# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 43 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mo ha m ed Abd ih am id Fara h

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 43 64

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Abd ira hm an Yasi n Dau d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 43 66

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le ev.

Gul ed Ali Om ar

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 14 , 20 18
Fi le d: Aug us t 1 0, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

App el la nt s Mo ha m ed Fara h, Abd ira hm an Dau d, an d Gul ed Om ar were

co nv ic te d of se ve ral fed eral of fen se s rel at ed to th ei r pa rti ci pa ti on in a co ns pi racy to joi n th e fo rei gn te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n k n o w n a s th e Is la m ic St at e of Iraq an d th e

Lev an t (“ ISIL”)

. The y no w ap pe al th ei r co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m ur de r
ab ro ad

, se e 18 U.S.C. § 95 6( a), arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io ns di d 1

no t req ui re th e Gov ern m en t to pr ov e th e req ui si te men s re a an d t h a t th ey were

en ti tl ed to in st ru ct io ns on two aff i r mat i v e de fen se s. The y al so ch al le ng e th ei r

se nt en ces on bo th pr oc ed ur al an d su b s t a nt iv e gr ou nd s, an d Fara h cl ai m s th at th e
di st ric t co ur t im

pr op erl y de ni ed hi s m ot io n to su bs ti tu te co un se l. Fo r th e reas on s th at

fo ll ow, we af

fir m

.

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-I.

A.

In 20 14 , a gr ou p of So m al i-Am eri can s fro m th e Twi n C i t i e s ag reed to tra ve l

to Sy ria an d joi n ISIL. Fed eral la w en fo rcem en t di sr up te d th e pl ot

, bu t no t be fo re

se ve ral o f t h e c on sp ira to rs m ad e it to th e fro nt li ne s. Oth er m em be rs of th e gr ou p

ev en tu al ly co op erat ed wit h th e au th or it ie s. App el la nt s Fara h, Dau d, an d Om ar were

th e o nl y co ns pi rat or s to face tri al

. Bec au se th e th ru st of th ei r ap pe al rel at es to th ei r

co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m ur de r ab ro ad

—an d sp eci fic al ly to th e in te nt

el em en t o f th is off

en se —o ur reci ta ti on of t he fact s fo cu se s o n t ha t i ss ue

.

In Mar ch 20 14

, Om ar, Dau d

, F arah

, an d ot he rs ga th ered at a lo cal m os qu e.

One of th ei r fri en ds ha d rece nt ly le ft to fig ht a g a in st th e Ass ad reg im e in Sy ria

, so

th ey di sc us se d th e on go in g co nf li ct an d sp en t m

uc h of th e ev en in g watc hi ng pr o- ISIL

pr op ag an da vi de os

. One of th e a t t en de es , Abd ul la hi Yus uf

, cl ai m s th at Om ar

recr ui te d hi m th at ni gh t to joi n a lo cal gr ou p who se pu rp os e was to “ ge t to Sy ria an d
fig ht

. . . fo r ISIL.”

The gr ou p be ga n m eet in g at le as t th ree ti m es pe r week to watc h ji ha di vi de os

an d di sc us s th e po ss ib il it y of fig ht in g i n S y ria . At on e su ch m eet in g i n Ap ril 20 14

, Om ar ga ve an “ ul ti m at um ”: le av e th e gr ou p or pr ep are fo r “ a lo ng an d ha rd
jou rn ey

. . . to ge t to Sy ria an d fig ht .” Afte r th is sp eech

, th e gr ou p la un ch ed in to m or e

co nc ret e pl an ni ng

. The y co ns id ered a va rie ty of lo gi st ic al ch al le ng es , in cl ud in g ho w
th ey wou ld se cu re pa ss po rts , rai se fu nd s, an d ge t fro m Mi nn eap ol is to Sy ria

. The y pl an ne d to fly to Turk ey an d arra ng ed f o r ISIL ha nd le rs to faci li ta te tra ns po rta ti on

acro ss th e bo rd er in to Sy ria

. Yus uf la te r te st ifi ed th at

, up on arri vi ng in Sy ria

, th e go al

was to jo i n I SIL, at te nd a tra in in g cam p, an d do wha te ve r ISIL req ui red

. He al so

reca ll ed ha vi ng sp eci fic co nv ers at io ns wit h Fara h, Dau d, an d Om ar ab ou t th ei r de si re

to joi n th e fig ht in Sy

ria , a nd he co nf

irmed th at al l th ree ap pe ll an ts un de rs to o d t h is

-3

-m ean t “ ki ll in g pe op le .” Acco r d i n g t o an ot he r co op erat in g wit ne ss , th e gr ou p ha d

fo rg ed an “ ag reem en t t o g o k il l p eo pl e fo r ISIL.”

As th e gr ou p’s le ad er, Om ar de ci de d th at th e fir st gr ou p of co ns pi rat or s wou ld

le av e fo r Sy ria by Ju ne 1, 20 14

. So m e m ad e it to Sy ria an d joi ne d ISIL, whi le ot he rs

were de t a i n e d b y th e au th or it ie s. Sen si ng ob st acl es to de pa rti ng di rect ly fro m th e
Uni te d St at es , Om ar an d two ot he r co ns pi rat or s pl an ne d to dr iv e fro m Mi nn es ot a to

Cal ifo rn ia

, cro ss th e bo rd er in to Mex ic o, obt ai n frad ul en t tra ve l do cu m en ts

, an d m ak e

th ei r way to Sy ria . They ren te d a car for th e dr iv e, bu t Om ar’s fam il y in te rv en ed to

pr ev en t t he m

fro m lea vi ng

.

A s eco nd ro un d of at te m

pt s to reac h Sy ria t oo k pl ace in la te 20 14 , p ro m pt ed
by th e gr ou p’s in crea se d aware ne ss of go ve rn m en t su rv ei ll an ce. Dau d pu sh ed

ev eryone t o l e av e th e co un try on Nov em be r 8, 20 14

. Tho ug h hi s own pa ss po rt

ap pl ic at io n ha d be en de ni ed

, Dau d us ed hi s m on ey to he lp Fara h tra ve l to Sy ria

. F a r a h t oo k a Grey ho un d bu s fro m Mi nn es ot a to New Yor k bu t was de ta in ed whi l e
bo ard in g a fli gh t to Ist an bu l at JFK Ai rp or t. Si m il arl y , Om ar at te m pt ed to fly fro m

Mi nn eap ol is to San Dieg o wit h hi s pa ss po rt, bu t he was pr ev en te d fro m bo ard in g th e

fli gh t. Om ar cl ai m s th at he was no t tryin g to le av e th e co un try, bu t he was reco rd ed

a d mi t t i ng th at he was at te m pt in g to “ ge t ou t rig ht th en an d th ere.” Bo th Far a h a n d

Om ar were su bs eq ue nt ly relea se d.

In Decem be r 20 14

, on e of th e co ns pi rat or s, Abd ira hm an Bas hi r, ha d a ch an ge

of he art ab ou t I S I L aft er le arn in g th at se ve ral of hi s co us in s ha d di ed fig ht in g in
Sy ria

. He wit hd rew fro m th e co n s p i r a c y a n d de ci de d to co op erat e wit h th e FBI.

Bas hi r la te r b e g an reco rd in g co nv ers at io ns wit h hi s fo rm er co -co ns pi rat or s. The se

r e c o r d i ng s rev eal th at

, de sp it e pr ev io us se tb ack s, al l th ree ap pe ll an ts rem ai ne d

co m m it te d to fig ht in g an d ki ll in g fo r ISIL. Om ar, f o r ex am pl e, di sc us se d th e th ril l

of co nd uc ti ng ni gh t rai ds wit h ISIL an d hi s de si re to ser ve as a “ ta nk -h un te r.” The

reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns al so cap tu re th e ap pe ll an ts ’ in crea si ng an im os it y to ward th e

-4

-U n i t e d St at es

. Dau d an d Fara h lo ng ed fo r an op po rtu ni ty to pa rti ci pa te in an IS I L

op erat io n on Am eri can so il

, an d Om ar lo o k ed fo rward to th e de m is e of th e Uni te d

St at es : “ [The in fid el s] are ge tt in g it

. All ah wil l no t le t Am eri ca be a su pe rp owe r fo r

th is lo ng

. . . . [T] he ir t im e is co m in g.”

In earl y 20 15

, Fara h de ve lo pe d a co n t a c t h e be li ev ed co ul d pr ov id e fak e

pa ss po rts fo r th e gr ou p. Afte r m ak in g arra ng em en ts

, Dau d, Fara h, an d Bas hi r dr ov e

cro ss -co un try to m eet th e co nt act in San Dieg o. Dur in g th e dr iv e, Dau d rei te rat ed hi s
de si re to fig ht fo r ISIL, de cl ari ng bo th hi s ha tre d fo r th e Uni te d St at es an d hi s lo ng in g

to “ sh oo t th e li gh ts ou t of ” an AK-47 up on m ak in g c o n t act wit h ISIL. Afte r th ey

arri ve d in Cal ifo rn ia an d pa id fo r th e frau du le nt do cu m en ts

, D a u d a n d Fara h were

arre st ed by th e pa ss po rt co nt ac t

, w h o t u rn ed ou t to be an un de rco ve r FBI ag en t.

Om ar was als o t ak en in to cu st od y sh or tl y th erea fte r.

A gr an d jury la te r in di ct ed Om ar, Fara h, an d Dau d fo r a va rie ty of of fen se s
rel at ed to th ei r ro le s in th e co ns pi racy. All th r e e a p p e l la nt s were ch arg ed wit h on e

co un t of co ns pi racy to m ur de r o ut si de th e Uni te d St at es , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 95 6( a), as well as m

ul ti pl e co un t s o f at te m

pt an d co ns pi racy to pr ov id e m at eri al

su pp or t to a d e s i g n a t ed fo rei gn te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 23 39 B(a) (1 ). Add it io na ll y , Fara h an d Dau d were ch arg e d w it h pe rjury, se e id

. § 16 21 ; Fara h was ch arg ed wit h m ak in g a fal se st at em en t, se e id

. § 10 01 ; an d Om ar

was ch arg ed wit h a tt em

pt ed fin an ci al aid frau d, se e 20 U.S.C. § 1 09 7( a).

B.

Befo re tri al

, th e Gov ern m en t al ert ed th e di st ric t co ur t to a po te nt ia l co nf li ct of

in te res t in vo lv in g a pa r a l e ga l on Fara h’s de fen se te am

. At a he ari ng on th e m at te r ju s t ov er a m on th be fo re tri al

, th e at to rn ey who em pl oyed th e pa ral eg al m ov e d t o
wit hd raw as co un se l. The co ur t t he n i nq ui red as t o wh et he r Fara h’s ot he r at to rn ey , Mu rad Mo ha m

m ad

, was cap a bl e of tryin g th e cas e al on e. Mo ha m m ad as su red th e

co ur t th at he co ul d, an d Fara h ex pr es se d co m pl et e co nf id en ce in Mo ha m

m ad ’s ab il it y

-5

-to do so

. On th e ba si s of th es e as s u r a n c e s , t h e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n to

wit hd raw an d a ll owe d M oh am m ad to rep res en t Fa rah alo ne

.

Thi s arra ng em en t ap pe are d to be w or kin g until Mo ha m

m ad m ov ed to wit hd raw

fo ur da y s be fo re tri al

, ci ti ng a br eak do wn in co m m un ic at io n an d a la ck of tru st

. The

dis tri ct co ur t co nd uc te d an ot he r he ari ng th e m or ni ng th at tri al was sc he du le d to be gin

. Fara h ex pl ai ne d t ha t h e h ad lo st co nf id en ce i n Mo ha m

m ad an d sp eci fic al ly al le ge d

th at th e two ha d no t m et reg ul arl y an d th at he di d no t ha ve ac c e s s t o d is co ve ry

m at eri al s. Bu t Mo ha m

m ad co nt rad ic te d Fara h’s acco un t. He te st ifi ed ab ou t week ly

m eet in gs , i n a d d it io n to se ve ral ph on e cal ls

, an d co nf irmed th at Fara h ha d be en

of fere d acce ss to di sc ov ery m at eri al s, whi ch Fara h de cl in ed

. In li gh t of Mo ha m m ad ’s

ex pl an at io n an d Fara h’s ab un da nt co nf id en ce in hi m on ly one m on th pr io r, th e di st ric t

co ur t co nc lu de d th at Fara h ha d no t sh own “ jus ti fia bl e di ss at is fact io n” an d de ni ed th e

req ue st for su bs ti tu te co un se l.

As tri al be ga n, th e ap pe ll an ts rai se d se ve ral co nc ern s ab ou t th e di st ric t co ur t’s

pr op os ed jury in st ru ct io ns on th e co ns pi racy-to -co m m it -m ur de r co un ts

, arg ui ng th at

it is im po ss ib le to co ns pi re to co m m it m ur de r wit ho ut a sp ec i f

i c i n t e n t to ki ll

. The

di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d th is ob jecti on

. The ap pe ll an ts als o o bjec te d t o t he de ni al of

th ei r req ue st ed affi rm at iv e-d efen se in st ru ct io ns on co m ba ta nt im m

un it y an d de fen se

of ot he rs , whi ch th e co ur t o ve rru le d d ue to th e la ck of a n e vi de nt ia ry fou nd at io n.

Afte r a th ree- week tri al

, t h e ju ry ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t co nv ic ti ng th e ap pe ll an ts

on al l co un ts ex cep t th e pe rjury ch arg e ag ai ns t Dau d. The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n

rep or t (“ PSR” ) fo r each of th e ap pe ll an ts cal cu la te d an of fen se le ve l of 43

, a cri m in al

hi st or y cat eg or y of VI, an d a res ul ti ng se nt en ci ng ran ge of li fe im pr is on m en t. Afte r

co ns id eri ng t h e f

a c to rs se t ou t in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d

do wnwa rd fo r each of th e ap pe ll an ts

, se nt en ci ng Fara h an d Dau d to 36 0 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t an d Om ar t o 4 20 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

-6

-Fara h, Dau d, an d Om ar no w ap pe al on se ve ral gr ou nd s. Fara h arg ue s th at th e

di st ric t co ur t i m

pr op erl y de ni ed hi s requ es t to ap po in t s ub st it ut e co un se l. All th ree

ap pe ll an ts ch al le ng e th ei r co ns pi racy-to -co m m it -m ur de r co nv ic ti on s, cl ai m in g th at

th e di st ric t cou rt erre d in it s jury in st ru ct io ns by im pr op erl y de fin in g m

ur de r an d by

refu si ng to in st ru ct on two affi rm at iv e de fen se s. Last ly, th e ap pe ll an ts ch al le ng e th ei r
be lo w-g ui de li ne s s en te nc es

.

II

.

W e fir st ad dr es s Farah ’s arg um en t th at th e di st ric t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n by den y in g M oh am m ad ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw an d by re fu si ng to ap po in t s ub st it ut e

co un se l. “ A m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t of su bs ti tu te co un se l is co m m it te d to th e di st ric t

co ur t’s so un d di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Dela cr uz , 86 5 F.3 d 10 00

, 10 08 (8 th Ci r.

20 17 ). To pr e v a i l

, a de fen da nt m us t sh ow “

jus ti fia bl e di ss at is fact io n” wit h hi s

at to rn ey , whi ch “ can ari s e f r o m irr eco nc il ab le co nf

li ct

, a co m

pl et e br eak do wn in

co m m un ic at io n, or an y ot he r fact or in te rfer in g si gn ifi can tl y wit h an at to rn ey ’s ab il it y

to pr ov id e zeal ou s repr es en ta ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Ta yl or , 65 2 F.3d 90 5, 90 8 (8t h

Ci r. 20 11 ). “ Giv en th e im po rta nc e of th e at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p, th e co ur t m us t

co nd uc t an ad eq ua te in qu iry in to th e na tu re an d ex te nt of an al le ge d br eak do wn in

at to rn ey -cl ie nt co m

m un ic at io ns .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The reco rd de m on st rat es th at th e d is tri ct co ur t co nd uc te d a su ffi ci en t i nq ui ry

in to Fara h’s co nc ern s ab ou t Mo ha m m ad

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s , 66 2 F.3 d 10 18

, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). In de ed

, th e c o ur t reject ed hi s req ue st fo r su bs ti tu te co un se l

wit h th e be ne fit of no t on e bu t two he ari ng s. In th e he ari ng on Mo ha m m ad ’s m ot io n

to wit hd raw, th e co ur t sp eci fic al ly in qu ire d in to Fara h’s cl ai m s o f in su ffi ci en t

co m m un ic at io n an d la ck of acce ss to di sc ov ery. Mo reo ve r, at th e he ari ng jus t on e

mo n t h e a rli er, Fara h rep eat ed ly ex pr es se d co nf id en ce in Mo ha m

m ad

. The co ur t

ad m on is he d Fara h a t t h a t t i m e to gi ve pr om pt no ti ce if he was di ss at is fie d wit h

Mo ha m m ad

, an d Fara h co nc ed es th at it was hi s own fau lt fo r fai li ng to do so

. Thu s,

-7

-th e di st ric t co ur t act ed well wit hi n it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng Fara h’s req ue st fo r

su bs ti tu te co un se l, pa rti cu la rly on th e ev e of tri al

. S e e i d. at 10 24 (“ Last -m in ut e

req ue st s to su bs ti tu te co un se l rem ai n di sf av or ed

, an d a tri al co ur t’s di sc ret io n is at it s

zen it h whe n th e de fen da nt en de av or s to rep la ce co un se l sh or tl y be fo re tri al .” (in tern al

qu ot at io n m ark s, ci ta ti on s, an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ).

II I.

W e ne xt tu rn to t h e a p p el la nt s’ cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y

in st ru ct ed th e jury as to co ns pi racy to c om m it m ur de r. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s

fo rm ul at io n of jury in st ru ct io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n an d it s in te rp ret at io n of la w
de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Co rn el is o n , 71 7 F.3 d 62 3, 62 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). An

in st ru ct io na l erro r do es no t warra nt rev ers al of a co nv ic ti on if it is ha rm le ss

. Uni te d

St at es v. Dvo ra k

, 61 7 F.3 d 10 17

, 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). “ An erro r in jury in st ru ct io ns

m ay be di sr eg ard ed if it is cl ear be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at a rat io na l jury wou ld

ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty ab se nt th e erro r.” Id

. at 1 0 2 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

The ap pe ll an ts fir st arg ue th at th e di st ric t c o u r t erre d in de fin in g th e m ur de r
el em en t of th e co ns pi racy-to -co m m it -m ur de r of fen se

. As pr ov id ed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 95 6( a)(1 ), th is of

fen se en co m

pa ss es a co ns pi racy to co m m it “ an act t h a t w o ul d

co ns ti tu te th e of

fen se of m

ur de r

. . . if co m

m it te d in th e

. . . juri sd ic ti on of th e Uni te d

St at es .” Und er fed eral la w, m ur de r is “ th e un la wfu l ki ll in g of a hu m an b e i n g w i t h

m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 1 1 1 ( a )

. In de fin in g th is te rm fo r th e jury, th e
di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on la ng ua ge fro m a rel ev an t Eig ht h Ci rcu it m od el jury in st ru ct io n,
whi ch st at es th at “ ‘m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht ’ m ean s [1 ] an in te nt

, at th e ti m e of a ki ll in g,
wil lfu ll y to ta ke th e li fe of a hu m an be in g, or [2] an in te nt wil lfu ll y to act in cal lo us

an d wan to n di sr eg ard of th e co ns eq ue nc es to hu m an li fe.” Mo de l Cr im . Ju ry In st r.

8t h Ci r. 6.1 8.1 11 1A- 1 (2 01 4) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 87 9 F.2 d 33 1, 33 4
(8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (ap pr ov in g a si m il ar in st ru ct io n)

. Nev ert he le ss , th e ap pe ll an ts cl ai m

-8

-th at th e Gov ern m en t sh ou ld ha ve be en req ui red to pr ov e a sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll an d

th us arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in in cl ud in g th e s e c on d po rti on of th e
de fin it io n.

Eve n as su m in g th ey are co rrec t th at “ an in te n t w i l l f u l ly to act in cal lo us an d

wan to n d i s reg ard ” fal ls sh or t of th e req ui si te men s re a fo r th is of fen se , we are

co nv in ced th at th is erro r was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, as “ a rat io na l jury

wou ld ha ve fou nd th e d efen da nt [s ] gu il ty” un de r an in st ru ct io n re qu iri ng a sp eci fic

in te nt to ki ll

. Se e Dvo ra k

, 61 7 F.3 d at 10 25

. In de ed

, th ere is ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce

in th e reco rd sh owi ng th at Fara h, Dau d

, an d Om ar each kn ew th e ob ject of th e

co ns pi racy in cl ud ed in te nt io na ll y ta ki ng li ve s. Yus uf of fere d co m pe ll in g te st im on y
th at al l th ree ap pe ll an ts un de rs to od th at th ey wou ld en ga ge in ki ll in g if th ey reac he d
Sy ria . And Bas hi r’s reco rd ed co nv ers at io ns cap tu re t he ir i nt en ti on s i n v iv id de ta il

. Mo reo ve r, ev en were we to be li ev e ap pe ll an ts ’ cl ai m th at t h e y t h e m se lv es ha d no
de si re to ki ll

, al l th ree ag reed to joi n an d su pp or t a pl ot ai m ed at se nd in g y ou ng m en

to Sy ria to fig ht fo r a kn own te rro ris t or ga ni zat io n. Th e y k ne w th at so m e co

co ns pi rat or s act ua ll y reac he d Sy ria an d were k i l l e d o n th e fro nt li ne s, an d th ey

co nt in ue d un ti l th ei r arre st to ai d an d en co ur ag e ot he rs in reac hi ng th e ba tt le fie ld

. On

th is reco rd

, it is cl ear be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e jury wou ld ha ve co nv ic te d

th em of th e co ns pi racy ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t ha d ad op te d an in st ru ct io n th at

r e q u i r e d th e Gov ern m en t to pr ov e a sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll

. Thu s, we fin d th at an y

erro r in th e in st ru ct io n was ha rm le ss be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. 2

Add it io na ll y , Fara h an d Dau d arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to

in s t ru ct th e jury o n th e affi rm at iv e de fen se s of co m ba ta nt im m

un it y an d de fen se of

ot he rs

. “ To be en ti tl ed to a jury in st ru ct io n on a jus ti fic a t i o n d e f e ns e, a de fen da nt

G i v e n th at we res ol ve th e ap pe ll an ts ’ ch al le ng e on th is ba si s, we ne ed no t 2

ad dr es s th ei r rel at ed cl ai m s th at th e in st ru ct io n’s defi ni ti on of m ur de r vi ol at ed th ei r du e pr oc es s rig ht s or th at th e in st ru ct io n m ad e th e co ns pi racy-to -co m m it -m ur de r of fen se du pl ic at iv e o f m at eri al su pp or t fo r te rro ris m

.

-9

-m

us t sh ow an u nd erl y in g ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on as to each el em en t of th e de fen se ,

su ch th at a reas on ab le pe rs on co ul d c o n c l u d e th at th e ev id en ce su pp or te d th e
de fen da nt ’s po si ti on .” Uni te d S t a t e s v. Poe

, 44 2 F.3 d 11 01

, 11 04 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ W he th er th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e su bm is si on of an in st ru ct io n on an affi rm at iv e de fen se is a qu es ti on of la w whi ch

we rev ie w de no vo .” Id

. at 11 03

. I n t h i s cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in

co nc lu di ng th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o m eri t ei th er i ns tru ct io n.

Turn in g fir st to de fen se of ot he rs , Fara h an d Dau d arg ue th at th ey were en ti tl ed

to an in st ru ct io n on th is de fen se be cau se t he re was ev id en ce sh owi ng th at “ th e
ob jecti ve of th e co ns pi racy was to de fen d ot he rs fro m immi n e n t b o d il y ha rm an d

de at h.” Sp eci fic al ly, th ey su gg es t th at th e co ns pi racy to go to Sy ria an d fig ht fo r ISIL

was m ot iv at ed by a de si re to pr ev en t th e at ro ci ti es th at th e reg im e of Bas ha r al -Ass ad

was co m m it ti ng ag ai ns t in no cen t Mu sl im ci vi li an s in Sy ria

. Bu t we ha ve em ph as iz ed

t h at th e de fen se of an ot he r m us t st em fro m “ immed ia te da ng er of un la wf u l b o d i l y
ha rm .” Uni te d St at es v. Oak ie

, 70 9 F.2 d 50 6, 50 6- 07 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (p er cu ria m )
(em ph as is ad de d) ; se e al

so Mo de l Cri m

. Ju ry In st r. 8t h Ci r. 9.0 4. Eve n as su m in g th at

Fara h an d Dau d so ug ht to joi n ISIL ou t of a de si re to pr ot ect in no cen t ci vi li an s, th ey

ne ve r di sc us se d ki ll in g in th e co nt ex t of de fen di ng in di vi du al Sy ria n ci v i l i a n s w ho

face d an im m ed ia te an d sp eci fic th reat

. In de ed

, th ei r pu rp or te d jus ti ficat io n pe rta in ed

on ly, in th e m os t ge ne ral te rm s, to th e Sy ria n ci vi l war an d ci vi li an su ffer in g. Thu s,

th ey fai le d a sh ow a s uf

fic ie nt ev id en ti ary fo un da ti on to warran t t hi s i ns tru ct io n.

A s f or co m ba ta nt im m

un it y , Fara h an d Dau d co nt en d th at th ei r pr op os e d

“ in st ru ct io n was no t ad va nc ed as an af f i rm at iv e de fen se , bu t in or de r to cl ari fy th e

go ve rn m en t’s bu rd en to pr ove be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at de fen da nt s en te red in to

an ag reem en t to ki ll wit h m al ic e afo ret ho ug ht .” Alt ho ug h th ei r arg um en t is no t

en ti rel y cl ear, we un de rs ta nd Fara h and Dau d to su gg es t th at , gi ve n t he ir bel ie f th at

th ey wou ld be fig ht in g a s l a w f u l co m ba ta nt s on ce th ey joi ne d ISIL, th ey co ul d no t

ha ve kn owi ng ly ag reed to en ga ge in “ un la wfu l” ki ll in gs

. Eve n un de r th is ch ari ta bl e

-1 0-read in g, th ei r arg um en t fai ls

. W hi le Fara h an d Dau d are co rrec t th at a de fen da nt m us t

ge ne ral ly kn ow th e fact s th at m ak e hi s co nd uc t il le ga l, se e, e.g

. , Elo ni s v. Uni te d

St at es , 1 35 S. Ct . 2 00 1, 20 09 (2 01 5)

, th e la wfu ln es s of a so ld ie r’s be ll ig eren cy is a
le ga l de te rm in at io n, se e Ex Par te Qui ri n , 31 4 U.S. 1, 30 -3 1 (1 94 2)

, an d a m is ta ke of

la w is no de fen se , se e Elo ni s , 13 5 S. Ct

. at 20 09 (“ Thi s is no t to sa y th at a de fen da nt

m us t kn ow th at hi s co nd uc t is il l e g a l be fo re he m ay be fo un d gu il ty. The fam il ia r

m ax im ‘ign or a n c e o f t h e la w i s no ex cu se ’ typic al ly h ol ds tru e.”). Thu s, th ere was

no ba si s fo r pr ov id in g t hi s i ns tru ct io n.

IV.

The ap pe ll a n t s a l so cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al an d

su bs ta nt iv e erro r in im

po si ng th ei r se nt en ces

. In rev ie win g a ch al le ng ed se nt en ce, we

“ fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d n o s i g n i fic an t pr oc ed ur al erro r, su ch

as

. . . fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

. . . or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e
ch os en se nt en ce.” Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. “ Ass um in g th at th e
di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ci ng d e c i s i o n is pr oc ed ur al ly so un d, [we] th en co ns id er th e

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of t h e se nt en ce im po se d un de r an ab us e-o f-d is cret io n

st an da rd .” Id

.

The ap pe ll a n t s f

i r s t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly err ed by fa il in g

to co ns id er th e ne ed to av oi d di sp ari ti es be twee n th ei r se nt en ces an d th os e of th ei r co

co ns pi rat or s who en te red gu il ty pl eas

. Und er § 35 53 (a)( 6)

, a di st ric t co ur t is req ui red

to co ns id er “ th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed s e n t en ce di sp ari ti es am on g de fen da nt s
wit h si m il ar reco rd s who ha ve be en fo un d gu il ty of si m il ar co nd uc t.” Alt ho ug h th e
di st ric t co ur t di d no t ex pr es sl y ad dr es s se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es wit h th e ap pe ll an ts ’ co

co ns pi rat or s, each of th e ap pe ll an ts tho ro ughl y dis cuss ed th is is su e in th ei r se nt en ci ng

memo r a n d a. W e m ay th eref or e pr es um e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th is

arg um en t. Se e U

n i te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 61 9 F.3 d 91 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In

-1 1-a d d i t i o n , th e co ur t th or ou gh ly an al y zed each of th e ot he r § 35 53 (a) fact or s in i t s

st at em en t o f rea so ns for each ap pe ll an t. Thu s, we fi nd no pro ced ur al erro r.

Fi n a l l y , th e ap pe ll an ts co nt en d th at th ei r se nt en ces are su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. W he re, as h e r e , a d is tri ct co ur t va rie s be lo w a pr op erl y cal cu la te d

gu id el in es se nt en ce, “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

no t varying do wnwar d st il l furt he r.” Uni te d St at es v. Moh ame d

, 75 7 F.3d 75 7, 76 1
(8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). In at ta ck in g th e reas on ab le ne ss of th ei r se nt en ces , Fara h, Dau d, an d

Om ar agai n em

ph as iz e th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es wit h th ei r co -co ns pi rat or s. Bu t as

we rece nt ly ex pl ai ne d, “ [t]he st at ut or y di rect io n to av oi d un w a r ran te d di sp ari ti es

am on g de fen da nt s [in § 35 53 (a)( 6) ] refe rs to na ti on al di sp ari ti es , n o t d iff eren ces

am on g co -co ns pi rat or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Pier re , 87 0 F.3 d 84 5, 85 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ).

In an y ev en t, th e ap pe ll an ts were no t si m il arl y si tu at ed to th ei r co -co ns pi rat or s, who

co op erat ed wit h th e Gov ern m en t an d pl ead ed gu il ty to le ss er ch arg es

. Se e Moh ame d

, 75 7 F.3 d at 76 2 (ex pl ai ni ng th at de fen da nt s are no t si m il arl y si tu at ed fo r th e pu rp os es

of § 35 53 (a)( 6) whe re o n e de fen da nt acce pt s res po ns ib il it y bu t th e ot he rs do no t).

“ [I]t is no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r a di st ric t co ur t to im po se a se nt en ce th at res ul ts

in a di sp ari ty be twee n co -d efen da nt s whe n th ere are le gi ti m at e di st in ct io ns be twee n

th e co -d efen da nt s.” Id

. at 76 2 (in te rn al q u o t at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Afte r care fu l

co ns id erat io n, t h e d i s t r ic t co ur t ch os e to va ry do wnwar d fro m th e reco m m en de d

se nt en ce of li fe im

pr is on m en t an d ad eq ua te ly ex pl a i n e d w h y it gr an te d a le ss er

va ria nc e to Om ar th an to Fara h an d Dau d. Th u s , w e se e no ba si s fo r fin di ng th es e

se nt en ces un reas on ab le an d co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s
di sc ret io n.

V.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e de ni al of Fara h’s m ot io n to su bs ti tu te co un se l,

ap pe ll an ts ’ co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi racy to co m m it m ur de r ab ro ad

, an d th ei r res ul ti ng

se nt en ces

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-