USA v. Abdullahi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
) 	ACQUITTAL
vs. 	)
)
Sharmake Mohamed Abdullahi, 	) 	Case No. 3:21-cr-220
)
Defendant. 	)
______________________________________________________________________________
Defendant Sharmake Mohamed Abdullahi’s moves for acquittal. Doc. No. 99. The
Government opposes the motion. Doc. No. 103. For the reasons below, the motion is denied.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A superseding indictment charged Abdullahi with (1) kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1201(a)(1), and (2) attempted witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Doc.
No. 30. The Government alleged that Abdullahi brandished a handgun, unlawfully seized S.I., and
then forced her to drive across state lines to withdraw money for him. The Government also alleged
that Abdullahi requested his sister contact S.I. to prevent her cooperation and testimony against
him.
Trial began on December 6, 2022. Doc. No. 79. When the Government’s case-in-chief
concluded, Abdullahi moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, arguing insufficiency of evidence. Id. at 3. That motion was denied. Id. On
December 9, 2022, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts. Id. at 4. Abdullahi now renews
his motion for acquittal.
Case 3:21-cr-00220-PDW Document 107 Filed 08/11/23 Page 1 of 3

2
II. 	DISCUSSION
On a defendant’s motion, a court “must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for
which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). A post-verdict
judgment of acquittal is warranted only if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government and accepting all reasonable inferences that may be drawn in favor of the verdict, no
reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty.” United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046,
1049 (8th Cir. 2014) (cleaned up). “This standard is ‘very strict’ and a jury’s verdict should not be
overturned lightly.” United States v. Boesen, 491 F.3d 852, 855 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting United
States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859, 862 (8th Cir. 2005)). A reviewing court “must neither assess the
witnesses’ credibility nor weigh the evidence.” United States v. Johnson, 474 F.3d 1044, 1048 (8th
Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Thompson, 285 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2002)).
Abdullahi renews an argument he made at trial that the Berry factors 1 should control in
deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Abdullahi of kidnapping. In Berry, the
Third Circuit analyzed four factors to assist in deciding whether a kidnapping took place. 604 F.2d
at 227. However, the Berry factors have not been analyzed or addressed by the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and the Court declines to adopt and apply the Berry factors here.
Judgment of acquittal is improper here. To the extent Abdullahi’s motion asserts that the
jury should have believed his preferred version of events, it is unpersuasive. Determinations of
witness credibility rest firmly with the jury. United States v. Spight, 817 F.3d 1099, 1102 (8th Cir.
2016). Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, S.I. testified that Abdullahi abducted her
at gunpoint and forced her to drive across state lines in order steal money from her. The jury heard
testimony from S.I. about the abduction and found her to be credible. The jury also viewed
1 Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Berry, 604 F.2d 221 (3d Cir. 1979).
Case 3:21-cr-00220-PDW Document 107 Filed 08/11/23 Page 2 of 3

3
III. 	CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, the parties’ filings, and the relevant legal authority, Abdullahi’s
motion for acquittal (Doc. No. 99) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of August, 2023.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
surveillance footage of the incident. All this evidence, and more, supports the guilty verdict under
18 U.S.C. § 1201.
As to the attempted witness tampering conviction, the jury heard a phone call between
Abdullahi and his sister. It is possible to interpret the phone call as Abdullahi attempting to prevent
S.I. from cooperating with law enforcement or testifying against him at his federal case. All this
evidence, and more, supports the guilty verdict under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). Considered as a
whole, the evidence is sufficient to sustain convictions for both charges. Abdullahi is not entitled
to judgment of acquittal.
Case 3:21-cr-00220-PDW Document 107 Filed 08/11/23 Page 3 of 3