United States v. Abdulrahman Jamea

── United States v. Abdulrahman Jamea ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-2457 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ABDULRAHMAN ABDELAZIZ JAMEA, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:19-cr-00167-001) District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab ____________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 23, 2026 ____________ Before: RESTREPO, PHIPPS, and MASCOTT, Circuit Judges (Filed: May 29, 2026) ____________ OPINION* ____________ PHIPPS, Circuit Judge. In June 2019, an Ohio man was indicted in federal court in Pennsylvania for his involvement in a string of armed pharmacy robberies. He was represented by court- appointed counsel, but after he requested a new attorney, the District Court assigned him a * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. different lawyer. Through that attorney, he sought to suppress evidence obtained from his smart phone because the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained a misrepresentation. The District Court denied that motion without holding a Franks hearing. Through that same attorney, the man also moved to dismiss the indictment based on the denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because his trial was scheduled to begin 57 months after his indictment. The District Court denied that motion as well. As the trial date approached, the man unsuccessfully requested a new lawyer, and later he unsuccessfully sought to represent himself. After a trial, the jury found him guilty. This appeal of that judgment disputes the denials of the pretrial motions – to suppress and to dismiss – and it also contests the rejection of the requests for new counsel and for self-representation. For the reasons below, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. BACKGROUND Starting in September 2018, several pharmacies in Western Pennsylvania near interstate highways were robbed for controlled substances and cash. There were other commonalities among the robberies: they occurred in the morning, usually by multiple persons, one of whom was armed, and the target was always the drug safes, where the Schedule II narcotics were held. Beyond those similar profiles, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration had no leads after the first few robberies.1 That changed with the November 22, 2018, robbery of the CVS on Centre Avenue in Pittsburgh. Surveillance footage revealed a man wearing distinctive white shoes with pink laces acting as a lookout and a maroon 1 Those include the September 6, 2018, robbery of a CVS Pharmacy on Browns Hill Road in Pittsburgh; the September 27, 2018, robbery of a CVS Pharmacy on Erie Street in Edinboro; and the November 17, 2018, robbery of a Rite Aid pharmacy on Third Street in Beaver. 2 2016 Hyundai Sonata with a temporary Ohio license plate as the getaway car. In investigating the robbery, the Pittsburgh police contacted the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles to ascertain the ownership of the vehicle, but due to a glitch, the