United States v. Ahmed Khan

258 F. App'x 714
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 14, 2007
Docket06-11228
StatusUnpublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 258 F. App'x 714 (United States v. Ahmed Khan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ahmed Khan, 258 F. App'x 714 (5th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

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)(l)(A)(ii), (üi), and (v)(I); three counts of Transportation of Illegal Aliens and Aiding and Abetting in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(l)(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)(l)(A)(iii) 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 prearranged 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 fi’audulent immigration documents to Khan, who in turn sold them to the alien(s) for $6,000 each.

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 *716 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)®), (in), 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)®) 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)(l)(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

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must “affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found that the 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 par *717 ticipation in a conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens because 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Galdino Ruiz-Hernandez
890 F.3d 202 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Song Chon
713 F.3d 812 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
United States v. Tucker
363 F. App'x 643 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 F. App'x 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ahmed-khan-ca5-2007.