US v. Sherif Akande
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?