* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11228

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff – Appellee

v.

SHARIQ AHMED KHAN

Defendant – Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-133-2

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Shariq Ahmed Khan (“Khan”) appeals his conviction of one

count of Conspiracy to Transport and Harbor Aliens Illegally in the United

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and (v)(I); three counts of

Transportation of Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and three counts of Harboring

Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii)

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 14, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-11228

1 Shahabuddin testified that he had known Khan since 1991, at which time Khan lived

in Chicago. 

2

and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Khan asserts that these convictions were not

supported by sufficient evidence. Because we find that the government produced

sufficient evidence to support these convictions, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In the Summer of 2005, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Senior Special Agent Robert J. Hlavac was conducting an investigation involving

the sale of fraudulent immigration documents to illegal aliens in Dallas, Texas.

During the investigation, ICE Special Agent David Guerra, Jr. had numerous

meetings with Khan, in which Agent Guerra was working undercover and posing

as a person who had access to a corrupt Citizenship and Immigration Services

(CIS) employee. In June 2005, Khan met with Agent Guerra and told him he

was interested in obtaining work permits for individuals from India. Agent

Guerra told Khan that he would charge $3,000 per person each time documents

were purchased. It was contemplated that this money would be used to bribe the

corrupt CIS official that Agent Guerra allegedly had access to.

Subsequently, Syed Shahabuddin transported numerous illegal aliens

from Chicago to Dallas, in part by automobile, to pre-arranged meetings with

Khan in Dallas.1 According to Shahabuddin, he transported such individuals

from Chicago to Dallas based upon information from a man named Naseem

Khan in Chicago and based upon requests from the individuals themselves.

Once Shahabuddin arrived in Dallas, he would call Shariq Khan for directions

to a meeting place–usually a restaurant parking lot. Khan would meet with

Shahabuddin, the illegal alien(s), and Agent Guerra. Agent Guerra then sold

fraudulent immigration documents to Khan, who in turn sold them to the

alien(s) for $6,000 each.
No. 06-11228

2 The illegal aliens involved in the August 25 meeting were Sonia Nayab and Rais

Uddin. The illegal aliens involved in the September 14 meeting were Ashish Patel and Payal

Patel. The illegal aliens involved in the October 20 meeting included Pravinkumar Patel,

Shaunakkumar Patel, Ranjanbahen Patel, and Ashish Patel.

3 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) governs Counts Five through Eleven. Section 1324(a) provides in

relevant part:

3

These meetings occurred on approximately August 25, September 14, and

October 20, 2005.2 The meetings were observed by Agent Hlavac and other

agents, who were conducting surveillance.

On May 17, 2006, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment

charging Khan with the following offenses: one count of Conspiracy to Defraud

the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count One); two counts of

Fraud and Misuse of Documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(a) and 2

(Counts Two and Three); one count of Fraud and Misuse of Documents in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2 (Count Four); one count of Conspiracy to

Transport and Harbor Aliens Illegally in the United States in violation of 8

U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and (v)(I) (Count Five); three counts of

Transportation of Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Six, Eight, and Ten); and

three counts of Harboring Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Counts Seven, Nine,

and Eleven). Khan pleaded not guilty to all counts.

On October 23 and 24, 2006, Khan was tried before a jury. The jury

acquitted Khan of Counts Three and Four, but convicted him on the other

counts. On February 13, 2007, the district court sentenced Khan to 33 months

imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, plus three years of

supervised release for each count, also to run concurrently. The court also

imposed a mandatory special assessment of $900. Khan now appeals Counts

Five through Eleven.3
No. 06-11228

(1)(A) Any person who–

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or

remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to

transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or

otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or

remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from

detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any

place, including any building or any means of transportation; [or]

* * *

(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, 

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

4

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must “affirm if a

rationaltrier of fact could have found thatthe evidence established the essential

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Lopez, 74

F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). We review the evidence, “whether direct or

circumstantial, in the light most favorable to the jury verdict” and “[a]ll

credibility determinations and reasonable inferences are to be resolved in favor

of the verdict.” United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910-11 (5th Cir. 1995).

“The evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be

wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, and the jury is

free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” Lopez, 74 F.3d

at 577. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Conspiracy to Transport and Harbor Aliens Illegally in the United

States 

Khan asserts that the government produced insufficient evidence of his

participation in a conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens because
No. 06-11228

5

Shahabuddin, a government witness and Khan’s alleged co-conspirator, testified

that: (1) he did not know that the people he transported from Chicago to Dallas

were illegal aliens; (2) the illegal aliens talked to someone else–not Khan–about

coming to Dallas; and (3) it was the illegal aliens–not Khan–who asked

Shahabuddin to help them get to Dallas. 

The jury, however, was not required to believe Shahabuddin’s testimony,

and there is ample other evidence in the record showing Khan’s participation in

the conspiracy. 

To prove Conspiracy to Transport and Harbor Aliens Illegally in the

United States in violation of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and v(I), the government

was required to prove that Khan agreed with one or more persons to transport

or move illegal aliens within the United States in furtherance of their unlawful

presence, or to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection such aliens, knowingly

or in reckless disregard of the fact that such aliens had come to, entered, or

remained in the United States in violation of law. 

To prove a conspiracy, “[n]o express agreement to violate the law need be

shown and the conspiracy may be proven by showing that the defendant

conspired with one or more others, named or unnamed, to achieve an illegal

purpose.” United States v. Martin, 790 F.2d 1215, 1219-20 (5th Cir. 1986). A

conspiracy, or participation therein, need not be proved by direct evidence–“[t]he

conspiracy's existence can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a

particular case.” United States v. Robertson, 659 F.2d 652, 656 (5th Cir. 1981).

“[A] common purpose and plan may be inferred from a development and

collocation of circumstances,” id. (internal quotations omitted), and evidence of

concerted action “can indicate agreement and voluntary participation” in the

conspiracy. UnitedStates v. Quiroz-Hernandez, 48F.3d 858, 866 (5th Cir. 1995).

The circumstantial evidence shows that Khan agreed with

someone–whether it was Shahabuddin, “Naseem Khan,” or the aliens
No. 06-11228

6

themselves–that the aliens would be transported to a meeting place in Dallas

where they would pay him to obtain fraudulent immigration documents. Khan

devised a scheme to obtain work permits for undocumented workers through the

bribery of a supposedly corrupt immigration employee. The undocumented

workers traveled to Dallas and paid Khan up to $6,000 each for the work

permits. Shahabuddin transported the illegal aliens while in Dallas. Khan

directed Shahabuddin’s driving while in Dallas, ultimately guiding Shahabuddin

and the aliens he was with to meetings with him and Agent Guerra. On at least

one occasion, on August 25, 2005, the aliens–Nayab and Uddis–were kept at a

house prior to being transported to the parking lot meeting. Nayab testified that

the house they stayed at was Khan’s, and Khan accompanied them to the

meeting with Agent Guerra. Furthermore, the testimony of Ashish and Payal

Patel provided evidence that Khan was the one who told them to come to Dallas

for the work permits. Finally, as Khan’s entire scheme was to provide illegal

aliens with phony immigration documents, it is clear that Khan knew that the

aliens with which he was dealing were in the United States illegally and that his

acts were in furtherance of their unlawful presence. 

This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, is

sufficient for a rational jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the

charged conspiracy existed and Khan voluntarily participated in it.

B. Transportation of Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting 

Khan contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction on three

counts of Transportation of Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation

of §1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 for the transportation of Rais

Uddin, Ashish Patel, and Ranjanbahen Patel–Counts Six, Eight, and Ten,

respectively. 

Aiding and abetting occurs “when the defendant associates with the

criminal venture, purposefully participates in it, and seeks by his actions to
No. 06-11228

4 Although there was direct evidence that Khan directed Shahabuddin’s driving once

Shahabuddin was in Dallas with Uddin and AshishPatel,there is only circumstantial evidence

of such direction with respect to Ranjanbahen Patel. In fact, the testimony indicates that

Ranjanbahen arrived at the parking lot meeting in a vehicle driven by an unidentified male.

Although there is no direct evidence linking Khan with the direction of this vehicle, the

evidence shows that Khan was the point person for the Dallas meetings and was the only

person to direct other aliens to similar meetings on previous occasions. Thus, the jury could

have reasonably concluded that in accordance with Khan’s overall scheme, Khan directed

Ranjanbahen or his driver to the meeting, as Ranjanbahen would have had no way to find the

meeting location but for Khan’s direction. 

7

make it succeed.” United States v. Vaden, 912 F.2d 780, 783 (5th Cir. 1990).

Aiding and abetting thus has two components: “[a]n act on the part of a

defendant which contributes to the execution of a crime and the intent to aid in

its commission.” United States v. Smith, 546 F.2d 1275, 1284 (5th Cir. 1976).

Additionally, “[t]he evidence supporting a conspiracy conviction is generally

sufficient to support an aiding and abetting conviction as well.” United States

v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 936 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The record demonstrates that Khan committed acts which contributed to

the unlawful transportation of the named illegal aliens and intended to aid in

such transportation, in furtherance of the aliens’ unlawful presence. As

described above, the record shows that: Khan agreed with someone that illegal

aliens would be transported to Dallas where they would purchase fraudulent

immigration documents; Khan directed Shahabuddin’s driving in Dallas, guiding

Shahabuddin and the illegal aliens to pre-arranged meetings; and, on at least

one occasion, he guided Shahabuddin and the aliens to his house, where they

spent the night, and the next morning he guided and accompanied them to the

meeting with Agent Guerra.4 Furthermore, it is clear that Khan intended to aid

in the transportation of the aliens and for such transportation to succeed, as he

would not get paid unless the aliens were successfully transported to the

meeting with him and Agent Guerra. 
No. 06-11228

5 There is admittedly only slight circumstantial evidence that Khan aided and abetted

in the harboring of Pravinkumar Patel. However, viewed in the light most favorable to the

government and given the evidence of Khan’s intimate involvementin the entire scheme,there

was sufficient evidence with respect to this count of aiding and abetting harboring. Agent

HlavacwitnessedPravinkumar attheOctober 20, 2005 meeting with Khan and Agent Guerra,

and another alien testified that Pravinkumar was in a group of aliens from Chicago. Based

on this evidence and the evidence of the logistics of Khan’s entire scheme, it was reasonable

for the jury to believe that: Pravinkumar was an illegal alien present to purchase fraudulent

immigration documents, Pravinkumar came to the meeting by automobile as other aliens had

before him, and that Khan–in accordance with his past actions–directed Pravinkumar to the

meeting. 

8

Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, this evidence is

sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Khan aided

and abetted the illegal transportation of the named aliens. 

C. Harboring Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting

Finally, Khan contests the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction on

three counts of Harboring Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of

§1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (v)(II) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 for the unlawful harboring by

automobile of Sonia Nayab, Payal Patel, and Pravinkumar Patel–Counts Seven,

Nine, and Eleven, respectively. 

Harboring encompasses “activity tending substantially to facilitate an

alien's remaining in the United States illegally.” United States v. Cantu, 557

F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir. 1977) (internal quotations omitted). Section

1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) prohibits harboring “in any place, including . . . any means of

transportation.” 

For the same reasons the jury could conclude that Khan aided and abetted

the illegaltransportation of aliens,the jury could conclude that Khan committed

acts which contributed to the harboring ofthe named illegal aliens and intended

to aid in such harboring. The transportation in Dallas was necessary for the

accomplishment of Khan’s entire scheme and clearly facilitated the named

aliens’ unlawful presence in the United States.5

IV. CONCLUSION
No. 06-11228

9

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.