United States v. Amina Ali
799 F.3d 1008
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Amina Farah Ali and Hawo Mohamed Hassan, naturalized U.S. citizens from Somalia living in Minnesota, were tried jointly and convicted for conspiring to provide and providing material support to al Shabaab (18 U.S.C. § 2339B) and for false statements (Hassan) after FBI investigation and FISA-authorized surveillance.
- The Government sought to use FISA-obtained materials; the Attorney General certified that disclosure would harm national security, prompting in camera, ex parte district-court review under FISA; the district court denied disclosure and suppression and the appellate panel reviewed those decisions.
- Trial evidence included recorded teleconferences and calls linking Ali (and to a lesser extent Hassan) to fundraising for al Shabaab, conversations praising violent attacks, contacts with al Shabaab financial officers and allied militants, and ledger/transfer records; Hassan made false statements to the FBI about these activities.
- Ali twice refused to stand when court was called to order, was cited for contempt, jailed briefly, then complied; defendants moved to recuse the judge on appeal and sought severance and evidentiary rulings related to co-defendant statements and other acts evidence.
- Sentencing: district court varied downward from Guidelines—Ali to 240 months, Hassan to 120 months—after applying terrorism-related enhancements (USSG §3A1.4 and §2M5.3(b)(1)(E)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recusal of trial judge | Ali/Hassan: judge displayed bias against Muslims via remarks and treatment of Ali, requiring recusal | Government: questions arose from trial events and counsel requests; no extrajudicial bias shown | No plain error; judge not disqualified under §455; remarks were trial-based and not disqualifying (Liteky standard) |
| Challenge to FTO designation procedure | Ali/Hassan: cannot be denied ability to challenge al Shabaab designation; process violates due process/delegation | Government: designation is statutory, challenge belongs to organization; statute provides standards and review mechanism; intelligible principle exists | Defendants cannot challenge designation in criminal case; designation scheme constitutional and not an unconstitutional delegation |
| FISA procedures and disclosure | Ali/Hassan: FISA violates Fourth and due process by permitting non-criminal probable-cause standard and ex parte, in camera review; FISA materials should have been disclosed/suppressed | Government: FISA probable-cause standard targets foreign power/agent status and is reasonable; ex parte review authorized and proper; district court properly refused disclosure and probable cause met | FISA procedures upheld; in camera/ex parte consistent with due process; district court did not abuse discretion in nondisclosure and probable cause under FISA was satisfied |
| Severance / Bruton / evidentiary rulings | Hassan: required severance to allow Ali to testify; spillover prejudice from Ali’s conduct and co-defendant statements; Ali: Bruton violation from Hassan’s statements; both: improper 404(b)/403 evidence and expert testimony | Government: joint trial appropriate for co-conspirators; limiting instructions and intrinsic-evidence doctrine justify admission; expert testimony factual and probative; any Bruton issue harmless given overwhelming evidence | Denial of severance affirmed; 404(b) and Rule 403 rulings upheld as intrinsic or relevant to intent; any Confrontation/Bruton error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sentencing enhancements & reasonableness | Ali/Hassan: §3A1.4 and §2M5.3 enhancements improper or unconstitutional; sentences procedurally/substantively unreasonable, court considered religion improperly | Government: §3A1.4 applies via §2332b(g)(5); enhancements constitutional; district court considered §3553(a) and adequately explained and justified downward variances | Terrorism and violence-related enhancements properly applied; Sixth Amendment and due-process challenges rejected; sentences not procedurally or substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (judicial remarks during trial do not require recusal absent deep-seated bias)
- McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (legislature’s definition of offense elements is generally dispositive for due process)
- United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.) (upholding prohibition on criminal defendants challenging FTO designation and terrorism enhancement application)
- United States v. Afshari, 426 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.) (due process challenge to FTO-designation-bar rejected)
- Humanitarian Law Project v. Reno, 205 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir.) (interpreting statutory standards for FTO designation)
- United States v. Isa, 923 F.2d 1300 (8th Cir.) (FISA surveillance consistent with Fourth Amendment where FISA probable-cause standard met)
- United States v. Omar, 786 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir.) (discussing FISA procedures, expert testimony on al Shabaab, and review standards)
- United States v. Meskini, 319 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.) (rejecting due-process challenge to terrorism enhancements)