United States v. Jabateh

Decision Date08 September 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-1981,18-1981
Citation974 F.3d 281
Parties UNITED STATES of America v. Mohammed JABATEH a/k/a Jungle Jabbah Mohammed Jabateh, Appellant
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Peter Goldberger (Argued), 50 Rittenhouse Place, Ardmore, PA 19003, Counsel for Appellant

William M. McSwain, Nelson S.T. Thayer, Jr., Linwood C. Wright, Jr., Robert A. Zauzmer (Argued), Office of United States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Suite 1250, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Counsel for Appellee

Before: AMBRO, MATEY, FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MATEY, Circuit Judge.

Mohammed Jabateh served as a rebel commander during the Liberian civil war. When his faction lost power, he fled to the United States seeking asylum and permanent residency. His conduct in Liberia, characterized by brazen violence and wanton atrocities, made an honest immigration application impossible. So he repeatedly lied to United States immigration officials, concealing his crimes and portraying himself as a persecuted victim. Jabateh's ruse succeeded for almost twenty years until a jury convicted him of immigration fraud and perjury. Now, Jabateh challenges his conviction and his sentence. His arguments about the quantity and quality of evidence presented at trial are wrong, with plentiful facts supporting the jury's findings. And his claims of sentencing error ignore the careful and detailed reasoning of the District Court.

Jabateh also argues, for the first time, that the Government improperly charged him with making false oral statements during an interview with an immigration officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). While we find no error in Jabateh's convictions for perjury under § 1621, his convictions under § 1546(a) are a different matter. In every case, of course, "[t]he Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged." United States v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506, 522–23, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995). The statutory text alone defines those elements. Here, the text of § 1546(a) criminalizes fraud in immigration documents. By contrast, the Government did not charge Jabateh with fraud in his immigration documents, only with orally lying about those documents. That is a distinction unsupported by the ordinary and best reading of § 1546(a), and we agree with Jabateh that the Government's interpretation is incorrect.

But while Jabateh is right, his failure to raise this argument at trial significantly alters the scope of our review. Given the novelty of the interpretative question, and the lack of persuasive, let alone authoritative, guidance, we cannot conclude that our reading of § 1546(a) meets the stringent standards for reversal for "plain error" the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure require. For that reason, we will affirm his conviction in full.

I. BACKGROUND

We recount only the relevant history, reviewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must in an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Caraballo–Rodriguez , 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc).

A. Jabateh and the Liberian Civil War

Civil war brought brutal violence to Liberia. In 1989, Charles Taylor's rebel group, the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), invaded Liberia to overthrow Liberia's president, Samuel Doe. The violence fractured not only Liberia but the rebels themselves. NPFL soon split into two factions: the NPFL led by Taylor, and the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL) led by Prince Johnson.1 In 1990, Johnson captured and executed President Doe, triggering even more violence.2 New rebel factions entered the fray to oppose the NPFL, including the United Liberation Movement of Liberia (ULIMO), founded by ethnic Mandingos and Krahns, groups targeted by the NPFL.3 Tensions within ULIMO eventually swelled, causing a split along ethno-religious lines into new warring factions. Islamic Mandingo fighters followed Alhaji Kromah, a member of former President Doe's cabinet, to form ULIMO-K (for Kromah), while Christian Krahn fighters joined Roosevelt Johnson to form ULIMO-J (for Johnson).4

One of Kromah's ULIMO commanders was Mohammed Jabateh, who fought under the nom de guerre "General Jungle Jabbah" or "Jungle Jabbah."5 During the height of the civil war, from 1992 through 1995, Jabateh led ULIMO's Zebra Battalion at the frontlines of the conflict in Western Liberia. Under Jabateh's command, fighters brutalized prisoners of war and civilians alike. Their crimes were breathtaking in their scope and cruelty, including murder, rape, torture, ritual cannibalism, and human enslavement. We recount only some of the atrocities told at trial to the extent relevant to the issues raised on appeal.

1. Torture

Jabateh and fighters acting under his direction routinely tortured and murdered their adversaries, real or assumed. Operating from a territory dubbed "Zero Guard Post,"6 Jabateh's militia arrested and then executed anyone suspected of "reconnaissance." (App. at 677.) Their bodies were then simply "throw[n] ... into the river." (App. at 678.) Others were less fortunate, suffering torture before death. A favorite practice of Jabateh's troops involved "tabay ," binding a prisoner's arms behind the back tight enough to constrict breathing. In one instance, Jabateh ordered a child soldier to place tires around two prisoners’ necks, douse the tires in gasoline, and set them on fire. As the prisoners screamed in agony, Jabateh's fighters shot them, then left their bodies to burn to ashes.

In another instance, Janghai Barclay testified that she fled her home to escape fighting between ULIMO and NPFL, only to endure capture by Jabateh's men. When Jabateh arrived to inspect the prisoners, Ms. Barclay watched Jabateh declare a captured young man a spy and order him executed. Jabateh's soldiers tied the man to a tree and slit his throat. Jabateh then told his soldiers that they could "take" the women for themselves and "[w]hen they refuse you can kill them." (App. at 1040.) The soldiers then raped Ms. Barclay, who was eight months pregnant, causing her to suffer a miscarriage.

Or take Hawa Gonoie. She recounted that she was just thirteen when Jabateh and his fighters came to her village. After Jabateh's forces captured her family, she witnessed Jabateh give the order to kill a suspected spy, remove his heart, and feed the organ to Jabateh and his fighters. Conscription into ULIMO-K awaited the men, while Jabateh ordered his soldiers to "have" the women. (App. at 408.) Jabateh "assigned" Ms. Gonoie to an adult soldier who raped her for the next month and a half. (App. at 412.)

2. Persecution

The violence rolled on. After ULIMO split along tribal lines, Jabateh and his ULIMO-K fighters targeted, tortured, and killed members of the Krahn tribe. Around this time, ULIMO-K troops attacked a village where Martha Togba lived with her sister Tina. During the attack, troops targeted Tina because she was the girlfriend of a ULIMO-J commander. Jabateh dragged a pregnant Tina from her home by her hair, bleeding from a gunshot wound

and half naked, into the street. Jabateh beat and stabbed Tina while he interrogated her about her boyfriend's location. When Tina insisted that she did not know, Jabateh inserted his gun into Tina's vagina and fired, killing her. Jabateh then ordered a child soldier to guard Tina's body as it lay in the street to ensure that no one moved her until her body rotted.

3. Retribution

Jabateh quelled opposition with bone-chilling cruelty. When residents of one town complained to the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group ("ECOMOG") after ULIMO-K killed and beat several villagers and looted their homes, Jabateh and his troops returned to mete out punishment. Soldiers gathered the townspeople and pressed them into slavery. For little more than sport, Jabateh ordered several villagers, including the village chief, executed, and their hearts cut out. Grim acts of cannibalism followed.

The record goes on and on, but we will not. It is enough to say without exaggeration that the atrocities documented at trial, and found by a jury, paint a portrait of a madman.

B. Jabateh Seeks Asylum

But though mad, Jabateh was no fool. So when the civil war ended with Taylor and the NPFL victorious, and a possible reckoning for his crimes loomed, Jabateh left Liberia and applied for asylum in the United States. As part of the application, Jabateh filed Form I-589 ("Asylum Application") with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. One question on the Asylum Application asked:

Have you or any member of your family ever belonged to or been associated with any organizations or groups in your home country, such as, but not limited to, a political party, student group, labor union, religious organization, military or paramilitary group, civil patrol, guerrilla organization, ethnic group, human rights group, or the press or media?
If yes, provide a detailed explanation of your or your relatives’ involvement with each group and include the name of each organization or group; the dates of membership or affiliation; the purpose of the organization; your duties or your relatives’ duties or responsibilities in the group or organization; and whether you or your relatives are still active in the group(s).

(App. at 93.) Jabateh responded "Yes" and referred to the attached personal statement. (App. at 93.) In addition, the Asylum Application asked:

Have you, your spouse, or child(ren) ever caused harm or suffering to any person because of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or belief in a particular political opinion, or ever ordered, assisted, or otherwise participated in such acts?

(App. at 95.) In response to this question, Jabateh marked "No" on the form. (App. at 93.)

In the personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • United States v. Weiss
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • November 2, 2022
    ... ... 2067, 2070 (2018) ... (quoting Perrin , 444 U.S. at 42); Crane v ... Comm'r , 331 U.S. 1, 6 (1947) ("[T]he words of ... statutes - including revenue acts - should be interpreted ... where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses."); ... United States v. Jabateh , 974 F.3d 281, 296 (3d Cir ... 2020) ("[U]nder the fixed-meaning canon '[w]ords ... must be given the meaning they had when the text was ... adopted.'" (quoting Antonin Scalia &Bryan A ... Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal ... Texts 78 (2012)) ... ...
  • United States v. Adair
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 30, 2022
    ...standards of appellate review. The first prong of plain-error review examines whether a district court erred. See United States v. Jabateh , 974 F.3d 281, 298 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) ). For purposes of that p......
  • United States v. Nasir
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 1, 2020
    ...conduct but disallows the conviction of conduct that was certainly criminal but not properly proven. Cf. United States v. Jabateh , 974 F.3d 281, 287 (3d Cir. 2020).*****The Supreme Court has disapproved "a reflexive inclination by appellate courts to reverse because of unpreserved error," ......
  • United States v. Scott
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 22, 2021
    ...3B Federal Practice & Procedure – Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure § 856 (4th ed. Oct. 2020 Update).2 See United States v. Jabateh , 974 F.3d 281, 299 (3d Cir. 2020) (explaining that as the inquiry becomes deeper, the correct outcome becomes "less obvious"), petition for certiorari docke......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...(error not clear or obvious when court concluded that statute was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to appellants); U.S. v. Jabateh, 974 F.3d 281, 299 (3d Cir. 2020) (error not clear or obvious as the meaning of the statute was unsettled both at trial and throughout the appeal); U.S. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT