United States v. Khalil Abu Rayyan
885 F.3d 436
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Khalil Abu Rayyan pleaded guilty to making false statements to purchase a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)) and unlawful firearm possession as a regular user of an illegal controlled substance (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)).
- FBI monitored Rayyan after he posted ISIS/ISIL‑sympathetic materials online, including execution imagery and videos; he repeatedly sought and shared extremist content and posted photos brandishing firearms with pro‑ISIS gestures.
- Rayyan bought a .22 revolver, falsely denied drug use on the federal form, was arrested after police found marijuana and the gun in his car, then attempted to purchase another gun and later rented AR‑15 and AK‑47 rifles at a range.
- An undercover FBI agent posing as an ISIS sympathizer elicited from Rayyan admissions that he had “planned out” an attack on a local church, regretted not carrying it out, and expressed intent to kill an arresting officer; he was arrested in Feb. 2016.
- The PSR recommended a guidelines range of 15–21 months; the government sought 96 months; the district court imposed a 60‑month sentence after three days of hearings and a 33‑page opinion.
- Rayyan appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness based on (inter alia) denial of a §3E1.1(b) cooperation reduction, reliance on uncharged conduct and protected speech, and inadequate weight to psychological evaluations.
Issues
| Issue | Rayyan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a one‑point §3E1.1(b) reduction was improper | Rayyan: prosecutors should have moved for the reduction because he timely notified his intent to plead guilty | Gov: it prepared for trial (filed motion in limine same day) so reduction appropriately withheld | Court: No abuse of discretion; government reasonably prepared for trial and could withhold motion |
| Whether reliance on uncharged or online speech violates Fifth/Sixth/First Amendments | Rayyan: upward variance based on uncharged conduct, online viewing and statements is unconstitutional or protected thought/speech | Gov: courts may consider uncharged/acquitted conduct and speech that evidences motive, intent, or dangerousness | Court: Permissible to consider uncharged conduct and online statements as relevant to §3553(a); no constitutional violation |
| Whether district court clearly erred in factual findings supporting variance | Rayyan: facts relied on (plans, intent, dangerousness) were speculative or overstated; should have credited mental‑health reports | Rayyan: mental‑health evaluations showed no predisposition to violence | Court: Findings supported by records (communications, conduct, purchases); district court reasonably weighed mental‑health evidence and found risk nonetheless |
| Whether the 60‑month upward variance was substantively unreasonable | Rayyan: variance (from 15–21 months to 60 months) was excessive and unjustified | Gov: sentence justified by danger to public, deterrence, and repeat firearms conduct | Court: No abuse of discretion; substantial explanation, hearings, and balancing make the sentence substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (sentencing courts may consider uncharged conduct)
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (speech may be considered when it evidences motive or enhances culpability)
- Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992) (limits on using defendant's associations at sentencing when unrelated to offense)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (appellate standard for reviewing sentencing factual and legal conclusions)
- United States v. Khalil, 279 F.3d 358 (6th Cir. 2002) (entrapment defense elements and relevance)
- United States v. Alsante, 812 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2016) (consideration of uncharged conduct in sentencing)
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (precedent on sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2007) (§3553(a)(6) and national disparity scope)