign service long and --

MS. ZAIA: And also if you --

MR. BOONE: Well --

MS. ZAIA: Can do something, I mean

I got on she had a big baby few months

--- I need to do, to help.

MR. BOONE: Okay, I gotta get back.

76a

MS. ZAIA: You come downstairs.

Follow me.

MR. BOONE: Yeah, where’s'= my

“sunglasses? Okay, We’ll see you; it was

Nice talking with you.

[Conversation with 3rd person]

MS. ZAIA: Okay. What do you want to

drink?

MR. BOONE: Just a coke because I

have to get back.

MS. ZAIA: What do you like to

drink; tea, hot tea?

MR. BOONE: Where are you from?

Zaia: America No, where were you born?

MS. ZAIA: My mom was from Palestine

and my dad was from Lebanon.

MR. BOONE: Lebanon.

MS. ZAIA: I’ve been in America

about 15 years.

MR. BOONE: You know, I spent 15 of

my years before I got married with a

sabra, a Jewish woman.

eset dei ei Tbs acetal Laas sa TR Daa Oe

77a

MS. ZAIA: Jewish?

MR. BOONE: Yeah, and that was an

interesting experience. Then things

started changing because her parents had

been in the Holocaust and we would talk

about that, you know, but I will get to

Israel or Palestine.

MS... ZAIA: Give me your phone

number, all right?

MR. BOONE: Let me ask her first. I

haven’t asked her.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible)

MR. BOONE: Is this it here? Okay.

MS. ZAIA: Because I have to --

MR. BOONE: Well, let me see how

the two go. I have to figure out the

reconciliation.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible). Oh, my God.

MR. BOONE: Next year in Jerusalem,

as they use to say. You know that? You

know that the Jewish saying next year in

Jerusalem?

78a

MS. ZAIA: So where are you going to

go?

MR. BOONE: I’m going to Manila.

MS. ZAIA: Where’s that?

MR. BOONE: The Philippines.

MS. ZAIA: Oh, Philippines. Oh, you

gonna work there in the Philippines?

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Maybe you can _ do

something there.

MR. BOONE: Well, there are a lot of

-- yeah.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible). They are

good people. You will take care of them.

(Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: Now, the visa will have

my name on it, by the way.

MS. ZAIA: Your name?

MR. BOONE: You know the slug

(inaudible) ?

MS. ZAIA: I know. (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: I’ma bit nervous. I’m

oI

a bit nervous.

¥

|

MS. ZAIA: No.

MR. BOONE No?

MS. ZAIA: It’s easy. You know, I

got one guy in Jordan who help me a lot.

He give me a visa for two of my relatives

(inaudible).

MR. BOONE: I have friends that do

it all the time and our thing is we have

a lot of what we call, you, know

discretion. We can make decisions as a

consul.

Anyway, do you have the two for me?

MS. ZAIA: She gonna bring it to me.

MR. BOONE: Okay.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: It’s not going to be a

big package?

MS. ZAIA: no.

MR. BOONE: It’s not going to be a

big package; it’s not going to be a big

package?

80a

MS. ZAIA: No.

MR. BOONE: This is why I picked up

a little magazine. I will get -- you

know what we talked about this afternoon?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah. So when will I see

you again?

MR. BOONE: Call me after 5:00.

Shall I call you here?

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, give me a call

upstairs.

MR. BOONE: Okay.

MS. ZAIA: Just give me a call,

tell them I want to see you. (Inaudible)

MR. BOONE: By the Ramada? Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: You know where?

MR. BOONE: Yeah.

MS. ZAIA: Okay. Meet me there.

MR. BOONE: At the Ramada.

MS. ZAIA: Not the Ramada.

MR. BOONE: Fort George Hotel? No?

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: Oh, with that swimming

8la

MS. ZAIA: Yeah, with the swim pool.

MR. BOONE: The Villa?

MS. ZAIA: Villa, yeah.

MR. BOONE: Okay, all right.

MS. ZAIA: You see me there.

MR. BOONE: What time?

MS. ZAIA:It depends what time you--

MR. BOONE: Well, I want to go home

and change. Six, 6:30?

MS. ZAIA: Six-thirty, that’s when

I’m going to be there, okay?

MR. BOONE: Okay.

MS. ZAIA: (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: How do you say hello in

Arabic? Salam Aleikum. Hi, how are you

doing? They shouldn’t take me for a

bedouin.

MS. ZAIA: Yeah. Or Chaldean.

MR. BOONE: No, I’m single now. I

just went through a divorce.

MS. ZAIA: Good for you. You’re

like me. I don’t like marry.

82a

MR. BOONE: Hi, stranger, How are

you? boy, she has grown.

MS. ZAIA: Everybody they know you

here.

MR. BOONE: Yeah, I’m popular.

That’s why -- I know a lot of people. I

used to each lunch, breakfast and dinner

here.

MS. ZAIA: Oh. (Inaudible).

MR. BOONE: You should stay here the

next time.

MS. ZAIA: No. When I give you a

call (inaudible).

MR. BOONE: [conversation with 3rd

person - starting with Hi, how are you

doing. Haven’t seen you for a long

time.] I’ve gotta get back. You know

the Bokadeer (ph.) Hotel? I/’11 write it

down for you.

MS. ZAIA: No.

MR. BOONE: All right. Okay. Nice

to meet you. Your English is good.

83a

Okay, thank you. Good-bye.

MS. ZAIA: Good-bye.

(Whereupon the conversation was

concluded. )