Case Update (16 Dec 2024): USA v. Alboushari; Sentencing Judge did not Abuse Discretion in Sentence of Father for International Parental Kidnapping
Defendant Appellant Father appealed from a judgment of conviction from the U.S. District Court for the SDNY sentencing him to 92-months in prison, one year of supervised release, and a $600 special assessment following his guilty plea to six counts of international parental kidnapping. He argued, on appeal, that the district court improperly considered the duration of his offense (having retained the children overseas for 4 years) while also failing to consider certain mitigating factors. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed. Its review was for an abuse of discretion. It focused on the sentencing court’s compliance with its statutory obligation to consider certain factors in the US Code, while assessing the length of the sentence in light of certain other factors in the US Code. The Father pled guilty to 6 counts of kidnapping, and the parties agreed on a Stipulated Guidelines Range of 21 to 27 months in prison, but also agreed that “either party may seek a sentence outside of the Stipulated Guidelines Range based upon the factors to be considered in imposing a sentence” under the US Code (18 USC 3553(a)). The plea agreement explained that the aggregate statutory maximum term of imprisonment was 18 years.
The court, after conducting a hearing, found that the Father had engaged in passport fraud, lied in an affidavit to the court, and “was extraordinarily controlling,… neglectful and abusive, both physically and psychologically, before and during the offense, that is, before he kidnapped the children and during the 46 months that he held them outside of the country.”
The Father was concerned that the court improperly considered the 4-year duration that he had kidnapped the children, and argued it is not a factor to be considered, and the court was consequently not permitted to rely on that to impose an above-the-guidelines sentence. The Court cited to U.S. v. Booker, which stood for the premise that the sentencing court is free to impose a sentence above the guidelines as appropriate in light of the factors in 18 USC 3553(a), and that is what the court did here. It was free to consider the duration of the kidnapping as a factor relevant to the nature and circumstances of the crime before it ultimately determined that a sentence longer than the advisory guidelines range was warranted.
In looking at whether the court should have considered certain mitigating factors, the 2nd Circuit concluded that it did - it had and read both parties’ pre-sentence report and sentencing papers, including all four of the Father’s submissions, which included an extensive presentation of the mitigating factors. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
