Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to statutory maximum of 15-year term of incarceration plus lifetime term of supervised release on charge of knowingly attempting to provide material support to foreign terrorist organization arising out of defendant’s attempt to leave U.S. and join terrorist group associate with al-Qaida. Applicable guideline range called for sentence of 360-month to life imprisonment, and thus instant statutory maximum sentence became defendant’s advisory imprisonment term. Moreover, defendant’s terrorism crime also posed foreseeable risk of injury to others that supported life term of supervised release. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that Dist. Ct. had failed to adequately explain length of imprisonment or to address defendant’s mitigation arguments or relevant section 3553(a) factors. Also, Dist. Ct. could properly emphasize circumstances of defendant’s careful plan to leave U.S., as well as risks posed to U.S. if defendant had been able to join terrorist group.

Defendant waived his arguments on appeal, even though defendant asserted that Dist. Ct. erred when imposing additional 36-month term of supervised release after finding that defendant had violated provision of original term of supervised release by failing to calculate or address advisory guideline range and in failing to allow defendant opportunity to allocute before imposing said extension of supervised release. Record showed that defendant had waived both issues, where: (1) defense counsel stated in response to govt. recommendation of imposition of additional 36-month term of supervised release, "we have no objection to extending the period of mandatory supervised release;” and (2) defendant’s counsel interrupted defendant as he began to allocute, and, after conferring with defendant, confirmed that defendant had nothing further to say. As such, defendant’s failure to raise either issue in Dist. Ct. precluded him from raising them on appeal. (Dissent filed.)

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge arising out of police search of vehicle, which was based on anonymous tip from 14-year-old, who borrowed phone and reported seeing “boys playing with guns” in parking near “gray and greenish Charger,” Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of gun, which occurred after police had blocked vehicle from leaving parking lot and directed occupants to get out of vehicle. Instant tip did not justify stop of vehicle, since: (1) tipster used borrowed phone, which made it difficult to find tipster; and (2) tipster’s sighting of guns displayed in parking lot did not describe likely emergency to justify stop, where report of mere gun possession constituted lawful conduct. Fact that tipster gave contemporaneous description of incident or that incident took place in “rough” neighborhood did not require different result. Moreover, mere possibility of unlawful gun use is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle.