United States v. Shakal
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13901
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Shakal, a Somali immigrant, pleaded guilty to four counts of aiding and abetting the preparation of false federal income-tax returns.
- He argued his experiences in Somalia during the civil war entitled him to a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range.
- From 2003–2004, Shakal operated two Minneapolis tax-preparation businesses and fraudulently claimed fuel credits, defrauding the U.S. of about $2,027,832.
- He was indicted in 2005 on 43 counts; fled, was captured in Canada in 2008, extradited in 2009, and pleaded guilty to four counts.
- The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 63–78 months and ultimately sentenced him to 72 months plus one year of supervised release.
- Shakal appealed, challenging the substantive reasonableness of the sentence as over-weighting the Guidelines and under-weighting personal history and § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 72-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Shakal argues the sentence overemphasizes the Guidelines and underweights his history. | The government contends the district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and the Guidelines within a reasonable range. | No abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed as reasonable within the Guidelines. |
| Whether district court properly weighed personal history and circumstances under § 3553(a) | Shakal asserts his traumatic Somali experience warrants a shorter sentence. | The government maintains the court adequately considered history and did not err in weighing factors. | District court properly considered and weighed personal history; no error. |
| Whether the district court appropriately addressed a purported sentencing disparity with Mohamed | Mohamed received a shorter sentence; Shakal claims disparity should affect his own sentence. | The court found Mohamed’s case materially different in amount of loss and thus not comparable. | Court reasonably distinguished Mohamed; no requisite disparity adjustment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444 (8th Cir.2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc; framework for reviewing sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Robinson, 516 F.3d 716 (8th Cir.2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)