Terror Across America / Radical Islamic Terrorist Sami Osmakac’s conviction for plot to bomb Tampa night clubs upheld by Appeals Court

Spread the love

the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
Linda's Cafe new location now open
WHISTLE BLOWERS WANTED
Capt. Larry Jarboe shares his secrets
Click to website for Special Offers

MacDinton’s Irish Pub in Tampa was a target of Islamic terror bomber.

Terror Across America / Radical Islamic Terrorist Sami Osmakac’s conviction for plot to bomb Tampa night clubs upheld by Appeals Court

TAMPA, FLA. – Acting United States Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed the conviction and sentence of Sami Osmakac (30, Pinellas Park) for attempted use of weapons of mass destruction and possession of a fully automatic firearm. A federal jury found him guilty in June 2014. In November 2014, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven sentenced Osmakac to 40 years’ imprisonment.

Sami Osmakac from Albania found guilty of radical Islamic motivated plot to bomb two nightclubs in Tampa Fla.

Seminole Hard Rock Casino was target of convicted Islamic Terrorist

According to testimony and evidence presented at trial, on January 7, 2012, as part of a terrorist plot, Osmakac attempted to use weapons of mass destruction, including a car bomb, grenades, and a suicide explosive, at two locations in the Tampa Bay area, specifically; MacDinton’s Irish Pub and the Seminole Hard Rock Casino. Additionally, on January 7, 2012,

THE CHESAPEAKE TODAY Vol 10 No 3 now available on newsstands in Md, Del. and Va. CLICK to buy now worldwide at Amazon in Kindle Print Replica edition, download the free Kindle APP to your desktop. FREE for Kindle Unlimited customers

Osmakac possessed a machine gun without the firearm being registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

On appeal, Osmakac argued that his surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) had violated the law, that a misstatement by the government during closing arguments had made his trial unfair, and that the district court should have imposed a lower sentence based on the government’s purported sentencing-factor manipulation.

The evidence at trial, the Court observed, had established that, as early as December 2010, Osmakac had “demonstrated a commitment to Islamic extremism.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected each of these arguments. The evidence at trial, the Court observed, had established that, as early as December 2010, Osmakac had “demonstrated a commitment to Islamic extremism.” As to the FISA argument, the Court held that the surveillance of Osmakac pursuant to FISA had been proper and constitutional. The Court also held that the government’s misstatement in closing argument had been corrected by the district court and had been counteracted by the “substantial evidence of Osmakac’s guilt.” Finally, the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot. The Court further noted that, even though Osmakac had “multiple chances” to decline to use a car bomb, “he never did, even after multiple warnings.”

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was prosecuted in the district court by Assistant United States Attorney Sara C. Sweeney and Trial Attorney Clement McGovern from the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. The appeal was handled by Assistant United States Attorneys Cherie L. Krigsman, David P. Rhodes, and Sara C. Sweeney.

the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.
the Court held that the district court had correctly rejected Osmakac’s sentencing-factor manipulation argument because Osmakac, not the government, had “initiated and greatly escalated the planned terrorist attack by asking” to use weapons of mass destruction as part of his violent plot.