United States v. Ali Ghani Khaleel

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Granting [4285655-2] motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr.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]

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[Unpublished]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