United States v. Masud Al Safarini
Criminal No. 1991-0504
| D.D.C. | Nov 1, 2021Background
- In 1986 Safarini and co-conspirators seized Pan Am Flight 73 on the tarmac in Karachi, shot and threw a U.S. national from the aircraft, detonated grenades, and killed 19 passengers; many others were injured.
- Safarini was later indicted in D.C., pled guilty in 2003 to 95 federal counts (murder, attempted murder, attempted air piracy, hostage-taking, conspiracy) under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and was sentenced to three consecutive life terms plus 25 years.
- The plea agreement contained an express waiver barring collateral attacks except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC).
- Beginning in 2016 Safarini filed multiple post‑conviction challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and related filings: arguing (a) § 924(c) conviction invalid under Johnson/Davis, (b) lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction for attempted air piracy because the aircraft was not “in flight,” (c) lack of jurisdiction for murder counts under § 2331, (d) plea involuntariness / Rule 11 and IAC, and (e) untimeliness but requesting equitable tolling or coram nobis relief.
- The district court found the non‑IAC claims barred by the plea waiver or procedurally defaulted, held the attempted‑air‑piracy challenge was a merits (not jurisdictional) attack, denied equitable tolling for Safarini’s late IAC claim, rejected coram nobis as unavailable to prisoners in custody, and denied all motions.
Issues
| Issue | Safarini's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 924(c) conviction under Johnson/Davis | Johnson/Davis render the predicate “crime of violence” invalid, so § 924(c) must be vacated | Johnson/Davis do not invalidate Safarini’s § 924(c) conviction here | Denied — claim barred by plea waiver (not preserved); merits not reached |
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction over Attempt to Commit Air Piracy (was plane “in flight”?) | The aircraft was not in flight; therefore the court lacked jurisdiction and the plea is void | The argument attacks an element (merits) not jurisdiction; attempted piracy covers the conduct on the tarmac | Denied — challenge is to the merits/elements, not jurisdiction; plea waiver stands |
| Jurisdiction to prosecute Murder of U.S. National under 18 U.S.C. § 2331 | § 2331 was not in effect when the offenses occurred, so court lacked jurisdiction | § 2331 was enacted August 27, 1986, before the offense and applies extraterritorially as intended | Denied — government’s position accepted; claim fails on merits and/or is procedurally barred |
| Plea voluntariness, IAC, timeliness, and alternative coram nobis relief | Plea involuntary due to severe depression and counsel failures; IAC excuse for procedural default and equitable tolling; coram nobis if § 2255 unavailable | Record shows plea knowingly and voluntarily entered; IAC claim time‑barred and not equitably tolled; coram nobis unavailable to those in custody | Denied — plea was knowing/voluntary; only IAC claims survive waiver but were untimely; equitable tolling denied; coram nobis rejected for prisoners in custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (Supreme Court decision relied upon by movant to attack predicate "crime of violence" definitions)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (Supreme Court decision addressing the scope of the statute defining crimes of violence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (procedural default rule and actual‑innocence gateway to collateral relief)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (standards for equitable tolling of AEDPA limitations)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (distinction that true subject‑matter jurisdictional defects cannot be waived)
- Hayle v. United States, 815 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987) (a guilty plea does not permit collateral attack unless indictment facially fails to charge a federal offense)