Opinion — United States v. Mohamed A. Awad (3d Cir.)

Summary

A not precedential opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Mohamed A. Awad, No. 24-2474, filed April 15, 2025 as Document 39, written by Circuit Judge Porter for a panel with Judges Hardiman and Smith. It states Awad received $2,410,140 in CARES Act small business loans based on falsified applications, pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering, and was sentenced by the District of New Jersey to 36 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release with restitution. Awad's counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The court finds counsel's brief adequate and the record free of nonfrivolous issues, noting the plea agreement's appellate waiver, and grants the motion and affirms the judgment.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

         Case: 24-2474      Document: 39      Page: 1       Date Filed: 04/15/2025




                                                                  NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                               ________________

                                       No. 24-2474
                                   __________________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                                 MOHAMED A. AWAD,
                                         Appellant
                                   _______________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of New Jersey
                             (D.C. No. 3:23-cr-00946-001)
                         District Judge: Hon. Michael A. Shipp
                                    _______________

                   Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                   April 10, 2025

              Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

                                  (Filed: April 15, 2025)

                                    _______________

                                       OPINION *
                                    _______________




*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
         Case: 24-2474      Document: 39      Page: 2      Date Filed: 04/15/2025




PORTER, Circuit Judge.

       Mohamed Awad fraudulently obtained loans that the government made available

to small businesses through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

Awad received $2,410,140 based on numerous falsified applications, transferred the

money to his own accounts, including to some abroad, and withdrew significant amounts

of cash. Awad pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in accordance with a

plea agreement. The District Court sentenced Awad to 36 months’ imprisonment with

three years’ supervised release and ordered restitution.

       Awad appealed. His counsel motioned to withdraw and submitted a brief in

support pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Awad did not file a pro se

brief. The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

       When counsel seeks to withdraw under Anders, we ask two questions:

“(1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled [Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2’s]

requirements; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents any

nonfrivolous issues.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001).

Complying with Local Appellate Rule 109.2 requires counsel “(1) to satisfy the court that

counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues, and (2) to

explain why the issues are frivolous.” Id. (citing United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778,

780 (3d Cir. 2000)).

       Counsel’s Anders brief does both. It correctly notes that because Awad’s case was

resolved by plea agreement, the only bases for appeal are the validity of the guilty plea

                                             2
         Case: 24-2474      Document: 39      Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/15/2025




and the legality of the sentence. With respect to Awad’s guilty plea, counsel

demonstrates, with appropriate citations to the transcript of Awad’s plea hearing, that

Awad’s plea comported with the dictates of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and

the Constitution. As for Awad’s sentence, counsel demonstrates, again with appropriate

citations to the transcript of Awad’s sentencing, that the District Court complied with the

requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, imposed a sentence below the

statutory maximum, and followed the three-step process for sentencing articulated in

United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). Counsel also explains that

because the District Court imposed a sentence of less than 51 months’ imprisonment, the

appellate waiver in Awad’s plea agreement bars challenge to his sentence, which was

below the Guidelines range. Counsel’s brief accordingly reflects a comprehensive and

conscientious examination of the record, and it sufficiently explains why this case

presents no non-frivolous issues. Our independent review of the record confirms that

contention.

       We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the District Court’s

judgment.




                                             3


File and source

File

39.pdf

Size

208,531 bytes

SHA-256

503bba597668f5f5e69cf045bc4eb15abf13b19e5887dacae86a083d019048b8

Our copy

39.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov