United States v. Abdullahi Fidse, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12216

Fidse arrived in the U.S. seeking asylum in 2008, made false statements, was denied asylum, and placed in immigration custody.
FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force opened an investigation based on a tip linking Fidse to al-Shabaab; recorded conversations suggested support for al-Shabaab and reference to purchasing an armed technical vehicle.
Fidse lied to investigators, denied terrorist ties, and encouraged a companion to destroy evidence; companion later admitted to coordinating false statements.
In 2012 Fidse pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an agency proceeding and conspiracy to make false statements (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, 1505).
The PSR recommended a terrorism enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4; district court applied it, sentencing Fidse to consecutive 48-month terms; this court vacated and remanded in Fidse I for clearer factual findings.
On remand the district court adopted the Government’s proposed findings (without a new evidentiary hearing) and again applied § 3A1.4; Fidse appealed, arguing the record did not show a specific federal crime of terrorism was investigated nor that he intended to promote such a crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Task Force investigation encompassed a specific federal crime of terrorism (so as to identify an enumerated offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B))	Fidse: record shows only a general terrorism/intelligence inquiry; government never clearly identified a specific enumerated offense; evidence is thin and contradictory.	Gov: investigation concerned possible conspiracies to violate §§ 2339A/2339B (material support), so a qualifying federal crime of terrorism was under investigation.	Court: No clear error — district court plausibly found the Task Force investigated possible §§ 2339A/2339B conspiracies; that finding satisfies the enumerated-offense requirement.
Whether Fidse’s obstructive conduct was intended to promote a federal crime of terrorism (the § 3A1.4 intent requirement)	Fidse: enhancement requires proof he intended to promote the terrorist crime; mere obstruction of an investigation is insufficient—cannot apply if defendant unaware of terrorism nexus.	Gov: by knowingly obstructing an investigation into material support conspiracies, Fidse promoted the terrorist crime; §3A1.4 applies.	Court: No clear error — record plausibly shows Fidse knew the Task Force probed al-Shabaab support and that one purpose of his lies and urging destruction of evidence was to thwart that investigation; §3A1.4 applies.

United States v. Fidse, 778 F.3d 477 (5th Cir.) (prior appeal remanding for clearer findings on § 3A1.4 application)
United States v. Arnaout, 431 F.3d 994 (7th Cir.) (interpreting § 3A1.4’s "involved" and "intended to promote" prongs)
United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir.) (holding enhancement focuses on defendant’s purpose to promote terrorist crimes)
United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490 (6th Cir.) (explaining intent-to-promote standard under § 3A1.4)
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir.) (discussing foreign terrorist organization aims relevant to § 2332b(g)(5)(A) analysis)
United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300 (4th Cir.) (affirming § 3A1.4 for obstruction where investigation targeted material support to terrorists)
United States v. Ashqar, 582 F.3d 819 (7th Cir.) (applying § 3A1.4 to obstruction where defendant was informed of grand jury’s terrorism focus)
United States v. Chandia, 514 F.3d 365 (4th Cir.) (vacating application where district court failed to make requisite "calculation" findings)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (standard for appellate deference to trial court factfinding)