United States v. Houtar, 980 F.3d 268

Houtar, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and his wife (S.A.) had two daughters born in the U.S.; the family later lived in Yemen.
After a Yemeni divorce and S.A.’s remarriage, S.A. returned to New York with her new husband; Houtar left the children in Yemen with his family.
Kings County Family Court awarded S.A. visitation and ordered Houtar to bring the daughters to the U.S.; Houtar surrendered his passport to the court but then fled to Yemen and retained the children, preventing S.A. from seeing them for ~3 years.
In Cairo, Houtar applied for a replacement U.S. passport, giving his original passport number and issuance date and falsely claiming theft; he was arrested pursuant to an INTERPOL Red Notice and returned to the U.S.
Houtar pled guilty to two counts under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a), for retaining the children abroad, and to one count of passport fraud; he appealed, arguing (1) the IPKCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied, and (2) two Guidelines enhancements were improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IPKCA is unconstitutionally vague as applied	United States: IPKCA plainly covers retention abroad of children who “have been in the United States” and Houtar’s conduct falls within the statute	Houtar: Statute gives no notice because his children had not been in the U.S. for years before the retention and he did not abduct them	Affirmed — not vague as applied; children had “been in the United States” and retention with intent falls within the statute’s core
Whether the §2J1.2(b)(2) 3‑level enhancement for substantial interference was improper	Gov’t: Houtar’s flight from jurisdiction substantially interfered with administration of justice and justifies enhancement	Houtar: Enhancement impermissibly punishes the same conduct underlying the IPKCA counts	Affirmed — enhancement based on flight (separate conduct) that hindered Family Court enforcement; not redundant
Whether the §2L2.2(b)(3) 4‑level enhancement for fraudulent use of a U.S. passport applies	Gov’t: providing old passport number/issue date in a replacement application is a fraudulent "use" under the Guidelines and commentary	Houtar: "Use" requires physical presentment of the passport; he did not present the original	Affirmed — "use" construed broadly per Stinson commentary; supplying passport number/issue date qualifies as use

United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 1997) (IPKCA covers removal or retention and defendant whose children recently resided in U.S. fell within statute’s core)
United States v. Miller, 626 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of an IPKCA violation)
United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2020) (reading §1204 to prohibit removal, attempted removal, or retention)
Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993) (Guidelines commentary interpreting a guideline is authoritative unless inconsistent with law)
Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (void-for-vagueness principles)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (statute must give fair notice and prevent arbitrary enforcement)
Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (presumption that federal statutes are not unconstitutionally vague)