Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02561/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02561-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mohamed Essa
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 09-2561

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Mohamed Essa,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: February 8, 2010

 Filed: February 19, 2010

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Mohamed Essa appeals as unreasonable the district court's1

 imposition of a 44-

month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit

healthcare fraud and one count of conspiring to launder money. Essa and his wife

owned an interpreting business, and they submitted fraudulent claims for interpreting

services purportedly provided to public assistance insureds who needed language

assistance during health care visits. Essa's wife was convicted of all counts of the 46-

count indictment following a trial, but Essa, who was in South Africa when the

Appellate Case: 09-2561 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Entry ID: 3635983
-2-

indictment was returned, avoided trial by overstaying his visa. He was later caught

as he attempted to enter Zimbabwe. Essa waived deportation proceedings, returned

to the United States, and pleaded guilty to two of the charges in the indictment. At

sentencing, the district court rejected an obstruction of justice enhancement, gave Essa

an acceptance of responsibility downward adjustment, and calculated an advisory

Guidelines sentencing range of 37 to 46 months, the range contemplated in the plea

agreement. The court sentenced Essa to 44 months of imprisonment. 

Upon careful review, we conclude that Essa's within-guidelines sentence is not

unreasonable. See United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896, 901 (8th Cir. 2009)

(within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable on appeal). The district court

properly considered the sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including Essa's

wife's relatively higher culpability, for which she received a 72-month sentence, and

the fact that Essa avoided arrest for a time by overstaying his visa in South Africa and

not returning to the United States until caught by authorities, see USSG § 3C1.1,

comment. (n.5(d)) (noting that avoiding or fleeing arrest ordinarily does not warrant

an obstruction of justice enhancement "but may warrant a greater sentence within the

otherwise applicable guideline range"). The calculation of Essa's advisory Guidelines

range necessarily took into account Essa's lack of a prior record. See United States

v. Sandoval-Rodriguez, 452 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir.) ("[Defendant's] minimal prior

criminal history was taken into account in arriving at the appropriate advisory

Guidelines range."), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1040 (2006). Finally, we see no abuse in

the district court's rejection of Essa's request for a variance based on his assistance to

the Somalian community, where the court reasoned that Essa and his wife used those

same people who needed interpretive services to perpetrate their fraud. The district

court did not abuse its wide discretion in setting Essa's sentence, see Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007) (requiring a "deferential abuse-of-discretion standard"

of review).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2561 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Entry ID: 3635983