Court Opinion

ID: 9958514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 16:01:33.674995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:29.440467
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3384
                         ___________________________

                              United States of America

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                            v.

          Ahmed Abdullahai Khalif, also known as Mohamed Abdulah Khalif

                        lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: March 21, 2024
                                Filed: April 9, 2024
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Ahmed Abdullahai Khalif appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense,
and the district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has

      1
      The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.
moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging a relevant-conduct determination that resulted in the assessment
of two criminal history points.

       After careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in
determining that the prior conviction was not relevant conduct and thus constituted
a prior offense for purposes of USSG § 4A1.1. See United States v. Soto, 62 F.4th
430, 432 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review); United States v. Smith, 944 F.3d 1013,
1016 (8th Cir. 2019) (factors this court considers in determining whether prior
conviction was for relevant conduct). In any event, we conclude that any error was
harmless, because the district court made clear that it found the Guidelines range
inadequate to account for certain aggravating 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and would
have imposed the same sentence even had it sustained Khalif’s objection to the
relevant-conduct determination. See United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th
Cir. 2010) (procedural errors in determining Guidelines range are subject to harmless
error analysis); see also United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984, 988-89 (8th Cir.
2016) (incorrect application of Guidelines is harmless error where district court
specified that resolution of particular issue did not affect ultimate sentence
determination).

      We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-