Position with Respect to Sentencing and Motion for Downward Variance (Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir) — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 944, D. Minn.)

Summary

A Position with Respect to Sentencing and Motion for Downward Variance, Doc. 944, filed July 17, 2026 in United States of America v. Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir, 22-CR-00223-10 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Defense counsel states that the Defendant contacted a potential witness during trial, which increased the sentencing guidelines from 46-57 to 63-78 months. Counsel moves for a variance from the range of 63-78 to a term of imprisonment of 48-months, citing the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) factors, the Defendant's lack of criminal history and paragraph 161 of the Presentence Investigation. The filing also states that the Defendant has asked counsel to request release from custody and self-surrender.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below 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 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 944     Filed 07/17/26   Page 1 of 3




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                         22-CR-00223-10 (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                )
                                         )
                     Plaintiff,          )    POSITION WITH RESPECT TO
                                         )   SENTENCING AND MOTION FOR
v.                                       )      DOWNWARD VARIANCE
                                         )
Abdinasir Mahamed Abshir,                )
                                         )
                     Defendant.          )



      PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that counsel for the above-entitled Defendant

hereby files the Defense Position with Respect to Sentencing in the above-entitled

matter and a Motion for a Downward Variance.

      Counsel for the defense does not intend to repeat what is contained in an

exhaustive and detailed Presentence Investigation. Counsel is not unmindful of the

fact that this Court is well versed in all aspects of the offense conduct.

      Regarding the above-entitled Defendant, defense counsel will only

emphasize that when growing up he was physically and sexually abused which is

identified in the Presentence Investigation. He has a supportive wife and a young

child and, as is reflected in the presentence investigation, his wife will continue to

support him and after any incarceration they will live together.
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 944    Filed 07/17/26   Page 2 of 3




      Rarely is defense counsel at a loss for words. Unfortunately, in this

particular case and as a result of a detailed presentence investigation, there isn’t a

great deal that defense counsel can add. However, counsel would respectfully

suggest that the Defendant made a grave error in contacting a potential witness

during trial and unfortunately that increased his sentencing guidelines from what

otherwise would have been 46-57 to 63-78 months.

      Based upon the judiciary sentencing information contained in the

presentence investigation in Paragraph 161, defense counsel respectfully moves for

a variance from the sentencing guidelines range of 63-78 to a term of

imprisonment of 48-months. Regarding the 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) factors, the

defense contends that a sentence of 48-months accurately reflects the nature of the

offense and the Defendant’s lack of criminal history. Additionally, the defense

contends that the 48-month downward variance would provide adequate deterrence

for criminal conduct and certainly protect the public from any future crimes.

Finally, a downward variance to 48-months would provide the Defendant with

needed educational and vocational training as it appears in the Presentence

Investigation that the Defendant would qualify for the RDAP program. Defense

counsel is aware that a requested 48-month sentence would be within the

sentencing guidelines range if there was no enhancement for intimidation of a
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 944    Filed 07/17/26   Page 3 of 3




witness. Again, there is no question the Defendant made a terrible mistake, regrets

the same and respectfully requests the Court to consider a sentence of 48-months.

      Paragraph 161 of the Presentence Investigation states that the average length

of imprisonment for defendants with a Criminal History Category of 1 and Final

Offense Level of 26 is 48-months. Counsel for the defense is not unmindful that

every defendant is treated individually but given the offense conduct and sentences

already imposed by this Court on like defendants, the defense respectfully suggests

the Court impose a downward variance and sentence the Defendant to 48-months.

      Additionally, the Defendant has asked counsel to request he be released

from custody and self-surrender. Counsel is aware that this is an unusual request

but given his ethical obligations to his client, he respectfully requests the Court to

consider self-surrender.

                                       Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 17, 2026                   /s/Craig E. Cascarano
                                       Craig E. Cascarano
                                       Attorney No. 15544
                                       150 S. Fifth Street, Suite 2860
                                       Minneapolis, MN 55402
                                       Tel: (612) 333-6603
                                       Fax: (612) 333-5015
                                       craig@craigcascaranolaw.com


File and source

File

944.pdf

Size

130,120 bytes

SHA-256

0b3f97595590804d55744da81344a5ee077bc1d4d5084264f48c76c28d044b88

Our copy

944.pdf

Original

archive.org