United States v. Ullah

── United States v. Ullah ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 21, 2026 Category: General 21-1058 United States of America v. Ullah In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term 2021 Argued: April 27, 2022 Decided: April 21, 2026 No. 21-1058 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. AKAYED ULLAH, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York No. 18-16, Richard J. Sullivan, Judge Before: MENASHI and PÉREZ, Circuit Judges, * and RAKOFF, District Judge. † On appeal from a criminal judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sullivan, J.). ‡ *Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, originally a member of the panel, passed away before the filing of this opinion. Judge Steven J. Menashi was added to the panel. See 2d. Cir. IOP E(b). †Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ‡ Judge Richard J. Sullivan, United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation. Judge Sullivan was a District Judge when Defendant-Appellant was indicted. Judge Sullivan retained the case when he became a Circuit Judge in October 2018. All references to the District Court in this opinion are to Judge Sullivan’s rulings filed in the District Court.  A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant on six counts related to a December 11, 2017 attack in which Defendant deflagrated a homemade pipe bomb in an underground tunnel between the Times Square/42nd Street subway station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan, New York. As relevant here, Defendant challenges the following counts: (1) Count One—providing material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B; (2) Count Five—committing a terrorist attack against mass transportation systems, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1992(a)(2); and (3) Count Six— using a destructive device during and in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B)(ii). He also challenges his sentence on numerous grounds, including that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm the judgment on all of the challenged counts except Count One. First, because the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization under a proper construction of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, we reverse his conviction on Count One. Second, because sufficient evidence supported the conviction on Count Five, and the indictment as to that count was not constructively amended, we affirm the conviction on Count Five. Third, even if the verdict on Count Six was legally erroneous pursuant to Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), any error did not affect Defendant’s substantial rights because it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found him guilty of at least one predicate crime of violence; namely, for the completed offense under 18 U.S.C. § 2332f(a)(1) when he deflagrated a bomb in a place of public use. We therefore affirm the conviction on Count Six. Finally, we conclude that Defendant’s sentence was not unreasonable and, accordingly, his sentence is affirmed, except to the extent that the sentence on Count One is vacated. REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REMANDED. JUDGE MENASHI dissents in a separate opinion. 2