United States District Court, D. Colorado
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND SENTENCING ORDER
L. KANE SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
January 21, 2012, Defendant Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested at
O‘Hare Airport in Chicago as he attempted to board a
flight to Istanbul, Turkey, with a one-way ticket. In his
possession were $2, 865 in cash, two new iPhones, a new iPad,
and his personal cellphone containing numerous terrorist
propaganda videos. The government had previously intercepted
statements by Muhtorov that he intended to travel to the
"wedding" or the "wedding house" from
Turkey and that he desired to support the Islamic Jihad Union
(IJU), a designated foreign terrorist organization. From his
intercepted conversations, it is apparent that Muhtorov
frequently used the word "wedding" in association
with violent jihad and in relation to the activities of the
21, 2018, a jury found Muhtorov guilty of three counts of
providing material support to a foreign terrorist
organization under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, namely (1)
conspiring and (2) attempting to provide $300 to the IJU, and
(3) providing or attempting to provide himself as personnel
to that same organization. The jury acquitted Muhtorov of a
fourth material support count-attempting to provide
communications equipment and services to the IJU.
codefendant, Bakhtiyor Jumaev, was also found guilty of (1)
conspiring and (2) attempting to provide material support in
the form of $300 to the IJU. A little over a month ago, I
sentenced Jumaev to the 76 months and 3 days he had already
spent in detention. See United States v. Jumaev, No.
12-cr-00033-JLK, 2018 WL 3490886, at *21 (D. Colo. Jul. 18,
2018). In doing so, I stressed that Jumaev‘s conduct
placed him among the least culpable offenders who have been
convicted under the material support statute. See
Id. That is not the case with Muhtorov, however.
Muhtorov was calculated and at times devious. He encouraged
others, including Jumaev, to support the IJU and terrorist
ideals generally. He also swore his allegiance to the IJU and
told his daughter to pray that he become a martyr. Still,
Muhtorov‘s actions do not come close to the severity of
those of the most culpable offenders. Like Jumaev, he did not
plot to commit specific acts of violence, nor did he engage
in planning acts of violence in the United States. Nor does
the evidence reveal any concrete path known to or established
by Muhtorov to achieve his intended goal of supporting the
IJU. Indeed, he was a self-described braggart who craved
attention and admiration from others, making the resoluteness
of his actions and intentions questionable.
examining Muhtorov‘s individual circumstances and
reaching the conclusions detailed below, I have considered
the initial and revised Presentence Investigation Reports
(ECF Nos. 1929 and 1957) and Muhtorov‘s Objections (ECF
No. 1951) and the Addendum (ECF No. 1958) to the Report. I
have reviewed as well the government‘s Amended
Sentencing Statement (ECF Nos. 1944-1, 1944-2),
Muhtorov‘s Sentencing Statement (ECF No. 1949), his
Supplement thereto (ECF No. 1950), his Memorandum Regarding
Sentencing Guidelines (ECF No. 1918), his Motion for Variant
Sentence and Downward Departure (ECF No. 1955), the letter
from him as a Supplement thereto (ECF No. 1956-1), and the
government‘s eleventh-hour Response to Muhtorov‘s
filings (ECF No. 1961) that I have stricken. Before deciding
the appropriate sentence, I have also listened to and
reflected on the statements of the prosecution and defense
counsel and Muhtorov‘s allocution.
was born in 1976 in Jizzakh, Uzbekistan, which at that time
was part of the Soviet Union. His mother was a teacher and
his father a surgeon. He was the eldest of five
siblings-three boys and two girls.
1991, when Muhtorov was about 15, the Soviet Union collapsed,
and Islam Karimov became the President of Uzbekistan. Steven
Swerdlow, an expert on the human rights history of
Uzbekistan, described the country‘s human rights record
under Karimov as "atrocious" and
"abysmal," commenting that it was "by far one
of the worst and most repressive situations of human rights
on earth." Trial Tr. at 1429:6-12. During this time, the
Uzbek government stamped out free expression, imprisoned
thousands of people on false charges, and tortured detainees.
Id. at 1429:21-1431:14. Uzbekistan further
promulgated some of the world‘s most restrictive laws
on religion, under which individuals were forced to practice
their religion within the strict confines required by the
Uzbek government. Id. at 1437:3-13.
these circumstances, Tohir Yuldashev and Juma Namangani
formed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) with the
purpose of toppling Islam Karimov‘s regime. Trial Tr.
at 168:5-25. The Islamic Jihad Union, the organization
Muhtorov sought to support, splintered from the IMU in late
2001 or early 2002, seeking to focus its efforts globally
instead of on Uzbekistan alone. Trial Tr. at 161:20-21,
167:11-13. The IJU has been affiliated with al-Qaeda and the
Taliban and has fought U.S. and coalition forces in
Afghanistan. Trial Tr. at 162:14-17, 163:1-5, 169:12-19. In
its heyday around 2006, the organization had about 100 to 200
members, but its numbers dwindled substantially after that
time. Trial Tr. at 202:17-19, 203:13-16.
went on to attend a polytechnical university and to graduate
with a degree in construction engineering. In 2001, he
married his wife Nargiza and went to work for the Uzbek human
rights organization Ezgulik. As a human rights advocate,
Muhtorov fought to protect farmers‘ rights, appearing
in court and meeting with representatives from various
non-governmental organizations and foreign embassies.
13, 2005, in the Uzbek city of Andijan, government troops
opened fire on a peaceful protest. It is estimated that
between 700 and 1, 000 people were killed at what has become
known as the "Andijan Massacre". Afterwards,
Muhtorov publicized reports from the incident and spoke out
in opposition to the Uzbek government‘s actions. As a
result of this advocacy, he was beaten on two occasions. The
second time, in November 2005, his nose was broken and he
lost consciousness. Muhtorov‘s family paid a hefty
price for his work as well. His mother and his brother,
Hurshid, were terminated from their jobs, and his sister and
father were arrested.
Muhtorov believed the threat from the Uzbek government was
serious enough that he fled to Kyrgyzstan. His wife and two
children joined him there. During the months he lived in
Kyrgyztan, Muhtorov began researching the various sects of
Islam, including the Hizb ut-Tahrir, Tabligh, and Akromiya
sects. He continued his inquiry in the years that followed,
studying the Salafi sect and ultimately embracing his
curiosity about terrorist sects. He had never been permitted
to explore such interests in Uzbekistan.
in Kyrgyzstan, Muhtorov and his family applied for and were
granted admission to the United States as political refugees.
In February 2007, they moved to Denver, Colorado, where he
found employment first as a janitor in a casino and then in a
meat packing plant. In search of a better-paying job, he
decided to obtain his commercial truck driver‘s
license, which led him to meet Jumaev. In December 2009, a
friend of Muhtorov arranged for him to stay in Jumaev‘s
apartment in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while he studied to
take his commercial license exam.
and Muhtorov had similar backgrounds. Both were from
Uzbekistan and had come to the United States after
experiencing brutality at the hands of the Uzbek authorities.
Over the months that passed after Muhtorov returned home,
they developed a long-distance friendship in which they
discussed a wide variety of topics, including their families,
Islam, current events, and the immigrant experience in the
U.S. They also conversed about the IJU and the IMU, the
history of those terrorist organizations, and related
propaganda videos they found online. In speaking about these
organizations, they often used ambiguous code words, like
wedding, resort, Switzerland, alpinists, and sportsmen.
Muhtorov also took the precaution of employing
anonymizers to access terrorism-related websites and
instructed Jumaev how to do the same. Gov‘t Trial Ex.
19A at 3-7.
2009 to his arrest in this case, Muhtorov communicated over
the internet with the website administrator for Sodiqlar.com,
the the IJU‘s website. Trial Tr. at 1250:4-7. Muhtorov
developed such a relationship with the website administrator
that he sent pictures of his young children and of himself
with a beard. Gov‘t Trial Exs. 111A at 1, 116A at 1,
116B at 1, 530 at 1, 530A at 1.
February 2010, Jumaev was detained by U.S. Department of
Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
for overstaying his visa. Jumaev borrowed money from friends
and acquaintances to pay his bond, including $500 from
Muhtorov. After his arrest, Jumaev struggled to manage his
and his family‘s debts, so he did not pay Muhtorov back
for many months.
repeatedly hinted to Jumaev about his need to at least
partially repay the loan. By March 2011, Muhtorov informed
the IJU that "Abu Bakr," Jumaev‘s moniker,
had promised to send him $300 for the organization.
Gov‘t Trial Ex. 107A at 2. Muhtorov then relayed to
Jumaev that the IJU had written him that it was in dire need
of financial support. Gov‘t Trial Ex. 125A at 2. Jumaev
gathered $300 and used a friend‘s check to send the
money to Muhtorov. After a few days passed, Jumaev pressed
Muhtorov on whether he had received the "wedding
gift." Gov‗t Trial Ex. 128A at 1. Shortly after,
the check was delivered.
Muhtorov‘s wife spent the $300 from Jumaev on their
family‘s expenses, Muhtorov continued to tell others
about Jumaev‘s "wedding gift" for the IJU.
Muhtorov informed the website administrator for the IJU that
a brother had sent him a $300 "wedding gift" and
asked what he should do with it. Gov‘t Trial Ex. 112A
at 1. Similarly, he told a Confidential Human Source for the
FBI that a brother had sent him $300 for the IJU, but the IJU
would not tell him how to get the money to it. Gov‘t
Trial Ex. 157A at 7.
after receiving Jumaev‘s check, Muhtorov emailed the
IJU website administrator an oath of allegiance stating that
he would perform any task for the organization even if it
meant risking death. Gov‘t Trial Ex. 107A at
The evidence shows that the IJU only ever requested that he
upload and distribute terrorist propaganda materials and help
them to acquire satellite internet equipment. Gov‘t
Trial Exs. 100A at 2, 101A at 1, 105A at 2, 109A at 1-3, 118A
at 1, 124A at 1. Instead of carrying out the assignments
himself, Muhtorov sought assistance from the FBI Confidential
Human Source. Gov‘t Trial Exs. 121A at 1, 157A at 2-11,
158A at 2, 162A at 16-22, 167A at 13-14.
frequently sent money to his parents and his brother Hurshid,
who was in Kazakhstan attempting to obtain refugee status in
Canada. Muhtorov‘s parents urged him to assist his
brother with the immigration process. In August 2011,
Muhtorov told Hurshid:
You will go to Istanbul Turkey. I will talk to the brothers
and solve your living arrangements and other things. We will
submit your documents there. You will have an interview. I
will find all your documents there . . . . There is an
Islamic school there. You will study for 45 days and then you
will leave . . . . You will come to America. You will come
with my documents. Do you understand? You will come here as
Def. Trial Ex. 697A at 7.
January 16, 2012, Muhtorov purchased a one-way ticket to
Istanbul, Turkey, that was to depart five days later. He told
countless contradictory stories about the length,
destination, and purpose of his trip to every listening ear
he could find. In a call to his pregnant wife on January 19,
2012, he instructed her to prepare to leave the U.S. by
filing for their tax refund as soon as possible, selling
their furniture, and buying tickets for her and the children
to meet him in Turkey. Gov‘t Trial Ex. 152A at 24, 33.
Shortly before that call, he reminded his eight-year-old
daughter: "Remember, I told you to pray for your Daddy
to become a martyr . . . Don‘t pray, ‗Don‘t
let him leave!‘ It will be a curse for me . . . . Pray
and say, ‗Make my father a martyr, one of real
martyrs.‘" Gov‘t Trial Ex. 146A at 1.
discussed his travel plans with Jumaev for months until
Jumaev complained: "Sir[, ] I envy you. You too are
leaving to a wedding. I want to go to the wedding, too."
Gov‘t Trial Ex. 131A at 3. Less than two weeks before
Muhtorov was to travel, Jumaev told him: "You are going
to die either way. You are going to die here as it is and you
are going to die there as it is. What‘s the difference?
The only one difference is that death over there is
better!" Gov‘t Trial Ex. 149A at 26. Muhtorov
responded: "It is so." Id.
friend Mustafa, Muhtorov claimed he would not be coming back
from Turkey even though he had led his wife to believe he
would. Gov‘t Trial Ex. 153A at 6-7. To the Confidential
Human Source, Muhtorov first explained that he would leave
for Turkey and take his family along, placing his children in
a madrasa there while he determined how to proceed further.
Gov‘t Trial Ex. 156A. As he became more eager to
travel, Muhtorov described his feeling to the Source, saying:
"[I]f God is protecting me now, then He will protect me
at the wedding house as well . . . . I can‘t help it.
I‘m getting so excited." Gov‘t Trial Ex.
166A at 3. Then, days before leaving, he reported to the
Source that the IJU wanted him to work in the propaganda and
recruitment unit and not to "deploy to the
wedding." Gov‘t Trial Ex. 168A at 12.
told his former employer that he was going to Istanbul to
help his brother and asked if he would be able to get his job
back. He did not say, however, that he would in fact be
returning. Trial Tr. at 1414:21-1415:9, 1416:9-12. In
contrast, he indicated to the taxi driver who drove him to
the airport that he would only be gone for ten days to two
weeks. Trial Tr. at 801:10-13.
not to "have all kind of problems at the airport,"
Muhtorov shaved off his beard before his flight. Gov‘t
Trial Ex. at 9. On January 21, 2012, the day he was to fly
out, he hired a taxi driver to spend three to four hours
driving him around Chicago. At Muhtorov‘s direction,
they went to Best Buy so he could purchase an iPad, to a
mosque, to an Arabic restaurant, to an Apple Store where he
picked up two new iPhones, and then to the airport. He paid
the driver $600.
was arrested that afternoon at O‘Hare Airport in
Chicago. In his possession were $2, 865 in cash and the two
new iPhones and iPad. His luggage contained suits, bags of
candy, immigration forms, documents regarding his work with
Ezgulik, and a letter from Jewish Family Service of Colorado,
among other items. He was also carrying his cellphone, on
which he had downloaded many violent terrorist propaganda
videos. After being advised of his rights, he admitted to FBI
agents that he knew the IJU was a terrorist organization and
that he had been in communication with the IJU website
trial, Muhtorov testified on his own behalf. His counsel
advanced the argument that he was playing "Jamshid the
jihadi warrior" out of boredom and did not intend to
follow through with his claims or actually support terrorism.
His testimony supported this claim to some extent, but
otherwise, provided no clear narrative regarding his
actions. In his testimony, he acknowledged he had
the same principal goal as the IJU-to overthrow the Uzbek
regime, specifically that of Islam Karimov, and he claimed he
only communicated with the IJU and downloaded their videos to
discover their strategy towards Uzbekistan. Trial Tr. at
by calculating the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
range for Muhtorov. I do so because I must, see Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007), even though-as I
have previously notified the parties and explained in
sentencing Jumaev-I find the Guidelines illogical and
inadequate in this case. See Jumaev, 2018 WL
3490886, at *8-13. Even if the following calculation is in
error, however, it has no impact on the ultimate sentence.
See United States v. Sabillon-Umana, 772 F.3d 1328,
1334 (10th Cir. 2014) (acknowledging that remanding for
resentencing does not help the defendant or enhance the
integrity of judicial proceedings when a district judge
analyzes a case under alternative theories and indicates he
or she would arrive at the same sentencing conclusion either
way); United States v. Gieswein, 887 F.3d 1054,
1062-63 (10th Cir. 2018).
Calculation of Guidelines Range
Sentencing Guideline (U.S.S.G.) § 2M5.3(a) sets the Base
Level for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B at 26.
Muhtorov‘s three counts are grouped together under the
Guidelines because they involve a common criminal objective
and constitute part of a common scheme or plan. See
U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2. Muhtorov has no known criminal
history, making his Criminal History Category I. Without any
specific offense characteristics increase, adjustments, or
departures, Muhtorov‘s Guidelines range is 63 to 78
Guideline for convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B
provides for a two-level increase "[i]f the offense
involved the provision of (A) dangerous weapons; (B)
firearms; (C) explosives; (D) funds with the intent,
knowledge, or reason to believe such funds would be used to
purchase any of the items described in subdivisions (A)
through (C); or (E) funds or other material support or
resources with the intent, knowledge, or reason to believe
they are to be used to commit or assist in the commission of
a violent act . . . ." U.S.S.G. § 2M5.3(b)(1).
contests the application of this increase. I find the
government has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that it is applicable. Muhtorov cites United
States v. Dhirane, Nos. 17-4205, 17-4226, 2018 WL
3421085, at *7 (4th Cir. July 16, 2018), to emphasize that he
must have known or had reason to believe that his
support-$300 and providing himself as
personnel-"would be used to assist in acts of
violence by the terrorist organization." Muhtorov
Sentencing Statement at 17-18. In focusing on the "would
be used" portion of that statement, Muhtorov loses the
significance of the word "assist." As found by
Congress and endorsed by the Supreme Court, "[F]oreign
organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so
tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to
such an organization facilitates that conduct."
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 47
(2010) (quoting Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (AEDPA), § 301(a)(7), 110 Stat. 1247, note
following 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (Findings and Purpose)).
Muhtorov knew or had reason to believe that the $300, even if
it went to feed the orphans of IJU fighters, would
"assist" in acts of violence by freeing up other
money to support that cause. Likewise, he knew or had reason
to believe that offering himself as personnel to the
organization, even as a propagandist or recruiter, would
"assist" others in the organization to engage in
violent activity. Therefore, Muhtorov‘s offense level
is subject to a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. §
Guidelines inquiry does not end there; the facts of this case
and the parties compel me to consider numerous other
adjustments and departures. First, I must evaluate the
application of the so-called Terrorism Enhancement found in
U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. Since the government again contends
the Obstruction of Justice Enhancement in § 3C1.1 is
applicable, I must also iterate the unmet requirements of
that provision. After resolving those issues, I consider
Muhtorov‘s requests to reduce his offense level for
acceptance of responsibility and depart based on his lack of
criminal history, his prior good works and commitment to
public service, and the immigration consequences he faces.
§ 3A1.4: Terrorism Enhancement
Terrorism Enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4 provides:
(a) If the offense is a felony that involved, or was intended
to promote, a federal crime of terrorism, increase by 12
levels; but if the resulting offense level is less than level
32, increase to level 32.
(b) In each such case, the defendant‘s criminal history
category from Chapter Four (Criminal History and Criminal
Livelihood) shall be Category VI.
U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4. Thus, the Enhancement functions by
both increasing the offense level at least 12 levels and
moving the defendant to the highest Criminal History
applies when the predicate offense either "(1)
‗involve[s]‘ a federal crime of terrorism or (2)
[is] ‗intended to promote‘ a federal crime of
terrorism." United States v. Awan, 607 F.3d
306, 313 (2d Cir. 2010). A "federal crime of
terrorism" is defined, for the purposes of the
Enhancement, as "an offense that-(A) is calculated to
influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation
or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
(B) is a violation of-[a list of enumerated offenses,
including] (i) section . . . 2339B (relating to providing
material support to terrorist organizations) . . . ."
Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.4; 18 U.S.C. §
consider whether Muhtorov‘s predicate offenses
"involve" a federal crime of terrorism. Since his
offenses are enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B), I
need only find that they were "calculated to influence
or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or
coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct."
18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5); Awan, 607 F.3d at
316-17. "‗Calculation‘ is concerned with the
object that the actor seeks to achieve through planning or
contrivance . . . Section 2332b(g)(5)(A) does not focus on
the defendant but on his ‗offense, ‘ asking
whether it was calculated, i.e.,
planned-for whatever reason or motive-to achieve the stated
object." Awan, 607 F.3d at 317. I find by a
preponderance of the evidence that Muhtorov had the specific
intent to influence the Uzbek government by providing the IJU
with $300 and himself as personnel.
trial, Muhtorov admitted he had the goal of overthrowing the
Uzbek regime and was interested in the IJU because they had
the same goal. Trial Tr. at 1222:18-1223:1. He communicated
with the IJU‘s website administrator for years,
eventually offering to assist with any task even if he had to
risk death. He enrolled others in his schemes with the IJU,
including Jumaev and the FBI Confidential Human Source. He
used anonymizers and code words. For nearly a year before
setting his plans in motion, he discussed his travels to
Turkey, all the while waiting for an "invitation to the
wedding". He then shaved his beard immediately before he
embarked to avoid trouble in the airport. He was calculated.
Muhtorov did not directly intend to influence, affect, or
retaliate against a government, which I find he did, his
offenses "intended to promote" the commission of
federal crimes of terrorism by others, namely IJU members.
"[A]n offense is ‗intended to promote‘ a
federal crime of terrorism when the offense is intended to
help bring about, encourage, or contribute to" such a
crime. Awan, 607 F.3d at 314. I find
Muhtorov‘s conspiracy and attempt to provide $300 and
his attempt to provide himself as personnel were carried out
with the intent to encourage or contribute to the IJU‘s
commission of federal crimes of terrorism. Muhtorov had
in-depth knowledge of and supported the IJU‘s mission
and activity. See, e.g., Gov‘t Trial
Ex. 125A at 2-3; Trial Tr. at 1222:24-1223:1. He knew what
the organization was up to, i.e., federal crimes of
terrorism, and he endeavored to assist it.
Muhtorov‘s offenses qualify under either prong of the
Terrorism Enhancement. As the Enhancement requires, his
offense level is subject to a 12-level increase and he is
placed in Criminal History Category VI.
§ 3C1.1: Obstruction of Justice Enhancement
government argues, as it did for Jumaev‘s sentencing,
that the Obstruction of Justice Enhancement in U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1 mandates that I increase Muhtorov‘s
offense level by two levels. The enhancement is only
applicable if the government demonstrates by a preponderance
of the evidence that:
(1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or
attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of
justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or
sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the
obstructive conduct related to (A) the defendant‗s
offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a
closely related offense . . . .
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The government highlights two examples
of conduct covered by the adjustment-committing perjury
"if such perjury pertains to conduct that forms the
basis of the offense of conviction" and "providing
materially false information to a judge or magistrate
judge." Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
establish that Muhtorov has committed perjury for the
purposes of the Enhancement, the government must show his
conduct fulfills the elements of the criminal statute.
"A witness testifying under oath or affirmation violates
[the criminal perjury statute] if he gives false testimony
concerning a material matter with the willful intent to
provide false testimony, rather than as a result of
confusion, mistake, or faulty memory." United States
v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Additionally, as
observed in United States v. Massey, 48 F.3d 1560,
1573 (10th Cir. 1995), "it has long been a requirement
in the Tenth Circuit that the perjurious statement be
identified, at least in substance." The government
claims Muhtorov‘s perjurious statements are: "that
the $300 payment from JUMAEV was repayment of a debt and not
intended for the IJU; that he continued assisting the IJU in
order to earn their trust as part of carrying on a fantasy
persona; and, that he did not travel in order to join the
IJU." Gov‘t‘s Am. Sentencing Statement at
12, ECF No. 1944-1. The government argues that the
jury‘s verdict demonstrates that it rejected
Muhtorov‘s testimony on these matters.
the Supreme Court has cautioned: "[N]ot every accused
who testifies at trial and is convicted will incur an
enhanced sentence under § 3C1.1 for committing perjury .
. . . [The accused‘s] testimony may be truthful, but
the jury may nonetheless find the testimony insufficient to
excuse criminal liability or to prove lack of intent."
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95. The prosecution demands I
dismiss Muhtorov‘s statements as fabrication. I am
unwilling to do so and have no legal basis to conclude the
jury did. The facts were fairly uncontested, and there is no
indication that Muhtorov had the willful intent to provide
false testimony. His defense propounded the legitimate
question: Was he engaging in make-believe and only posing as
a violent jihadist ...