Specifically, Mr. Abu Ali was convicted of the following offenses: 1

Conspiracy to Provide Material Support and Resources to a Designated Foreign

Terrorist Organization (Al-Qaeda), 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (Count 1); Providing

Material Support and Resources to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

(Al-Qaeda), 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (Count 2); Conspiracy to Provide Material

Support to Terrorists, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (Count 3); Providing Material Support

to Terrorists, 18 U.S.C. § 2339A (Count 4); Contribution of Services to AlQaeda, 50 U.S.C. § 1705(b); 31 C.F.R. § 595.204 (Count 5); Receipt of Funds

and Services from Al-Qaeda, 50 U.S.C. § 1705(b); 31 C.F.R. § 595.204 (Count

6); Conspiracy to Assassinate the President, 18 U.S.C. § 1751 (Count 7);

Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy, 49 U.S.C. § 46502(a)(2) (Count 8); and

Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft, 18 U.S.C. § 32(b)(4) (Count 9).

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

v. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:05-53

)

AHMED OMAR ABU ALI, )

)

Defendant. )

SENTENCING ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court regarding the sentencing of

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (“Mr. Abu Ali”). This case concerns Mr. Ahmed

Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted on November 22, 2005, under

various statutes that preclude a citizen from rendering, or

conspiring to render, assistance or support to a designated

foreign terrorist organization. Mr. Abu Ali was convicted of

joining Al-Qaeda and participating in a plan to carry out

terrorist activities within the United States. The issue before 1

the Court is what sentence is “reasonable” to impose on Ahmed

Omar Abu Ali, in light of the federal Sentencing Guidelines and

the statutory factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 1 of 18

2

finds that a “non-Guidelines” sentence is reasonable and is

“sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the

statutory purposes of sentencing” as required by the federal

Sentencing Guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a), and sentences Mr. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali to a three hundred

sixty (360) month term of imprisonment and a three hundred sixty

(360) month term of supervised release at the conclusion of his

term of imprisonment.

I. Standard of Review

By its decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738

(2005), the Supreme Court rendered the federal Sentencing

Guidelines “advisory” rather than “mandatory.” However, that

decision did not leave district courts with “unguided and

unbounded sentencing discretion.” United States v. Green, 436

F.3d 449, 455 (4th Cir. 2006). Rather, Booker requires district

courts to “consult [the federal Sentencing] Guidelines and take

them into account when sentencing.” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767

(citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4), (5)).

Also, district courts must follow the commands of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553, which requires the court to “impose a sentence

sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with [the

statutory purposes for sentencing].” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 767. 

As the Fourth Circuit has explained, in order to sentence a

defendant post-Booker, district courts must engage in a four-step

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 2 of 18

3

process. Green, 436 F.3d at 455-56. First, courts must properly

calculate the sentence range recommended by the Sentencing

Guidelines. Second, courts must determine whether a sentence

within that range and within statutory limits serves the factors

set forth in § 3553(a) and, if not, select a sentence that does

serve those factors. Third, courts must implement mandatory

statutory limitations. Fourth, courts must articulate the

reasons for selecting the particular sentence, especially

explaining why a sentence outside of the Sentencing Guideline

range better serves the relevant sentencing purposes set forth in

§ 3553(a). Green, 436 F.3d at 456. If a district court does not

apply the properly calculated Guidelines range, its reasons for

doing so must be based on the factors listed in § 3553(a). 

Green, 436 F.3d at 456.

Appellate courts review a sentence for “unreasonableness,”

and a “sentence falling outside of the properly calculated

Guidelines range is not ipso facto unreasonable” and will not be

overturned unless that sentence is “based on an error in

construing or applying the Guidelines” or “the district court

provides an inadequate statement of reasons or relies on improper

factors in departing from Guidelines’ recommendation.” Green,

436 F.3d at 457 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(2)). 

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 3 of 18

4

II. Analysis

Step 1 - Calculation of Sentence Range Recommended by the 

Sentencing Guidelines

First, the Court finds that the sentence range recommended

by the Sentencing Guidelines has been properly calculated. Based

on the offenses for which he was convicted and the relevant

adjustments for his role in those offenses, the defendant’s

Adjusted Offense Level is forty-nine (49), his Criminal History

Category is six (VI), and the resulting applicable Guideline

range is a term of life in prison. The Probation Officer

declined to recommend an upward adjustment for Mr. Abu Ali in the

Pre-Sentence Report for an “aggravating role” in the offense, and

the Court similarly denies the government’s request to increase

Mr. Abu Ali’s offense level because it finds that he did not have

an “aggravating role” in the offense as contemplated by Section

3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Under Fourth Circuit case

law, 

[t]o qualify for a four-level increase under § 3B1.1(a)

of the Sentencing Guidelines, . . . a defendant must

have been “an organizer or leader of a criminal

activity that involved five or more participants or was

otherwise extensive.” . . . . The Guidelines provide

for a three-level increase if a “defendant was a

manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)

and the criminal activity involved five or more

participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. §

3B1.1(b). Finally, § 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level

increase when a court finds . . . that a defendant “was

an organizer leader, manager, or supervisor in any

criminal activity other than that discussed in

[Sections 3B1.1 (a) or (b)].”

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 4 of 18

5

United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir. 2002).

The Sentencing Commission has identified seven factors for

courts to consider in determining whether a defendant had a

“leadership and organizational role.” See U.S.S.G. § cmt. n.4;

see also Sayles, 296 F.3d at 224. These factors include: (1) the

exercise of the defendant’s decision-making authority; (2) the

nature of the defendant’s participation in the commission of the

offense; (3) the recruitment of accomplices; (4) the claimed

right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) the

degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense;

(6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the

degree of control and authority exercised over others. See

U.S.S.G. § cmt. n.4.

In reviewing the applicable factors in light of the relevant

facts of Mr. Abu Ali’s case, the Court finds that he did not have

a “leadership and organizational role” and therefore does not

qualify for an upward adjustment based on an “aggravating role”

in the offense. First, the evidence does not demonstrate that

Mr. Abu Ali had any appreciable decision-making authority

concerning the crimes. Second, Mr. Abu Ali’s participation in

the conspiracies was not extensive as the Court will explain in

further detail. Finally, there is no evidence that Mr. Abu Ali

recruited accomplices or that he exercised any degree of control

and authority over others. Therefore, the Court finds that Mr.

Abu Ali did not have an “aggravating role” in the offense and

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 5 of 18

6

declines to increase Mr. Abu Ali’s offense level.

Step 2 - Selecting a Sentence Based on the Seven Factors in 

§ 3553(a)

Second, the Court finds that a sentence within the

applicable Guideline range of life in prison does not serve the

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and instead the Court

imposes a “non-Guidelines” sentence on Ahmed Omar Abu Ali for

reasons to be stated in this Order.

Step 3 - Implementation of Mandatory Statutory Limitations

Third, in sentencing the Mr. Abu Ali, the Court is

implementing the mandatory statutory limitations which require a

mandatory minimum sentence of two hundred forty (240) months

imprisonment on Count 8.

Step 4 - Reasons for Imposing a Non-Guidelines Sentence

Finally, the Court offers the following reasons, based on §

3553(a), to explain why a sentence outside of the Sentencing

Guideline range better serves the relevant sentencing purposes

set forth in that statute.

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 6 of 18

7

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of Mr. Abu Ali justify less than

life imprisonment.

First, although the crimes for which Mr. Abu Ali was tried

and convicted are extremely serious, several factors underlying

the commission of those crimes are relevant to this sentencing,

including that: 

(a) Mr. Abu Ali never planted any bombs, shot any

weapons, or injured any people, and there is no

evidence that he took any steps in the United

States with others to further the conspiracy;

(b) no witness testified that they personally saw

or conspired with Mr. Abu Ali to commit any acts

of violence and there is no evidence that there

were other co-conspirators in the United States; 

(c) no weapons were ever found in Mr. Abu Ali’s

possession; and 

(d) no victim was injured in the United States by

Mr. Abu Ali’s actions.

Second, the history and characteristics of Mr. Abu Ali

justify a non-Guidelines sentence that is less than life

imprisonment. Mr. Abu Ali was born in Houston, Texas and moved

to Arlington, Virginia at the age of four where he was raised by

a mother who worked in the home and a father who worked outside

of the home. Mr. Abu Ali was valedictorian of his high school in

Falls Church, Virginia and later attended the University of

Maryland to study engineering. He was a youth leader and camp

counselor in his mosque. He has no prior criminal history and an

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 7 of 18

8

apparently good educational history.

Letters from friends, family, and numerous members of his

community describe a positive portrait of his personality,

intelligence, humility, and his general decent reputation as a

young man. Furthermore, Mr. Abu Ali’s behavior has been

excellent during his incarceration in the Alexandria Detention

Center, a fact that was attested to at trial by correction

officers who supervised and interacted with him. He has been

called a model prisoner despite some very onerous conditions of

confinement which limit his contact with family and the outside

world. He has been in solitary confinement continuously. And,

although the government argues that Mr. Abu Ali’s behavior was

quite the opposite while in Saudi custody, the Court credits the

testimony and observations of the officers and officials at the

Alexandria Detention Center who testified before the Court. All

of these factors weigh in favor of the Court’s decision to impose

a non-Guidelines sentence that is less than life imprisonment.

(2) A sentence of less than life imprisonment will 

adequately and reasonably reflect the seriousness of the 

offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just 

punishment for the offense.

As mentioned, the crimes for which Mr. Abu Ali was tried and

convicted are very serious. That fact must be and, the Court

believes, is reflected in the sentence that the Court will

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 8 of 18

9

announce today. In addition to reflecting the seriousness of the

offense, this sentence will provide just punishment for the

offense because Mr. Abu Ali will be forced to spend his most

productive years in prison and will lose the opportunity to build

a family or career over that time as a result of his actions. 

Additionally, this sentence will promote respect for the law

because it seeks a fair and just result in light of the specific

facts in this case.

(3) A sentence of less than life imprisonment will afford

adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.

The Court’s sentence will specifically deter Mr. Abu Ali

from engaging in criminal conduct both during his term of

imprisonment and ultimately when he is released as a

substantially older man. According to the Life Expectancy Table

contained in the Virginia Code, Mr. Abu Ali, as a 25-year old

man, is expected to live another 48.7 years. Va. Code § 8.01-

419. In light of that expectation, the sentence that the Court

will announce today carries a very lengthy term of imprisonment

that will consume the majority of the remainder of Mr. Abu Ali’s

natural life expectancy.

Furthermore, the sentence carries a term of supervised

release that will run for the remainder of Mr. Abu Ali’s life

expectancy following the end of his prison term. This will

provide additional deterrence to any future criminal conduct by

Mr. Abu Ali because (a) he will be monitored by the Court and the

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 9 of 18

10

Probation Office and (b) he will immediately face yet another

lengthy term of imprisonment if he violates any laws, terms of

his release, or Orders of this Court during his term of

supervised release.

The Court notes that the decisions that a 21-year old man

may make are not necessarily the same decisions that would be

made by a man of substantially advanced age who has had great

time to reflect and mature. Furthermore, the Court believes that

there will be no need to incarcerate Mr. Abu Ali further upon

release from his lengthy term of imprisonment because the risk of

recidivism for one at the age Mr. Abu Ali will have attained is

drastically lower than for a younger man. The sentence will

provide general deterrence to others because it is a lengthy

punishment that raises the prospect of spending a substantial

portion of one’s adult life in prison for similar offenses.

Thus, the Court finds that this sentence will provide

adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct and is “sufficient

but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes

of sentencing.”

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 10 of 18

11

(4) A sentence of less than life imprisonment will

adequately and reasonably protect the public from further

crimes of Mr. Abu Ali.

First, Mr. Abu Ali will be of substantially greater age when

he is released from prison, and a study by the United States

Sentencing Commission demonstrates that “[r]ecidivism rates

decline relatively consistently as age increases.” United States

Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History

Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, at 12 (May

2004). In fact, according to that study, “[a]mong all offenders

age 21, the recidivism rate is 35.5 percent, while offenders over

age 50 have a recidivism rate of 9.5 percent.” Id.

Second, Mr. Abu Ali has no prior criminal record and his

strong family ties in this jurisdiction further persuade the

Court that the sentence being imposed will adequately and

reasonably protect the public from further crimes of Mr. Abu Ali.

(5) A sentence of less than life imprisonment is necessary

to provide Mr. Abu Ali with needed educational training,

medical care, and other correctional treatment in the most

effective manner.

Mr. Abu Ali is a young man who has demonstrated a propensity

toward education and has pursued studies in science and religion

at the collegiate level. He was the valedictorian of his high

school here in Virginia and performed well enough academically to

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 11 of 18

12

become a young scholar in Medina, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the

Court finds that its sentence of less than life imprisonment

takes into account the need to provide the defendant with

educational training.

Furthermore, the Court’s sentence, which carries a lengthy

term of Supervised Release, takes into account the need to

provide Mr. Abu Ali with medical care because his advanced age

upon release from prison will likely require that he begin to

receive some form of geriatric care and the burden of receiving

that care can and will fall to Mr. Abu Ali, rather than the

taxpayers who would otherwise pay the bill to incarcerate such an

older man who, this Court believes, will not require imprisonment

at his age.

(6) Sentences besides life imprisonment are available.

The Court notes that Mr. Abu Ali is subject to a mandatory

minimum sentence of two hundred forty (240) months on Count 8,

and while the Guidelines range recommends a term of life

imprisonment, sentences besides life imprisonment are available

and the Court finds that a “non-Guidelines” sentence is

reasonable and is “sufficient but not greater than necessary to

achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing.”

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 12 of 18

13

(7) Finally, a sentence of less than life imprisonment will 

prevent an unwarranted disparity between Mr. Abu Ali and 

others with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct.

The defendant cites the case of US v. John Walker Lindh, 227

F. Supp. 2d 565, 566 (E.D. Va. 2002), to make this point. In

that case, Walker Lindh, a college-educated American like Mr. Abu

Ali, pleaded guilty to supplying services to the Taliban and to

carrying an explosive during the commission of a felony based on

his conduct in fighting on behalf of the Taliban against United

States soldiers in Afghanistan. Mr. Walker Lindh was sentenced

to 20 years in prison. The government argues that the cases are

dissimilar in that Mr. Abu Ali has been convicted of more, and

more serious, offenses.

The Court notes that there are very few cases to which to

compare Mr. Abu Ali’s case for purposes of determining what

sentence would constitute an “unwarranted disparity.” And while

it does not rest its judgment solely on a comparison to the

Walker Lindh case, the Court is persuaded that, in light of the

similarities to that case, a sentence of less than life

imprisonment is necessary to prevent an unwarranted disparity in

Mr. Abu Ali’s case.

The Court also finds that the case of US v. Timothy McVeigh

and Terry Nichols, see, e.g., 153 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 1998), is

instructive in fashioning a sentence for Mr. Abu Ali that

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 13 of 18

14

prevents an unwarranted disparity. In that case, Timothy McVeigh

and Terry Nichols were convicted of, among other charges,

conspiring to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Id. at 1176-79. That building was

destroyed by a truck bomb on April 19, 1995, and 168 people were

killed and 500 were injured in one of the most horrific terrorist

attacks ever carried out on United States soil. In that case,

McVeigh was sentenced to death by lethal injection and has since

been executed. Nichols received a federal sentence of life in

prison without parole.

There are at least two very significant distinctions between

that case and the case of Mr. Abu Ali. First, the acts that were

taken in furtherance of the respective conspiracies are vastly

different. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols thoroughly planned

their violent attack, meticulously acquired components for a

large-scale bomb, assembled the bomb, acquired weapons and a

rental truck to be used as part of the conspiracy, and ultimately

parked the truck loaded with explosives in front of the Murrah

federal building, set the charge, and caused the mass murder of,

and extensive injuries to, hundreds of American citizens. In

contrast, Mr. Abu Ali took far fewer and much less significant

steps in accomplishing the conspiracies for which he was

convicted, and did not commit any act within the United States to

carry out any attack related to those conspiracies.

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 14 of 18

15

Second, the magnitude and enormity of the impact of the

criminal actions of McVeigh and Nichols stand in stark contrast

to that which exists in the case of Mr. Abu Ali. As mentioned,

the conspiracy and actions of McVeigh and Nichols resulted in the

deaths of 168 men, women, and children and the often grave

physical, emotional, and psychological injuries of hundreds more,

and the two co-conspirators in that terrorist attack were

sentenced to death and life in prison, respectively. In this

case, however, Mr. Abu Ali’s conspiracies and actions did not

result in one single actual victim. There was no evidence

offered at the trial that Mr. Abu Ali had accomplices in the

United States or that any direct steps were taken here to ready

an attack. That fact must be taken into consideration in

fashioning a sentence in this case that avoids unwarranted

disparity.

However, the Court wants to be very clear on this point. 

The Court and the law do not require that Mr. Abu Ali have been

successful in carrying out any of the crimes contemplated by the

various conspiracies for which he was convicted in order to

severely punish him for his crimes. The law and this Court will

not wait until there are victims of terrorist attacks to fully

enforce the nation’s criminal laws against terrorism. Acts of

terrorism must be punished whether one has completed or conspired

to carry them out. At the same time, this Court also believes

that it must be able to make judgments about the nature, quality,

and scope of the actions of individual defendants and to fashion

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 15 of 18

16

sentences that are based on the actual facts presented to the

Court about such actions. This is an essential role of the Court

and a critical component to allowing for “reasonable” sentences

that avoid unwarranted disparities and are “sufficient but not

greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of

sentencing.”

III. Conclusion

For the reasons detailed in this Order, the Court finds that

a “non-Guidelines” sentence is reasonable and is “sufficient but

not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of

sentencing” as required by the federal Sentencing Guidelines and

the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and sentences Mr.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali to a three hundred sixty (360) month term of

imprisonment and a three hundred sixty (360) month term of

supervised release at the conclusion of his term of imprisonment.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Mr. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is COMMITTED to the

custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned

for a term of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY (360) MONTHS. The sentence is

allocated per Count as follows: Mr. Abu Ali shall serve one

hundred twenty (120) months as to each of Counts 1,2,3,4,5,6, and

7, concurrent with one another; and two hundred forty (240)

months as to each of Counts 8 and 9, concurrent with one another,

but consecutive to the sentence in Counts 1 through 7, for a

total term of imprisonment of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY (360) MONTHS. 

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 16 of 18

17

It is further

ORDERED that Mr. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali shall serve a term of

SUPERVISED RELEASE of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY (360) MONTHS following

the conclusion of his term of imprisonment. The term of

supervised release is allocated per Count as follows: Mr. Abu

Ali shall serve thirty-six (36) months as to each of Counts

1,2,3,4,5, and 6, consecutive to one another; forty-eight (48)

months as to Count 7, consecutive to all other Counts; sixty (60)

months as to Count 8, consecutive to all other Counts; and

thirty-six (36) months as to Count 9, consecutive to all other

Counts, for a total term of supervised release of THREE HUNDRED

SIXTY (360) MONTHS. It is further 

ORDERED that the Court will not require Mr. Abu Ali to pay

any restitution because his actions did not cause physical harm

or financial damage to others. However, the Court will require

Mr. Abu Ali to pay a $900.00 special assessment right away. The

Court will not impose any other fines or costs of incarceration

because it finds that Mr. Abu Ali does not have the ability to

pay them. It is further

ORDERED that the Court RECOMMENDS to the United States

Bureau of Prisons that Mr. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali be designated to a

facility near his home and family, but within the security level

as deemed appropriate.

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 17 of 18

18

It is further

ORDERED that the Court REQUESTS that the United States

Bureau of Prisons review whether the Special Administrative

Measures (“S.A.M.”) that have been instituted for Mr. Abu Ali

regarding solitary confinement and lack of contact with his

family remain necessary and appropriate.

The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to

counsel of record.

ENTERED this ___17th____ day of April, 2006.

______/s/__________________

Gerald Bruce Lee

United States District Judge

Alexandria, Virginia

04/17/06

Case 1:05-cr-00053-GBL Document 396 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 18 of 18