Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 1 of 10

1 JOSEPH SHEMARIA (Cal. State Bar No. 47311)

LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SHEMARIA
2 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, California 90067
3 Telephone (310) 278-2660
Facsimile (310) 388-0979
4 Email: lalawyr1@gmail.com

5
Attorney for Defendant
6 AKRAM MUSA ABDALLAH

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. CR-08-00947-PHX-NVW

)
12 Plaintiff, ) DEFENDANT’S AMENDED
13 ) OBJECTIONS TO THE
v. ) PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION
14 ) REPORT
AKRAM MUSA ABDALLAH, )
15 )
Defendant. ) Date: November 23, 2009
16 ____________________________________ ) Court: Hon. Neil V. Wake
__________________
17

18

19
Defendant AKRAM MUSA ABDALLAH, through counsel, hereby submits his
20
Amended Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report.
21
Defendant reserves the opportunity to make additional arguments in writing prior to
22
sentencing as well as additional comments at the sentencing hearing.
23
Date: November 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted:
24

25
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SHEMARIA

26 By /s/ Joseph Shemaria

Attorney for Defendant
27 AKRAM MUSA ABDALLAH
28
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 2 of 10

1 I.
2
THE PROBATION OFFICER’S RECOMMENDED SENTENCE FAILS
3 TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF FACTORS PRESENT IN THIS CASE
4 AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED BY THE SENTENCING COURT
5 A. Preliminary Remarks
6 On May 6, 2009, Defendant Akram Musa Abdallah pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
7 written Plea Agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), to one

8 count of an indictment charging him with making a false statement to FBI agents in

9 violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2). The charge arose from Mr. Abdallah’s untrue

10 statements to FBI agents when he was interviewed in January of 2007 concerning his role

11 in fundraising activities conducted on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) between

12 1994 and 1997.

13 In the Presentence Investigation Report (hereinafter PSI) dated October 23, 2009,
14 the Probation Officer disregards the Plea Agreement and recommends a guideline sentence

15 of 46 months based on a total offense level of 23, Criminal History Category I.

16 Mr. Abdallah admittedly did take part in some fundraising activities during the
17 period in question (1994-1997), which is what led to his decision to plead guilty to the

18 charge of making a false statement when questioned concerning those activities some ten

19 years later. He has acknowledged his mistake and accepts full responsibility for having

20 broken the law. However, there are significant equities and mitigating factors which

21 support the joint recommendation of an 18 to 24 month sentencing range as set forth in the

22 Plea Agreement.

23 Mr. Abdallah objects in the strongest terms to the Probation Officer’s proposed 46
24 month sentence. The Probation Officer’s position fails completely to address the

25 defendant’s excellent “history and personal characteristics.” In the body of this

26 memorandum, Defendant Abdallah, through counsel, will respectfully set forth his

27 responses and objections to the Probation Officer’s position.

28 ///

2
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 3 of 10

1 B. The Probation Officers Fail to Accurately Perceive the Parameters of This Case
2 With all due respect, in its oversimplified and one-sided analysis, the PSI focuses
3 mainly on the specifics of Mr. Abdallah’s conduct between 1994 and 1997 when he

4 assisted the Holy Land Foundation’s fundraising efforts. The PSI implies that Mr.

5 Abdallah’s fundraising activities on behalf of HLF were carried out with the knowledge

6 that at least some of the money would be channeled to terrorist groups or terrorist activities.

7 Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Abdallah’s fundraising activities on behalf of

8 HLF were for the purpose of charitably helping widows, orphans and other poor and needy

9 people in the Middle East, and to build and support schools and day-care centers for the

10 destitute population of that region. Like many religious Muslims, Mr. Abdallah has been

11 deeply involved in charitable and philanthropic work throughout his adult lifetime. At least

12 in recent years, he has been a peaceful man and he has not supported violence on the part

13 of any people or organization, whether Muslim or otherwise.

14 It should be pointed out that a large number of Muslims in the United States who are

15 members of mosques have at one time or another donated or helped raise money for HLF.

16 Although the HLF leaders were convicted at trial, it is apparent that the millions of average,

17 well-meaning community-oriented Muslims who donated funds or helped raise funds for

18 HLF had no inkling that certain elements within HLF may also have been involved in

19 surreptitiously funneling money to terrorist groups.

20 The Probation Officer’s attempt to connect Mr. Abdallah’s fundraising activities for

21
HLF to terrorist acts by Hamas and even the 9-11 attacks are misguided and quite absurd.

22
This is a good example of how, in emotionally charged situations, a supposed neutral fact-

23
finder can veer far from the path of logic, common sense and fair play.
C. The Probation Officers Fail to Apply the Current State of Federal Sentencing Law to
24
This Case
25
While focusing primarily on activities that Mr. Abdallah engaged in 15 years ago,
26
the Probation Officer fails to adequately acknowledge this defendant’s exemplary history
27
and personal characteristics which are described in detail in the approximately 30 character
28
reference letters received on his behalf. These letters, which are extremely laudatory,

3
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 4 of 10

1 describe this defendant’s kind and caring nature, his strong family values, and his deep

2 concern for the health and welfare of the community. The Probation Office was provided

3 with these letters more than two months before disclosing the PSI, yet fails to give them

4 any consideration. Such disregard of the mandate to consider the “history and

5 characteristics of the defendant,” as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1), signals an essential

6 misunderstanding of the current state of Federal Sentencing Law as it has developed in the

7 wake of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct.
1
8 582 (2007), and their progeny. In affirming the District Court judge’s eloquent assertion

9 in Gall that a Federal defendant’s history and personal characteristics should be given due

10 weight as part of the sentencing process, the United States Supreme Court ushered in a new

11 sentencing paradigm in which District Court judges are once again called on to be

12 thoughtful and independent arbiters of justice.

13 Prior to Mr. Abdallah’s sentencing date, undersigned defense counsel will be filing a

14 Sentencing Memorandum which will highlight this defendant’s excellent history and

15 personal characteristics.

16 The Probation Officer further signals her misunderstanding of the current state of

17 Federal sentencing law at Paragraph 91 of the PSI (Pages 15-16) in which she posits:

18 The defendant pleaded guilty to a one count indictment. The

19 advisory imprisonment guideline range has been established at

20 46 to 57 months. Pursuant to the written plea agreement, the

21 defendant shall receive up to a three-level downward reduction

22
for acceptance of responsibility. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C),

23
1
24 Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570 (2007), and more recently
Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. __ (2009), and Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S.
25 __ (2009), reiterate that United States District Court judges have broad discretion,
after considering the totality of factors present in the case, to impose a non-guideline
26 sentence. The Court’s sole statutory mandate is to “impose a sentence sufficient, but
27 not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing” under §3553(a)(2)
which include the need for just punishment, the need for adequate deterrence and
28 incapacitation, and the need for adequate educational and vocational training.

4
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 5 of 10

1 the parties stipulate the defendant shall be sentenced to the

2 Bureau of Prisons for a term of imprisonment between 18 and
3 24 months. A sentence within this range would require an eight-

4 level downward departure. The plea agreement does not

5 indicate a basis for a downward departure. (Emphasis added).

6 The Probation Officer’s contention that a sentence within the range of 18 to 24

7 months would require an eight-level downward departure is fallacious. Departures,

8 whether upward or downward, have always been, and presumably always will be, formal

9 and technical in nature and inextricably tied to the guidelines. Historically, with the

10 exception of §5K1.1 departures predicated on the Government’s motion, other forms of

11 departure have been quite rare and typically have been granted in cases characterized by

12 more or less extraordinary conditions.

13 In contrast, non-guideline sentences based on “the totality of factors” that may be

14 present in an individual case are much less rare and are typically based on “the history and

15 characteristics of the defendant” and the “nature and circumstances of the offense” as well
2
16 as the other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). In this instance, the parties

17 have stipulated to an 18 to 24 month sentencing range based on a mutual belief that a

18 sentence in this range is an accurate measure of Mr. Abdallah’s culpability and would

19 adequately fulfill all of the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2).

20 D. The Parties’ Jointly Stipulated Sentencing Range Should Be Honored by The Court

21 The PSI hardly recognizes the Plea Agreement, other than to criticize its lack of

22
thoroughness. However, rest-assured, the Plea Agreement hammered out in this case, in

23
every way, is entitled to be given its recognized and well-deserved due and respect by the
Court, even though not by the Probation Department. Probation appears to overlook that the
24
Plea Agreement was agreed upon only after a complete, honest and accurate assessment, by
25

26
2
27 In its Sentencing Position, the District Court in Gall went to pains to establish that
a defendant’s history and personal characteristics do not need to be “extraordinary”
28 in order to precipitate a downward variance and a resulting non-guideline sentence.

5
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 6 of 10

1 both very experienced Government Counsel from both the Department of Justice as well as

2 the United States Attorney’s Office in Phoenix as well as defense counsel. Most all of the

3 key terms and provisions were negotiated at length, compromises being made by both sides

4 to reach a fair and just result. If the Government had thought a sentence outside of the 18 to

5 24 month range was appropriate, it obviously would not have agreed to this range as part of

6 a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Plea Agreement. Likewise, had the sentence not been the one agreed

7 upon, the defense would have never agreed to it.

8 In the body of the PSI, the Probation Officer quotes the FBI as stating it originally had

9 no plans of bringing any criminal charges against Mr. Abdallah. Prior to the trial of the

10 Holy Land Foundation (HLF) in Texas, the FBI approached the defendant in the hope that

11 he would be able to aid the Government in its prosecution of HLF (see PSI, Page 9, ¶41,

12 quoting FBI Special Agents Andrew Braun and Robert Miranda):

13 After the HLF’s well publicized indictment in 2004, but before

14 the commencement of trial, Case Agents investigating the HLF

15 approached Abdallah in 2007. Seeking nothing more than

16 Abdallah’s truthful cooperation as a citizen of the United States,

17 Abdallah was approached by the FBI as a potential witness for

18 the government against the HLF. Case agents believed that

19 Abdallah’s HLF connections and involvement in HLF

20 fundraising efforts…made him a potentially significant witness...

21
Mr. Abdallah initially denied his involvement in fundraising activities on behalf of

22
HLF, and this led to the Government indicting him for making a false statement.

23
For his part, Mr. Abdallah feels remorse and contrition for having made false
representations to law enforcement, which is why he has chosen to forego his constitutional
24
right to a trial and has, instead, accepted responsibility for his mistake and agreed to the
25
stipulated sentencing range of 18 to 24 months.
26
//
27
//
28

6
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 7 of 10

1 II.
2 THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED PLEA AGREEMENT
3 EPITOMIZES THE MANNER IN WHICH OUR SYSTEM

4 IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED

5 The parties worked tirelessly together in an attempt to reach a fair disposition of this

6 case—one which was equitable and well-considered. The Government was spared the

7 burden and expense of preparing for and going to trial, and Akram Abdallah was spared the

8 anguish, uncertainty, cost and disruption to his personal life of standing trial, with all of the

9 resulting anxiety and pain for his family and harm to his reputation in his community.

10 While our judicial system is adversarial in nature, and the respective sides have an

11 obligation to advocate their positions with appropriate vigor, our system also depends on

12 cooperation and honorable dealings by all parties. After a good deal of time was spent

13 explaining how his responses were inaccurate, incomplete and some just false, Mr.

14 Abdallah changed his mind and expressed his desire to resolve this case in a reasonable and

15 expeditious fashion. In effect, as the case moved forward, it became clear that both parties

16 wished to work out a reasonable resolution that would enable the case to be resolved

17 without further expense and delays.

18 This is the way our system is supposed to work. This level of good faith cooperation

19 by the parties is what enables United States District Courts to move cases along in an
3
20 expeditious manner, thus freeing up valuable Government resources. It is further

21 interesting to note that, notwithstanding the somewhat inflammatory tone of the PSI, the

22
Probation Officer actually concedes that “the defendant was not directly involved with a

23
terrorist or public destruction act.”4
For a free society to maintain itself, its essential institutions must be healthy and
24
strong. In an adversarial system such as our legal process, it is essential that the two sides
25

26 3
Based on the statistics currently available, around 97% of Federal criminal cases
27 are settled through Plea Agreements, while only around 3% actually proceed to trial.
4
28 See PSI, Page 18, bottom two lines.

7
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 8 of 10

1 proceed honorably, which is exactly what has been done in this case. Defendant Abdallah,

2 through counsel, therefore respectfully requests that the Court disregard the Probation

3 Officers’ poorly reasoned recommendation and honor the Plea Agreement, and sentence

4 him to a term of imprisonment of 18 months at the low end of the jointly stipulated range.

5 Defendant Abdallah’s rationale for seeking a sentence at the low end of the stipulated range

6 will be set forth in detail in his Sentencing Memorandum which be filed prior to the

7 sentencing date.

8 III.

9 BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTORS PRESENT IN THIS CASE,

10 THE PROBATION OFFICE WOULD BE ON FAR MORE SOLID GROUND

11 IF IT WAS TO RECOMMEND A SENTENCE OF 18 MONTHS

12 AT THE LOW END OF THE STIPULATED SENTENCING RANGE

13 AS OPPOSED TO A GUIDELINE SENTENCE

14 A careful reading of the PSI establishes the Probation Officer’s failure to adequately

15 consider the “history and circumstances of the defendant.” The PSI spends eight full pages

16 poring over the Charge(s) and Conviction(s), the Offense Conduct, and the Offense Level

17 Computations. In contrast, the entire life and background of this accomplished 55 year

18 family man, whose time on this earth has been characterized by real care and concern not

19 only for his immediate family but for the larger community as well, is dispensed with

20 perfunctorily in a mere two pages. There is not one word concerning this defendant’s long

21 history of legitimate charitable and philanthropic activities. Nor is there any mention of the

22
extreme collateral consequences Mr. Abdallah and his wife and family have suffered as a

23
result of his conviction. (This issue will be addressed in more detail in our subsequent
Sentencing Memorandum. The Court is asked to note, however, that Defendant’s wife
24
Areej Qada not only lost her engineering job of long standing due to the investigation, but
25
has also suffered serious heart problems as a result of the pressure and sadness she has
26
endured. She has been hospitalized twice due to severe tachycardia brought on by stress,
27
and her hospital bills have totaled at least $53,000. Further, Mr. Abdallah’s phone card
28
business has been decimated by his conviction and is now a mere shadow of its former self.)

8
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 9 of 10

1 Revealingly, the PSI spends the same amount of space, two pages, analyzing Mr.
2 Abdallah’s finances that it expends describing his history and personal characteristics. The

3 financial analysis concludes that the Abdallahs are approximately $79,000 “in the red” and

4 have a monthly cash flow totaling negative $4,687. Yet, the Probation Office recommends

5 that Mr. Abdallah be required to pay a fine of $10,000 even though the family income is

6 just $2,000 per month and will be reduced to $0 when this defendant reports to serve his

7 upcoming term of imprisonment. It is most probable that Mrs. Abdallah, given her heart

8 condition and emotional distress, will be unable to contribute to her family’s financial

9 support during the period of her husband’s incarceration.

10 Simple logic suggests that the Government, based its monitoring of Mr. Abdallah’s

11 phone calls for 14 years and its interviews of a great many individuals in its attempt to fully

12 ascertain the scope and nature of his activities during the period in question, is best situated

13 to gauge the seriousness of his offense conduct. Furthermore, though it can perhaps be

14 inferred that the Probation Office believes “just punishment” would be achieved through a

15 sentence of 46 months, the Probation Officers never directly address this issue, nor for that

16 matter, any of the other relevant 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2) sentencing factors.

17 IV.

18 CONCLUSION

19 Defendant Akram Abdallah respectfully urges the Court to accept the plea

20 agreement as it was written and signed. Of course, this includes rejecting Probation’s

21 recommendation of a term of 46 months imprisonment. While the PSR gives a correct

22
numerical USSG presentation, the hard portion of the sentencing, calculating and giving

23
appropriate weight to defendant’s history and personal characteristics and other 3553(a)
factors, must be done by this Court. The PSI’s suggestion that the stipulated sentencing
24
range can only be reached by means of a downward departure reveals a surprising
25
misunderstanding of the current state of Federal sentencing law. In addition, the Probation
26
Officer does not consider any of the various other sentencing factors as set forth in 18
27
U.S.C.§3553(a), and does not address the extreme collateral consequences the Abdallah
28
family has suffered as a result of this conviction.

9
 Case 2:08-cr-00947-NVW Document 74 Filed 11/19/09 Page 10 of 10

1 In Defendant Abdallah’s subsequent Sentencing Memorandum, the reasons why the

2 “totality of factors” present in this case support a sentence of 18 months, at the low end of

3 the stipulated sentencing range, will be set forth.

4 Date: November 19, 2009 Respectfully submitted:

5 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH SHEMARIA

6
By /s/ Joseph Shemaria
7 Attorney for Defendant
AKRAM MUSA ABDALLAH
8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10