Khalel El-Jassem v. United States, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Khalel El-Jassem v. United States, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Burke v. The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (nyed, 2022-07-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Burke v. The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
E.D.N.Y · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ige v. U.S. Attorney’s Off., 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1996) (table); Hill v. U.S. Attorney’s Off., E.D.N.Y., No. 08-CV-1045 (JS) (AKT), 2009 WL 2524914 , at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
discussed Cited "see" Ya-Chen Chen v. City University of New York (2×)
2d Cir. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nembhard v. Mem’l Sloan-Kettering Cancer Ctr., 918 F.Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y.1996), aff'd, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that harsh punishment coupled with positive employment record supports finding of pretext).
cited Cited "see" Hagemann v. Molinari
E.D.N.Y · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Philippeaux v. North Central Bronx Hosp., 871 F.Supp. 640, 656 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd. 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1110 , 137 L.Ed.2d 312 (1997).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Kuznetsov
S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has stated that a visa “does not necessarily confer diplomatic immunity.” United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir.1984) (finding that the issuance of an A-l visa did not confer diplomatic immunity since such status is only recognized by the issuance of a diplomatic immunity card and identification on official lists prepared by the U.S. government); see also El-Jassem v. United States, No. 95-1345, 1996 WL 680958, at *1 (2d Cir. Nov.25, 1996); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d at 573 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Davis v. United States
D. Conn. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
March 20, 2006) (citing Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 510 (2d *78 Cir.1994)); see also Ige v. United States Attorney’s Office, 104 F.3d 353 , 1996 WL 649373 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming District Court’s dismissal of Bivens action against federal defendants named in their official capacities); Pimentel v. Deboo, 411 F.Supp.2d 118, 126 (D.Conn.2006) (dismissing Bivens claims against federal prison officials being sued in their official capacities).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tarr v. Credit Suisse Asset Management, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Philippeaux v. North Cen *796 tral Bronx Hosp., 871 F.Supp. 640, 650 (S.D.N.Y.1994) (because unnamed defendant municipality had an obligation to represent and indemnify named defendant hospital, it was on notice of plaintiffs EEOC proceeding), aff 'd, 104 F.3d 353 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1110 , — L.Ed.2d-(1997); Goyette, 830 F.Supp. at 748 (because unnamed parent corporation and named subsidiary had “always been represented by the same legal counsel,” parent corporation “by definition ... had adequate notice and representation in the EEOC proceedin…
Khalel El-Jassem
v.
United States
95-1345.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Nov 25, 1996.
104 F.3d 353
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Unpublished

104 F.3d 353

NOTICE: THIS SUMMARY ORDER MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA. SEE SECOND CIRCUIT RULE 0.23.
Khalel EL-JASSEM, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 95-1345.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1996.

1

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: Khaled El-Jassem, Lompoc, Cal.

2

APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: Zachary W. Carter, U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y.

3

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was taken on submission.

4

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

5

Khaled Mohammed El-Jassem appeals pro se from the May 22, 1995, ruling of the District Court denying his motion for reduction of a sentence imposed in 1993 for the 1973 attempted bombing of three buildings. The District Court fully explained the reasons for the sentence at the time of the original sentencing. See United States v. v. El-Jassem, 819 F.Supp. 166 (E.D.N.Y.1993). We affirmed on direct review. United States v. El-Jassem, No. 93-1304 (Dec. 29, 1994).

6

Appellant invoked the provisions of unamended Rule 35(b), which were applicable to offenses committed before 1987. He contended that he was a "more mature, different man than the one who planted car bombs in 1973," that the changing political climate in the Middle East made his punishment less necessary, and that he wished to participate in the process of restoring peace to the Middle East.

7

On appeal, El-Jassem renews these arguments and also c ontends that he should be immune from punishment because of his alleged diplomatic status with the Palestine Liberation Organization ("PLO") and because of immunity provided by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ("FSIA"), Pub.L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891-98.

8

The motion to reduce the sentence was properly denied. Disposition of such a motion is within the discretion of the District Court. See United States v. Januszewski, 777 F.2d 108 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Slutsky, 514 F.2d 1222 (2d Cir.1975). The ruling was well within the Court's discretion. The immunity claims are procedurally defective because they were not raised on direct review and because they were not raised in the District Court on the motion to reduce. In any event, the claims are without merit. Appellant furnished no indication that he has been recognized by the United States as enjoying diplomatic status, see United States v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir.1984) (diplomatic status recognized only through official list prepared by United States Government). The FSIA claim fails because the PLO is not a foreign state for purposes of the Act, see Klinghofer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro, 937 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.1991), and was not in 1973.