United States v. Fahd Albaadani
863 F.3d 496
6th Cir.2017Background
- Fahd Saleh Albaadani, a Yemeni national with a 2015 order of removal, was released on GPS ankle monitoring and later relocated to Tennessee; he removed the monitor and was charged.
- A jury convicted Albaadani of tampering with government property (18 U.S.C. § 1361) and failing to comply with supervised-release terms (8 U.S.C. § 1253(b)); acquitted on federal-threat counts.
- Government presented multiple incidents (angry phone call to an ICE ERO, voicemail threatening a car-dealership employee, statements referencing ISIS and bombs at an ISAP office) and Facebook photos of Albaadani with firearms.
- District court granted government’s motion for an upward departure from a 0–6 month Guidelines range and sentenced him to 9 months imprisonment plus one year supervised release, citing threats, photographs, and inability to return to Yemen.
- Albaadani appealed, arguing his sentence reflected impermissible consideration of national origin and gender; government moved to dismiss as moot because custody term expired.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Appellee's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Appeal not moot because supervised-release term remains and remand could reduce/ eliminate it | Appeal moot because challenged prison term expired and any collateral effects are speculative | Not moot: supervised-release remains and court could alter it on remand |
| Whether sentence relied on impermissible factors (national origin, gender) | District court’s comments and focus on citizenship/national origin created appearance sentence was based on those impermissible factors | District court primarily relied on threats, photos, and conduct; any nationality references were incidental | Affirmed: viewed in whole, reasonable observer would not conclude sentence was based on national origin or gender |
| Standard of review for claim that court considered national origin/gender | — | — | De novo review for whether national origin/gender improperly considered; overall sentencing reviewed for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion standard |
| Waiver/forfeiture of procedural-reasonableness claim | Albaadani preserved the claim in his brief; did not intentionally relinquish right | Government argued he waived by failing to raise procedural challenge below | Court held Albaadani did not waive or forfeit the procedural-reasonableness challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Juvenile Male, 564 U.S. 932 (2011) (mootness principles for criminal appeals where challenged portion of sentence has expired)
- United States v. Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d 345 (6th Cir. 2015) (mootness and continuing-case-or-controversy rules in sentencing appeals)
- United States v. Kaba, 480 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2007) (national origin and race must not adversely affect sentencing; appearance of bias requires remand)
- United States v. Hughes, 283 Fed.Appx. 345 (6th Cir. 2008) (even appearance that sentence reflects race or nationality may require remand)
- United States v. Carreto, 583 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2009) (review de novo whether district court improperly considered national origin)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standard for waiver: intentional relinquishment of known right)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (injury must be redressable and traceable to challenged government action for Article III standing)