United States v. Suliman El-Amin
699 F. App'x 177
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Suliman Malik El‑Amin pleaded guilty to: possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841), felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking offense (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
- Sentenced by the district court to 84 months’ imprisonment, a below‑Guidelines sentence.
- Defense counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning substantive reasonableness of the sentence and whether Dean v. United States required resentencing.
- El‑Amin filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing he should be resentenced in light of Dean.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness under Gall and affirmed, finding the Guidelines range properly calculated, the district court considered § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explained the variance.
- The court held Dean did not affect this case because the district court properly exercised discretion to vary downward under § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 84‑month below‑Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | El‑Amin argued the sentence was unreasonable given the circumstances | Government argued the sentence was reasonable and supported by § 3553(a) analysis | Affirmed: sentence was substantively reasonable; presumption of reasonableness not rebutted |
| Whether procedural errors occurred in sentencing | El‑Amin suggested possible sentencing errors | Government maintained Guidelines were correctly calculated and procedures followed | Affirmed: no significant procedural error; court considered Guidelines, gave parties opportunity to argue, and explained sentence |
| Whether Dean v. United States requires resentencing | El‑Amin argued Dean might affect imposition/duration of § 924(c) punishment | Government argued Dean does not alter district court’s discretion to vary under § 3553(a) | Affirmed: Dean does not impact this case; district court properly exercised downward variance discretion |
| Whether counsel’s Anders brief was appropriate and no meritorious issues exist | Counsel asserted no meritorious appeal issues | Government did not dispute adequacy of Anders review | Court performed independent review per Anders and found no meritorious issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for court review when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw claiming appeal is frivolous)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences under abuse‑of‑discretion review)
- United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2014) (below‑Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
- Dean v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1170 (2017) (addressing imposition of consecutive § 924(c) penalties and sentencing discretion)