United States v. Ali Ghani Khaleel, No. 15-1963 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court's finding that a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3582(c)(2) was not warranted was not an abuse of the court's discretion.
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for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: January 22, 2016 Filed: January 27, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.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. 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-
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.
