United States v. Fahd Aljahaf
691 F. App'x 106
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Fahd Hamood Aljahaf pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to conspiracy to traffic in contraband cigarettes (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2342(a)).
- Sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release; sentence was below the Sentencing Guidelines range.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning sentence reasonableness; defendant did not file a pro se brief.
- This court ordered supplemental briefing on whether the magistrate judge plainly erred by failing to advise Aljahaf of possible immigration consequences at the Rule 11 plea hearing.
- Aljahaf conceded his attorney warned him about immigration consequences but argued the court should have done so and that he would not have pled guilty if the court had warned him.
- The panel reviewed the record for plain error as to the plea colloquy and reviewed the sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Aljahaf) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the magistrate plainly erred by not advising Aljahaf of immigration consequences at the Rule 11 plea colloquy | Aljahaf contends he would not have pled guilty if the court had given the warning | Government notes defense counsel provided actual notice to Aljahaf prior to plea | No reversible plain error; counsel’s actual warning defeats claim that error affected substantial rights |
| Whether Aljahaf’s sentence was procedurally reasonable | Argues sentence may be unreasonable despite being below Guidelines | Government argues court correctly calculated Guidelines, heard arguments, and explained sentence under § 3553(a) | Procedurally reasonable; court calculated range, allowed argument, and explained basis |
| Whether Aljahaf’s below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Argues below-Guidelines sentence might still be unreasonable under § 3553(a) factors | Government argues below-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable and record does not rebut presumption | Substantively reasonable; presumption not rebutted by the record |
| Whether any meritorious appellate issues exist under Anders review | Aljahaf’s counsel raised the immigration-warning and sentence issues; no other claims | Government defends convictions and sentence; no reversible error shown | No meritorious grounds; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to seek leave to withdraw when an appeal is frivolous)
- United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 defects when defendant does not move to withdraw plea)
- United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (defendant shows prejudice from Rule 11 error by proving reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing; procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness for within- or below-Guidelines sentences)