Court Opinion

ID: 9389805
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:01:19.085438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.765591
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                           ___________________________

                                 No. 22-1829
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

          Abdiweli Mohamed Jama, also known as Abdiwali Mohamed Jama

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: February 13, 2023
                              Filed: April 26, 2023
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, STRAS and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                                   ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Abdiweli Jama pleaded guilty to two counts related to a robbery, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1951, 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)–(iii), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 144 months

      1
        The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
in prison. Jama argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable considering
the § 3553(a) factors. We affirm Jama’s sentence.

       We review the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Jama received a
below-Guidelines sentence, making it “nearly inconceivable that the court abused its
discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Lazarski, 560
F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009).

       Jama argues that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor—that the
COVID-19 pandemic made it difficult for him to get treatment for his opioid
addiction and depression. See Feemster, 572 F.3d at 461 (explaining that the district
court abuses its discretion when it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should
have received significant weight” (citation omitted)). But the district court did
consider this factor. The district court discussed how drugs “did a lot to take [Jama]
off the rails of life and turn [him] into a person that [he] hadn’t been up to that point
in time.” Sentencing Tr. 16. And at sentencing, Jama’s attorney discussed how the
pandemic prevented Jama from checking into resource centers. United States v.
Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Because the sentencing record
demonstrates that the district court heard [the defendant’s] arguments . . . , the court
properly considered those facts.”).

      Jama argues that his law-abiding record prior to his drug addiction should
have been given greater weight. But the district court’s “choice to assign relatively
greater weight to the nature and circumstances of the offense than to the mitigating
personal characteristics of the defendant is well within the wide latitude given to
individual district court judges in weighing relevant factors.” United States v.
Wilcox, 666 F.3d 1154, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). The district court has not
abused its discretion, and we affirm.
                        ______________________________

                                          -2-