# Appendix — Zaia v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386012_0935%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1995
- **Citation:** 513 U.S. 1190

## Text

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NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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. )

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386012_0935%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.