US v. Abdi Osman, No. 16-4754 (4th Cir. 2017)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4754 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDI RAZAQ ABSHIR OSMAN, a/k/a Abdirasaq Abshir, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-4756 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOHAMED ABDI JAMA, a/k/a Mohammed Abdi Jamah, Defendant - Appellant. No. 16-4758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDICASIIS CABAASE, a/k/a Ahmed Mahomood, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-4274 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MOHAMED FARAH, a/k/a Mahamed Farraah Hassan, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cr-00057-RAJ-DEM-5; 2:10-cr-00057-RAJ-DEM-2; 2:10-cr-00057-RAJ-DEM-4; 2:10-cr-00057-RAJ-DEM-6) Submitted: November 17, 2017 Decided: December 6, 2017 Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Trey R. Kelleter, VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; Jason Alan Dunn, JASON A. DUNN, PLC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia; Robert B. Rigney, PROTOGYROU & RIGNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellants. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United 2 States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 3 PER CURIAM: Abdi Razaq Abshir Osman, Mohamed Abdi Jama, Abdicasiis Cabaase, and Mohamed Farah (collectively, “Defendants”) appeal their convictions and life sentences for piracy, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012). * We conclude that Defendants’ challenges to their convictions and life sentences are barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine because we previously considered and rejected Defendants’ arguments in United States v. Said, 798 F.3d 182, 193, 198-200 (4th Cir. 2015). See United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing law-of-the-case doctrine and its exceptions). Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgments of the district court. 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 * Defendants also were convicted of and sentenced for other offenses, but they do not challenge those convictions or sentences on appeal. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.