US v. Mohamed Mohamed

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cr-00120-REP-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999879315]. [15-4225]

Appeal: 15-4225

Doc: 73

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4225

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMED SEID AHMED MOHAMED, a/k/a Mohamed Sidahmed Mohamed,
a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Satti, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed, a/k/a Mohmed
Seid Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed S. Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed Mohamed,
a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Lbrahim, a/k/a Mohamed S. Mohamed,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00120-REP-1)

Argued:

May 12, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and Norman K.
MOON, Senior United States District Judge for the Western
District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Robert James Wagner, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dominick Salvatore
Gerace, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Acting
Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,

Appeal: 15-4225

Doc: 73

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States
Attorney,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4225

Doc: 73

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

Ahmed

pled

PER CURIAM:
Mohamed

Seid

Mohamed

guilty

to

one

count

of

conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to traffic in contraband
cigarettes.

On appeal, he seeks to vacate his sentence of 41

months imprisonment, asserting that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to compel production of
favorable information and in granting the government’s motion to
quash a subpoena seeking testimony about favorable information.
In accordance with a sealed opinion that has been filed and
distributed

to

the

parties

and

district

court

simultaneously

herewith, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district
court’s

denial

of

Mohamed’s

motion

to

compel,

affirm

the

district court’s decision to quash the subpoena, and remand the
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with that opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

3