United States of America v. Ahmed Abdullahai Khalif, also known as Mohamed Abdulah Khalif

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3384
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Ahmed Abdullahai Khalif, also known as Mohamed Abdulah Khalif
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Central
____________
Submitted: March 21, 2024
Filed: April 9, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Ahmed Abdullahai Khalif appeals after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense,
and the district court1 imposed an above-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has
1The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), challenging a relevant-conduct determination that resulted in the assessment
of two criminal history points.
After careful review, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in
determining that the prior conviction was not relevant conduct and thus constituted
a prior offense for purposes of USSG § 4A1.1. See United States v. Soto, 62 F.4th
430, 432 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review); United States v. Smith, 944 F.3d 1013,
1016 (8th Cir. 2019) (factors this court considers in determining whether prior
conviction was for relevant conduct). In any event, we conclude that any error was
harmless, because the district court made clear that it found the Guidelines range
inadequate to account for certain aggravating 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and would
have imposed the same sentence even had it sustained Khalif’s objection to the
relevant-conduct determination. See United States v. Shuler, 598 F.3d 444, 447 (8th
Cir. 2010) (procedural errors in determining Guidelines range are subject to harmless
error analysis); see also United States v. Martinez, 821 F.3d 984, 988-89 (8th Cir.
2016) (incorrect application of Guidelines is harmless error where district court
specified that resolution of particular issue did not affect ultimate sentence
determination).
We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --