Filed: Jul. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4742 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAMAL QAZAH, a/k/a Kamal Zaki Qazah, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-4772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SALAH MOHAMED, a/k/a Salah Mansour Nagi Mohamed, a/k/a Saleh Mohaned, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-PM
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-4742 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAMAL QAZAH, a/k/a Kamal Zaki Qazah, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-4772 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SALAH MOHAMED, a/k/a Salah Mansour Nagi Mohamed, a/k/a Saleh Mohaned, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-PMS..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-4742
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAMAL QAZAH, a/k/a Kamal Zaki Qazah,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 17-4772
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SALAH MOHAMED, a/k/a Salah Mansour Nagi Mohamed, a/k/a Saleh Mohaned,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big
Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00014-JPJ-PMS-1; 2:17-cr-00014-
JPJ-PMS-2)
Submitted: June 28, 2018 Decided: July 18, 2018
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, Nancy C. Dickenson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Abingdon, Virginia; Dennis E. Jones, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellants. Rick A.
Mountcastle, United States Attorney, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kamal Qazah and Salah Mohamed were implicated in the same criminal scheme,
and their cases were consolidated in district court. Qazah and Mohamed each pled guilty,
without a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to escape from a federal correctional
institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and escape from federal custody, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) (2012). For each Appellant, the district court calculated an
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 12 to 18 months’ imprisonment, but imposed an
upward variance sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. The Appellants argue that their
sentences are procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a criminal sentence, “whether inside, just outside, or significantly
outside the Guidelines range,” for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion
standard.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007); see United States v. King,
673
F.3d 274, 283 (4th Cir. 2012). We “first ensure that the district court committed no
significant procedural error,” such as improperly calculating the Guidelines range, failing
to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or inadequately explaining
the sentence imposed.
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. To adequately explain the sentence imposed,
the district court “should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has
considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal
decision-making authority.” United States v. Blue,
877 F.3d 513, 518 (4th Cir. 2017)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
If a sentence is free of “significant procedural error,” then this Court reviews it for
substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances.” Gall,
3
552 U.S. at 51. The sentence imposed must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,”
to satisfy the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In reviewing a sentence outside
the Guidelines range, this Court “may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give
due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify
the extent of the variance.”
Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
We conclude that the Appellants’ sentences are procedurally and substantively
reasonable. The district court explicitly discussed several of the § 3553(a) factors and
applied them to the facts of the cases, did not analyze any impermissible factors, and
responded to the Appellants’ mitigating arguments. The court also sufficiently explained
the factors it considered in imposing the upward variance sentences, including the serious
and complex nature of the Appellants’ escapes and prior crimes; the need to deter the
Appellants and protect the public due to a high likelihood of recidivism; and the need to
deter other inmates.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4