United States v. Yahya Shakal
Filing
OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, LAVENSKI R. SMITH and STEVEN M. COLLOTON. Lavenski R. Smith, Authoring Judge (PUBLISHED) [3805569] [09-3619]
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3619
___________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Yahya Muhumed Shakal,
Appellant.
*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
*
*
*
___________
Submitted: October 22, 2010
Filed: July 8, 2011
___________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Yahya Muhumed Shakal pleaded guilty to four counts of aiding and abetting
the preparation of false federal income-tax returns. At sentencing, Shakal argued that
his experiences in Somalia during the violent Somali civil war entitled him to a
sentence well below the advisory Guidelines range. The district court1 denied Shakal's
request, and sentenced him to a Guidelines sentence of 72 months' imprisonment.
Shakal now appeals, urging that the district court's sentence is substantively
unreasonable. We affirm.
1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
Appellate Case: 09-3619
Page: 1
Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805569
I. Background
The facts of this case are undisputed. Shakal, a Somali immigrant, was born in
Mogadishu, Somalia, and endured numerous atrocities perpetrated against him and his
family during the Somali Civil War of the mid-1990s. In 1996, Shakal escaped to the
United States, initially settling in Dallas, Texas, where, in 1999, his wife and children
arrived from Somalia to join him. Thereafter, Shakal and his family relocated to
Minnesota's Twin Cities area.
In 2003 and 2004, Shakal operated two tax preparation businesses in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Shakal filed over 1,000 federal and state income tax returns,
each fraudulently claiming fuel credits to which the taxpayer was not entitled. Shakal
thus helped defraud the United States of $2,027,832.
On April 12, 2005, a federal grand jury indicted Shakal on 43 counts of aiding
and abetting the preparation of false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
The following day, authorities arrested Shakal, who was subsequently released on
$25,000 personal recognizance bond. Shakal promptly absconded, and on April 28,
2005, a warrant for his arrest issued.
Shakal remained at large until July 23, 2008, when authorities apprehended him
in Canada. In February 2009, Canadian officials extradited Shakal back to the United
States. On March 9, 2009, a second grand jury returned a superseding indictment, and
on April 15, 2009, Shakal pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to four counts of
the indictment.
On October 13, 2009, the district court held a sentencing hearing in Shakal's
case. First, the court heard and ruled on objections concerning certain adjustments and
enhancements under the Sentencing Guidelines, and Shakal does not appeal these
rulings. Next, the court calculated Shakal's sentencing range under the advisory
-2-
Appellate Case: 09-3619
Page: 2
Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805569
Guidelines to be 63 to 78 months' imprisonment.2 Shakal argued that his sentence
should be no greater than 48 months based upon his personal history and
circumstances as a Somali immigrant supporting a large family.
After considering Shakal's arguments and the government's responses, the court
sentenced Shakal to a mid-range Guidelines sentence of 72 months' imprisonment,
followed by one year of supervised release. Shakal now appeals this sentence on the
ground that it is substantively unreasonable because it gives too much weight to the
Guidelines, insufficient weight to his personal circumstances and other § 3553(a)
factors, and fails to account for a purported sentencing disparity between Shakal and
an individual who allegedly taught Shakal his tax fraud methodology.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Shakal urges this court to vacate the district court's sentence and
remand for resentencing on the ground that his 72-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. Specifically, Shakal maintains that a Guidelines sentence in his case is
substantively unreasonable because it (1) gives too much weight to the purely
advisory Guidelines, (2) gives too little weight to his personal history and
circumstances as required by § 3553(a), and (3) fails to account for a purported
sentencing disparity existing between Shakal and one of his cohorts in the underlying
tax-fraud scheme.
In reviewing Shakal's challenge to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence, we review the trial court's sentencing decision only for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 2010). "A district court abuses its
discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
(3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those factors commits a
2
Shakal does not challenge the district court's Guidelines computation.
-3-
Appellate Case: 09-3619
Page: 3
Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805569
clear error of judgment." United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009)
(en banc). Moreover, "[a] sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a
presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal." United States v. Robinson, 516
F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2008). "'Substantive appellate review in sentencing cases is
narrow and deferential[,]'" and "'[i]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a
district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines
range—as substantively unreasonable.'" Shuler, 598 F.3d at 447 (quoting Feemster,
572 F.3d at 464).
The record clearly shows that the district court considered Shakal's violent
experiences during the Somali Civil War, including witnessing the murder of his
father and the rapes of his sisters. Indeed, the district court agreed with Shakal's
counsel that Shakal and his family had "been through hell," and conceded that "[t]he
real issue is going to be . . . how should that affect his sentence this morning."
Also, the district court considered but rejected Shakal's sentencing-disparity
argument. Specifically, Shakal maintained, as he does now, that a "Mr. Mohamed"
initially taught Shakal how to fraudulently request the fuel tax credit on tax returns,
and that Mohamed received only 18 to 24 months at sentencing (from a different
judge). The district court responded to this argument by first acknowledging that it
had read through Mohamed's entire file the night before Shakal's sentencing, but
ultimately concluded that Mohamed's case differed greatly from Shakal's in that
Mohammed's tax scheme cost the United States Government only $44,000, far less
than Shakal's $2 million haul.
Prior to its formal pronouncement of Shakal's sentence, the district court fully
considered Shakal's history and circumstances, as well as the other § 3553(a) factors,
stating among other things:
-4-
Appellate Case: 09-3619
Page: 4
Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805569
My judgment is anything less than 72 months would not promote respect
for the law. . . . I don't mean to upset your family or your children, but
I believe that is a fair and just sentence in this case. If it wasn't for some
of what you have been through, I actually frankly believe that 78 months
does not appropriately meet the 3553(a) factors what has been admitted
to here. And I believe a sentence of something closer to 90 months
would have been appropriate. And I believe for the reason I stated, 72
months will properly reflect—it is far more than most of you think is
fair, and I stand by it.
Thus, the district court not only considered Shakal's personal history and
circumstances in fashioning a sentence but reduced the sentence it would have
otherwise assessed Shakal in light thereof. Therefore, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in sentencing Shakal to 72 months' imprisonment.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-5-
Appellate Case: 09-3619
Page: 5
Date Filed: 07/08/2011 Entry ID: 3805569
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?