Background
Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem was prosecuted in connection with the May 3, 2015 attack by Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi on the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” in Garland, Texas. The attackers wounded a security guard before police killed them. A jury convicted Kareem on five counts, including Count 5, conspiracy to provide material support or resources to ISIS under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). The government’s trial theory was that Kareem, Simpson, and Soofi agreed to supply ISIS with themselves as “personnel” or weapons and training as “services.”
The evidence included Kareem’s association with the attackers, consumption of extremist materials, statements supporting violence, assistance with firearms and ammunition, and firearms instruction. Simpson pledged allegiance to ISIS shortly before the attack, but the majority found no evidence that Kareem saw or knew of that pledge. The district court sentenced Kareem to 360 months. It later granted a new trial on Count 2 because undisclosed surveillance footage could have affected that verdict; the government dismissed Count 2, and Kareem was again sentenced to 360 months in October 2021. His consolidated appeals also challenged other convictions and post-trial rulings.
The Court’s Holding
Writing for the majority, Judge Mendoza reversed the judgment on Count 5 and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal on that count and resentence Kareem. The court addressed only Count 5’s evidentiary challenge in the published opinion and affirmed the district court on all other issues in a separate memorandum disposition. Judge Collins concurred in that affirmance but dissented from the Count 5 reversal.
The majority restated that, whether or not a sufficiency challenge was preserved, the substantive inquiry remains the Jackson v. Virginia question: viewing the evidence favorably to the government, could any rational trier of fact find every element beyond a reasonable doubt? It explained that insufficient evidence necessarily satisfies the remaining plain-error requirements and constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice. It therefore applied Jackson to Kareem’s challenge to proof of his own agreement and intent, rather than treating the labels “plain error” or “manifest miscarriage” as different substantive sufficiency tests.
On the merits, the government failed to prove that Kareem knowingly joined an agreement whose object was providing material support to ISIS. Under § 2339B(h) and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, “personnel” requires work under the organization’s direction or control, while “service” denotes concerted activity rather than independent advocacy. No evidence showed that Kareem intended himself, Simpson, or Soofi to act under ISIS’s direction or control. His propaganda consumption, ideological sympathy, and assistance to an independently planned attack did not supply the missing proof. The majority expressly assumed without deciding that Simpson and Soofi had formed a material-support agreement and did not decide whether their planned conduct, viewed alone, violated § 2339B. It also acknowledged that directed instructions for a specific act, followed pursuant to those instructions, could conceivably establish material support, and that directed communication is not invariably required.
Key Takeaways
- Count 5 was reversed for insufficient evidence of Kareem’s agreement and intent, with acquittal and resentencing ordered; the remaining convictions and challenged post-trial rulings were affirmed through the separate disposition.
- The majority treated independent advocacy and self-initiated violence inspired by generalized ISIS propaganda as insufficient on this record, without holding that public messaging can never support § 2339B liability.
- Judge Collins argued that the unpreserved statutory-construction issue required threshold plain-error review. He would construe “service” to include specified assistance performed in response to, because of, and in conformity with a public organizational instruction, and would find the evidence sufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes proof of ideological alignment from proof that a defendant knowingly joined a material-support conspiracy, while leaving case-specific questions about direction, coordination, and public instructions open. The dissent’s broader reading of “service” and disagreement over preservation show that those boundaries remain contested rather than universally settled.
For practitioners, the opinion also separates the substantive Jackson inquiry from preservation terminology: the majority held that constitutionally insufficient evidence requires reversal even when the challenge was not preserved. Its holding is expressly confined to Kareem’s participation and intent, not a categorical determination about Simpson and Soofi’s conduct.