Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Hussain (Dkt. 129, D. Md.)

Summary

The government's opposition to the defendant's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Ahmed Hussain, Criminal Nos. DLB-23-183 and DLB-23-376, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed August 28, 2025 as Document 129 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph L. Wenner. It responds to three defense arguments. The government argues that Hussain has not substantially reformed since his November 2022 arrest, stating that he cut off his ankle monitor in August 2024 and was later charged with new offenses. It argues that his new claim that youth mitigates a long sentence contradicts his position at the detention hearings that he is an adult. It also disputes that he carried a firearm solely for self-protection, citing his stipulation that he possessed a 9mm handgun in relation to drug trafficking.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB          Document 129         Filed 08/28/25       Page 1 of 5



                        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                          *
                                                   *
         v.                                        *    CRIMINAL NO. DLB-23-183
                                                   *    CRIMINAL NO. DLB-23-376
 AHMED HUSSAIN,                                    *
                                                   *
                  Defendant.                       *
                                                   *
                                                *******

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

        The government writes to respond to three arguments that the Defendant raised in his

sentencing memorandum. The government reserves the right to raise additional responsive points

at sentencing.

   I.         The Defendant has not substantially reformed since his 2022 arrest.

        The Defendant states that he has demonstrated “substantial signs of reform” since his arrest

in November 2022 and the birth of his daughter in February 2023. Def. Sentencing Mem. at 18-

20. Such a claim ignores the basic facts of this case.

        The Defendant cut off his ankle monitor in August 2024. Eventually, law enforcement

found him and charged him with several new offenses: first degree assault, second degree assault,

malicious destruction of property, and controlled substance possession. This is the second time

that the Defendant has cutoff an ankle monitor. In 2020, he also removed an ankle monitor and

absconded. PSR ¶ 77. The Defendant’s carbon copy flight attempts show he is not reforming.

While under release and under court supervision, the Defendant continued his criminal conduct,

ignored the responsibilities in his life, and flouted the conditions of his release.

        The Defendant also does not express remorse for removing his ankle monitor. He told his

own expert that he did “not really think[] about the consequences of cutting off his box while

                                                   1

         Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB        Document 129        Filed 08/28/25     Page 2 of 5



awaiting trial, only that he wanted to continue making money.” Def. Ex. 3 at 5. He further

explained to his expert that “he did not know other ways to make money and ‘get the things I

want.’” Id. By his own words, to the Defendant, “making money” means committing crimes.

Indeed, as documented in the PSR, the Defendant has never held a legitimate job. PSR ¶ 112. He

has instead financially supported himself through criminal activity. And these admissions to his

own expert, paired with his conduct on release, cut against any notion of the Defendant’s

“substantial” reform.

   II.      The Defendant is an adult, as he has previously argued before this Court.

         The Defendant now contends that his “youth” mitigates against a long prison term, relying,

in part, on an expert report and a white paper. See Def. Sentencing Mem. at 23-24; Def. Ex. 3 &

Def. Ex. 4. But this new argument is an about face from his prior representations at the detention

hearings in this case. There, the Defendant went to great lengths to show the Court that he had

matured into a responsible adult who could be trusted not to cut another ankle monitor while on

release.

         At the pre-trial detention hearing in front of Judge Quereshi, the Defendant’s former

counsel argued that he had matured since his state convictions because of the “the general maturity

and development that happens between when you’re 18 and when you’re 21.” Ex. A (Hussain July

14, 2023 Detention Tr. 32:23-25). The Defendant’s third-party custodian also told the Court he

was different than when he cutoff his ankle monitor: “[H]e’s more mature, he’s responsible, he

understands, you know, now I have a kid, and, you know, I have things that -- you know,

responsibilities and things to do and change.” Id. at 57:4-7. Judge Quereshi credited these

representations in denying the Government’s motion for pre-trial detention, “not[ing] that three

years, for an individual as young as Mr. Hussain, is more of a significant period of time.” Id. at

62:15-17; see also id. at 66:6-8 (“What he’s been doing for the past eight months in terms of

                                                 2

       Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB           Document 129        Filed 08/28/25      Page 3 of 5



complying with conditions is certainly more relevant in the life of a 21-year-old than what they

did when they were 18.”).

       After the government appealed Judge Quereshi’s release order, the Defendant continued to

emphasize that he was now a mature adult. His counsel explained to this Court that Judge Quereshi

had “credited my argument that cognitively there are significant changes that people -- young men

undergo during that period of time and that that is a changed circumstance that certainly suggests

that he would be less likely to engage in that type of behavior at this time.” Ex. B (Hussain July

17, 2023 Detention Tr. 9:11-15); see also id. at 13:9-11 (reiterating how the third-party custodian

has testified about the “kind of the changes he’s gone through in the last eight months, the maturity

and growth that she has seen in him”). The Court credited the argument that the three-year “passage

of time and the inherent maturity that occurs over that period” warranted pre-trial release. Id. at

41:12-13.

       If anything, the Defendant’s conduct shown that he has matured since 2020 and advanced

to committing sophisticated fraud. He now has the ability to execute more long-term crimes. As

noted in the Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, the Defendant worked with his co-

conspirators to coordinate a year-long fraud on Maryland’s unemployment insurance program,

delegating responsibilities, following up on the status of fraudulent claims, and maximizing the

illicit proceeds they were able to obtain. The fraud required the Defendant’s forethought, planning,

and organization. Perhaps tellingly, the expert report discusses the Defendant’s drug-dealing

activity, but is silent on his UI fraud scheme.

       The Defendant is grasping at straws to avoid a long jail sentence. In July 2023, he was a

mature man and expectant father and thus could be trusted on pre-trial release. In August 2025, he

is too immature to be held fully responsible for his conduct. The government asks the Court to

reject the Defendant’s opportunistic change in position.

                                                  3

       Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB            Document 129        Filed 08/28/25      Page 4 of 5



   III.      The Defendant did not carry a firearm solely for self-protection.

          Still unwilling to admit the gravity of his crimes, the Defendant “maintains the firearm was

kept solely for self-protection.” Def. Sentencing Mem. at 9. The Defendant, however, admitted in

the stipulation of facts that he “possessed the black Honor Defense 9mm handgun in relation to his

drug-trafficking activities.” ECF No. 101-1. Moreover, as the Court recognized at the detention

appeal hearing, while incarcerated on the related state gun case, the Defendant “threatened to put

a, quote, ‘switch’ on [a] person if the person did not give him $9,000.” Ex. B (Hussain July 17,

2023 Detention Tr. 38:2-4).

          The Defendant has admitted to the possessing a firearm tied to his drug trafficking

activities. He has admitted to participating in a wide spread conspiracy to defraud Maryland’s

unemployment insurance program during a national crisis. He fled from court supervision. These

facts merit the significant sentence that the government has requested.



                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                    Kelly O. Hayes
                                                    United States Attorney

                                                      /s/
                                                    Harry M. Gruber
                                                    Christopher Sarma
                                                    Joseph L. Wenner
                                                    Assistant United States Attorneys




                                                   4

       Case 8:23-cr-00376-DLB         Document 129       Filed 08/28/25      Page 5 of 5



                               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing government’s filing was served via email on

the defendant’s counsel.



                                                    ________/s/_______________
                                                    Joseph L. Wenner
                                                    Assistant United States Attorney




                                               5

File and source

File

129.pdf

Size

174,265 bytes

SHA-256

45eb08452fa2ed41bbe195c6a61da07a591cc6dba53bb0b4db4800c606bc1799

Our copy

129.pdf