U.S. v. Farhane
Decision Date | 04 February 2011 |
Docket Number | 07–5531–cr (CON).,Docket Nos. 07–1968–cr (L) |
Citation | 634 F.3d 127 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,v.Abdulrahman FARHANE, also known as “Abderr Farhan,” and Rafiq Sabir, Defendants–Appellants. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward D. Wilford (Natali J.H. Todd, on the brief), New York, NY, for Defendant–Appellant.Jennifer G. Rodgers, Assistant United States Attorney (Karl Metzner, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), on behalf of Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.Before: WINTER, RAGGI, Circuit Judges, and DEARIE, Chief District Judge.1Judge RAGGI concurs in part in a separate opinion.Judge DEARIE dissents in part in a separate opinion.REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:
Defendant Rafiq Sabir, whose birth name is Rene Wright, is a United States citizen and licensed physician who, in May 2005, swore an oath of allegiance to al Qaeda and promised to be on call to treat wounded members of that terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia. Convicted after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge ) of conspiring to provide and actually providing or attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, and sentenced to a 300–month term of incarceration, Sabir now challenges his conviction on various grounds. Specifically, he contends that (1) § 2339B is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, (2) the trial evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, (3) the prosecution's peremptory jury challenges exhibited racial bias, (4) evidentiary rulings deprived him of the right of confrontation and/or a fair trial, (5) the district court abused its discretion in addressing alleged juror misconduct, and (6) the prosecution's rebuttal summation deprived him of a fair trial. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that these arguments lack merit. Accordingly, we affirm Sabir's judgment of conviction.2
I. BackgroundA. 2001: The Initial FBI Investigation into Co–Defendant Tarik Shah
Defendant Rafiq Sabir is a New York licensed physician, trained at Columbia University, who specializes in emergency medicine. In 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating Sabir's longtime friend Tarik Shah for the possible transfer of money to insurgents in Afghanistan. As part of that investigation, an FBI confidential informant known as “Saeed” cultivated a relationship with Shah, in the course of which Shah was recorded speaking openly about his commitment to jihad (holy war) in order to establish Sharia (Islamic law) and about his wish to provide “deadly and dangerous” martial arts training to mujahideen ( jihad warriors). Gov't Exh. (“GX”) 802T at 1–2; GX 803T at 2–4; GX 804T at 3; Trial Tr. at 590–91, 601–03.3 During these conversations, Shah repeatedly identified Sabir as his “partner.” GX 801T at 1; GX 807T at 3; see Trial Tr. at 903–04.
B. 2004: Shah Offers to Support al Qaeda
On March 3, 2004, Saeed and Shah traveled to Plattsburgh, New York, where Saeed introduced Shah to Ali Soufan, an undercover FBI agent posing as a recruiter for al Qaeda.4 In a series of recorded meetings with Agent Soufan, Shah detailed his martial arts expertise and offered to travel abroad to train al Qaeda combatants. Shah also told Soufan about Sabir, “an emergency room doctor” who had been his “trusted friend[ ]” for more than 25 years. GX 902T at 2, 7. Explaining that he knew Sabir's “heart,” Shah proposed that the two men join al Qaeda as “a pair, me and a doctor.” Id. at 3, 23. At a subsequent meeting with Saeed, Shah reported that he had spoken in person with Sabir about this plan.
Shah and Agent Soufan next met in Orlando, Florida, in April 2004, at which time Shah agreed to prepare a syllabus for a martial arts training course as well as a training video. Shah also questioned Soufan at this meeting about al Qaeda suicide bombings and asked whether he could receive, as well as provide, terrorist training.
C. 2005: Shah and Sabir Swear Allegiance to al Qaeda and Attempt To Provide Material Support
For most of the time between May 2004 and May 2005, Sabir was out of the United States, working at a Saudi military hospital in Riyadh. On May 20, 2005, during a visit to New York, Sabir met with Saeed and Agent Soufan at Shah's Bronx apartment. Sabir told Soufan that he would soon be returning to Riyadh. He expressed interest in meeting with mujahi...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Ahmed, 12-CR-661 (SLT) (S-2)
...the United States' national security by invoking, inter alia, its power to provide for national security. See United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 137 (2d Cir. 2011) (observing that § 2339B was passed pursuant to, inter alia, "the power of Congress to make laws necessary and proper to th......
-
United States v. Fitzgerald
...prohibits." United States v. Dawkins , 17 Crim. 684 (ER), 2019 WL 2461722 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2019) (citing United States v. Farhane , 634 F.3d 127, 139–40 (2d Cir. 2011) ). Much like the first prong, Fitzgerald's argument plainly fails here too. Fitzgerald attempts to paint a nightmare......
-
Celaj v. United States
...preparation, yet may be less than the last act necessary before the actual commission of the substantive crime." United States v. Farhane , 634 F.3d 127, 177 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Manley , 632 F.2d 978, 987 (2d Cir. 1980) ).As FNU LNU details, the Second Circuit has provi......
-
Valente v. Textron, Inc.
...L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)). However, “the district court is the ultimate ‘gatekeeper.’ ” Id. (citations omitted); see also United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 158 (2d Cir.2011), cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 833, 181 L.Ed.2d 542 (2011) (“The law assigns district courts a ‘gatekeeping’ ......
-
Trials
...476 U.S. at 96; see, e.g. , U.S. v. Casey, 825 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2016) (African-Americans a cognizable racial group); U.S. v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 155 (2d Cir. 2011) (same); Lark v. Sec’y Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 645 F.3d 596, 620 (3d Cir. 2011) (same); U.S. v. Dinkins, 691 F.3d 358, 380 & ......