Skip to main content

Jury Convicts Pakistani Citizen of Conspiring to Support the Taliban and Unlawful Possession of Firearms

HOUSTON—After a three-day trial, a federal jury has convicted Adnan Mirza, 33, of all nine counts in an indictment arising from his efforts to provide support and funds to the Taliban, U.S. Attorney José Angel Moreno announced. Mirza, a citizen of Pakistan, had entered the United States on a student visa and was attending a local community college in 2005 and 2006 when he committed the offenses for which he was convicted.

The jury returned its verdicts Thursday night, finding Mirza guilty of conspiracy to unlawfully possess firearms, conspiracy to provide funds to the Taliban and all seven counts of unlawful possession by an alien of firearms and ammunition. U.S.District Judge Ewing Werlein, who presided over the trial, has set sentencing for Sept. 10, 2010. Mirza faces a maximum of five years imprisonment for each of the two conspiracy convictions as well as fines of up to $250,000. Each of the five unlawful possession of firearms or ammunition by an alien carries a maximum fine of $250,000 and a term of confinement of not more than 10 years. Mirza has been in federal custody without bond since his arrest and will remain in custody pending his sentencing hearing.

During the trial, the government presented evidence that proved Mirza, a foreign national who had entered the United States on a student visa, is not permitted by federal law to possess firearms while in this country. Through an FBI undercover investigation, the evidence also proved Mirza and others engaged in weekend camping/training and practice sessions with firearms on six different occasions beginning in May 2006 at a location on the north side of Houston to prepare for Jihad. Evidence also proved Mirza and the others intended to send funds to the Taliban.

The investigation leading to the charges against Mirza and others was conducted by the Houston office of the FBI with the assistance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Deputy Criminal Chief Glenn Cook and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McAlister prosecuted the case for the United States.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more