Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ibrahim

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

February 18, 2016

UNITED STATES, Appellee,
v.
YAHYAA IBRAHIM, Defendant, Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge.

Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom Federal Public Defender Office was on brief, for appellant.

Jennifer A. Serafyn, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.

Before Lynch, Circuit Judge, Souter, Associate Justice,[*] and Selya, Circuit Judge.

OPINION

Page 31

SOUTER, Associate Justice.

Yahyaa Ibrahim was indicted for failure to register as a sex offender, and he filed two motions to dismiss the indictment. The first challenged the constitutionality of the registration requirement. No hearing was requested and none was held for 344 days, until after the second motion requested dismissal of the charges for violation of the speedy trial requirement. After a hearing, each was denied, and he pleaded guilty, though subject to the right to appeal the denials of his motions. We affirm.

I

On June 4, 2013, Ibrahim was indicted for failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16913, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. On January 7, 2014 he sought leave of the district court to file an oversized brief on the ground that his forthcoming motion to dismiss the indictment raised complex issues. His request was granted, and, on January 9, he filed the brief, which claimed that SORNA was unconstitutional (the SORNA motion). Specifically, he contended that Congress both exceeded its Article I authority by enacting SORNA and violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the Attorney General power to determine SORNA's applicability to pre-enactment

Page 32

offenders. The first paragraph of the SORNA motion acknowledged that all of its arguments had been rejected by panels of this court and were raised only to preserve them for further review.

The Government's opposition brief, filed on February 5, agreed that Ibrahim's arguments were foreclosed by this court's precedents. On February 7, the magistrate judge issued a status report, noting that, under the Speedy Trial Act (STA), 18 U.S.C. § 3161, seventy days remained for the case to be tried.

On December 5, Ibrahim filed a second dismissal motion, this one asserting a violation of the STA on the ground that 270 days of unexcluded time had elapsed (the STA motion).[1] The Government filed its opposition on December 16.

At a December 19 hearing, the district court denied both the SORNA motion and the STA motion. On February 13, 2015, Ibrahim entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal the denials of both motions. He was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.