United States v. Mustafa Mohamed , 623 F. App'x 839 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 15-1621
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Mustafa Ahmed Mohamed
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
    ____________
    Submitted: November 16, 2015
    Filed: December 14, 2015
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Mustafa Mohamed appeals from the sentence imposed by the District Court1
    after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition and a firearm.
    1
    The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    His counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), arguing that the sentence was unreasonable. We denied counsel’s
    withdrawal motion and ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether, in light of
    Johnson v. United States, 
    135 S. Ct. 2551
    , 2557 (2015) (holding that the residual
    clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague), the
    District Court committed error by applying a sentencing enhancement under the
    United States Sentencing Guidelines based on Mohamed’s prior burglary convictions.
    Upon reviewing the supplemental briefs, we conclude that the District Court did
    not commit procedural error. See United States v. Stymiest, 
    581 F.3d 759
    , 767 (8th
    Cir. 2009) (de novo review), cert. denied, 
    559 U.S. 1055
     (2010). Specifically, the
    court properly enhanced Mohamed’s sentence based on prior convictions for first
    degree burglary of a residence, 
    Minn. Stat. § 609.582
    , subd. 1(c), and third degree
    burglary of a commercial building, 
    Minn. Stat. § 609.582
    , subd. 3. See U.S.S.G.
    § 2K2.1(a)(2) & comment. (n.1) (stating that the Guidelines base offense level is 24
    if the defendant committed the instant offense after sustaining two or more felony
    convictions of, inter alia, a crime of violence and cross-referencing U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2
    (career-offender provision)). As to the first degree burglary conviction, burglary of
    a dwelling is specifically included in the language of the career-offender provision as
    a “crime of violence.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) (defining “crime of violence” as
    “any offense under federal or state law, punishable by imprisonment for a term
    exceeding one year, that . . . is burglary of a dwelling”). Further, this Court has held
    that burglary of a commercial building qualifies as a crime of violence under the same
    provision, without relying on the residual clause. See Stymiest, 
    581 F.3d at 767, 769
    (setting out alternative holdings that defendant’s sentence was properly enhanced
    under § 4B1.2(a) because third-degree burglary of an unoccupied structure met the
    generic definition of burglary and “because the ‘of a dwelling’ limitation in
    § 4B1.2(a)(2) was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor [v. United
    States, 
    495 U.S. 575
    , 597 (1990)]”); United States v. Bell, 
    445 F.3d 1086
    , 1090 (8th
    Cir. 2006).
    -2-
    As to the contentions in counsel’s Anders brief, we conclude that the within-
    Guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Salazar-
    Aleman, 
    741 F.3d 878
    , 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that a district court abuses its
    discretion and imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence if the court fails to
    consider a relevant factor, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor,
    or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors); United States
    v. Cook, 
    698 F.3d 667
    , 670 (8th Cir. 2012) (treating a within-Guidelines sentence as
    presumptively reasonable).
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We deny as moot Mohamed’s motion
    for new counsel.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-1621

Citation Numbers: 623 F. App'x 839

Judges: Loken, Bowman, Gruender

Filed Date: 12/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024