Case Explained: USA V. KURASHEV

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 Docket: 2:21-cr-00040-KJM-1 The Ninth Circuit affirmed Murat Kurashev’s conviction and 144-month sentence for attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, rejecting his challenges to the application of the U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4(a) “terrorism” enhancement. The court applied de novo review to the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and abuse of discretion review to its application of those guidelines to the facts. Regarding the specific intent requirement under 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5), the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Kurashev intended his support to influence government conduct by intimidation or coercion. The record demonstrated that Kurashev knew the funds he sent were solicited for military equipment used by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in armed conflict against the Syrian government, evidenced by his forwarding of fundraising posts listing weapon prices and his statements confirming his intent to “carry out jihad.” The court clarified that such intent can be inferred from knowledge of how support will be used without requiring the defendant to instruct the recipient on specific expenditures or intend the support exclusively for violent purposes. On two additional arguments raised for the first time on appeal, the court applied plain error review and found no reversible error. First, the court rejected Kurashev’s claim that the Assad regime was not a “government” under the statute, holding that the term retains its ordinary meaning as the governing authority of a political unit and that applying this definition was not a clear or obvious error. Second, the court found the district court’s explanation for imposing the enhancement sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, noting the court articulated the legal requirements and pointed to supporting evidence in the record. Kurashev’s motion for judicial notice was denied as irrelevant to the legal issues. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.