United States v. Ahmed Ressam, Also Known as Benni Antoine Noris, United States of America v. Ahmed Ressam, Also Known as Benni Antoine Noris

Ahmed Ressam trained with members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and hatched a plot to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the days before the new Millennium. He was charged with, and convicted of, nine counts of criminal activity connected to this plot. Res-sam challenges his conviction on one of these counts, Count 9, for carrying an *599 explosive during the commission of a felony — making false statements on a customs declaration — in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844 (h)(2). The issue is whether § 844(h)(2) must be read to include a relational element such that the crime is carrying an explosive during and in relation to commission of a felony. We previously construed the statute upon which § 844(h)(2) was modeled, 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), to require this relational element, United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538 , 539—40 (9th Cir.1985), even though it, too, lacked the phrase “and in relation to.” We are constrained to follow Steivart’s analysis here and conclude that § 844(h)(2) requires a relationship between the underlying crime and the act of carrying an explosive. As the jury was neither instructed that such a relationship was a required element of the…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse Count 9 of the *605 Second Superceding Indictment. I also concur in the majority’s decision to vacate the sentence but on different grounds. I agree with the Government that the sentence imposed by the District Court was unreasonable and an extreme departure from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.

I

Count 9 reads as follows:

Section 844(h)(2) provides as follows:

In Count 5 of the indictment, Mr. Ressam was charged as follows:

The district court gave the following instruction to the jury concerning the elements that the Government was required to prove to demonstrate a violation of § 844(h)(2).

In his opening brief, Mr. Ressam concedes that “[t]he government did present evidence that Mr. Ressam was carrying explosives in the trunk of the car he was driving at the time he completed and presented the customs form, and that Mr. Ressam falsely identified himself on the form.” Opening Brief of Appellant at 18. Mr. Ressam does not argue that the words used by Congress in § 844(h)(2) are ambiguous or lack plain meaning.

The Supreme Court instructed in Tennessee Valley…

474 F.3d 597 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ahmed RESSAM, also known as Benni Antoine Noris, Defendant-Appellee. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ahmed Ressam, also known as Benni Antoine Noris, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-30422. No. 05-30441. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 13, 2006. Filed January 16, 2007. John McKay, United States Attorney, Seattle, WA, for the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee. Thomas W. Hillier, II, Federal Public Defender, and Michael Filipovic, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Seattle, WA, for the defendant-appellee-cross-appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; John C. Coughenour, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-99-00666-001-JCC. Before: ALARCÓN, RYMER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. RYMER, Circuit Judge: 1 Ahmed Ressam trained with members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and hatched a plot to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the days before the new Millennium. He was charged with, and convicted of, nine counts of criminal activity connected to this plot. Ressam…