NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 10-4704

_____________

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

IBRAHIM FOFANA

a/k/a Issiajh Bah

Ibrahim Fofana,

Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-09-cr-00662-001)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 19, 2012

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: March 29, 2012) 

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Ibrahim Fofana challenges the 124-month term of imprisonment to 

which he was sentenced after pleading guilty. Despite Fofana’s arguments to the 
2

contrary, however, the sentence imposed by the District Court is both procedurally and 

substantively reasonable. Accordingly, we will affirm.

I.

We write principally for the benefit of the parties and therefore recount only the 

essential facts and procedural history.

A grand jury returned a twelve-count indictment against Fofana for his 

involvement in a scheme to acquire and use hundreds of stolen credit and debit card 

account numbers. Before trial, Fofana pleaded guilty to ten of the twelve charges in the 

indictment, including access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The presentence 

investigation report prepared on Fofana set his Sentencing Guidelines range at 124-269 

months.1

Fofana raised several objections to the report’s sentencing calculation and asked

the District Court for a variance from the Sentencing Guidelines range. After considering 

the parties’ written and oral arguments, the District Court denied Fofana’s requests. The 

District Court sentenced Fofana to the shortest term of imprisonment within the 

Sentencing Guidelines range, 124 months.

 1 A total offense level of 24 and criminal history category of VI yielded an initial 

range of 100-125 months. However, a two-year mandatory minimum sentence applied to 

each of Fofana’s six aggravated identity theft convictions. Under 18 U.S.C. § 

1028A(b)(4), the District Court had discretion to decide whether the minimum sentences 

should run consecutively or concurrently, hence the final range of 124-269 months. 
3

The instant appeal followed.2

II.

Appellate review of a criminal sentence proceeds in two stages, both of which are 

governed by an abuse-of-discretion standard. First, we ensure “that the district court 

committed no significant procedural error.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 

(3d Cir. 2009). We then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Id. “[I]f the 

district court’s sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm it unless no reasonable 

sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular defendant for 

the reasons the district court provided.” Id. at 568.

Despite characterizing his argument as one of both procedural and substantive 

unreasonableness, we read Fofana’s brief to principally challenge the former. 

Specifically, Fofana contends that the District Court failed to adequately explain its 

rejection of his arguments for a lower sentence. The record, however, demonstrates that 

the District Court responded to each of Fofana’s arguments for a sentence different than 

that set forth in the presentence investigation report. Though short, the District Court’s 

explanations were legally sufficient because they evidence its reasoned consideration of 

Fofana’s arguments. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007) (“The 

sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has 

considered the parties’ arguments . . . . Sometimes the circumstances will call for a brief 

explanation . . . .”). The District Court proceeded to acknowledge the factors that it must 

 2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 
4

evaluate before arriving at a sentence and then deemed the bottom of the Sentencing 

Guidelines range “appropriate” for Fofana. Similarly concise records have satisfied the 

United States Supreme Court of a sentence’s procedural reasonableness. See id. at 358-

59 (deeming adequate a court’s conclusion that a sentence is “appropriate” where “a 

matter is . . . conceptually simple . . . and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge 

considered the evidence and arguments”). We will not require more here. 

Having found no procedural error, we have little difficulty finding Fofana’s 

sentence substantively reasonable. To start, Fofana’s failure to present arguments related 

to substantive unreasonableness – beyond invoking the term – suffices to justify denying

the contention because, as the challenger, he bears the burden. See Tomko, 562 F.3d at 

567 (“[T]he party challenging the sentence has the burden of demonstrating 

unreasonableness.”). In any event, though, that the District Court settled on a sentence 

within the Sentencing Guidelines range through sound procedure independently 

convinces us of the 124-months term’s substantive reasonableness. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of 

sentence.