UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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