USA v. Abdul-Jillil et al

Filing 647

Final Report and Recommendation, Memorandum Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
3:04-cr-070-01-RRB-JDR
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMEEN ABDUL-JILLIL,
Defendant.

FINAL
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING
MOTION TO VACATE
(2255)
(Docket No. 602/613)

Defendant Ameen Abdul-Jillil timely filed objections to the initial report
and recommendation. Docket 644. The government did not file a response. Upon
due consideration of the objections the magistrate judge declines to modify the
recommendation.

Essentially, the defendant takes objections to the factual findings by the
magistrate judge regarding the defendant’s claimed understanding of his plea. A few
comments in response to the objections are provided for the benefit of the assigned
judge.
In his objections Abdul-Jillil refers to a statement by his trial counsel
Scott Dattan in his memorandum in support of the motion to withdraw plea, arguing
that the “mis-characterization” of the government and defense counsel in the plea
agreement motivated the defendant to plead guilty. Docket 644, pp. 2-3. That
memorandum was made by Mr. Dattan as an advocate for the defendant. The term
“mis-characterization” was made more in the context of argument than fact. As
explained in the initial recommendation, Abdul-Jillil knowingly signed the plea
agreement after discussing it with Mr. Dattan. See also Transcript of Evidentiary
Hearing, p.32. The agreement reached a non-binding estimated sentence range of
108 to 135 months by the government and a range of 57 to 71 months by the
defense. At the evidentiary hearing Abdul-Jillil explained that he thought that the
term “non-binding” meant that the parties were limited in their recommendation to the
court as to the sentence (to be imposed), and that the court had to impose a
sentence within the range of those estimates. The magistrate judge rejected this
claim as unreasonable and an unlikely thought process based upon the totality of the
circumstances. At the change of plea hearing Judge Beistline asked Abdul-Jillil if he

04-cr-070-RRB-JDR ABDUL-JILLIL @602-613 FINAL RR Re Motion to Vacate.wpd

2

understood that the judge is not bound by the plea agreement. Abdul-Jillil was
asked about this questioning at the evidentiary hearing. He gave a confusing
response suggesting that he understood the plea agreement to mean that the judge
was bound by the sentencing range set forth in the agreement. Tr. 35. When asked
why he thought that the judge could not go outside the sentencing range Abdul-Jillil
never answered that question. Tr. 35, lines 20-22.
Abdul-Jillil also maintains that he did not understand about the drug
quantity that could be attributed to him as relevant conduct. He claims that he has
never understood that. Tr. 34, lines 11-12. Yet, at the change of plea hearing and
sentencing hearing Abdul-Jillil never asked the court about the application of
relevant conduct nor did he inform the court that he did not understand the terms of
the plea agreement.
In a non-binding plea agreement there is always a risk that the court
may impose a sentence beyond the expectations of the defendant or the parties
because the agreement is not binding upon the court.

Abdul-Jillil knowingly

accepted the plea agreement and there is no good reason not to treat his plea of
guilty as a binding plea.
For all these reasons including the assessment in the initial report and
recommendation, the magistrate judge recommends that the Motion to Vacate,

04-cr-070-RRB-JDR ABDUL-JILLIL @602-613 FINAL RR Re Motion to Vacate.wpd

3

Dockets 602/613 be denied. This matter shall now be forwarded to the assigned
district judge for his determination.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2010, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

04-cr-070-RRB-JDR ABDUL-JILLIL @602-613 FINAL RR Re Motion to Vacate.wpd

4