United States v. Farhane
634 F.3d 127
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Sabir, a licensed physician, was convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda and of providing/attempting to provide such support.
- FBI and undercover operations in 2001–2005 connected Sabir to co-defendant Shah, who proposed al Qaeda-aligned activities and identified Sabir as a partner.
- Sabir and Shah swore allegiance to al Qaeda in May 2005 and Sabir offered medical on-call services in Saudi Arabia, including coded contact numbers.
- Indictment charged Sabir with providing or conspiring to provide personnel, training, and expert advice to a designated foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. §2339B.
- The district court convicted Sabir after a trial; Sabir challenges vagueness, sufficiency, Batson, evidentiary rulings, and juror misconduct.
- The Second Circuit affirmed in part, rejecting Sabir’s challenges and sustaining the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 2339B vagueness as applied | Government argues statute provides notice and is not unconstitutionally vague as applied. | Sabir contends §2339B is vague and overbroad as applied to his conduct. | Not vague as applied; convictions upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy | Government asserts evidence shows agreement and Sabir’s participation. | Sabir argues insufficient proof of conspiracy beyond mere talk. | Sufficient evidence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempt | Government contends May 2005 oath and contact numbers constitute a substantial step toward providing personnel. | Sabir claims actions were mere preparatory steps, not a substantial step. | Evidence supports substantial step toward providing personnel; conviction sustained. |
| Batson challenge | Government argues district court adequately assessed race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes. | Sabir claims pretext and racial bias in striking African-American jurors. | District court did not err; Batson challenged rejected. |
| Evidentiary and summation challenges | Government contends rulings on expert testimony, co-conspirator statements, and summation were proper. | Sabir asserts multiple evidentiary errors and prejudicial summation. | Background rulings upheld; no reversible error, convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (2010) (knowledge about organization suffices for § 2339B; narrows definitions; not overbroad)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (notice and arbitrariness concerns in vagueness review)
- United States v. Ivic, 700 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1983) (substantial step concept under Model Penal Code; degree of proximity matter)
- United States v. Stallworth, 543 F.2d 1038 (2d Cir. 1976) (adopts Model Penal Code approach to attempt; proximity-based analysis)
- United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 1993) (insufficient for attempt where no actual provision or proximity to sale)