United States v. Sherif Akande , 624 F. App'x 94 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4907
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SHERIF AKANDE, a/k/a Sharif Akande, a/k/a Reef, a/k/a Reef
Wall,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00288-RWT-2)
Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015
Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William A. Mitchell, Jr., BRENNAN MCKENNA MANZI SHAY LEVAN
CHARTERED, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom, David I.
Salem, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sherif Akande appeals his 199-month sentence imposed
following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud,
two counts of bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Akande
challenges the district court’s calculation of his advisory
Sentencing Guidelines range. The Government contends that any
such errors would be harmless even if they occurred, because
they had no effect on the sentence the district court imposed.
We agree with the Government and affirm the district court’s
judgment.
We may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness
inquiry without assessing the merits of each of Akande’s
challenges. United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382
(4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Juarez-Gomez v. United States,
135 S. Ct. 305 (2014), and cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 384 (2014).
“A Guidelines error is considered harmless if we determine that
(1) ‘the district court would have reached the same result even
if it had decided the guidelines issue the other way,’ and (2)
‘the sentence would be reasonable even if the guidelines issue
had been decided in the defendant’s favor.’” Id. (quoting
United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir.
2011)).
In this case, the district court explicitly stated on the
record that it would have given Akande a 199-month sentence even
2
if it had calculated his Guidelines range differently. The
district court also discussed each of the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors in detail and explained at
length why it considered a 199-month sentence necessary. Given
the thoroughness of the district court’s reasoning and the
deferential standard of review we apply when reviewing criminal
sentences, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we
conclude that Akande’s sentence would be reasonable even if all
disputed issues were resolved in his favor. See Savillon-
Matute, 636 F.3d 119 at 124. Therefore, both prongs of the
above test are met, and any error in the district court’s
Guidelines calculation was harmless.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3