Адвокат Мирсада Рамича подал в Верховный суд США ходатайство о пересмотре приговора по делу о терроризме

Ramic asks U.S. Supreme Court to hear appeal in terror case Published 6:00 am Tuesday, September 1, 2026 A Bowling Green man convicted of crimes stemming from his membership in ISIS has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Mirsad Ramic, 36, was sentenced to 101 months in prison in 2025 after being found guilty in U.S. District Court of providing material support and resources to ISIS, conspiring to provide material support to ISIS and receiving military-type training from a designated terrorist organization. Ramic’s criminal trial featured evidence that he and two other people left Bowling Green in 2014 and traveled to Syria to join ISIS, which is designated by the U.S. Department of State as a foreign terrorist organization. Ramic enlisted as a fighter, trained with weapons and took part in an offensive against Kurdish militants during the siege of the Syrian city of Kobani in 2014-15 before leaving ISIS and going to Turkey in 2015, where he was arrested and imprisoned. He was charged with terror-related offenses in 2021, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld his conviction but ordered earlier this year that he be resentenced, ruling that the 101-month term was “shockingly low” for his crimes. Attorneys for Ramic filed a petition on Aug. 18 formally requesting the high court take up the case. The petition from attorney Joshua Reho focuses on the legal definition of a federal crime of terrorism, which is described as an “offense that…is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct.” Reho argues that the supreme court should weigh in on the meanings of “government” and “calculate” in the law in order for the lower federal court in Bowling Green to determine whether to apply terrorism-related enhancements that could significantly increase Ramic’s sentence, with Reho maintaining that the terror enhancements were improperly applied in Ramic’s case. In his petition, Reho argues that the terror enhancement was wrongly applied for Ramic’s actions in taking up arms for ISIS against the regime of then-Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Prior to Ramic joining ISIS, Assad’s regime was derecognized as Syria’s legitimate government by the Obama administration, so the district court should not have applied the terror enhancement against Ramic. “When finding that the Assad regime was a ‘government’…the lower courts invaded the President’s absolute power to recognize a foreign government,” Reho stated in his petition. Reho also disputed a finding from the federal appeals court that Ramic’s conduct was calculated to influence the U.S. government as well as Assad’s regime, arguing that the evidence showed that Ramic left the U.S. and joined ISIS in Syria to “rescue people he felt a kinship toward” and “find a pure, slower-paced Muslim culture,” only to leave upon being disillusioned about what he saw as a lack of strict adherence to Muslim beliefs among his peers in Syria. “Mr. Ramic fought in the Syrian civil war with ISIS to establish a caliphate, not to influence or affect the United States,” Reho stated, adding that the U.S. was not participating in the civil war when Ramic arrived. The petition downplayed evidence from Ramic’s social media posts that discussed wanting American service members killed and hoping that ISIS would enslave President Barack Obama’s daughters, saying that the posts did not have a broad reach and should be rejected as material support of ISIS as propaganda. “In short, Mr. Ramic’s actions – leaving the United States, going to Syria, joining ISIS and fighting in the Syrian civil war – speak louder than all his social media posts as to what he had calculated his conduct to accomplish,” Reho said in his petition.