v. Khoury, 4:17-mc-02553

Background

Movant Samir Khoury, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Lebanon (non‑extradition country), alleges he is the unnamed “LNG Consultant” referenced in public filings from KBR-related FCPA prosecutions beginning in 2004.
Multiple KBR associates (including former CEO Jack Stanley) pled guilty to FCPA and related charges; court filings described an unnamed consultant whose factual profile matches Khoury.
Khoury contends a sealed indictment against him dates to February 2009 and seeks an order unsealing and dismissing it as time‑barred and violating his speedy trial and due process rights.
The Government neither admits nor denies the existence of a sealed indictment, argues Khoury’s claims are precluded or premature, and urges challenges occur only after any indictment is unsealed.
The court declined to apply the fugitive‑disentitlement doctrine, found changed circumstances since prior proceedings, and ordered the Government to produce, in camera, any evidence opposing Khoury’s motion within 20 days so the court can evaluate whether continued sealing is justified.

Issues

Issue	Khoury’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether court should unseal a purported sealed indictment	Seal should be lifted because public filings already disclose his identity, sealing no longer prevents flight, and secrecy injures his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights	No obligation to disclose or unseal; challenges should await unsealing; court lacks jurisdiction because Khoury has not submitted to it and is effectively a fugitive	Court will review Government’s in camera evidence before deciding; ordered Government to produce materials within 20 days (did not unseal at this stage)
Whether fugitive‑disentitlement bars Khoury’s access to relief	He is not a fugitive; living abroad without extradition does not make him disentitled	Government urged disentitlement because he is outside the U.S.	Court refused to extend the disentitlement doctrine here, noting Khoury has not absconded from custody and cannot be deemed a fugitive merely by residence abroad
Whether prior rulings preclude re-litigation (issue preclusion / law‑of‑the‑case)	Changed circumstances (passage of ~3 years) warrant reconsideration of earlier denials	Prior proceedings and appeals foreclose relitigation	Court found sufficient change in circumstances to allow reconsideration and declined to bar the current motion on preclusion grounds
Whether Khoury can challenge a sealed indictment before it is unsealed (speedy trial / statute of limitations claims)	He may challenge sealing now because indictment allegedly has been sealed for many years and public disclosures have negated sealing’s purposes	Courts have often required unsealing before permitting challenges; challenge is premature	Court observed precedent but distinguished long‑term sealing cases; directed Government to submit evidence justifying sealing so court can assess Khoury’s claims (no final determination on merits yet)

Key Cases Cited

Copeland v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 47 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir.) (issue preclusion elements)
Matter of King, 103 F.3d 17 (5th Cir.) (burden for asserting preclusion)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S.) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315 (5th Cir.) (limits on reexamining issues decided on appeal)
Bagwell v. Dretke, 376 F.3d 408 (5th Cir.) (fugitive disentitlement doctrine discussion)
Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (U.S.) (limits on applying fugitive disentitlement in civil contexts)
United States v. Muse, 633 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir.) (purpose of sealing indictments to prevent notice enabling flight)
United States v. Sealed Search Warrants, 868 F.3d 385 (5th Cir.) (court authority over sealing/unsealing judicial records)
United States v. Sharpe, 995 F.2d 49 (5th Cir.) (discussing procedural sequencing of unsealing then challenging a sealed indictment)
United States v. Lakin, 875 F.2d 168 (8th Cir.) (allowing post‑unsealing challenge where sealing was brief)
United States v. Srulowitz, 819 F.2d 37 (2d Cir.) (post‑unsealing challenge where sealing was brief)
United States v. Gigante, 436 F. Supp. 2d 647 (S.D.N.Y.) (common reasons to seal indictments)