Full text
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Court File No. 22-cr-223 (09)(NEB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
ON SENTENCING
ABDIKADIR AINANSHE MOHAMUD,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
The Defendant, Abdikadir Mohamud, respectfully submits his position on
sentencing and requests a downward variance for the reasons set forth herein. He presents
several mitigating factors that weigh against imposing a strict guidelines sentence despite
the seriousness of the offense.
Mohamud has been on pretrial supervision since September, 2022 without any
problems. During the last four years, he has continued his education and maintained
employment. He and his wife welcomed two children into their family since he was
charged in this case. The youngest child has a genetic disorder and requires signi cant
care that will continue for her lifetime. Mohamud comes before the Court with signi cant
stress not just about his daughter’s well-being, but more so about his ability to care for her
and to provide for his family.
Meanwhile, public sentiment about the overall Feeding Our Future prosecution
has become increasingly hostile as the case has been politicized. There is understandable
resentment about the staggering amount of money diverted from the public good during
1 of 9
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 2 of 9
a pandemic that disrupted everyone’s lives. However, Mohamud and many in the East
African community, are increasingly worried about their safety both in terms of attitudes
toward their community, families, and themselves personally. The current political
environment essentially encourages people to give in to hatred of all East African
immigrants. Political gures openly foment ant-Somali attitudes and suggest collateral
consequences for Minnesotans of Somali descent.1 Vague references to fraud in
Minnesota formed the initial impetus for the surge of ICE agents into our state.2
Certainly, this charged rhetoric is problematic in many ways. It is now part of the
political discourse in Minnesota precisely because opportunistic politicians want to exploit
the genuine concern many people have about the breadth of the instant case. The Court
is surely cognizant of this situation. Counsel would typically argue the Court should
ignore the context of public opinion in terms of determining what is suf cient, but not
greater than necessary to achieve the goals of federal sentencing. In the instant case, a just
punishment for the offense should contemplate unknown extrajudicial consequences that
will affect Mohamud well into the future.
Mohamud recognizes the sentencing considerations in this matter generally
concern retribution for an egregiously large scale fraud versus a sentence that focuses
primarily on the rehabilitation of offenders. This Court has always endeavored to fashion
appropriate sentences in consideration of the unique circumstances of each defendant
1 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-doesnt-want-somali-migrants-
in-the-u-s-calls-people-garbage; https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/01/21/trump-
davos-somali-intelligence/
2 cf. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-timeline-of-trumps-immigration-crackdown-in-
minnesota
2 of 9
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 3 of 9
and with due regard for the law. Mohamud humbly asks the Court to consider a sentence
below the advisory guideline range, allowing him to be placed on home con nement as
soon as possible. Mohamud is unlikely to reoffend or commit new offenses based on his
lack of criminal history and his positive characteristics. He should be considered a low
risk offender.
PSR CALCULATION
Mohamud has no outstanding objections to the PSR that require Court action. He
fully accepted responsibility for his role in the offense and he did not le objections to the
recommended guideline range since it did not differ from the plea agreement. The total
offense level should be 24 in criminal history category I. The advisory range is 51-63
months.
The only area of controversy in the PSR concerns Mohamud’s separation from his
employment with WorldWide Language Resources in paragraph 147. Mohamud
maintains he left this employment and was not terminated. He agrees there was a dispute
regarding authorized travel off the military base where he was stationed, but he denies
walking off the job. He claims the separation was amicable and not a termination of
employment. Mohamud was offered another linguist position through a related
employment agency in 2021. He fears the form provided to the US Probation Of ce by
WorldWide was improperly created after his separation. This distinction is important to
Mohamud because he wants to be depicted accurately before the Court.
There are no other objections to the PSR.
3 of 9
fi
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 4 of 9
BACKGROUND
Abdikadir Mohamud was born in Ethiopia, but he speaks the Somali language. He
immigrated to Kenya with his family when he was a toddler. His mother passed away
during this transition to Kenya. Mohamud was raised by his stern and detached father
along with his extended family. His time in Kenya was fraught with danger due to his
living arrangements in a high crime area. Mohamud’s reluctance to regularly attend
religious school often resulted in physical punishment. During the PSR interview,
Mohamud became emotional recounting a series of sexual assaults involving his uncle in
Kenya.
Mohamud moved to the United States with his father when he was twelve years
old and settled initially in Ohio. He moved to Minnesota before high school, and drifted
apart from his father. Mohamud embraced his new life in the United States, which fueled
the split from his more traditional father. Eventually, Mohamud moved to Minnesota and
lived with an aunt. The living arrangements in Minnesota were not ideal as Mohamud
was not treated as an equal to his extended family. Despite the uncomfortable
surroundings, Mohamud loved attending school and showed pro ciency in many areas.
He is uent in four languages.
Upon graduation, Mohamud joined the United States Navy and served four years
active duty. He was honorably discharged at the rank of E3 and received several awards
or commendations. Mohamud’s linguistic skills served him well in the Navy and beyond.
Following his military service, he secured employment as a linguist for a translation
service supporting U.S. special forces operators in Africa.
4 of 9
fi
fl
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 5 of 9
Mohamud returned to Minnesota in 2020 and found employment quickly. It was
during this time he became involved in the activities associated with the instant case.
Mohamud recalls the opportunity to join the Feeding Our Future program was presented
to him by others already involved in the scheme. Initially, the program appeared to be
legitimate and Mohamud believed it was both a means of earning income and doing
good. He claims it didn’t take long for him to realize the true nature of the program and
those involved in it. Mohamud will forever regret his decision not to walk away from the
scheme when he had a chance. In his acceptance statement, Mohamud expressed
tremendous remorse. He made the decision to go all in with his co-defendants. He feels
he let more than just his family down as a person who served our country honorably in
the military. He knew better than to get involved in something so wrong, but he was
blinded by the lure of what seemed like easy money while being encouraged by others.
He was making decent income and could’ve gone back to a linguistics job in 2021 before
he got involved with Feeding Our Future.
Since the instant case was charged, Mohamud’s wife has given birth to two
children. He now has a total of seven children. He and his wife are both educated and
they work hard to provide for their family. The youngest child has a genetic disorder that
prevents her from eating or drinking on her own. She spent the majority of her rst year
in the hospital. The prognosis for this child is generally positive, but she will require
signi cant special needs for the rest of her life. Mohamud was still able to pursue higher
education all while facing the instant prosecution and the stress of caring for his youngest
child. He enrolled at Augsburg in Minneapolis in 2024 to study mechanical engineering
5 of 9
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 6 of 9
and he was recently accepted to the University of Minnesota for the same program. This
is no small feat given the circumstances, but Mohamud is an intelligent and very hard
working. He expresses a strong desire not to be a burden on the state.
While preparing this brief, it was hard to gauge the extent of how Mohamud
pro ted from the fraud. After everything, he still has a mortgage on his home, which he
purchased well before this case began. He lives modestly and did not purchase ashy
jewelry or cars. This is not to say he didn’t enjoy the proceeds of his involvement. But in
comparison to other defendants, he acted more conservatively with the money. Any
money he had in bank accounts and his interest in a commercial real estate deal was
forfeited. His family gets by paycheck to paycheck.
Mohamud comes before the Court having recent surgery for Arnold-Chiari
malformation, which affects how the cerebellum meets the upper spinal canal.3 The
surgery was a success and the expectation is that Mohamud will recover. However, he will
require regular follow-up appointments and medication. The Bureau of Prisons is no
longer equipped to properly handle medical issues. Budget cuts and chronic understaf ng
in the BOP make Mohamud’s medical treatment dangerous and costly.4 He is also
vulnerable as an inmate due to his condition should he nd himself confronted with
violence in a BOP facility or if his condition requires immediate attention.
3 https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/chiari-malformation/symptoms-causes/
syc-20354010
4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2025/11/21/deputy-director-of-bureau-of-prisons-
describes-agency-on-the-brink/
6 of 9
fi
fl
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 7 of 9
ARGUMENT
Mohamud respectfully requests a sentence below the advisory guideline range due
to his lack of criminal history, his military service history and otherwise positive
characteristics, his family support, showing of remorse, and his commitment to providing
for his family. He will have a restitution order that will stretch his punishment well into the
future as he attempts to satisfy the amount due. And, Mohamud has not only the
consequence of a felony record, but the scarlet letter of being associated with one of
Minnesota’s most publicized fraud cases.
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (Title II of the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of 1984) provides that a sentencing court “shall impose a sentence suf cient,
but not greater than necessary, to comply with” the purposes of sentencing: (1) to re ect
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense; (2) deterrence; (3) protection of the public from further
crimes; and (4) rehabilitation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The 2025 amendments to the
United States Sentencing Guidelines manual streamlined federal sentencing methodology.
The 2025 version states in §1B1.1, there is a two step process: First, Courts must calculate
the guideline range and determine sentencing requirements and options pursuant to the
guidelines manual. Second, the Court must consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a). Traditional departures that appeared in the guidelines previously are now
considered within the §3553(a) factors.
After calculating a defendant’s advisory sentencing guidelines range and hearing
from the parties, the district court must consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18
7 of 9
fl
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 8 of 9
U.S.C. §3553(a) and make an individualized assessment based on the facts arriving at an
appropriate sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50 (2007). The district court
“has wide latitude to weigh the [18 U.S.C.] section 3553(a) factors in each case and assign
some factors greater weight than others in determining an appropriate sentence.” United
States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037, 1054 (8th Cir. 2011). Mohamud argues the §3553(a)
factors, taken as a whole, support a downward variance below the guideline range. He
seeks the ability to be placed on home con nement at the earliest time practicable
because he has the ability to maintain employment, provide necessary care for his
children, and complete his education in an effort to better himself. Mohamud also seeks
the ability to obtain medical care for himself without placing a further burden on
taxpayers.
Mohamud has no criminal history beyond simple traf c or parking violations. He
has no history of substance abuse. By most metrics, he is highly likely to remain law
abiding. Mohamud has an honorable military service history that bodes well for his ability
to be successful on supervised release and beyond. While his service alone should not be
viewed as a “pass” for criminal behavior, it is important to note how he served. Mohamud
enlisted in the Navy and served four years. But then he signed up to provide direct
support to special forces operations in danger zones. These jobs do not go to unquali ed
or untrustworthy people. This is why Mohamud feels so much remorse for his actions
now- he made himself untrustworthy. Yet, he is presently working hard to rebuild his life
and prove he can be trusted to contribute to our community rather than just take from it.
8 of 9
fi
fi
fi
CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS Doc. 1018 Filed 08/24/26 Page 9 of 9
The judiciary sentencing data in the PSR indicates the average (and the median)
length of imprisonment for similar offenders nationwide is 41 months. The facts of the
instant case are perhaps unique just in terms of the loss amount. Mohamud argues the
individual assessments of the various offenders nationwide would suggest a sentence in
the guideline range is greater than necessary since many received a reduction.
Mohamud has a big family to care for and a large restitution amount to pay off. A
purely punitive sentence of lengthy imprisonment may send a message of deterrence and
respect for the law, but it also punishes more than just Mohamud. The community does
not need to be protected from possible future crimes by this individual. Rather, he seeks to
make amends for his crime by paying on his debt and positively contributing to society.
The collateral consequences of this case will follow Mohamud perhaps the rest of his life.
He respectfully asks the Court to consider the mitigating factors presented and give him
the ability to pay back the people of Minnesota.
Law Of ce of Robert A. Lengeling, PLLC
Date:__August 24, 2026___ By ___s/ Robert A. Lengeling______________
MN ID# 304165
Lumber Exchange Building
10 S. 5th Street, Suite 800
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
(612) 963-1555
robert@lengelinglaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
9 of 9
fi