The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Alexei Saab, who was found guilty of receiving military training from Hezbollah, a designated foreign terrorist organization, over a nine-year period from 1996 to 2005.
In 2022, a jury convicted Saab on multiple charges, including violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339D and 3238 for receiving military-type training from Hezbollah. The defendant, who used several aliases including Ali Hassan Saab, Alex Saab, and Rachid, was sentenced principally to 10 years in prison on the terrorism training charge.
The case, argued on Jan. 10, 2025, and decided on Jan. 14, 2026, revealed significant timing complications that neither the parties nor the district court initially recognized. U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe applied a 12-level sentencing enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3A1.4, known as the Terrorism Enhancement, because he determined that the Section 2339D offense constituted a federal crime of terrorism. The enhancement also automatically placed Saab in criminal history category VI.
However, the appeals court noted that Section 2339D, the statute under which Saab was convicted, was not enacted until Dec. 17, 2004, through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. This timing issue is particularly significant because Saab's alleged training activities with Hezbollah occurred from 1996 to 2005, meaning most of his conduct predated the law's existence.
Additionally, the court observed that neither the parties nor the trial court were aware that the statute of limitations waiver under 18 U.S.C. § 3286(b) and the Terrorism Enhancement did not apply to Section 2339D offenses until March 9, 2006. This date falls after all of Saab's charged conduct related to the terrorism training count had concluded.
The Second Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Sullivan, Bianco, and Robinson, examined these timing discrepancies in their review of the case. The limitations waiver and terrorism enhancement provisions were extended to Section 2339D offenses through amendments to definitional provisions cross-referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Hezbollah has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, making it illegal for U.S. persons to receive training from the group under federal anti-terrorism laws. The organization, also known as Hizballah, is based in Lebanon and has been involved in numerous terrorist activities worldwide.
Saab's case highlights the complex legal issues that can arise when prosecuting terrorism-related offenses that span multiple years and involve conduct that may have occurred before relevant statutes were enacted or before certain provisions became applicable.
The conviction under Section 2339D represents the government's ongoing efforts to prosecute individuals who have received training from designated foreign terrorist organizations, even when such training occurred years or decades earlier. These prosecutions often rely on the statute of limitations waiver provisions that allow the government to bring charges long after the alleged conduct occurred.
The terrorism sentencing enhancement applied in Saab's case significantly increased his potential prison term. Under the Guidelines, the 12-level enhancement and automatic placement in the highest criminal history category substantially elevated the recommended sentencing range.
The appeals court's decision to uphold the conviction and sentence demonstrates the judiciary's approach to applying terrorism-related statutes and enhancements, even when complex timing issues are involved. The ruling reinforces the government's authority to prosecute individuals for terrorism training activities and apply enhanced sentences in such cases.
The case also illustrates the importance of careful statutory analysis in terrorism prosecutions, particularly when dealing with conduct that spans multiple years and may involve laws that were enacted or amended during the relevant time period.
Saab's appeal challenged both his conviction and the application of the terrorism sentencing enhancement, but the Second Circuit ultimately found sufficient grounds to affirm the lower court's decision despite the timing complications identified in the statutory framework.
The affirmation of Saab's conviction adds to the body of federal case law establishing how courts handle terrorism training prosecutions and the application of related sentencing enhancements in cases involving designated foreign terrorist organizations.