United States v. Shakil Wamiq
771 F.3d 367
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- ATF ran undercover warehouses in Milwaukee (no tax-stamped cigarettes) and sold large quantities to buyers; purchases lacked invoices and tax stamps.
- Uddin acted as intermediary, making multiple large cash purchases from the Milwaukee warehouse for defendants Shakil Wamiq and Mazher Ali Khan; cigarettes were transported to Illinois.
- Indictment charged conspiracies and multiple counts under the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), 18 U.S.C. § 2342; Uddin pleaded, testified for the government.
- Wamiq convicted on four CCTA counts; Khan convicted on three counts; post-trial motions denied; Wamiq sentenced to 21 months, restitution and forfeiture; Khan received probation, restitution and forfeiture.
- On appeal, defendants challenged: constitutionality of the CCTA (Tenth Amendment and vagueness), unit-of-prosecution (single vs. multiple counts), admission of prior-illicit-purchase evidence, sufficiency of evidence, forfeiture calculations, and Wamiq’s sentencing adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under Tenth Amendment / Commerce Clause | (Gov) CCTA valid exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers to curb interstate cigarette trafficking | Wamiq & Khan: CCTA intrudes on state authority, punishes state-law violations, commandeers states | CCTA valid under Commerce Clause; does not commandeer states or merely punish state-law violations — Tenth Amendment challenge rejected |
| Void-for-vagueness re: §2341(2)(C) "accounting and payment requirements" | (Gov) Illinois statute supplies clear accounting/payment rules for licensed distributors | Wamiq & Khan: statutory reference is vague; licensed persons lack fair notice when conduct violates CCTA | Statute not unconstitutionally vague; Illinois licensing/invoice/stamp rules give fair notice; exception in §2341(2)(C) inapplicable here |
| Unit of prosecution / multiplicity of counts | (Gov) each distinct purchase/transaction is a separate offense under CCTA | Wamiq & Khan: should be charged once because cigarettes became contraband only after failure to comply with state accounting requirements | Each discrete purchase constituted a separate prosecutable unit; multiple counts proper |
| Admissibility of prior Illinois purchases (Rule 404(b)) | (Gov) prior purchases show motive, plan, intent and rebut claimed lawful stamping | Wamiq: prior-act evidence highly prejudicial, risk of jury confusion | 404(b) evidence admissible for motive/plan; limiting instruction reduced unfair prejudice; district court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for statute constitutionality)
- United States v. Stokes, 726 F.3d 880 (7th Cir. 2013) (Commerce Clause categories)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (Commerce Clause framework)
- United States v. Abdullah, 162 F.3d 897 (6th Cir. 1998) (CCTA impacts interstate commerce)
- United States v. Wilson, 73 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1996) (Congress may regulate conduct that also violates state law)
- United States v. Cureton, 739 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2014) (determining unit of prosecution)
- United States v. Causey, 748 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2014) (Rule 404(b) four-part test)
- United States v. Richards, 719 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2013) (limiting instructions mitigate unfair prejudice)
- United States v. Skoczen, 405 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2005) (CCTA does not require a state-law conviction as predicate)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) (multiplicity principle resolving single transaction vs. multiple offenses)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) (void-for-vagueness doctrine standard)