US v. Sherif Akande


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00288-RWT-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999713147].. [14-4907]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-4907 Doc: 45 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4907 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SHERIF AKANDE, a/k/a Sharif Akande, a/k/a Reef, a/k/a Reef Wall, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cr-00288-RWT-2) Submitted: November 25, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William A. Mitchell, Jr., BRENNAN MCKENNA MANZI SHAY LEVAN CHARTERED, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Thomas P. Windom, David I. Salem, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-4907 Doc: 45 Filed: 12/07/2015 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Sherif Akande appeals his 199-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, two counts of bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. challenges the district court’s Sentencing Guidelines range. calculation of his Akande advisory The Government contends that any such errors would be harmless even if they occurred, because they had no effect on the sentence the district court imposed. We agree with the Government and affirm the district court’s judgment. We may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry without challenges. assessing the merits of each of Akande’s United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Juarez-Gomez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 305 (2014), and cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 384 (2014). “A Guidelines error is considered harmless if we determine that (1) ‘the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the guidelines issue the other way,’ and (2) ‘the sentence would be reasonable even if the guidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Savillon-Matute, 636 F.3d 119, 123 (4th Cir. 2011)). In this case, the district court explicitly stated on the record that it would have given Akande a 199-month sentence even 2 Appeal: 14-4907 if it Doc: 45 had Filed: 12/07/2015 calculated his Pg: 3 of 3 Guidelines range differently. The district court also discussed each of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors in detail and explained at length why it considered a 199-month sentence necessary. the thoroughness of the district court’s reasoning Given and the deferential standard of review we apply when reviewing criminal sentences, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007), we conclude that Akande’s sentence would be reasonable even if all disputed issues were resolved in Matute, 636 F.3d 119 at 124. above test are met, and any his favor. See Savillon- Therefore, both prongs of the error in the district court’s Guidelines calculation was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?