United States of America v. DILLON SHAREEF, AKA Nuraldin Shareef Karim, AKA Seal, AKA Dillon Sherif

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DILLON SHAREEF, AKA Nuraldin
Shareef Karim, AKA Seal, AKA Dillon
Sherif,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50585
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00211-DDP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, WARDLAW, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Dillon Shareef pleaded guilty to three counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1341 with enhanced penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2326 for victimizing the elderly
FILED
MAR 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

as part of telemarketing fraud. He appeals his sentence of 171 months of
imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err when it refused to calculate and grant
time-served credit for Shareef’s incarceration in Canada and the United Kingdom
while he awaited extradition on these charges. “[D]istrict courts lack authority at
sentencing to give credit for time served.” United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907,
909 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992)).
“[T]he prerogative to grant credits in the first instance rests with the Attorney
General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons.” Id. at 909 (citing Wilson, 503 U.S.
at 333-35). Not only was there no error here, but the government has shown that
Shareef was accorded credit for time-served by the Bureau of Prisons.
2. The district court properly rejected Shareef’s request for a two-level
reduction in his offense level because he consented to extradition pursuant to
U.S.S.G. §5K2.0. The agreement regarding this potential reduction in offense
level was part of a plea offer that Shareef never accepted. Therefore, Shareef was
not entitled to the benefit of the proposed plea agreement. Cf. United States v.
Clark, 218 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Plea agreements are contractual in
nature and are measured by contract law standards.”).
3. The district court did not err when it calculated Shareef’s sentence
under U.S.S.G. §2F1.1 using a loss amount of $1.8 million. At sentencing, Shareef

-- 2 of 3 --

explicitly withdrew the objection he had made to the higher loss amount set forth
in the Presentence Report. When the district court reduced the loss amount to $1.8
million, counsel stated that he did not dispute that amount. Claims of sentencing
errors that were forfeited at sentencing are reviewed for plain error. United States
v. Evans-Martinez, 530 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). To determine whether
there was plain error, we apply the familiar test set out in United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993). Here, there was no error, let alone a clear error affecting
substantial rights, in the district court’s determination of a loss amount that Shareef
agreed to at sentencing.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --