United States v. Mujahid, No. 11-30276 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, during his time at the Anchorage Correctional Complex, repeatedly sexually assaulted other prisoners. Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2241 and three counts of abusive sexual contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2244. The court concluded that 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244 are not facially unconstitutional; they are “a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.” 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244 are plainly constitutional as applied to an individual in federal custody who is being held in a state facility pursuant to a contract with a federal agency. The court held that in prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, and 2244, the district court may determine as a matter of law whether the facility at which the alleged crime took place is one “in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency.” Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed defendant’s convictions for four counts of sexual abuse and three counts of abusive sexual contact while an inmate at the Anchorage Correctional Complex. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2242, and 2244, which criminalize sexual assaults in facilities where federal inmates are held by agreement with state and local governments, are not facially unconstitutional; they are a necessary and proper means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violations, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others. The panel held, for the same reasons, that §§ 2241, 2242, and 2244 are plainly constitutional as applied to an individual in federal custody who is being held in a state facility pursuant to a contract with a federal agency. The panel held that in prosecutions under §§ 2241, 2242, and 2244, the district court may determine as a matter of law whether the facility at which the alleged crime took place is one “in which persons are held in custody by direction of or UNITED STATES V. MUJAHID 3 pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.