Tarek Abou-Khatwa appealed his sentence for a complex, multi-year insurance fraud system. He has previously asked the court to postpone the start of his imprisonment pending the outcome of the appeal. On January 31, 2022, the court rejected his request, declaring that the defendant's appeal did not involve an "when question" on each point on which he was sentenced to prison.
I United States of America v Tarek Abou-Khatw a, Criminal No. 18-cr-67 (TSC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (February 4, 2022) Tarek's multiple appeals in an attempt to avoid were appealed again to the USDC.
intends to lodge a second appeal, this time challenging the decision of the Court of Justice on 31 January, and he requested that he himself – the date of surrender be postponed pending the outcome of the new appeal.
The defendant's conviction is assumed to be valid and he bears the burden of refuting this presumption. In his previous motion, the defendant failed to refute this presumption because he did not present a "substantive legal issue" regarding each case of his conviction for which he risks imprisonment. Consequently, the court held the defendant's self-surrender date in place.
The defendant, who is not deterred by his losses in the USDC, now claims that the date of his self-surrender should be delayed while he appeals the decision. He argued that his current date of self-surrender was not "sufficient to allow time for information before both the district court and the court of appeal, which the parties originally intended." He argues that additional time is required for "a request to the D.C. Circuit appealing this court's decision to deny release pending an appeal [to be] decided by that court." He also claims that a refusal to grant further delay would "frustrate [e] his rights of appeal under Section 3145 (c) and Rule 9 (b)."
The court did not agree that emergency measures are necessary to avoid "frustrating his rights of appeal ". under Section 3145 (c) and Rule 9 (b). ”
First, 18 USC § 3145 (c) relates to appeals against decisions on deprivation of liberty, not release from custody, and therefore it is not applicable. Second, nothing in the Court's decision of 31 January 2022 restricts the defendant's ability to seek relief from the Court of Appeal. The court, which is aware that the timeline for the defendant to both appeal the court's decision on 31 January and receive a decision on the appeal before the date of self-surrender on 10 February, is truncated. But the defendant – not the court – is responsible for the fast schedule.
In fact, the defendant informed the court that he was appealing his judgment of 10 June 2021 and lodged his appeal on 1 November 2021. The defendant could have moved to postpone his date of surrender pending an appeal at that time, but instead waited until 6 December 2021. When the defendant eventually filed his motion, he requested only a one-month delay, from January 10 to February 10, 2022, which the court granted.
And third, rather than immediately appealing the court's decision on January 31, the defendant waited two days to seek help again and then proposed an additional two-day briefing schedule. In short, the defendant's concern about his ability to obtain relief from the circuit is a product of his own deed.
Finally, in a footnote to his defense, the defendant requests that if the court rejects the present motion that he be allowed "a short adjournment, such as two weeks, so that he can appeal the court's disposition of the immediate motion." In other words, the defendant would like to have three appeals: one which challenges the merits of his conviction, which is now fully informed and awaits disposition from the district, another which questions the decision of the court of 31 January rejecting his request to postpone his sentence pending the first appeal, which the defendant reports "filed today", and a third party questioning this decision to reject his request to postpone his sentence pending the resolution of the second appeal.  Consequently, the court rejected the defendant's most recent request to delay the start of his imprisonment. explanation of the term "chutzpah" or unabated bile.His efforts continue to fail and it is time to have n reports to federal prison and begins his sentence following conviction for fraud. The USDOJ should consider determining what other crimes he was involved in that give him money to support the many motions and appeals.
© 2022 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to the position of insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, handling insurance claims, bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurance fraudsters. policyholder.
He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an attorney for insurance coverage and claims management and more than 54 years in the insurance industry.
Subscribe to "Zalma on Insurance" at https: //zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/ subscribe and "Excellence in Claims Handling" at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
You can contact Mr. Zalma at https://www.zalma.com, https://www.claimschool.com, firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award.
The podcast "Zalma On Insurance" may be of interest at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; you can follow Zalma on Twitter at; you should watch Barry Zalma's videos at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg/featured; or videos at https://rumble.com/zalma. Go to Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims–library/ The last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance- fraud -letter-2 /