Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Mohammed Al-Abadi

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 25-5488
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Panel: Ronald Lee Gilman, Raymond M. Kethledge

• Judges: Ronald Lee Gilman; Raymond M. Kethledge; Whitney D. Hermandorfer

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 26a0119n.06

No. 25-5488

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Mar 10, 2026
KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v. ) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
MOHAMMED AL-ABADI, )
Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION
)

Before: GILMAN, KETHLEDGE, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Mohammed Al-Abadi pled guilty to two charges of selling

and shipping counterfeit airbags. He now challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. We reject

his arguments and affirm.

I.

In December 2020, a Customs and Border Patrol officer inspected a package shipped from

China to an auto shop in Memphis; in the package, he found more than two dozen counterfeit

Honda airbag covers. Federal officers and state police began an investigation, and soon learned

that, over the past year, nearly 40 packages had been shipped from China to the shop. In January

2021, the police arranged for the package inspected by the CBP officer to be delivered to the shop.

When one of the shop’s employees—Al-Abadi—came to collect the package, the police detained

him. He eventually admitted that he had for some time been making airbags in his house and

selling them on eBay.
No. 25-5488, United States v. Al-Abadi

Police then searched Al-Abadi’s house, where they found hundreds of airbag components

and hundreds of shipping receipts for airbags already sold—including a FedEx receipt that showed

he had shipped an airbag (an explosive device) on a plane without declaring it as dangerous. Police

also reviewed his eBay records, which showed that, from 2017 to 2021, Al-Abadi had sold more

than 500 airbags for nearly $200,000.

A grand jury later indicted Al-Abadi for trafficking in counterfeit motor vehicle airbags, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320, and for recklessly transporting hazardous materials, in violation of

49 U.S.C. § 46312. He pled guilty. At sentencing, Al-Abadi admitted, for purposes of a sentencing

enhancement, that his counterfeit sales had inflicted a loss of between $95,000 and $150,000. The

district court calculated Al-Abadi’s guidelines range as 18 to 24 months, and the court sentenced

him to 24 months in prison. The court also imposed a two-year term of supervised release, which

included, as relevant here, four special conditions: that he allow his house, computer, and other

effects to be searched; that he notify, as directed by his probation officer, third parties of the risk

in associating with him; that he disclose all his financial information to the officer; and that he

obtain the officer’s approval before opening a new line of credit. This appeal followed.

II.

We review both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of Al-Abadi’s sentence for

an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Roper, 161 F.4th 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2025).

Al-Abadi challenges the procedural reasonableness of his sentence on two grounds. He

first argues that the district court failed to explain adequately why it chose the sentence it imposed.

To that end, a judge need only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered

the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking

authority.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 113 (2018) (citation omitted).

-2-
No. 25-5488, United States v. Al-Abadi

Here, Al-Abadi admits that the court discussed his repeated sales of counterfeit airbags—

which, the court said, posed a “great danger” to the public and showed on Al-Abadi’s part a “lack

of respect for the law,” “a lack of judgment,” and “an indifference to the welfare and safety of

others.” The court also cited the need to deter conduct like Al-Abadi’s, and to protect the public

from it. And the court credited some of Al-Abadi’s arguments in mitigation, including that he had

no prior convictions and had a lengthy history of employment. But the court concluded that,

“because the defendant’s conduct posed a great danger to the public, and general deterrence against

such conduct remains very important, really, only a guideline sentence can impose a punishment

that is just here.” Thus, the court adequately explained its reasoning—both as to Al-Abadi’s term

of imprisonment and as to the conditions of his supervised release. See United States v. Zobel, 696

F.3d 558, 572 (6th Cir. 2012).

Al-Abadi also argues that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts. He first

contends that the court found that he had sold more counterfeit airbags than the government proved

he had sold. But the district court did not accept the government’s assertion that every airbag Al-

Abadi sold on eBay was counterfeit, which itself refutes his argument to some extent. Instead, the

court declined to state the exact number of counterfeit airbags sold, though the court implied the

number was large. Moreover, Al-Abadi admitted that he had sold at least $95,000 worth of airbags

for between $100 and $725 each. Ample evidence thus supported the district court’s finding that

Al-Abadi had sold many counterfeit airbags—and on the record here, likely several hundred.

Al-Abadi also contends that the district court found that more of the airbags were defective

than the government had proved to be defective. But the court did not find that any particular

number were defective; it instead referred only to the many “potential victims” of Al-Abadi’s

conduct, given the large number of counterfeit airbags he had sold. On that point, Al-Abadi

-3-
No. 25-5488, United States v. Al-Abadi

admitted that three of the airbags he had sold were tested, and all three were shown to be defective.

Moreover, a car manufacturer submitted testimony that counterfeit airbags are almost always

dangerous because they rarely undergo safety testing necessary to ensure their compliance with

federal safety standards. On this record, then, the district court did not clearly err in finding that

many—if not all—of the airbags that Al-Abadi sold were defective.

Al-Abadi also challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence on two grounds.

First, he contends that, in selecting Al-Abadi’s (within-guidelines) term of imprisonment, the

district court overemphasized the fact that the airbags were defective—because, Al-Abadi says,

only “a few” were shown to be so. As explained above, however, the court did not err in finding

otherwise; and the court had good reason to emphasize the danger that Al-Abadi’s conduct posed

to the public when it weighed the relevant sentencing factors. See United States v. Rayyan, 885

F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018).

Second, Al-Abadi contends that the special conditions of his supervised release—the

search condition, the third-party risk-notification condition, and the two financial conditions—are

neither reasonably related to the relevant sentencing factors under §3583, nor tailored to infringe

on his liberty no more than necessary to achieve the goals of that section. See Zobel, 696 F.3d at

573. But all those conditions are tailored to prevent the harms shown in this record—that for more

than four years Al-Abadi assembled, inside his house, tens of thousands of dollars of counterfeit

airbags, and then sold them to unsuspecting customers over the internet. The court thus did not

abuse its discretion in imposing the conditions.

The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

-4-