See United States v. Corbin, 998 F.2d 1377, 1383 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1139, 114 S. Ct. 1124 (1994). But see United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1991). There the court, taking note of section 4A1.2(h) (which provides that foreign sentences may not be included in computation of the defendant's criminal history category but may be used as a basis for an upward departure under section 4A1.3) concluded that "foreign crimes" (distribution of cocaine abroad, for example) may not be considered in setting the base offense level because they are not crimes against the United States. See also United States v. Chunza-Plazas, 45 F.3d 51, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1995).

Chunza also contends that the district court erred in departing upward 16 levels on his offense level. In United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13, 16 (2d Cir. 1991), the defendant claimed that his heroin activities in Egypt should not have been counted in fixing his base offense level because (1) they were not part of the same conspiracy of which he was convicted and (2) the heroin transaction in Egypt was not a crime against the United States. On the first claim, we held that the district court did not err in finding the Egyptian conspiracy was part of the same crime as Azeem's offense of conviction in the United States.

Before discussing the positions of the parties, brief mention will be made of § 1B1.3 independent of the complicating "foreign conduct" factor. That will be followed by an overview of the Second Circuit's seminal decision regarding § 1B1.3 and foreign conduct, viz. United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1991). Such an overview is necessary to place the parties' positions in context, and will serve as a prelude to a fuller discussion of the topic later in this opinion.

United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. at 152, 117 S.Ct. at 635. We acknowledge that the Second Circuit decisions in United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1991), and United States v. Chunza-Plazas, 45 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1995), could be viewed as being in some tension with our holding and those of the Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits. In Azeem, the defendant conspired with a DEA informant in Pakistan to import heroin both to New York and also to Cairo.

In United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir.1991), the Second Circuit warned that, “To permit foreign crimes to figure in fixing the base offense level would require courts to perform a careful comparative analysis of foreign and domestic law in such instances.” 946 F.2d at 17.

In United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1991), the Second Circuit warned that, "To permit foreign crimes to figure in fixing the base offense level would require courts to perform a careful comparative analysis of foreign and domestic law in such instances." 946 F.2d at 17.

A Greenwood argues that the district court impermissibly increased his sentencing guidelines range by considering foreign losses in contravention of our decision in United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1991). We disagree.

We find no merit to Farouil's contention that there was insufficient evidence tying him to the drugs carried by Alexis, and thus we turn to his claim that the drugs may not be attributed to him because Alexis was not committing a crime against the United States. Farouil cites two cases in support of his contention that Alexis' heroin should not be counted against him: United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1991) and United States v. Chunza-Plazas, 45 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1995). Both cases are readily distinguishable from the instant case.

Subsequent decisions have thus emphasized that "same course of conduct" and "common scheme or plan" are two different things. See United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13, 16 (2d Cir. 1991) (Sneed, J.); United States v. Perdomo, 927 F.2d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 1991); Lawrence, 915 F.2d at 407. The purpose for making this distinction was, in essence, to rule that direct evidence of a common scheme or plan was not a prerequisite to a finding that certain conduct was relevant within the meaning of Guidelines § 1B1.3(a)(2).

United States v. Broker, 976 F.3D 228 (2d Cir. 2020 Djamal also argues a third ground: the calculations under the Sentencing Guidelines based upon the amount of loss did not sufficiently consider that the loss was suffered by a foreign government. See United States v. Azeem, 946 F.2d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 1991) and United States v. Chunza-Plazas, 45 F.3d 51, 57-58 (2d Cir. 1995). Defendant's brief refers to this case as "United States v. Zullo," however, the case caption on both Lexis and Westlaw shows "United States v. Brooker," and that is the caption used in this order.