United States v. Mamadou Lamarana Bah, 694 F. App'x 122

Mamadou Bah pled guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2)) and aggravated identity theft with aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1), 2) based on a multi-year scheme to re-encode stolen card data, buy cigarettes in NC, and sell them in NY.
Bah was an upper-level manager, responsible for coordinating trips, procuring and re-encoding card data, supplying runners, and transporting cigarettes; he was attributed 238 stolen accounts (15 with charges over $500).
Law enforcement encounters occurred in Dec 2011, Sep 2013, and Jan 2014 (the arrest while using re-encoded cards). After initial arrest Bah moved to Missouri and committed a related scheme, receiving a state sentence and later being transferred to federal custody.
Sentencing calculations: offense level 15 and Criminal History III produced a 24–30 month range for the conspiracy; aggravated identity theft required a consecutive mandatory 24 months, yielding a combined Guidelines range of 48–54 months.
The government moved under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a limited downward departure based on cooperation and recommended 41 months; the district court granted a limited departure but imposed an upward variance to reach 48 months on the conspiracy count plus 24 months consecutive (72 months total). Bah appealed for procedural and substantive unreasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: failure to quantify §5K1.1 departure	Bah: district court erred by granting a §5K1.1 departure but not specifying its extent, leaving uncertain the benefit received	Government/District Court: court adequately explained reasons for final sentence under §3553(a); quantification not required where explanation allows appellate review	Affirmed — no reversible procedural error; explanation sufficed for appellate review
Substantive reasonableness: upward variance above Guidelines	Bah: 18-month upward variance (and 31 months above government's recommendation) was greater than necessary; state custody time should mitigate; court impermissibly relied on immigration status	Government/District Court: variance justified by role as upper-level manager, scheme duration and scope, risk of recidivism; district court did not rely on immigration status	Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for procedural and substantive review of sentencing)
United States v. Brewer, 520 F.3d 367 (4th Cir. 2008) (scope of appellate review regarding departures and reasonableness)