Raishani v. United States

Background

Saddam Mohamed Raishani, also known as Adam Raishani, pleaded guilty in 2018 to two counts: attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B; and conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The attempt charge was based on conduct from January through June 2017, including Raishani’s June 2017 attempt to travel to Syria to join ISIS. The conspiracy charge covered conduct from September 2015 through June 2017 and involved agreeing with another person to join ISIS and supporting that person’s overseas travel.

At the plea hearing, the court told Raishani that Count One carried a maximum prison term of 20 years and that Count Two carried a maximum of five years. The written plea agreement treated the combined statutory maximums as 25 years and provided for a stipulated guidelines sentence of 300 months. Raishani stated that he understood the agreement and that he could not directly appeal or otherwise challenge a sentence at or below 300 months. He was sentenced on April 2, 2019, to 20 years on Count One and five years on Count Two, with the sentences running concurrently.

Claims and Arguments

Raishani filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence. He argued that Congress’s June 2015 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, which increased the statutory maximum for providing material support to a terrorist organization from 15 years to 20 years, should not apply because his criminal conduct began in 2015. Based on that argument, he claimed that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the 20-year maximum and that his guilty plea was invalid because he should have been advised of a 15-year maximum.

The Government argued that the amended 20-year maximum was correctly applied. The court agreed with the Government.

Court’s Analysis

Ineffective assistance of counsel. The court explained that an ineffective-assistance claim requires proof that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the defendant was prejudiced. Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a meritless argument.

The court rejected Raishani’s argument that the Ex Post Facto Clause required a 15-year maximum. The Ex Post Facto Clause generally prevents criminal punishment from being increased after the offense has been committed. But the court found that the conduct supporting the Count One conviction occurred in 2017, when the 2015 amendment had already been in effect for approximately 18 to 24 months. The Information identified the Count One offense as occurring between January and June 2017, and Raishani stated during his guilty-plea hearing that the charge arose from his June 2017 attempt to travel to Syria. The court therefore held that the 20-year maximum was correctly applied and that counsel was not ineffective for failing to make an argument that had no legal basis.

The court also distinguished Count Two from Count One. Although the attempted travel might have provided evidence relevant to the conspiracy, the court found that the two counts did not involve identical conduct. Count Two charged a conspiracy lasting from September 2015 through June 2017, while the 20-year sentence resulted from the separate attempt charge based on 2017 conduct.

Validity of the guilty plea. A guilty plea must be a voluntary and intelligent choice. The court found that the record established that Raishani understood the consequences of his plea. The court advised him that Count One carried a maximum term of 20 years, the plea agreement reflected that maximum, and Raishani confirmed that he understood those terms. The court gave presumptive weight to those sworn statements and found no basis to conclude that the plea was not knowing and voluntary.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Raishani’s § 2255 petition. The court stated that no hearing was required because the motion and the existing records conclusively showed that he was not entitled to relief. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Raishani had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.