UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-4510 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEITU SULAYMAN KOKAYI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cr-00410-LMB-1) Argued: July 16, 2021 Decided: August 24, 2021 Before FLOYD, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Anthony Hamilton Nourse, LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY H. NOURSE, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia; Mark John Petrovich, PETROVICH & WALSH, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Joseph Attias, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: G. Zachary Terwilliger, United States Attorney, Kellen S. Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Dennis M. Fitzpatrick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Seitu Sulayman Kokayi (“Appellant”) appeals his conviction on two counts of coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and one count of transferring obscene material to a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470. The Government gathered the evidence supporting these convictions while Appellant was under surveillance pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). Appellant lodges four challenges to his convictions. First, he claims the district court erred in denying his requests to disclose and suppress the evidence collected pursuant to FISA. Second, he contends that his convictions pursuant to § 2422(b) violate double jeopardy. He argues that the convictions were for violations of the same statute and based on the same course of conduct and facts. Third, Appellant maintains that one of his convictions pursuant to § 2422(b) violates the Equal Protection Clause because § 2422(b) more heavily penalizes those who use interstate communication facilities to engage in prohibited sexual conduct with minors. And fourth, he challenges the convictions for lack of sufficient evidence. For the reasons explained below, we find no error and affirm. I. A. Factual Background Appellant was convicted following a bench trial. The following facts were presented at trial. We view them in the light most favorable to the Government. See United States v. Garcia-Ochoa, 607 F.3d 371, 376 (4th Cir. 2010). 3 At the time of the underlying events giving rise to this case, Appellant, a United States citizen, was 29 years old. From 2009 until his arrest in August 2018, he was a teacher at a mosque in Washington, D.C., where he taught the Koran to students between the ages of five and 18. The 15 year old victim (hereinafter “Victim”) was a student of Appellant’s at the time of the charged conduct. She had been his student on and off for five to six years, after she and her family immigrated to the United States from Ethiopia. Appellant was also socially familiar with the Victim’s family, and he sometimes drove the Victim and her sister to and from Koran class. The Victim got her own iPhone …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals