United States v. Abdiweli Jama ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-1829
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Abdiweli Mohamed Jama, also known as Abdiwali Mohamed Jama
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 13, 2023
Filed: April 26, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, STRAS and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Abdiweli Jama pleaded guilty to two counts related to a robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)–(iii), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 144 months
1
The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
in prison. Jama argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable considering
the § 3553(a) factors. We affirm Jama’s sentence.
We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Jama received a
below-Guidelines sentence, making it “nearly inconceivable that the court abused its
discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Lazarski, 560
F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).
Jama argues that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor—that the
COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for him to get treatment for his opioid
addiction and depression. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (explaining that the district
court abuses its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should
have received significant weight” (citation omitted)). But the district court did
consider this factor. The district court discussed how drugs “did a lot to take [Jama]
off the rails of life and turn [him] into a person that [he] hadn’t been up to that point
in time.” Sentencing Tr. 16. And at sentencing, Jama’s attorney discussed how the
pandemic prevented Jama from checking into resource centers. United States v.
Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Because the sentencing record
demonstrates that the district court heard [the defendant’s] arguments . . . , the court
properly considered those facts.”).
Jama argues that his law-abiding record prior to his drug addiction should
have been given greater weight. But the district court’s “choice to assign relatively
greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than to the mitigating
personal characteristics of the defendant is well within the wide latitude given to
individual district court judges in weighing relevant factors.” United States v.
Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). The district court has not
abused its discretion, and we affirm.
______________________________
-2-