Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02177/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02177-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Soheir A. Abu Nahia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2177

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Soheir A. Abu Nahia, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2007

 Filed: August 6, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Soheir Abu Nahia appeals the 63-month prison sentence the district court1

imposed upon remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005). Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); and Abu Nahia has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2177 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2007 Entry ID: 3337458
-2-

First, we note that Abu Nahia’s release from prison on August 29, 2006, does

not render this appeal moot, because her sentence included a period of supervised

release which the district court could in its discretion shorten if this case were

remanded. See United States v. Allen, 434 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 2006). Second,

we will not consider the arguments related to calculation of the Guidelines range

because they fall outside the scope of this court’s and the Supreme Court’s limited

remand for resentencing under Booker, see United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772,

776-77 (8th Cir. 1999) (resentencing court may not disregard scope of any limitations

imposed by appellate court; district court had no basis for revisiting issues previously

decided by both it and appellate court), and because Abu Nahia could have raised

them in her previous appeal, but did not, see United States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373

(8th Cir.1995). Third, contrary to Abu Nahia’s argument, the district court did not

apply the Guidelines as mandatory at resentencing, as shown by the court’s explicit

references to the Guidelines range as “recommended.” See United States v. Ruiz, 446

F.3d 762, 776 (8th Cir.) (rejecting argument that district court applied Guidelines as

mandatory where district court correctly referenced Guidelines as advisory and

sentenced defendant to low end of Guidelines range), cert. denied, Darks v. United

States, 127 S. Ct. 537 (2006), and Gonzales v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 1027 (2007).

The only remaining issue for our review is whether Abu Nahia’s sentence was

unreasonable under Booker. We hold that the district court’s comments about Abu

Nahia’s failure to accept responsibility for her criminal conduct, and the court’s

familiarity with Abu Nahia from her initial sentencing, were sufficient to show that

the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in reaching the 63-month

sentence. See United States v. Jones, No. 06-3489, 2007 WL 1976081 at *1-2 (8th

Cir. July 10, 2007) (it is not necessary for district court mechanically to recite

§ 3553(a) factors so long as it is clear from record that court considered them;

rejecting argument that brevity of district court’s record required finding that withinGuidelines sentence was unreasonable); United States v. Jimenez-Gutierrez, No. 06-

1566, 2007 WL 1855644 at *3 (8th Cir. June 29, 2007) (acceptance of responsibility

Appellate Case: 06-2177 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2007 Entry ID: 3337458
-3-

is relevant and proper factor under § 3553(a)); cf. United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d

604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (fact that same judge presided over original sentencing

hearing and revocation hearing implied familiarity with defendant’s history and

characteristics, and district court’s awareness of defendant’s violations of release

conditions supported inference that court was aware of relevant § 3553(a) factors).

Further, we see nothing in the record to rebut the presumptive reasonableness of the

sentence, which was at the bottom of the Guidelines range. See United States v. Icaza,

Nos. 06-2882, 06-2883, 06-3003, 2007 WL 1976087 at * 3 (8th Cir. July 10, 2007)

(sentence within properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable).

We thus conclude that Abu Nahia’s sentence was not unreasonable.

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), and we have found no non-frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

sentence, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2177 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/06/2007 Entry ID: 3337458