1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

------------------------------X 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : 

 : 

 -against- : No. 00 Cr. 15 (JFK) 

 : Opinion and Order

ABDEL GHANI MESKINI, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

------------------------------X 

APPEARANCES: 

 For the Government: 

 Preet Bharara 

 U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York 

 Of Counsel: Christopher L. LaVigne 

 Michael M. Rosensaft 

 For Defendant: 

 Mark S. DeMarco 

JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge:

 On October 13, 14, and 19, 2010, I held supervised release 

revocation hearing as to nine violations of supervised release 

Abdel Ghani Meskini (“Meskini” or “Releasee”) allegedly 

committed from in or about 2006 until November 10, 2009 in 

Atlanta, Georgia. This Opinion and Order sets forth my findings 

of fact and conclusions of law with respect to each of the nine 

specifications. 

I. Background 

On March 7, 2001, Meskini pleaded guilty pursuant to a 

cooperation agreement to an eight count Information charging: 

(1) conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; (2) 

conspiracy to commit identification document fraud; (3) 
2 

transferring and attempting to transfer false identification 

documents; (4) transferring and using means of identification of 

other persons; (5) trafficking in unauthorized access devices; 

(6) effecting and attempting to effect transactions with 

unauthorized access devices; (7) bank fraud; and (8) possessing 

a firearm as an illegal alien in the United States. On January 

23, 2004, I sentenced Meskini principally to seventy-two months 

in prison, to be followed by five years of supervised release. 

Meskini’s supervised release was subject to several mandatory 

and standard conditions, including that he not commit another 

federal, state, or local crime; not possess a firearm; cooperate 

with the Government; submit truthful and complete monthly 

reports to his probation officer; avoid places where controlled 

substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or 

administered; and not associate with criminals. I additionally 

ordered that Meskini pay $59,545.80 in restitution and an $800 

special assessment. 

On March 17, 2010, the United States Probation Department 

submitted a report outlining nine violations of supervised 

release; an amended report was submitted on August 5, 2010. The 

Government alleges that Meskini: (1) failed to pay courtordered restitution; (2) attempted to possess a firearm in or 

about the spring or summer of 2007; (3) attempted to purchase an 

AK-47 assault rifle in or about the summer and fall of 2009; (4) 
3 

committed criminal attempt in violation of Ga. Code Ann. § 16-4-

1; (5) committed criminal solicitation in violation of Ga. Code 

Ann. § 16-4-7; (6) associated with a person who had a felony 

record and/or engaged in criminal activity from 2006 to November 

10, 2009; (7) frequented an establishment where illegal drugs 

are sold, used, distributed, or administered on multiple 

occasions; (8) made false statements in late 2009 in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and (9) failed to cooperate with the 

Government. 

II. Findings of Fact 

The Government’s burden of proof in a supervised release 

revocation hearing is a preponderance of the evidence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Government’s evidence at the 

revocation hearing established the following facts. 

After his release from prison, Meskini relocated to 

Atlanta, Georgia and obtained a job managing low-end apartment 

complexes known as “21 Delmont” and “32 Peachtree Avenue.” 

(Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 75). Meskini’s responsibilities included 

collecting rent from tenants and making repairs in the 

apartments. (Id. at 66, 75). By all accounts, 21 Delmont in 

particular was a hotbed of criminal activity, where narcotics 

sales and prostitution occurred openly and persistently. (Id.

at 15-16, 65; Oct. 14, 2010 Tr. at 197-99, 258-59). 
4 

Incredibly, the United States Probation Department approved 

Meskini’s employment as building manager of the complexes. 

(Oct. 19, 2010 Tr. at 347). In fact, Meskini met with various 

members of law enforcement throughout his tenure at 21 Delmont 

and 32 Peachtree Avenue, all of whom knew or should have known 

that the job would bring Meskini in constant contact with 

criminals. Although Probation claims that it was unaware of the 

extensive criminal activity occurring on the premises, the 

parties stipulated that it is the common practice of the 

Probation Office in the Northern District of Georgia to visit a 

releasee’s place of employment. (Id.). Had an officer checked 

out 21 Delmont in person, the illicit activity would have been 

readily apparent. Moreover, Meskini met with Detective Jay 

Sausmer of the Fulton County Police Department numerous times 

between 2005 and 2009 and told the detective that criminal 

activity, including prostitution, occurred in the properties he 

managed. (Id. at 300-02). However, neither Detective Sausmer 

nor any other law enforcement official ever told Meskini not to 

work at 21 Delmont or 32 Peachtree Avenue. (Id.). Even after 

he was no longer employed at 21 Delmont, in 2009 Meskini told 

Special Agent James Pinette of the FBI that he had interacted 

with prostitutes and drug dealers in his capacity as building 

manager. (Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 15-16). 
5 

While working at 21 Delmont, Meskini came to know several 

of the tenants, including Crystal Roughton and Ricky Stephenson, 

two of the Government’s witnesses who testified pursuant to 

immunity orders. Ms. Roughton is a prostitute who admittedly 

uses crack cocaine on a daily basis; however, she stated that 

she had refrained from smoking crack for the four or five days 

prior to taking the witness stand and that her mind was clear. 

(Id. at 61-63). Ms. Roughton testified that she lived at 21 

Delmont for a few months in 2005, and moved back in mid-2006, 

staying for a little more than a year. (Id. at 64). She saw 

Meskini at 21 Delmont every day, (Id. at 66), and, as 

corroborated by the log of calls made and received by Meskini’s 

phone number from September to November 2009, (Gov’t Ex. 18A; 

Oct. 19, 2010 Tr. at 354), the two spoke very frequently. On a 

few occasions, they had sex. (Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 72). 

Meskini helped Ms. Roughton with her prostitution business by 

loaning her money, proof-reading her escort service 

advertisements, assisting her with obtaining internet access, 

and teaching her how to screen clients. (Id. at 67-69). If Ms. 

Roughton was unable to pay her rent, Meskini would give her an 

extension. (Id. at 73). She identified Meskini in the 

courtroom. (Id. at 66). Overall, it appears that Ms. Roughton 

and Meskini had a close relationship. 
6 

Ms. Roughton testified about Meskini’s involvement with 

firearms on two specific occasions. First, she explained that 

she had seen Meskini with a gun in 2007. (Id. at 76). Although 

she could not recall the exact month of this observation, she 

remembered that the weather was warm. (Id.). She explained 

that she and Meskini were talking in the parking lot of 21 

Delmont when another tenant named Chris interrupted them. (Id.

at 77-79). She saw Chris go to a green car, open the trunk, 

retrieve a black handgun, and give the gun to Meskini. (Id. at 

77-79, 162). She then watched as Meskini put the gun under the 

driver’s seat of his black pickup truck and drove off. (Id. at 

80). Ms. Roughton observed this transaction from a distance of 

about ten feet. (Id. at 79). Approximately one day later, Ms. 

Roughton confronted Meskini on the phone about the events that 

took place in the parking lot, and Meskini confirmed that the 

item she saw was a gun. (Id. at 81). 

Additionally, Ms. Roughton testified that in the fall of 

2009, Meskini asked her to help him obtain an AK-47 assault 

rifle. Specifically, Ms. Roughton recounted that Meskini told 

her he needed an AK-47 and would not spend more than $5,500 to 

purchase one. (Id. at 85-86, 162). Shortly thereafter, Meskini 

informed Ms. Roughton that he had found an AK-47 for sale but 

that it came with 50 grenades he did not want. (Id. at 87). 

The next time they spoke, Meskini told Ms. Roughton that he had 
7 

emailed her pictures of an AK-47 as an example of what he was 

interesting in buying. (Id. at 87-88, 91-92). Ms. Roughton 

told Meskini that she had not received any emails from him. 

(Id.).1 Meskini explained that the name of the sender would be 

Cofield, and then he verified her email address. (Id. at 91-

92). On September 20, 2009, Ms. Roughton did receive an email 

from “Tony Cofield” attaching three photos of an AK-47. (Gov’t 

Ex. 20; Oct. 13. 2010 Tr. at 92-94). After she received the 

email, Ms. Roughton made numerous phone calls to try to locate 

an AK-47 for Meskini. (Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 95). In October of 

2009, Ms. Roughton informed Meskini she might have a lead on an 

AK-47 for him, but Meskini told her that he had already gotten 

one. (Id.). 

It is not immediately apparent from the email addresses 

that Meskini sent either or both of the messages attaching the 

pictures of the AK-47. Meskini disclosed to the Probation 

Department that he had an email address beginning with 

“ghani68.” (Gov’t Ex. 21, Monthly Supervision Reports for 

 

1

 In support of this testimony, the Government introduced an 

email dated September 17, 2009 from “katal_09” to an email 

address closely resembling Ms. Roughton’s – her name was spelled 

“Crystel” instead of “Crystal” and an underscore was omitted. 

(Gov’t Ex. 5). The September 17th email attached the same three 

photos of an AK-47 as did the email Ms. Roughton eventually 

received. (Gov’t Exs. 5, 20). The September 17th email was 

returned to the sender as undeliverable. (Gov’t Ex. 6). 
8 

September and October 2008; Gov’t Ex. 1A). However, the 

Government established that the “Tony Cofield” account and the 

“katal_09” account were registered to the same IP address. 

(Gov’t Exs. 2A, 3A). An FBI agent who logged onto a wireless 

network in the vicinity of Meskini’s home was able to send an 

email from the IP address used to register the “Tony Cofield” 

and “katal_09” accounts. (Gov’t Ex. 19S). Furthermore, the 

Government introduced access records for the “ghani68,” “Tony 

Cofield,” and “katal_09” accounts demonstrating that, on several 

occasions in October of 2009, someone logged onto these accounts 

in quick succession, all using the IP address located in the 

vicinity of Meskini’s home. (Gov’t Exs. 1B, 2B, 3B; Oct. 19, 

2010 Tr. at 362-63). I find that a preponderance of the 

physical evidence and testimony establishes that Meskini used 

the “katal_09” and “Tony Cofield” accounts to email Ms. Roughton 

pictures of an AK-47. 

As evidenced by her profession and drug addiction, Ms. 

Roughton certainly has a complicated personal history involving 

numerous contacts with the criminal justice system. I am well 

aware that she refused to testify absent the immunity order. 

However, she spoke in a forceful and forthright manner. She was 

unwilling to implicate Meskini in any drug activity despite the 

prosecutor’s invitation. (Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 72-73). With 

respect to the handgun, her recollection was limited and 
9 

specific; she testified that she only saw Meskini with a handgun 

on one occasion, and she was able to describe the gun with some 

particularity. Her testimony regarding the AK-47 was 

corroborated by emails recovered from accounts used by Meskini. 

I cannot discern any real motivation she might have to fabricate 

a story about a man she purportedly holds in high regard. (Id.

at 156, 164-65). Therefore, I credit Ms. Roughton’s testimony 

as a reliable account of Meskini’s possession of a handgun in 

2007 and attempt to purchase an AK-47 in the fall of 2009. 

The Government also called to the stand Ricky Stephenson. 

Mr. Stephenson moved to 21 Delmont in late 2006 or early 2007, 

and he came to know Meskini well. (Oct. 14, 2010 Tr. at 196-

97). He identified Meskini in the courtroom. (Id. at 197). 

Although he had a felony record at the time he moved to 21 

Delmont, Mr. Stephenson did not recall ever telling Meskini 

about his criminal history. (Id. at 213). He testified that 

Meskini did not sell drugs. (Id. at 200-01). Nevertheless, the 

two soon became involved in various fraudulent activities. Mr. 

Stephenson admitted that he made fake identification documents 

for Meskini and his wife, (Id. at 209-11), as well as fake 

checks. (Id. at 216). The two also engaged in a scheme whereby 

Meskini obtained five or six real credit cards from tenants’ 

mail, Mr. Stephenson made fake IDs to match the name on the 

credit card, and then a third person used the credit card and ID 
10 

to purchase plasma screen televisions and other merchandise. 

(Id. at 211-12, 214). Mr. Stephenson also testified that 

Meskini let him use mailboxes at the properties he managed so 

Mr. Stephenson could set up fraudulent corporations with real 

addresses and receive checks and other mail for those companies. 

(Id. at 227-29). 

Mr. Stephenson testified that he knows Ms. Roughton from 21 

Delmont, but that they have not spoken or seen each other in 

over a year. (Id. at 229-30). Like Ms. Roughton, Mr. 

Stephenson testified that he saw Meskini with a gun. (Id. at 

218). In early 2007, Meskini was in the driver’s seat of his 

black pickup truck with the window rolled down, and Mr. 

Stephenson was standing outside the vehicle’s door. (Id. at 

218-20). He saw a black automatic handgun on the floor of the 

truck, and he watched as Meskini bent over to pick up the gun, 

sat up, switched the gun from one hand to the other, and then 

placed the gun under the seat of the truck. (Id. at 220-22). 

Ms. Roughton and Mr. Stephenson’s descriptions of the time 

period when Meskini possessed a gun, the color and type of gun, 

and the truck he was driving when he possessed the gun are 

substantially the same. 

Mr. Stephenson’s credibility is not without problems. In 

2009, Mr. Stephenson pleaded guilty to 168 counts of bank fraud; 

he was sentenced to 74 months in prison and is currently 
11 

incarcerated. (Id. at 189-91). In proffer sessions with the 

Government, he additionally admitted to selling large quantities 

of narcotics, illegal gun possession, and extensive involvement 

in postal money order and check fraud. (Id. at 192-95). He 

entered into a cooperation agreement and testified for the 

Government with the goal of receiving a Rule 35(b) motion and 

potentially a reduced sentence. As both sides pointed out, Mr. 

Stephenson’s numerous frauds are not reflective of an overly 

truthful character, and the incentive of a Rule 35 motion gives 

him some motive to lie. However, Mr. Stephenson was able to 

give a specific description of the gun; he did not overreach, 

testifying that he only saw Meskini with a gun one time. Ms. 

Roughton corroborated his testimony in most respects. Taking 

these factors into account, I find that his testimony, 

particularly involving Meskini’s gun possession, was candid. 

As mentioned earlier, numerous law enforcement officers 

interviewed Meskini during the time he lived in Atlanta. 

Special Agent Pinette testified that he met with Meskini four 

times in the fall of 2009, and at no point did Meskini 

acknowledge any involvement in illegal activity or attempt to 

purchase an AK-47. (Oct. 13, 2010 Tr. at 12, 15-21). 

Similarly, Detective Sausmer testified that Meskini continually 

denied participating in any kind of illegal activity. (Oct. 14, 

2010 Tr. at 302-03, 307-09, 311-13). However, in a “stunning” 
12 

turn of events, in an October 24, 2009 interview, Meskini 

informed Detective Sausmer that a tenant had offered to sell him 

an AK-47. (Id. at 312-13). Aside from this admission, Meskini 

denied his involvement in any activity that would constitute a 

violation of supervised release. 

III. Conclusions of Law 

A. Specification 1: Restitution 

Meskini has paid $31,450 of restitution, with a remaining 

balance of $28,095.80. (Gov’t Ex. 22). He was taken into 

custody by the Department of Homeland Security on November 10, 

2009. It appears that he made regular restitution payments 

until that time, and any failure to pay restitution is due to 

the fact that he is currently incarcerated. Therefore, I find 

Meskini NOT GUILTY of Specification 1. 

B. Specification 2: 2007 Firearm Possession 

As discussed above, Ms. Roughton and Mr. Stephenson’s 

testimony establishes that Meskini possessed a handgun in 2007 

in contradiction of a mandatory condition of supervised release. 

I find that Meskini is GUILTY of Specification 2, which is a 

Grade C Violation. 

C. Specifications 3, 4 and 5: 2009 Attempted AK-47 Purchase 

Meskini was required as a condition of his supervised 

release not to commit another federal, state, or local crime. 

Georgia state law prohibits the possession of “any sawed-off 
13 

shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or 

silencer.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-123. A machine gun is defined 

as “any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, 

automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by 

a single function of the trigger.” Id. § 16-11-121. 

Furthermore, under Georgia state law a person commits the 

offense of criminal attempt when “with intent to commit a 

specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a 

substantial step toward the commission of that crime.” Id. § 

16-4-1. 

I am well aware, and it is generally known, that an AK-47 

is a machine gun as defined by the Georgia statute. However, 

the Government has not made a request pursuant to Rule 201(d) of 

the Federal Rules of Evidence that I take judicial notice of 

this fact. If the Government wishes, it may re-open the hearing 

and make the appropriate request, and I will give defense 

counsel an “opportunity to be heard” under Fed. R. Evid. 201(e) 

“as to the propriety of” my taking such notice. 

Additionally, a person commits the offense of criminal 

solicitation when “with intent that another person engage in 

conduct constituting a felony, he solicits, requests, commands, 

importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to 

engage in such conduct.” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-4-7. The email 

exhibits and Ms. Roughton’s testimony establish that Meskini 
14 

asked Ms. Roughton, among others, to find an AK-47 for him to 

purchase, and in so doing, took a substantial step towards the 

possession of an illegal machine gun. Therefore, I find that 

Meskini is GUILTY of Specifications 3, 4, and 5,2 which are Grade 

A violations. 

D. Specification 6: Association with Felons 

As the prosecutor acknowledged during his summation, there 

is no evidence that either Ms. Roughton or Mr. Stephenson told 

Meskini that they had previously been convicted of felonies; in 

fact, it is not clear whether Ms. Roughton has a felony record 

at all. (Oct. 19, 2010 Tr. at 351). Both witnesses testified 

that they were involved in criminal activity while living at 21 

Delmont, and both developed close relationships with Meskini. 

However, Meskini met Ms. Roughton, Mr. Stephenson, and various 

other prostitutes and drug dealers in the course of his 

employment, and his interactions with these people were closely 

tied to a job the Probation Department approved. Moreover, 

Meskini told two law enforcement officers about the rampant 

criminal activity occurring at 21 Delmont; that alone should 

have been a warning signal to Probation, the Fulton County 

Police, or the FBI to investigate further, and yet no officer 

 

2

 It appears that Specification 3 (attempted unlawful possession 

of a firearm) and Specification 4 (criminal attempt), both 

referencing Meskini’s search for an AK-47 in the fall of 2009, 

are functionally the same. 
15 

visited his place of employment or told him to find another job. 

The Government’s attempt to put Meskini in jail for associations 

about which it knew or should have known for several years is 

disingenuous at best. I find that Meskini is NOT GUILTY of 

Specification 6. 

E. Specification 7: Frequenting Drug Establishments 

Both Ms. Roughton and Mr. Stephenson confirmed that Meskini 

wanted nothing to do with drugs – he did not use or sell. It is 

true that many of the apartments at 21 Delmont were occupied by 

drug dealers and/or users. However, there is no evidence that 

Meskini went to these apartments for a nefarious purpose; 

instead, he was required to enter the premises to collect rent 

and make repairs. Having approved a job that necessarily 

involved the frequenting of establishments where illegal drugs 

were used or sold, the Probation Department cannot now maintain 

that Meskini violated the conditions of his supervised release 

by performing work-related tasks. Therefore, I find that 

Meskini is NOT GUILTY of Specification 7. 

F. Specification 8: False Statements 

In light of my finding that Meskini attempted to purchase 

an AK-47 in or about September 2009, his statements to Special 

Agent Pinette in the fall of 2009 that he was not involved in 

any criminal activity were demonstrably false. Moreover, the 

monthly Probation Report asked whether the releasee had been 
stioned by any law enforcement officers, and each month, 

including October 2009 when Special Agent Pinette interviewed 

him edly, Meskini checked "No." The monthly Probation 

Report also asked whether the releasee possessed or access 

to a firearm, and Meskini failed to report his attempt to 

purchase an AK-47. I find that Meskini is GUILTY of 

Specification 8, which is a Grade B vi ation. 

G. Specification 9: Failure to Cooperate 

The conduct underlying Meskini's all failure to 

cooperate with the Government has al been addressed in 

Specifications 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. This Specification is nebulous 

to say the least and sets no independent basis 

revocation. Therefore, I find that Meskini is NOT GUILTY of 

Spe fication 9. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 	 New York, New York 

October 27, 2010 

. -.1// 
 ~~vl r;[&£~,z-/ John F. Keenan 


United States District Judge 


16