United States v. Ali Ghani Khaleel


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4285655-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Forest David Eastman.; Denying [4292208-2] motion for appointment of new counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ali Abdul Ghani Khaleel. [4360282] [15-1963]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1963 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Ali Abdul Ghani Khaleel lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: January 27, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Ali Abdul Ghani Khaleel appeals after the district court1 denied him a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). In 2012, a jury convicted Khaleel of 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Appellate Case: 15-1963 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Entry ID: 4360282 possessing methamphetamine, marijuana, and a substance containing cocaine base with the intent to distribute. The district court determined that the applicable Guidelines range was 78-97 months, and sentenced Khaleel to 78 months in prison. In November 2014, Khaleel filed a pro se section 3582(c)(2) motion, seeking a reduced sentence under Amendment 782 (effective November 1, 2014). After conducting a hearing, the district court found that Khaleel was eligible for a reduction, and that the amended Guidelines range was 63-78 months; but that a reduction was not warranted in light of the sentencing factors, his prison conduct that raised considerable public safety concerns, and his obstruction of justice and lying to the court prior to his conviction. On appeal, Khaleel argues that the district court abused its discretion by considering factors that were already taken into account at his original sentencing, and that his prison conduct did not indicate his risk to society. We conclude that there is no basis for reversal, as the district court’s finding that a reduction was not warranted was not an abuse of discretion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010) (§ 3582(c) authorizes district court to reduce sentence by applying amended Guidelines range as it if were in effect at time of original sentencing, and leaving all other Guidelines determinations intact as previously determined); United States v. Long, 757 F.3d 762, 763 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of whether § 3582(c)(2) authorizes modification, and abuse-of-discretion review of decision whether to grant authorized § 3582(c)(2) modification). The judgment is affirmed, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and Khaleel’s motion for appointed counsel is denied as moot. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-1963 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Entry ID: 4360282

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?