New York Criminal Lawyer Blog
Federal terrorism prosecutions often involve multiple criminal charges arising from a single act. In such cases, courts must carefully examine whether the evidence supports each individual charge and whether the government proved every required element beyond a reasonable doubt. Even when the evidence clearly establishes that a defendant committed a serious terrorist attack, appellate courts must determine whether the convictions comply with federal law.
In United States v. Ullah, No. 21-1058 (2d Cir. 2026), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the convictions of Akayed Ullah for his role in a bombing attack in a crowded underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the Times Square subway station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. While the court upheld most of Ullah’s convictions and his life sentence, it concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support one of the terrorism-related charges.
Background Facts
On December 11, 2017, Akayed Ullah detonated a homemade pipe bomb in an underground passageway connecting the Times Square-42nd Street subway station and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in Manhattan. The area was crowded with commuters during the morning rush hour.
The device did not function as Ullah intended. Although the bomb exploded, it did not cause the level of destruction he had planned. Ullah suffered injuries, and several other people sustained injuries as well. Law enforcement officers quickly responded and took Ullah into custody.
Federal authorities investigated the attack and determined that Ullah had been inspired by propaganda distributed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization. According to the government, Ullah carried out the attack in support of ISIS and its objectives.
A federal grand jury charged Ullah with multiple terrorism-related offenses. Following a jury trial in the Southern District of New York, he was convicted on six counts. Among other charges, he was convicted of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, committing a terrorist attack against a mass transportation system in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1992(a)(2), and using a destructive device during and in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
The district court imposed multiple life sentences. Ullah appealed, challenging several of his convictions and various aspects of his sentence.
Issue
Was the evidence sufficient to support Ullah’s conviction for providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B?
Holding
No. The Second Circuit held that the evidence was insufficient to support Ullah’s conviction for providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The court therefore reversed that conviction. However, the court affirmed Ullah’s remaining challenged convictions and upheld his sentence, except for the sentence imposed on the reversed count.
Rationale
The court focused primarily on the meaning of the federal material support statute. Section 2339B makes it a crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
The government argued that Ullah’s attack was inspired by ISIS propaganda and that he intended to advance ISIS’s goals. According to the government, these facts were sufficient to establish that he provided material support to the organization.
The Second Circuit disagreed. The court explained that the statute requires proof that the defendant provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide support to the foreign terrorist organization itself. Simply acting in a manner inspired by the organization or sharing its objectives is not enough.
The court found that the evidence showed Ullah acted on his own. While he consumed ISIS propaganda and carried out the attack with ISIS in mind, there was no evidence that he coordinated with ISIS, communicated with ISIS members, acted under ISIS’s direction, or provided any support directly to the organization.
Because the government failed to prove that Ullah provided material support to ISIS as required by the statute, the court concluded that the conviction on Count One could not stand.
The court reached a different conclusion regarding the remaining convictions. It found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction for committing a terrorist attack against a mass transportation system. The court also rejected Ullah’s argument that the indictment had been improperly amended during the proceedings.
With respect to the conviction for using a destructive device during and in furtherance of a crime of violence, the court concluded that any possible error in the jury’s verdict did not affect Ullah’s substantial rights. The court determined that the evidence overwhelmingly established that he committed at least one qualifying crime of violence when he detonated a bomb in a public place.
Finally, the court rejected Ullah’s challenges to his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error and that the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. Although the conviction on Count One was reversed, the court noted that the reversal would not reduce Ullah’s life sentence because the remaining convictions independently supported the sentence imposed.
Conclusion
The decision demonstrates that even in cases involving serious terrorist acts, courts must carefully evaluate whether the government proved every element of each charged offense. If you are facing federal criminal charges, including charges involving allegations of terrorism, weapons offenses, or crimes of violence, it is important to consult an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer. A lawyer can review the evidence, evaluate potential defenses, and help protect your constitutional rights throughout the criminal process.