United States v. Mohamed Toure
965 F.3d 393
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- D.D., brought from Guinea to the Toures’ Texas home on a six‑month tourist visa at about 9–10 years old, lived and worked for Mohamed Toure and Denise Cros‑Toure from 2000–2016 without pay.
- Over 16 years she performed extensive household labor (cooking, childcare, cleaning, repairs, renovations) while being denied schooling, medical care, and identification documents.
- D.D. suffered physical abuse (beatings, hair/earring mutilation), humiliation, banishments to parks, and isolation; the Toures confiscated her passport/visa and never obtained new documents.
- D.D. fled in 2016, contacted anti‑trafficking authorities, and the Toures were indicted on counts including forced labor (18 U.S.C. § 1589), conspiracy/harboring an alien (8 U.S.C. § 1324), and a false‑statement count; the jury convicted on forced labor and harboring/conspiracy charges; each defendant received 84 months’ imprisonment and joint restitution of $288,620.24.
- On appeal the Toures raised four issues: (1) vagueness/overbreadth of § 1589’s “serious harm” definition; (2) insufficiency of evidence (Mohamed) for forced labor; (3) erroneous refusal to give requested jury language on harboring; and (4) error in restitution calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Toures' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1589’s definition of “serious harm” is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad | §1589 definition is lawful; courts have upheld it | Definition is vague/overbroad, so forced‑labor conviction should be vacated | Rejected on plain‑error review: no controlling authority showing the definition is unconstitutional; challenge fails |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Mohamed knowingly obtained D.D.’s labor by threats/scheme | Evidence of violence, isolation, withholding documents, duration, and Mohamed’s statements supports a finding of threats/scheme and scienter | Mohamed’s conduct was episodic and too scattered over 16 years to show a scheme or requisite knowledge | Affirmed: evidence sufficed to permit reasonable juror to find scheme/threats and knowledge |
| Whether district court abused discretion by refusing defendants’ extra jury language on “harboring” | Pattern instruction was correct and adequate; extra language unnecessary | Requested language clarifying that mere sheltering without intent to hide from authorities is not harboring was required | No abuse: court used Fifth Circuit pattern instruction; additional accurate language not required |
| Whether restitution award ($288,620.24) was erroneous | TVPA mandates full victim losses; district court adopted PSR methodology, adjusted hours to 40/week, explained award and doubled amount per FLSA liquidated damages | Court erred by adopting 40 hours/week without adequate explanation | No error: court adopted PSR methodology, reduced hours with explanation, calculated back pay and doubled it; restitution affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rojas, 812 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain‑error review for constitutional challenges raised on appeal)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (standard for plain‑error relief)
- United States v. Calimlim, 538 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008) (upholding §1589 against vagueness/overbreadth challenges)
- United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (permitting inference of scienter from withholding documents and victim’s ‘‘escape’’)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2010) (spousal knowledge and participation may be inferred from observed and contributed abuse)
- United States v. Whitfield, 590 F.3d 325 (5th Cir. 2009) (acceptance of pattern jury instructions that correctly state the law)
- United States v. Cessa, 856 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2017) (no requirement to adopt additional proposed instruction language even if accurate)
- United States v. De Leon, 728 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2013) (restitution must be explained sufficiently to allow appellate review)