Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohamed Seid Ahmed MOHAMED, a/k/a Mohamed Sidahmed Mohamed, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Satti, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed, a/k/a Mohmed Seid Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed S. Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed Mohamed, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Lbrahim, a/k/a Mohamed S. Mohamed, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4225
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Argued: May 12, 2016
    Decided: July 6, 2016
    ARGUED: Robert James Wagner, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dominick Salvatore Gerace, II, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Ka-mens, Acting Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney,- Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and Norman K. MOON, Senior United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mohamed Seid Ahmed Mohamed pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to traffic in contraband cigarettes, On appeal, he seeks to vacate his sentence of 41 months imprisonment, asserting that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to compel production of favorable information and in granting the government s motion to quash a subpoena seeking testimony about favorable information.

In accordance with a sealed opinion that has been filed and distributed to the parties and district court simultaneously herewith, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district court’s denial of Mohamed’s motion to compel, affirm the district court’s decision to quash the subpoena, and remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN