## Facts

- Irek Ilgiz Hamidullin, a former Russian Army officer, joined Taliban-aligned insurgent forces in Afghanistan and coordinated with the Haqqani Network.
- In 2009, he led and participated in an attack on an Afghan Border Police post at Camp Leyza in Khost Province, designed to draw responding U.S. and Afghan forces into an ambush.
- During and after the attack, insurgents attempted to use anti-aircraft weapons against U.S. military helicopters.
- Hamidullin was captured after the operation and held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, then transported to the United States.
- He was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia and charged with multiple terrorism- and violence-related offenses, including material support offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and aircraft-destruction-related offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 32.
- The district court denied his pretrial motion to dismiss based on claimed combatant immunity, a jury convicted him on multiple counts, and he received multiple life sentences plus additional terms.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may determine a criminal defendant’s POW status and entitlement to combatant immunity notwithstanding Army Regulation 190-8 procedures.
2. Whether Hamidullin was entitled to combatant immunity under the Third Geneva Convention based on the nature of the Afghanistan conflict in 2009 and the Convention’s requirements for lawful combatant/POW status.
3. Whether Hamidullin could assert a common-law public-authority (combatant-immunity) defense independent of the Third Geneva Convention.
4. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 32 applies to attempted attacks on U.S. military aircraft carried out in the context of armed conflict.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held that Article III courts have jurisdiction to decide POW status and combatant immunity in a federal criminal case, regardless of Army Regulation 190-8.
- The court held Hamidullin was not entitled to combatant immunity under the Third Geneva Convention because the 2009 hostilities were a non-international armed conflict and, in any event, he did not satisfy Article 4 lawful-combatant criteria.
- The court rejected a freestanding common-law combatant-immunity/public-authority defense where the defendant did not qualify for POW status under the Convention.
- The court held 18 U.S.C. § 32 applies to attempts to destroy U.S. military aircraft even when the conduct occurs during armed conflict.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal jurisdiction and judicial power to resolve defenses in a prosecution are determined by federal law; internal military regulations do not divest Article III courts of authority to adjudicate POW-status-related defenses.
- Combatant immunity tied to POW status under the Third Geneva Convention depends on the Convention’s applicability (including whether the conflict is international) and satisfaction of Article 4 criteria for lawful combatants.
- A defendant who fails to qualify for POW status under the Third Geneva Convention cannot obtain equivalent immunity by reframing the claim as a common-law public-authority/combatant-immunity defense.
- 18 U.S.C. § 32 applies by its terms to attempts to destroy U.S. aircraft, including U.S. military aircraft, and contains no armed-conflict exception for “otherwise lawful” wartime conduct.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Hamidullin’s terrorism-related convictions, concluding that federal courts may decide POW-status defenses, that he was not entitled to combatant immunity under treaty or common law, and that § 32 reaches attempts to shoot down U.S. military aircraft during armed conflict.


United States v. Hamidullin, 888 F.3d 62 (4th Cir. 2018)