United States of America v. Mohamed Seid Ahmed Mohamed, a/k/a Mohamed Sidahmed Mohamed, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4225
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MOHAMED SEID AHMED MOHAMED, a/k/a Mohamed Sidahmed Mohamed,
a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Satti, a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed, a/k/a Mohmed
Seid Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed S. Ahmed, a/k/a Mohamed Mohamed,
a/k/a Mohamed Ahmed Lbrahim, a/k/a Mohamed S. Mohamed,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00120-REP-1)
Argued: May 12, 2016 Decided: July 6, 2016
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, WYNN, Circuit Judge, and Norman K.
MOON, Senior United States District Judge for the Western
District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Robert James Wagner, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dominick Salvatore
Gerace, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Acting
Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Mohamed Seid Ahmed Mohamed pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and to traffic in contraband
cigarettes. On appeal, he seeks to vacate his sentence of 41
months imprisonment, asserting that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to compel production of
favorable information and in granting the government’s motion to
quash a subpoena seeking testimony about favorable information.
In accordance with a sealed opinion that has been filed and
distributed to the parties and district court simultaneously
herewith, we affirm in part and vacate in part the district
court’s denial of Mohamed’s motion to compel, affirm the
district court’s decision to quash the subpoena, and remand the
case to the district court for further proceedings consistent
with that opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --