State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0344

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Abdurahman Abdella Mama,
Appellant.

Filed January 14, 2019
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CR-16-8327

Keith M. Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Michael O. Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney, Jean Burdorf, Assistant County
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Charles F. Clippert, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s decision not to grant a downward
dispositional departure. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

2
D E C I S I O N
I. Standard of Review
The decision whether to depart from the sentencing guidelines rests within the
discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion.
See State v. Hicks , 864 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Minn. 2005); State v. Pegel, 795 N.W.2d 251,
253 (Minn. App. 2011). Our review of a distr ict court’s decision whether to impose a
sentencing departure is “extremely deferential.” Dillon v. State , 781 N.W.2d 588, 596
(Minn. App. 2010), review denied (Minn. July 20, 2010). We will reverse a district court’s
refusal to depart only in a “rare” case. State v. Walker, 913 N.W.2d 463, 468 (Minn. App.
2018).
II. Downward Dispositional Departure
Appellant Abdurahman Mama (Mama) argues that the district court abused its
discretion by sentencing him to th e presumptive sentence because he was particularly
amenable to probation. T he Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines promote uniformity,
proportionality, and predictability in sentencing. See Minn. Stat. § 244.09, subd. 5(2)
(2016). A district court must impose a presumptive sentence unless “identifiable,
substantial, and compelling circumstances” justify a departure. Minn. Sent. Guidelines
2.D.1 (2016). The guidelines permit departures from the presumptive sentence, but a court
departing from the guidelines must articulate “substantial and compelling” circums tances
justifying the departure. Hicks, 864 N.W.2d at 156. “Substantial and compelling
circumstances are those circumstances that make the facts of a particular case different
from a typical case.” State v. Peake, 366 N.W.2d 299, 301 (Minn. 1985).

3
A dis trict court may grant a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is
“particularly amenable to probation.” State v. Soto, 855 N.W.2d 303, 309 (Minn. 2014).
A court may consider a defendant’s age, prior record, remorse, cooperation, attitude in
court, and the support of friends and family in determining whether he is particularly
amenable to probation. State v. Trog, 323 N.W.2d 28, 31 (Minn. 1982). However, a district
court is not required to depart even when it finds that a defendant is particularly amenable
to probation. State v. Olson, 765 N.W.2d 662, 664-65 (Minn. App. 2009) (“[T]he district
court has discretion to impose a downward dispositional departure if a defendant is
particularly amenable to probation, but it is not required to do so.”).
Mama was charged with one count of identity theft in violation of Minn. Stat.
§ 609.527, subd. 2 (2016) for his role in a credit card fraud scheme. 1 At sentencing,
Mama’s attorney argued that he was particularly amenable to probation because he is 26
years of age, does not have a prior criminal history, has famil y support, and is remorseful.
However, the presentence investigation (PSI) report prepared by probation provided:
Before the Court is a 26 year old male appearing on his
first known felony level conviction. The facts of the case
include the defendant and his five co-defendants obtaining and
creating fraudulent credit cards. The defendant denies
partaking in the offense and noted, “I do not think I did
anything wrong.” On top of denying his role in the offense, he
provided little insight to why he was in the hotel room or why
there were credit cards made with his name.

1 On March 23, 2016, officers conducted a search on a hotel room and found multiple credit
cards in various names, a card embossing machine, a laptop computer, and multiple bags
of new merchandise. Out of the approximately 80 credit cards recovered, 16 had Mama’s
name embossed on the front and contained other individuals’ credit card information on
the cards’ magnetic-strip. Ultimately, investigators identified 83 victims of this credit card
fraud scheme.

4
The defendant presented as a closed -off interview
subject, responding to lines of questioning with one word
answers or failing to respond at all. Much of the defendant’s
reporting was found to be varying from previous statements he
made within the interview and when presented with his
inconsistencies, he would remain silent. For example, the
defendant first claimed he was visiting Minnesota for an
outdoor soccer tournament. When questioned regarding the
whereabouts or name of this tournament, the defendant
declined to respond.

While it is notable that the defendant has a limited
criminal history, his inability to take ownership over his role in
the offense is cause for concern and leads to questions
regarding his amenability to probation. Further, the defendant
lacks many conventional ties to the community. He has not
maintained any form of employment for the past year and a
half, is not financially stable, he has no recent participation in
organized activities or groups of prosocial peers he spends time
with.

The PSI recommended imposing a sentence of 48 months and committing Mama to
the commissioner of corrections, which is within the presumptive guidelines range. The
state did not agree to the departure motion because of Mama’s “lack of candor with the
court, lack of remorse, and lack of acceptance of responsibility.”
The district court thoughtfully considered the reasons for and against departure, and
“took seriously into consideration all of [the] letters of support.” Ultimately, the district
court did not believe Mama to be particularly amenable to probation because Mama did
not accept responsibility or show remorse. Because there were no “substantial and
compelling reasons” for a departure, the district court judge denied Mama’s motion and
imposed and executed a sentence of 41 months to the commissioner of corrections —the
lowest presumptive sentence in the range.

5
The record shows that the district court reviewed the factors for and against
departure. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in its
determination that a departure was not warranted in this case.
Affirmed.