United States v. Omer Mohamed
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12496
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mohamed pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(a) and was sentenced to 144 months’ imprisonment.
- He appeals arguing the district court misapplied the terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4, relied on transcripts from a related trial, erred in finding obstruction-of-justice and loss of acceptance of responsibility, and imposed an unreasonable sentence.
- At sentencing, Mohamed admitted he assisted men to travel to Somalia to fight Ethiopian troops, demonstrating the targeted calculation to influence government conduct.
- The district court applied the § 3A1.4 enhancement based on Mohamed’s admission of actions intended to promote terrorism, not motive, and denied reliance on co-conspirator purposes.
- The court also considered co-conspirator transcripts at sentencing and concluded they were proper background information for imposing sentence.
- The district court found Mohamed obstructed justice by providing a false statement about his involvement with ELMI, affecting supervision, and declined to grant acceptance of responsibility credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biennial issue: terrorism enhancement interpretation | Mohamed: enhancement requires specific intent to influence government. | Mohamed: district court correctly held calculation-based standard; motive irrelevant. | The enhancement applies when offense is calculated to influence government; specific intent shown by admission. |
| Use of co-conspirator transcripts at sentencing | Transcripts may be considered background information; no objection raised. | Transcripts are admissible for sentencing purposes per 18 U.S.C. § 3661 and guidelines. | Reliance on co-conspirator transcripts at sentencing is proper. |
| Obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility | No error in finding obstruction and lack of acceptance credit. | Misstatement about ELMI was immaterial and not obstruction. | District court did not err; there was a material misstatement and obstruction enhancement upheld. |
| Reasonableness of sentence vs. co-defendants | Mohamed’s sentence should be comparable to co-conspirators. | Disparity allowed due to legitimate distinctions; Mohamed obstructed and did not accept responsibility. | Sentence affirmed; below guidelines range and justified by distinctions among co-defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 1996) (guideline interpretation standard of review for a guidelines issue)
- United States v. Lee, 625 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) ( Sixth Amendment considerations with guideline factors)
- United States v. Chandia, 514 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2008) (how to infer defendant’s intent to promote terrorism from actions)
- United States v. Chandia, 675 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirming use of evidence beyond knowledge of terrorist purpose)
- United States v. Wright, 747 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2014) (specific intent requirement for terrorism enhancement)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (specific-intent standard for § 3A1.4)
- United States v. Siddiqui, 699 F.3d 690 (2d Cir. 2012) (requirement of specific intent for terrorism enhancement)
- United States v. Awan, 607 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2010) (definition of 'calculated to influence or affect' wording)
- United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing obstruction-of-justice enhancements)
- United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1992) (sentencing inquiry scope and admissibility)
- United States v. Johnson, 688 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 2012) (disparities among co-defendants with legitimate distinctions)
- United States v. Davis–Bey, 605 F.3d 479 (8th Cir. 2010) (legitimate distinctions govern sentencing disparities)
- United States v. Sandoval–Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2011) (not similarly situated where responsibility differs)
- United States v. Worthey, 716 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir. 2013) (below-guidelines sentence rarely abused)
- United States v. Spencer, 700 F.3d 317 (8th Cir. 2013) (discretion in sentencing when co-defendants diverge)
- United States v. Wise, 976 F.3d 393 (8th Cir. 2020) (sentencing background information and procedures)