United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-1594

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Abdimanan Bana Habib

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of North Dakota - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: November 17, 2023

Filed: December 27, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Abdimanan Bana Habib pled guilty to civil disorder in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 231(a)(3). The district court sentenced him to time served and three years of 

supervised release. Later that year, he violated the conditions of his release. The 

district court revoked his release, sentencing him to 9 months in prison and 24 

months of supervised release. The next year, he violated his second term of 
-2- 

supervised release. The district court1 revoked his release, sentencing him within 

the guidelines to 24 monthsin prison and 2 months of supervised release. He appeals

his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I. 

Habib argues the court considered “the improper or irrelevant factor of 

‘respect for the law’ when sentencing” him. Typically, this court reviews revocation 

sentences for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hall, 931 F.3d 694, 696 (8th Cir. 

2019). Where the defendant fails to object to the consideration of the improper factor 

at sentencing, review is for plain error. See, e.g., United States v. O’Connor, 567 

F.3d 395, 397 (8th Cir. 2009). The parties disagree about what standard of review 

applies here. See United States v. Baeten, 691 Fed. Appx. 295, 296 (8th Cir. 2017) 

(“There has been some confusion in this circuit regarding the proper standard of 

review to apply in cases where, as here, the defendant failed to contemporaneously 

object to the court’s consideration of a purportedly improper or irrelevant factor.”). 

This court need not decide because his claim fails under either standard. 

Imposing a revocation sentence, courts may consider certain factors outlined 

in “section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6) and 

(a)(7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). These include, as relevant here, the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the 

need to afford adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the public from further 

crimes. These factors do not include those listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)—

seriousness of the offense, need to promote respect for the law, and need to provide 

just punishment for the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). 

At sentencing, the district court said it must consider whether the sentence 

promotes respect for the law. It twice asked Habib what he had done “to demonstrate 

1

The Honorable Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 

the District of North Dakota.
-3- 

respect for the law.” Habib argues the court based its revocation sentence on an 

improper factor. But a district court’s mention of an 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) 

factor is not error where the court focused primarily on the defendant’s history and 

characteristics. See Hall, 931 F.3d at 697 (holding no error “where the district 

court’s use of the excluded factors was ‘immaterial’” and where the court “focused 

primarily” on the defendant’s “history and characteristics”); United States v. Dull, 

641 Fed. Appx. 669, 671 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Although § 3583(e) omits [the factors in 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)], consideration of the factors is not explicitly 

prohibited.”). 

 

Here, the district court focused primarily on Habib’s history and 

characteristics along with the other factors included under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See 

Hall, 931 F.3d at 697. The district court focused on his persistent failure to comply 

with the terms of supervision—both in the instant proceeding and throughout his 

life—his serious, violent criminal history, and his ongoing criminal conduct. The 

district court’s reference to his ability to promote respect for the law was in the 

context of his criminal history, and the court’s mention of it was inconsequential. 

See Dull, 641 Fed. Appx. at 671 (“Furthermore, the district court’s reference to these 

factors is inconsequential because the district court imposed Dull’s sentence after 

evaluating her conduct under several § 3553(a) factors that § 3583(e) specifically 

enumerates.”). The court did not err in mentioning it. See United States v. Porter, 

974 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 2020) (noting that the district court’s “disrespect for the 

law” comment “accurately described his breach of trust” in failing to comply with 

the terms of supervised release); United States v. Mitchell, 798 Fed. Appx. 968, 970 

(8th Cir. 2020) (holding no abuse of discretion where court considered proper 

revocation factors and “also mentioned promoting respect for the law”). 

II. 

Habib argues the court erred in weighing the sentencing factors. A district 

court has “wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and assign some 

factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United 
-4- 

States v. Campbell, 986 F.3d 782, 800 (8th Cir. 2021). A “defendant’s disagreement 

with the district court’s balancing of relevant considerations does not show that the 

court abused its discretion.” Id. 

Habib contends the district court did “not afford adequate weight” to his 

history and characteristics. This argument is “nothing more than a disagreement 

with how the district court chose to weigh the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. 

Brown, 992 F.3d 665, 673 (8th Cir. 2021). The district court was aware of Habib’s 

health concerns and educational aspirations, as those mitigating factors were 

discussed during the revocation hearing. See United States v. Chandler, 2023 WL 

142444, at *2 (8th Cir. Jan. 10, 2023) (unpublished) (finding district court did not 

fail to consider mitigating factors when those factors were discussed at a revocation 

hearing). But it chose to assign more weight to other factors, including his refusal 

to comply with supervised release terms, lies to his probation officer, and history of 

serious, violent crimes. The court did not abuse its discretion.

* * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________