United States v. Deeb

Case: 25-30576 Document: 70-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 25-30576 FILED September 2, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Hikmat Deeb, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:23-CR-214-2 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Graves, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Hikmat Deeb appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of money laundering. He raises four arguments: (1) the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b); (2) the district court erroneously applied a four-level enhancement to his base offense level under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a); (3) the district court erred in calculating his criminal history Case: 25-30576 Document: 70-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2026

No. 25-30576 score; and (4) his within-guidelines sentence of 244 months of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable.

As for his first argument, Deeb fails to show that the alleged breach of the plea agreement affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Malmquist, 92 F.4th 555, 563-64 (5th Cir. 2024). Furthermore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement applied because the district court’s treatment of couriers who transported money as participants in the money laundering operation was plausible in light of the record as a whole.

See United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 396 (5th Cir. 2000). Deeb fails to show that any error in his criminal history score affected his substantial rights. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. Lastly, his substantive reasonableness argument is unavailing because he fails to show that “the sentence does not account for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Rider, 94 F.4th 445, 461 (5th Cir. 2024); United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 337 (5th Cir. 2019).

AFFIRMED.