2nd Circuit Sends ISIS Sentence Decades Below Guideline Back to Brooklyn Judge
Judge José Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote in his majority opinion that the 17-year sentence from U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York was unreasonable.
December 27, 2019 at 02:09 PM
4 minute read
A panel of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit judges questioned a Brooklyn federal judge's decision to sentence a man accused of attempted murder and planning to join ISIS to 17 years in prison in a decision Friday, which remanded the case for resentencing in the Eastern District of New York.
Federal guidelines recommended that Fareed Mumuni, who pleaded guilty to attempting to murder an FBI agent with a kitchen knife and conspiring to support ISIS, be sentenced to 85 years in prison. While judges have the flexibility to issue sentences that vary from federal guidelines, Judge José Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote in his majority opinion that the 17-year sentence from U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie of the Eastern District of New York was unreasonable.
"The District Court's clearly erroneous findings and legal error resulted in its improper discounting of the seriousness of Mumuni's offense conduct," Cabranes wrote. "Mumuni's attack was not a spontaneous assault of a federal officer amid a heated altercation. Nor was it an act of self‐defense. Mumuni's violent attack against Agent Coughlin was indisputably a premeditated, willful, and deliberate attempt to murder a federal officer in the name of ISIS."
Brodie should not have second-guessed whether Mumuni actually intended to kill the FBI agent after accepting his guilty plea, Cabranes wrote. According to a transcript included in the Second Circuit decision, Mumuni told Brodie he did attack the agent knowing that he could kill him.
But at Mumuni's sentencing, Brodie said it wasn't clear whether he intended to kill the agent and wondered whether he produced the knife while expecting to be killed by the FBI agents, according to a transcript excerpt. Such speculation was not supported by the law or the record, Cabranes found.
The FBI agent happened to be wearing an armored vest at the time of the attack, inside Mumuni's family home, but vests are meant to protect people from bullets, not stabbing attacks, Cabranes wrote. The knife went through the agent's vest and damaged a metal magazine carrier inside, investigators found.
Brodie considered several mitigating factors, including Mumuni's lack of a criminal record, his good behavior while awaiting trial, letters of support from family and friends and the fact that he was 21 years old on the day of his arrest in 2015. Cabranes did not disagree that those factors existed, but he found that such a major departure from federal guidelines must be justified by a more substantial mitigating factor.
Cabranes described the 17-year sentence as "shockingly low," and in a partial dissent, Judge Peter Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit voted to remand but said he didn't believe the sentence was shockingly low.
Hall said he hoped to learn more about why Brodie second-guessed Mumuni's intent to kill the FBI agent, but he emphasized that Mumuni's youth and good behavior are important factors that informed the 17-year sentence.
"It should not be out of the realm of possibility for the District Court to determine, after fully analyzing all the applicable factors including those for which we have ordered remand and Mumuni's behaviors and course of conduct subsequent to his April 2018 sentencing, that the appropriate punishment to be imposed is a term of incarceration similar to (the 17-year term) imposed twenty months ago," Hall wrote.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York declined to comment Friday. Mumuni's lawyers, Kenneth Montgomery and Anthony Ricco, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250