FILED Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1

rh(

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MAR 17 2010 tti\c-
THOMAS G. BRUTON
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AWS MOHAMMED YOUNIS AL.JAYAB

NO 16C R rg1
Violation: Title 18, United States
Code, Section 23394 JUOSE EI.US
INDICTMENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE COX THE SPECIAL JANUARY 2015 GRA.ND JURY charges:

Beginning no later than in or about October 20L2, and continuing until on or about January 23, 20L4, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern

Division, and elsewhere,

AWS MOHAMMED YOUNIS AL-JAYAB,

defendant herein, attempted to provide material support and resources, namely, personnel (including himself), knowing and intending that they were to be used in the preparation for, and in carrying out, a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(a)(1) (conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons outside of the United States);

In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2BB9A.

TRUE BILL:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

FOREPERSON

 
 Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/08/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
AWS MOHAMMED YOUNIS AL-JAYAB

No. 16 CR 181 Judge Sara L. Ellis

NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT INFORMATION

The United States, through its attorney ZACHARY T. FARDON, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, hereby provides notice to the Court and to defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, that pursuant to Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1825(d) and 1881e(a), the United States intends to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose in any proceedings in this matter, information obtained or derived from physical searches and acquisitions acquired pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended, Title 50,

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 14 Filed: 04/08/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:30
United States Code, Sections 1821-1829 and 1881a.
Respectfully Submitted,
ZACHARY T. FARDON United States Attorney
By: /s/ Barry Jonas______________ Barry Jonas Shoba Pillay Assistant United States Attorneys 219 S. Dearborn Street, Rm. 500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 353-5300
Andrew Sigler Trial Attorney National Security Division Counterterrorism Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 353-7617
DATE: April 8, 2016

 
 Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 1 of 84 PageID #:992

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COIIRT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATTS OF AMERICA,

)

)

)

v.

)

)
AWS MOHAMMED YOLINIS AIJAYAB, )

)

Defendant.

):

No. l6 CR l8l
Judge Sara L. Ellis

OPINION AND ORDER

The govemment has charged Defendant Aws Mohammed Younis al-Jayab with

attempting to provide mateiial suppoil to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 23394 in connection with time he spent in'Syria between November 2013 and January 2014. As with

other.cases involving atleged interrational terrorisr.n, complex issues srirrounding electronic and
re government's national security,

interests arise here. The Court has before it a number of motions concerning these issues. The
government filed.an ex pirte, in cameramotion for a protective order pursuant to Section 4 of

the Classified hformation Procedues Act ("CIPA") and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(dxl) to authorize the government to withhoid classified documents from alJayab [55]. fhe .government also seeks a finding that the physical search at issue in this case was lawfully authorized and conducted in compiiance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FiSA') and a denial ofal-Jayab's motion to suppress. Al-Jayab has filed the foliowing:

(.1) motion to suppress evidence obtained or tierived from warrantless surveillance under Section
702 of the FISA Amendrnenrs Acr ("TAA").' 50 U.S.C, g IB8la p7); (2) objection to secrer er

parte CWA litigation of Fourth Arnendment suppression issues and motion for disclosure to I Al-Jayab refers to $ 702 of the FAA. As the goverrrnient points out, although $ 702 was added by tlie FAA, it is appropriately'refer.red to as $ 702 of FISA. '

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 2 of 84 PageID #:993
cleared counsel t50]; (3) motion for discovery regarding the intelligenc.e agencies' surveillance pursuant to Executive Order 12333 [StJ; (a) motion for notice of surveillanbe techniques used furine the course of investigation [52]; and (5) gx parteand under seal rnemorandum of defense [54].. Al-Jayab also seeks disclosure ofthe underlying FISA and $ 702 materials.2 The Court has carefully rdviewed the parties' filings and conducted. several hgarings on the pending motions. Itnow sets forth its detailed rulinfs on each of the pending motions below.
BACKGROUND I. Factual Background3
Al-Jayab was born in Iraq. He moved to Syria with his family in March 2012 and then anived in the United States as a refugee in October ZO1Z. lnitiatly upon arriving in the United States, he lived in Tucson, Arizor.a and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Almost immediateiy after his arrival in the United States, al-Iayab indicated to family rnembers and others that !e intended to retum to Syria, using Turkey as a potential transit point. In his communications on Facebook with various individuals, al-Jayab stated that he wanted to work with Ansar al-lslam or the al-Nusra Fron! making specific plans to do so.a AI-Jayab ' explained to an associate that he joined the mujahidin when he was sixteen and fought for the. group now known as Ansar al-Islam. He spoke of his prior experience fighting in Syria, sending
2 Al-Jayab has also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on combatant immunigr [91], which the parties are currenily briefing. The Court does not address this motion heni, althotrgh it takes al-Jayab's arguments into account in dete.rmining whether evidence tlre government'seeks to withhold pursuant to CIPA $ 4 would be relevant or helpful to al-Jayab's stated intention to pursus a combatant immunity
defense.
3 The Court draws much of the factual background from the criminal complaint filed in Unitecl States v. . al-Jayab,No. l6'CR 08, Doc. 1 (8.D. Cal, Jan 6,2016). a The'Unitpd States has desiguated both Ansar al-lslam and the al-Nusra Front as foreign terrorist
organizations ("FTOs") pursuant to Section 219 of the lmniigration and Nationalrty Act.

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 3 of 84 PageID #:994
photographs of himself with various weapons and at a gun range in Wisconsin. Al-Jayab also commruricated with Abu 'Akkab al-Muhajir, who was based in Syria and used his Facebook account to distribute propaganda for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (.'isir--).t Al-Jayab requested money from al-Muhajir to travel to Syria, and al-Muhajir indicated he would make arrangements to provide al-Jayab with the needed frurds.
On Novemb er 6,2Ol3,al-Jayab received an auto insurance seftlement. The following day, al-Jayab wrote to al-Muhajir, indicating that he no longer ne'eded money for his travels and
instead wouid only n""i help once he arrived in Turkey. Al-jayab then purchased an aiiline
ticket ori November 8, flying directly from Chicago to Istanbul, Turkey on November 9. Analysis of the intemet protocol ("IP") ad,d,resses al-Jayab'used. to access Facebook, his email accounts, and. other communications irnply that he was in Syria from November 2013 through 'January 2.014, l.nthese.communications, al-.Iayab told his brother hp would be entering Syria with the mujahidin and indicated he ha?i an assault rifle. His brother advised him in one message to remove a picture from facebook that showed him wearing a military uniform. Although alJayab discussed infighting among certain Sunni extremist groups in.Syria, he suggested that he had joined in the fighting against the Free Army. Al-Jayab represents in his filings that while he was in Syria, he fought with Ansar al-Sham, a group that is not a designated FTO, and which joined with other groups tmder the umbrella bf the islamic Front to fight against Bashar al-Assad
and his regime.6
5 Tlre U.S.'.S.cretary of State.designated al Qaida in Jraq as arr FTO in 2004. ln 20 14, the government amended tlre designation to include the alias "lslamic State of.lraq and the Levant" (or ISIL) as its pflmary name. 6 Similar to Ansar al-Sham, the govefllment has not designated tlre Islamic Front as an FTO. .

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 4 of 84 PageID #:995
On January lT, 2Ol4,IP address records denionstrate that a1-Jayab left Syria and entered Turkey. On January 23,2014,a1-Jayab returned to Sacramento, Califqrnia.by way of London
and Lcis Angeles. In his customs declaration form, he did not mention traveling to Turkey or Syria, listing only Jordan and the United Kingdom as the countries he visited during his time
abroad.
. . On July 29,2014, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS")
employees interviewed al-Jayab in ionnection with his apptication for an adjustment of his immigration stptus. At-Jayab admitted in that interview that he had traveied to Turkey and returned approximately six months before the interview, i.e., rn January 2014. Al-Jayab had another interview with USCIS on October 6,2}14,during which he denied any terrorist
:
affiliations and indicated that he went to Turkey to visit his grandmother. On June 18, 2015, aI-
Jayab met with Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI") agents at his request regarding issues he experienced at the airport while traveling. FIe stated during {his meeting that he traveled to
Turkey for vacation but denied. having entered Syria.
U. Procedural flistory
The government represents that its investiga tion of al-Jayab began in or around February
20t4

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 5 of 84 PageID #:996

Ultimately, on January 7;2016, officials arrested ai-Jayab in the Eastern District of
California.pursuant to a federhl criminal compiaint filed in that district, charging him with providing materially false statements to federal agents in a matter involving international
tenorism in violation of I8 U.S.C. $ i001. United States v. al-Jayab, No- 16 CR.08, Doc' 1
(E.D. Cal,). On'January 14',2A16, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Califomia retumed an indictment charging al-Jayab with making false statements to a USCIS agent on or about October

6,2014. Id, Doc, 73-

On March 17,20l6,the government indicted al-Iayab in this district and charged him

with "attempt[ing] to provide material support and resources, namely, personnei (incliiding

.himself), knowing and intending that they were te be used in the preparation for, and in carrylng out aviolation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(aXi) (conspiracy'to kill, kidnap,

mairy,

or

injure

persons

o.utside

of

the

Unitedr

^Sr t4rtes\),r'i

i: n

-v:-i1o-r:l^a- tion

o^f f

11o8

UlT .Scr.C7'\.

C
$

a2T3r3( 9A.

Doc.

I. This charge includes an intent requirement, with the government having to prpve that "the

defendant had the specific intent to provide material support, knowing or intending that it wouid

be used in a conspiracy lo kill persons abtoad;' untted States v. Mehanna,735 F.3d 32,43 (1 st Cir. 20i3); see also (Jnired Srat.es v. Stewart. 590 F.3d 93, I I3 &n.18 (2d Cir. 2009) ('[T]he

mental state in'section 23394 exterids both to the support itself, and to the underlying purposes
for Which the support is given."). On April 8,2ll6,the governinent provided notice to a1-Jayab

tha! "pursuant to Title 5 0, United States Code, Section I 825(d) and I 8 8 I e(a), the United States

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 6 of 84 PageID #:997
j
intends to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose in any. proceedings in this matter,
informiition obtained:or derived from physical searches and acquisitions'acquired pursuant to the 'Foreign Letelligence Surveillance.A,ct of 1978, as.amende( Title 50, United States Code, Section
ANALYSIS
'L CIPA Section 4 I55l
'The govemment has moved for a protective order pursuant to CIPA $ 4 to'withhold certain classified material from discovery. CIPA's fundamental pqpose is to "protect[ ] and restrict[ ] the discovery of classified information in a way that does not impair the defendant's
right to a fair trial." tJnited States v. O'Hara, 301 F.3d 563, 568 (7th Cir. 20AD. CIPA is a procedural statute; it "creates no nelil rights of or limits on discovery of a speciflc area of
classified infonnation," instead "cpnternplat[ing] an application of the general law of discovery
in criminal cases to the'classified information a{ea with iimitations imposed based on the
sensitive rature of the'classified inforrnat ion."' fJnited States.v. Yunis,867 F.2d 677, 62L p'C.
Cir. 1989). Section 4 of CIPA provides: The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United Staies to a*t"t" specified items of classified'information Aom documents to be made available to the defendant through discovpry under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to substitute a summary of the infonmation for zuch classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified infonnation would tend to prove- The court may permit the United States to make a request for such authorization
' in the form of a written statement to be.inspected by the court
alone. If the court enters an order granting relief foilowing such an ex parte showing, the eritire text of the slatement ofthe United.
States sha.ll be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available tb the appellate court.in the event of an appeal.

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 7 of 84 PageID #:998
ffillflrlffi1?r;llT$ffi;$#ffi::ffiT--
common law, the information at issue is discoverable at all'
[2] if the material at issue is discoverable, the court must next
determine whether the goveuiment has made a formal claim of the . state secrets privilege lodged by the head of the deparfinent which has actual contol over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that .o fflrcer.
' [3] Once a court concludes that the mat"riui i, discoverable and
H:,l}H:"$*':f;TilJ:"j[:i3"J':1"ffi h".T,]iXffi l'""
defense of [the] accused. [4] If the inforrnation meets the relevant and helpful test, CIPA $ 4 i-powers.courts to determine the terms of discovery, if any. Uni.ted Stares v, Turner,No. 13 CR 572-2,2014 WL 3905873, at *2 (N.D. Iil. July 29,2014) (quoting (Jnited States v, Sedaghaty,728.F.3d 885, 904 (9th Cir. 2013)- Some courts have also added-a llnai step of balancing 'jthe Govemment's intereSt in nondisclosure against the
"defendant's need for the informat ior^." (Jniteel Staies v. Haryuan Jin,797 F. Supp. 2d,612, ilg-
. 20 Or.D. il.201i).
"To be helpfut or material to the defense, evidence need.not ris'e to the level that would trigger the Govemment's obligation under Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83; 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L.
7

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 8 of 84 PageID #:999
Ed. 2d 215 (1963), to disclose exculpatory information;' [Jnited States v. Aief,533 F'3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 200 8); see also {Jnited Stales v. Mejia,448 F.3d 436,45617 (D.C. Cir, 2006) ("While Bradyinformation is plainly subsumed within the largerbategory of infomration that is 'at least helpful' to the defendant,'information can be helpful withoutbeing 'favorable' inthe Bradl
sense[.]',). But because the defendant does not have access to the classified information, the defendant.a4d the Coirrt'are disadvantaged in determining whether the classified information at
I
issue is relevant and woutd be helpful to the defense. ,See Mejia,448 F.3d at 458 ("[T]h" defendants and their counsel, who are in the best position to know whether information would be helpful to their defense, are disadvantaged by not being perrnitteid to see the information-and thus to assist the court in its assessment of the information's helpfulnsss-"). The Court discrsses this concern further in connection with al-Jayab's objections to the ex parle litigation of'the
CIPA mbtion. If, after its review, the Court finds that the classified information is relevant and fretprut
to the defense, the Court should.consider "the protective options short of fuli disclosure that are set forth in CIPA $ 4, namely pennitting the governmerrt't1 substitute- a summary o,f the infomlation for such classified documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the classified information would tend to prove."? Mejia,448 F.3d at 456 n.18 (quoting 18
U.S.C. App. 3 $ ). The Court proceeds first to al-Jayab's objections to the CIPA procedures
and then to the substance of the CIPA motion itself.
A. Al-Jay.ab's.Objcctions to the CIPA Procedures [50]
Al-Jayab objects. to the Court's ex parte, in'canzera review of the govemmFnt's CIPA $ 4 motion, arguing that defense counsel with the appropriate clearance should be allowed to review the motion and its underlying documents. Specifically, al-Jayab seeks disclosuie to cleared

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 9 of 84 PageID #:1000
' counsel; ulder an.aPP ,opriate protective'orda; of surveillance-related informatiOn that may be
relevant and hgipful to his defense in seeking suppression as well as disclosure of the govemment's legai arguments in support of its $ 4 application. He.argues that the government is improperly using CiPa's procedurcs to litigate Fourth Amendment suppression issues without defense participation instead of using CIPA merely to make ielevancy and admissibility determinations.. The Couit disagrees, however, and finds the ex parte natu.re of the government's niotion appropriate.
Both CIPA $ 4 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) provide for ex parte, in camera procedures. .See 18 U.S.C. App. 3 $ 4 (govemment may request authorization to delete classified information frorn discovery 'iin the form of a written statement to be inspected by the courr alone"); Fed. R- Crim. P. 16(dX1) (court may deny or reslrict discovery for good sause,
allowing party to show good cause "by a witten statement that the corirt will inspect ex parte"). Courts have routineLy upheld the ex paile, in camera nature of CIPA $ 4 proceedings. ,9ee' United States v- Abu-Jihaad,No.3:07CR57(MRK),2007 WL 2972623, at * 1 (D. Conn' Oct' 1 1, 2007) (coltecting cases).7 5'ollowing CIPA's Legislative history, these courts reason fi1a1 ifdhen
) the'govemment is seekihg to withhold classified information from the defendant, an adversary :
t" hgaring with defense kno.wiedge would d.efeat the v:r.y purpose gf discovery rules.'o' AtreT
533 F.3d at 81 (quoring H.R. Rep. 96-831, pt. l, aiZl n.ZZ11 see also {Jnited States v. Amowi,
695F.3d 45.7,472(6thCir.2012)'("ThepurposeofCIPAisto'provide'amsansforthecourtsto oversee the government's authority to deiete evidence from discovery. To permit defense.
counsel to participate in such a hearing would frustrate the aim of CIPA-'); cf. United States i.
7 The Second Circuit lateraffinned the district court's grant ofthe government's CIPA motions, finding that it prpperly corrsidered tfose motions ex.parte. See Uniied States v. Abu-Jihaad,630 F.3d 102, 143 (2d cir.2p I0)

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 10 of 84 PageID #:1001

Daoud,755F.3d479,482(7thCir.l}ru)(rejectingcontentionthat"adversaryprocedureis

fabt";. always'essential to resolve corttested issues of

'

A court in the Northem District of Ohio recently rejected the same arguments mad6 by

al-jayab here, finding that eleared counsel for the defendant was not entitled to disclo!;ure of the

government's $ 4 motion or, alternativdly, to the legal arguments supporting the motion. See United States v. Mohamwta4 Np. 3:15-cr-358 ,2017 WL 256883 4, a7+2-3 Qr{.D. Ohio June 13,

2017). This Court adopts the analysis and conclusiors of tire Mohammad court. Altho ugh aI-

Jayab's counsel holds.a security clearance, hs other courts have found, "[t]he possession ofa

security cldaiance only becomes relevant after lhe district court determines, in accordance with

section 4, that any classified information is discovelable." Amwti,695 F.3d at 473.

Finally; al-Jayab's concerns about.recent disclosures of the govemment's alleged

improper use of CIPA procedures in other cases.does not warrant prorridi.rg

access in

"ormsel

this case, where the Court's review of the motion and materials indicates that the govemment is

not attempting to litigate Fourth Amendment suppression issues here. Although there have been

reports of the govemment's non-compliance with discovery obligations in unrelated surveiilance
tti prograrns, Court has closely reviewed the government's subnfssion and does not find that

these generalized complaints apply here. The govemment has not sought to establish an

exception to the'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine or the good faith exception, otr argued that

ihe surveillance was otherwise lawful by way of its CIPA motion. lnstead, the goverriment has

restricted its argurnents to whether it riru'st disclose the surveillance at issue'on relevancy grounds

pursuant to CIPA $ 4. The Court need not further address al-Jayab's arguments.
. Consequently, the Court has considered the government's CIPA motion ex parte- The Court provided al-Jayab with the opportunity io outline his theories of defense, which he has

10

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 11 of 84 PageID #:1002
done in afi ex parte and under seal doeument [5a]. Although this does not amount to access to the documents themselves, courts have recognized thrs as a reasonable substitute to help the Court assess the documents the govemment seeks to withhold. See Turner,.2014 WL 39058?3, at *3 (describing similar process). In reviewing the government's subrnission, the Court has taken into account al-Jayab's sirbmission dnd "'placeld] [itself] in the shoes of defense counsel, the very ones that cannot see the classified record, and actfed] with a view to their interests" to determine whether the information would bo "relevant and heipful" to al-Jayab. Amawi,695
..-. -. .- :._._, -
F.3d at 471; Mejia,448 F.3d at 458 (applying an "'at least helpful' test in a fashion that gives the defendants the benefit ofthe doubt").
B. Materials at Issue
11

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 12 of 84 PageID #:1003

the niaterial the governmeni seeks to withhold. In seeking to withhold this infonnation pursuant

to CIPA $ 4, the government acknowledges that it is discoverable. The Court also finds that the materials at issue contain or involve classified infofmation. Carl Ghattas, the Assistant Director

for the Counterterrorisrn Division of the FBI, has provided a declaration asserting the classified

informationprivilege with respect tolthe

government seeks to withhold- ,See

Ghattas Decl. to CIPA Motion. fhe Attomey Gen.e:ral has d.elegated original classification
authority to Ghattas. See Executive Order L3526, $ I ^3(c), Ghattas states that disclosr.rre of the

existence or content of the materials at issue may reasonably be expected to cause serious

darnage to the national security of the United States. See Yunis,867 Y.2d at 623 (government has

a security interest not only in the contents of the ciassified information but also in "the tims,

place, and nature of the government's ability to intercept the communications at all," and the

t2
t

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 13 of 84 PageID #:1004
protqction of the governmbnt's "intelligence-gathering capalilities" that could be gledned from what documents ,,revealed about sol+rces and methods"..is a legitim'ate national security concem
.
expresslyrecognizedbygseSuprerneCou*);CIl v.Sfms,47llJ-L.15g,175,i05S'Ct' 1881, g5 L. Ed. Zd 123.(198S) (i'tre government has a compeliing interest in protecting both the
secrecy of information important to our national security and the apPeaftmce of confidentiality so essential to the effective operation of our foreign inteiiigence service.'1(quoting Sneppv' United states,444 U.S. 507, 509 n.3, i00 s.. ct. 763, 62L.FA.2d 704 (1980)).
Having made these preliminary findings, the Court hrns to whether the material at issue is relevant and helpful to the.defense. The govemment represents that it will not offer the
inforination it seeks to withhold in its prosecution of al-Jayab lt hlso contends that it has already flduced some of the material in other forms. Regardless ofttrese representations, the Courl must still consider whether the information would be relevant and helpful to al-Jayab, in Light of
the crfune charged and al-Jayab's possible defenses, as set'forth in hii'memorandum of defense' SpecificaLly, in reviewing the government's arguments and the selected documents, the Court has kept the following potentiai defenses in rnind.: the lack of sulficient mens reato conrmit the crime ch4rged in that although h'e traveled to Syria to frght Assad, he did this because he thoi-rght
Assad was a tyrant, shaped.b;i al-Jayab's prior history growing up in lraq and Syria the iack of evidence to support the fact that al-Jayab intended to ppvide rnaterial support, and evidence of alJayab's activities or time while in Syria, particulariy any mention of his association with
Ansar al-Islam or the Isiamic Front, the organizations with which alJayab ciaims he fought while in Syda and which form the basis of his combatant immunity motion.
To assist its review of the materials provided by the government, the Court met with the parfies several times in ex parte.settings. In the course of.some of these meetings with the.
l3

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 14 of 84 PageID #:1005

goverrrment, the Court identifiedJabout

which i'ineeded additional information

befbremakingadetermtnatIonaStowiietrrefquatIIIedtorw1thhoIdlng,lne

government provided additional information to the Court in both oral and written form.

The Court agrees that the government does not need to produce this material, where it contains nothing the.defense could deem relevant or helpful.
14

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 15 of 84 PageID #:1006

Moreover,

theCourt.doesriotfindthesefhe1pfu}tothedefense.Asthegovernmentposits,

th.Iare

incuipatory and unrelated to the charges in this .*".

-

15

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 16 of 84 PageID #:1007

fails to see how th.."Icould

aid the defense.

,I rir* Court does not find disclosure of th"Inecessary,
may properly withhold them from discovery.

and the goverrunent

16

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 17 of 84 PageID #:1008

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 18 of 84 PageID #:1009

Although the Court rnay question the sensitivity of this

information and whether disclosure would harm national security, it notes the words of another district judge in 4 similar situaiion: "And to the extent thatl might question whether disclosure of ' other, apparendy less sensitive but still classified information would create arry real risk to national security, I should be very cautious about substituting my judgment for that of those who know more than I, and whose job it is to know better than I, just what those riiks might be'"
Uyitg!sn-te1.r:4for,!:s31 Ftstpl: 2s?2,838n.10(N.D' ofio-zo-o!)i df'!,ees111o:,(u-* -
Cir.20A2); see also Yunis,867 F.2d a|623 ("Things that did not rnake sense to the District Judge would make all too much sense to a foreign countei-intelligence specialist who could learn much about this nation's intelligence-gathedng capabilities from what these documents revealed about

sources and methods.")-

the govemment acknowledges that any relevant

statements by al.Jayab would traditionally be produced as written or recorded statements of the defendant pursuant to Rule i 6(a)( 1 XB), with any relevant videos, photographs, and other aftachments subject to an argument that they are discoverable as either materiai to the defense or
belonging to the defendant pursuant to Rule 16(aXlXEXi) and (iii). But the governrnent
contends that'none of ihe statements are both reievant and helpful and that disclosure would

18

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 19 of 84 PageID #:1010

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 20 of 84 PageID #:1011

Therefore,havingreviewedth"Eandfoundthemnotrelevant.or
helpful to the defense, the Court.finds that the government may properly withhold them'

! The court agrees that these

which do not contain Zmy

inform.ation related to the charges in this case, are irrelevant'

-

20

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 21 of 84 PageID #:1012

The Court's review of the remainder of

Iprovided

remainingf to it demonstrates that the

are not reievant or helpful and

are properly withheld from discovery.

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 22 of 84 PageID #:1013

Having reviewed the representative samples provided by the govemment, the Court finds

that thelare

either inelevant or, to the extent relevant, not helpful to the defense..

22

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 23 of 84 PageID #:1014

Having reviewed these and the remaining-
proper for the government to withhold them.

the Court therefore finds it

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 24 of 84 PageID #:1015

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 25 of 84 PageID #:1016

Therefore, having reviewed th"Iprovided

to the Court, the Court furds it

includes information that is not relevant, cumuiative, or to the extent relevant, not helpful to the
defense. The Court finds it apprbpriate for the government to withhold thelfrom

25

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 26 of 84 PageID #:1017
26

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 27 of 84 PageID #:1018

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 28 of 84 PageID #:1019

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 29 of 84 PageID #:1020
29

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 30 of 84 PageID #:1021

o{Iobtained Having reviewed the govemment's representative samples

from

the court finds the government may with-hold theselfrom

discovery-

-

30

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 31 of 84 PageID #:1022

the Court finds it appropriate for the governmentto withholdefrom

finding that,

thesef are not helptul to his.defense.

discovery,

-

3i

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 32 of 84 PageID #:1023

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 33 of 84 PageID #:1024

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 34 of 84 PageID #:1025
lherefore, rhe.court agrces that the government may withhold t#I)obtained.from

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 35 of 84 PageID #:1026

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 36 of 84 PageID #:1027

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 37 of 84 PageID #:1028
37

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 38 of 84 PageID #:1029
III. FISA Sectionl0? lalJ
Next, the Court considers al-Jayab's motion to suppress evidence obtained or derived
from surveiltla-nce under FisA $ 702,50 u.s.q. $ 1881a. A1-Jayirb argues both that $ 702 is unconstitutional and that the Court should suppress the $ 702 acquisition in this case. becai:se it
have vioiated the statute.
A. Statutory Overview
Befole addiessing al-Jayab's specific arguments, the Co'urt provides a general overview
of FISA and $ 702. Under f'ISg, the FISA Court has jurisdiction to review ex parte applications for electronic surveillance "'for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information'" 50 U.S.C. $ 1 S02. To issue a FISA warrant, a FISA Court judge musi determine that protrable cause exists to believe. that "the target gf the electroiric surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign po*"r;, and '*each of the faciiities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agentof a forei'gnpower'" S0 U.S.C. $ Ig05(a)(2). FISA also requires minimization procedures to minimize the acquisition
38

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 39 of 84 PageID #:1030

andretention, Td prohibit the dissemination of, the communications of noir-consenting united

-states persolls- 50 U-S.C' $$ 1 801(h); 180s(a)(3)'

.

Under FISA as originaliy enacted, "electronic surveilladce" encompassed only

domestically-focused foreign intelligence surveillance, leaving extraterrltorial surveillance

. outside of its purview see 50u.s,c. $ 1g01(D (defining 'ierectronie surveillance" as four types

of surveillance involving the acquisition of the contents of comm,nications of persons or devices
*. , ** ijnited states?). In 2007, congtess enacted the protect America Act (?AA') to.address

certain communication technoiogy advances since FISA's enactment The PAA aliowed the
Director of Natipnal Intelligence (,DNr) and the Attomey Gerieral to authorize."the acquisition
of foreign inteiligence information concerning persoN reasonabiy believed to be outside the
Unired States." fub. 1,. No. 110-55 g,1058(a), l2i Stat' S]'SZ pOOll' Among other things' tlie
DM and Attorney General ltad to certify thatreasonablc procedures existed to determine that the
4cquisition concemed individuals "reasonably believed to be located outside the united states'4' that minimization procedures satisfying FISA's requirernents'fuere in place' and that a "significant purpose" ofthe acquisition was to obtain foieign intelligence information' 'Id

$tOSn(aXt)-(5). TlePAAexPiredonFebruaryi6,2003' InreDirectivesPursuahttoSection 1058 of Foreign Intelligence survei.llance Act,551 F-3d 1004, 1007 (EISA Ct' Rev' 2008)'
In July 2008, congress enacted the FAA, which includes $ 702, the provision al-Jayab challenges here.2e Section 702 "supplements pre-existing FLS-a auttrority by creatiirg anew framework under which the Govemrnent may seek the TFISA Court's] authorization of certain

:;lt,iizi".'-r;#;.r# ,Rul,anewTta,ihlut"DhthoFeoscAteeizAncarbhtiinao"ncnrglueAdsceatsooafirso2ut0n1as'7effteopcnrt,oJtatvrniis'sui'oaCrnoy.r,ifTtritgJi'rs,eHi6aPslirSreaela,ysrsi.t"il"seerrnuo:tdtfhsrainJgcenrtiineozdntisnsingtRthfoieatlatleautwVotholtolkhreipzolaFaf tcIfiSoeISnAbeeAA'fcomwtreehmnitacdhdhmoeseiencnchatlsatmrndegeenssdm$toe7n0tht2se'
went ints effect.

39

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 40 of 84 PageID #:1031

foreign intelligence sulveiliance targeting the communications of non-U'S' p.effions io'cated abioad." clapper v. Amnesty Int',l usa,568 U.S. 398, 133 S' Ct' 1138, 1144, 1'S5 L' Ed'2d264 (2013), Upon the issuance of an order fromn the FTISSAA CoouurrLl the DNI and Attorney General may

jointly authorize, for up to one year, "the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located

outsidetheUnitedStatestoacquireforeignintelligenceinformal :ion'" 50U'S'C' $ 1881a(a)' As

with the PAA, certain limitations apply' Specifically' the acquisition:

:

States; (1) may not intentionally target anl p:t:o1 known at the time of
acquisition to be located in the United

{

(z)may trot intentionally target aperson beliqved to be located

outsi# targeta

tfrt Uoit*a
pntti""t*,

States if the purpose of such acquisition known p"tson reasonably believed to be

is in

to the

United States;

(3) may not intentionally target-a Y-"tutSi*:s Person reasonably
believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionaily'acquirg any comm' uni.ca-1t:ion as to -w-,Lh:^iLch
the."Iifo Jt irrt"i"a recipients are known atthe time of the
acquisition ^t"oabe located in thd United States; aud

(5)shallbeconduitedinamanneiconsistentwiththefourth arrendroent to the. Constitution of the United States' 50.U.S'C. $ 1881a(b). ..United States persons,,includes ,,acitjzenof the United' States,'and..an alien lawfuliy admifted forpermarientresidence-" Al-Jayab acknowledges that he does not fall within the definition of a "united state: persop" ('u.s. person") under FISA' section 702 does not require the governmentto show.probable cause that the target is a foreigu power or agent of a foreign Po.wer, nor does the govemment have to specis the nature and location of the facilities or praces where the erecr.of,ic.surveillance will takl ntaca clapper, 133 s. ct. at 1144; .see 50u's'c'.$ 188la(dXi)' (gX4)' (0(3XA)' Instead' the DNI and Attomev .GeneralprcsenttheFlsApourtwittrannu,arollcreerrtificaltiioonnssfoorrttlhe authorization of foreign

40

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 41 of 84 PageID #:1032

intelligence acquisition, 50 U.S.C. $ 18S1(iX3). The certifications must include, among other things, information conceming proposed targeting and minimization procedures, and.guidelines adopted to ensure compliance with the targeting limits.and the Fourth Amendment' 50 U-S-C$ 1881a(gX2). If rhe FISA Court finds that the certification meets the statutory requirements and concludes that the targeting and minimization procedures compofi with the statute and the Fourth Amendment, the FISA Court issues an order autborizing tle certification. 50 U.S.C,

$ 1881a(iX3XA). The govemrnent undertakes two forins of $ 702 collection: PRISM and upstream. The
govemment represents that only PRlSM'collection is at issue'in this case, and so the Court restricts its discussion to t$s form of collection here. PRISM involves the government sending certain selectors (i.e., a"specific cornmunications facility thx is assessed to .be used by the target, such as the target's email address or telephone number') to United States-based electronic commuaications service providers for collectioh. Privacy.& Civil Liberties Oyersight Bd., Report o,n the Surveillance Program Operated Pursuant to Section 702 af the Foreign Intelligence $urveillance Act ("PCLOB Report') at32-33 (July 2, 2014), available at https://www,pclob.govll ibrarytlO2-report.pdf. A goverrrnrent directive compels service
providers to provide thhe governrnent with communications sent to or.from that selector. Id. al '

33.

The National Security Agency ("NSA") and FBI both conduct acquisitions under $ 702, ,

and each have separate targeting and mininrization procedures- Id- at42. The NSA takes the

/d lead in making targeting'determinations.

Oncg the NSA idsntifies a potential targe! the

NSA makes two detemrinations: (1) whether the potential target is a non-U.S. person reasonably

believed to be located outside the United States (the'foreigrrress determination')j and

41

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 42 of 84 PageID #:1033
(2) whether the target has or is likely to have cornmunicaiions or teceive foreign intelligence
.
informationthat is authorized under an apprbved certification (the "foreign intelligence purpose determinatio n''). Id-at 43. In making the foreignness determination, the NSA considers the totality of the circumstances and cannot rely solely on its initial information but must perform
additional due diligenc e. Id. at +l-lq. NSA analysts routinely.review samples of acquired
communications to ensure thai the selectors remain associated with their foreign intelligence
targei and that the us6r remains a non-U.S. perco+ located outside of the United States' Id. at48, If a review shows otherwise, the selecior must be detasked and, if the selector was being used by
a U.S. ?erson or aperson located in the United States, the information acq-uired from that selictoris subjectto deletion. Id. at49.
Once the government agency acquires information, Jhe NSA an!/or FBI employ minirnization procedwes to minimi ze.iheacquisition of information conccrning U.S. persons
consiitentwith the nsed to obtain foreigp intelligence information. 50 U.S.C. $$ 1801(h), \
18Sta(ej(1). These procedure's limit" for example, the types.of queries that can be conducted on the acquired information anh'who has access to the $.702 acquired. data PCLOB Report at 50-
Where a defendantfiles a motion to suppress $ ZOZ info.mation and in response the Attorney General files an affidavit stating that disclosure of the matedals. or an adversary hearing relatiag to the $ 702 surveillance wou[d harm the nationa,l securrty of the United States, the Court cogducts wttn camera an| expartereview of those materialsto deter.mine whetherthe rswveillance was lawtully authorizga ind conducted. 50 U.S.C. $$ 1806(0, 1825(9). A.fter undertaking this review, the Court hay order disclosure of the.materials to the defense only
42

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 43 of 84 PageID #:1034
where "necessary io make an accurate determination of theiegaiity of the surveillatrce." 50 u.s.c. $ 1806(0.
8.. Aljayabrs Arguments Challenging $ 702's Constitutionality
Although al-Iayabappears to make a broad facial challenge to $ 702's constitutionality, the Court treats al-Jayab's arguments as an as applied challenge limited.to how the goVernment implemented ihe statute in his specific case as oppoied to considering whether no circumstances exii;i under whichthe Court could {ind $ 702 valid. ,See United States v. Hasbaironli, No. 1l-
CR-623(JG) ,20l6WL 102950 0, at*7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016)(collecting cases declining to
consider facial challenges to $ 702 collections). Thus; the Court.deslines to consider or address al-Jayab's broader arguments conceming the alleged impropriety of upstream collection or other aspects of$ 702 not applicable to this case.
Al-J.ayab argues that $ 702 violates the Fourth Amendment and so the Court rnust supprcss all evidence derived from the $ Z6Z collection in his case. Specifically, al-Jayab contends that $ 702 is unconstitutional because it (1) violates the Fourltr Amendinent's warrant clause; (2) allows surveillance and interception without probable causer partieularity, and specification; (3) authorizes uueasonable srirveillance; and (a) reguires the FISA Courr to participate inthe construction of the surveiilance program, biurring the separation ofthe judiciary and executive.branches and rendering the FISA Court's. opinions advisory. The Court considerS these arguments.in turn.
.: 1. Warrant Clause
The Fourth Amendment proyides that'tro warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause? . supported by oath or affirrnation, and particularly.describing the place to be searched, and the
persons orthings to be seized.- U.S. Const. amend. IV. But the warrant clause does not apply in
43

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 44 of 84 PageID #:1035

all cases and i'does not apply to searches and seizures by the United States against a non-resident
aiien in a foreign Country." Unitgd States v. Zakltarov, 468 F.3d I 171, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)
.
(citing United States v- Verdugo-()rquidez,494 U.S. 259,274-75, 110 S. Ct. 1056, 108 L- Ed. 2d
222 (1990)).

See United States v.
Mohanzud.(lvlohamud I1), 843 F.3d 420,439 (9th Cir. 2016)" cert- denied,138 S. Ct 636 (2018).

government did not need to

obtain a warrant.3o Id, See In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1015 ('Tt'is settled
beyond peradventure that incidental coilection$ occurring as a rcsult of constitutionally permissible acquisitions do not render those acquisitions unlawful.'); Hasbqirami,?0i6 WL 1029500,..at*9 ("[W]hen the surveillance is lawful.in the fust place--whether it is thO-domestic surveillance of U.S. persons pusuant to a warrant, or the watrantless surveillance qf non-U.S. persons who are abroad-the incidental interception of non-targeted U.S. persons' communications with the targeted persons is also lawful." (footnote on:itted)). Although alJayab contends that the collection of his cornmunications shouid be considered intentional and

'0 The fact that the collectjon the location ofthe target, not

may hare where the

occurred on United collection is made.

States soil does not matter, See Hasbajrarni,2016 WL

as the concem is 1029500, af *9

n.15 ('Tlle.government cbncedes that information-gathering Lrnder Sdction 702 takes place within the

United States. But what matters here is the locaticiu of the target- TIre mere fact that Section 702

surveillance originated frorn within the United Statep, or.that the communications obtained through suoh

surveillance originated from or terminated within.the United States, is not enough to trigger the warrant

requirement." (citations omitted)) uruiled States v. Yonn,102 F.zd 1341, 1347 (1 Ith Cir. 1983) (nptjng

that "the Fourth Amendrnent protects people, notplaces," meaning that the location of tho reeording

equipment males no difference in flre Fourth Amendment analysis (quoting Katz v. United Sta/es, 389

u.s.34?,351,88 S. Ct. 50?, l9 L. Ed. 2d 516 (1967)).

44

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 45 of 84 PageID #:1036

targeted and not incidental, particularly considering the volume of the incidental collection of communications of U.S. persons or persons in the United States under $ 702, these arguments
play into the reasonableness determination and not into whether the government needed a
warrant to make the collection lawful. See Mohamud 11,843F.3d at 440 (frnding that the govemment did not need to obtain a search warrant for incidental collection, noting that "the mere iact that more communications are being col.lected does qot make it uncons-titutional'to apfiy the same approach [of Title Iil afld traditiona] FISA interceptionsl tb $ 702 collectiod though it does increase the importance of minimi zationprocqdures once'the corrnunications are

collected").

2. -

Prilbanle Cairse, Particularity, and Specification Requirements

. AI-Jayab also argues that $ 702 violaJes the FourthAmendment because it dods not

require a detenhination of probable'cause'or particularify and specification and instead allows for

the approval of broad prograrns and procedures without specific targets. But because the

government did not need to obtain a wanant for the surveillance at issu€, the probable cause,

particularitn and specification requirements do not cbme into play. See Hasbairami, 20I6 WL

1029500, at +8, 9 n.16 (because warrant requirement did not apply, probable cause, particularity,

and specification requirements also were not applicable). Therefo rc,' $ 7A2is not rendered

unconstitutional because it does not requirb a determination of probable cause or that warrants be

issued with particularity and specificitf before'undertaking $ 702 surveillance.
.. 3. Foreign Intelligence Exception ' Aiternatively, the govsrnment argues th4t a foreign intelligence exception.applies to the

warraat and probable cause requirements, analpgizing to cases where courts have allowed

exceptions to the Fourth Amdndment's wamant requirement "whsn special needs, beyond the

45

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 46 of 84 PageID #:1037
normal nped for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-ca'irse requirement
impracticable." Grffinv. llisconsin,4S3 U.S. 868, 873, 107 S- Ct. 3164, 97 L. Ed- 2d709
(1987) (quoting New Jersey v. T.L,"O-,469 U.S. 325,351,105 S. Ct.733,83 L..Ed. 2d720 (1985) (Blackmun, J., concuning in judgment)); see, e.g., United States v. Duka,671 F-3d 329' 341 (3d Cir.2011) (collecting cases that "have exarnined the Fourth Amendment's application lo
electronic suryeillance conducted under the guise of the Presideut's executive uto.rO to collect
foreign intelligence informdtion," which have "almost.rxiiformly cbncluded that the important national interest in foreign intelligence gathering justifies electronic surveillance without prior judicial review, crbating a sort of 'forgign intelligenoe exception' to the Fourth Anrendmenfs warrant.requirement"); In re Directives, 551 F-3d at 1012 ("[W]e hold that a foreign intelligence' 'exception to the Fourth Amendrnent's warrant requirement exists lvhen surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national securify purposes and is directed against forcign
lreign powerc reasonably.believed to be located outside ttt" Unit"a States.'). A|-Jayab contends that the foreign intilligence exception applies narrowly and carurot b9 extended to $ 702 because it only applies where the surveillance in question is directed at a specific foreign agent or foreign power, with tLe primary puqpose of the surveillance to gather
inteliigence information, and the surveillance has.been personally approved by the
fl"iSo
iresident or Attomey General. See United States v. Bin Laden, L268. Supp. 2d 264,277 . (S.D.N.Y- 2000) (imiting foreign intelligence exception). According to al-Jayab, $ 702 meets none ofthese requirements because it operates on a much lalger scaie and allows the government to eugage in wanantless surveillance to gather evidence of criminal activity without requiring
46

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 47 of 84 PageID #:1038
'The Court need not reach the foreign intelligepce exception, having found that $ 702 does not violate the.wanant and probable cause requirements. But even so, it would be more inclined to follow those cases that have recognized the applicability of the foreign iritelligence exception to g 702 collections. See Unired States v. Mohamud (lrlohamud /), No. 3: 10-CR-00 475-Kl-1, 2014ML2866?4g,at *17-18 (Q. Or. hne24,2}1,4); fCaption Redacred],2011 WL 10945618, at+z4GISACt.Oct- 3,2OlI);InreDirectives,sslF,3dat10l2.3lSection702requiresthata "significant purpose" of the acquisition consist of obtaining foreign intelligence information, 50 U,S.C. $ 1881a(g)(2)(v), whi.ch goes beyond "ordinary criminal-law'enforcement pu4loses," In
ri Dirertives,ssl F.3d at i 0l I (noting tha! under the PAA, $ 702's predecessor, the "prevention
'or apprehension of terrorjsm suspects . - . is inextricably intertwined with the riational security concerns that are at the core of foreign intelligence bollection," and that there "is no indication thx the collections of information axe primarily related to ordinary criminal-law enforcement purposes"); see also fCaption'RedactedJ,20ll WL 10945618, al*Zl(notingthatthe col]ection as a whole under $ 702, evenwith the unierstanding tlrat "as a result of the transactional nature of the upstieam collectiorU NSA acquires a substantially larger r-rUmber of communications of or conceming United States persons and persons inside the United States than previousiy uinderstood," was still conducted for the purpose ofnational.security). Additionally, '"*tere is ahigh degree of probability that requiring awarianlwould hinder the.government's ability to collect tirie-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital rrational security interests that are pl sta\e-- In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 101.1; see also Mohamud 1,2014WL2866749, at *18 (finding that "[t]he government's need for speed and stealth have not lessened" since the .
3r Alttrough Inre Directives addressed flre PA,A., the prr6ursor of $ 702, the Court finds its analysis equally ?pplicable to I702.
47

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 48 of 84 PageID #:1039
FtrSA Court approved of the foreign intelligence exception's application to $ 702 surveillance). Finally, although certain cases, such as the Bin Laden case cited by al-Jayab, have required th1 rhe foreign intelligence surveillance be directed at a foreign p.ower or agenl see 126F. Supp. )a at277,the foreign intelligence exception appears suited to $ 702, which, although it does not inqlude a foreign power or agent requirement, has procedures in place to ensure that its targets are non-U.S. persons outside of the United States who are reasonably likely to have foreign intelligence infonnation. This limitation on $ 702ts targets curuils the bounds of the exception, particularly where these targets are otherwibe unprotected by the'Fourth Arnendment, And while the Attorney General does not personally approve each acquisition under Seition 702,the Attorney General and DNI must jointly authorize each broader collection, see 50U.S..C. $ 1881a(a),whichprovidessomeoversightovertheprocess. Therefore,totheextenttheCourt's conclusion.ttrat $ 702 meets the warraat and probable cause requirements prov€s incorrect, tl:e Court would frud that the foreign intelligence exceBtion applies-
. .4. Reasonableuess
Al-Jayab argues that even if the government dges not need a warant to engage in $ 702 lhtiuld find tle $ 702 collection at issue unreasonable under the Fourth
Amendment. See Marylan/v. {W,--- U.S.*--, I33 S. Ct. 1958, 7970,1.86 L. Ed.2d I (2013)
('Even if a warrant is not required, a search is not beyond Fourth Amendment scrutiny; for it
must be reasonable in its scope and marrner of execution.'); see also {Jnited States v.'Muhtorov, 187 F. Supp.3d 1240, 1253-54 (D. CoIo. 2015) (declining to decide whether foreign intelligence
exception applied to $ 702 surveillance *n... i'the standard ultimately is one of
reasonableness"); /z re birectives, 551 F.3d at lOl2(noting that even with a foreign intelligenbe
exception, "govemmental action intrud.ing on individual privacy interests must comport with the
48

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 49 of 84 PageID #:1040
Fourth Amendment's reasonableness re{uirement''). In assessing reasonabieness, the Court weighs "the promotion of legitimate governrnental interests against the degree to which [the searchl intrudes up:n an individual's privacy." Id. (alteraion in original) (quoting Wyorying v-
Houghton,526 U.S. 295, 300, 1.19 S- Ct. 1297 ' 143 L. Ed. 2d 408 (1999))' '
?i. Government's Inter'est
The gov.er-nmgnt's national security interest in acquiring foreigir intelligence information is "of thehighestorder of magnitude." Inre Directiues,55l-F-3 datlAl|(addressing govemmental interest underthe PAA); see also Holder v. Humnnitarian Law Froject, 561 U.S, 1,28, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 177 L-Ed. 2d 355 (2010) ("Everyone agrees that the Governrnent's
interest in combating terrorism is an urgent objective <if the highest order"), Additionally, "[t]he govemment's interest in using intelligence information to detect and prevent criminai acts of
tenorism, and ultimately to punish thcir pcrpekators, is a legitirnate govemmental interest."
Muhtorov, 187 F. Supppp. 3d aatt 11225566..
b. Al-JaYab's PrivacY Interest
AI-Jayab does not spend much time addressi4g his interest in the privacy of his communications, instead focusing generally on thd unreasonable nature of $ 702'surveillance. As other courts addressing the issue have recognized, however, individuals have a diminished expectation ofprivacy in communications sent to others, particularly over the internet, and
assume the risk that the reoipients will share the communications with others. 32 5", Mohantud
49

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 50 of 84 PageID #:1041

11,843F.3d at 442; Hasbajrami,"ZlTlwl i029i00, at *10-11 ; Mu,htoror,l87 F. Supp. 2d at
1255. This includes not only p)rysical letters but also email and other communications over the internet.s3 SeeUnitedStatesv.Heckenkamp,.482F.3d,7l42,1146(gthCir.2007)("4person's reasonable expectation of privacy may be diminished in nhansmissions over the Internet or email that have alreadi anived at the recipient."' (quoti ng United States.v. Lifshitz,36gF,3d 173, 190 (2d Cir. 2004))) ; [Caption RedacredJ,2011 WL 10945618, at *26 ("Whether they are tansmitted by letter, telephone or e-mail, a person's private communications dre akin to personal papers."). But at the sanne time, "this diminished expectation of privacy in emaii pommunications does not mean the government can search every email with impunity just bechuse the email sender cornmunicated witti a foreign person abr9ad." Hasbajranzf, 2016 lVL
1029500, at * 1 0; see also Muhtorot,l 87 F. Supp. 2d at ll2t,(refusing .to adopt goverirment's
view that defendants have diminished expectations of privacy in communications with non-U.S. persons "based simply on the fact that those persons could be.targets for surveillance," but

" T1.," Sup.eri',e Court recently deqlined to extend this third-pa4y principle to cell phone location records
in Carpenter v. (Jnited States, No..l6-402, slip op. at I I (June 22,2018) ("Given the unique nature of cell

phone location.records, the fact that the information is held by a fiird parry does not by ltself overcome

the user's claim to Fourth Amendment protection. Wrether the Govenrrnent employs its owt:

surveillance technolcigy . . . or leverages the technolory of a wireless carrier, we hold that an individual

maintains a legitimate expectation of privacy in tlre recordrcflris

cal rnovements as ca

through

cell-site I ocation informationl."

Carpenter decision was a o'narrow one" and "does not consider other collection techniques involving foreign affairs or natiorral securi5r." ,id. , sl ip op. at I ?- t 8" Tl'us; Cmpenter does not affect this Court's analysis.
50

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 51 of 84 PageID #:1042
finding that "expectations of privacy are diminished themore infonnation one puts out into ttre ether, especially the ether of the global telecommuirications network")'
c. Balancing the Interests
AI-Jayab argues that $ 702 does not a{equately protect his privacy interests because it abandons the "core requirements of the warrant clause-individualized suspicion, priorjudicial
review, and particularity"'and thus "eliminates the primary protections against.general .surveillance." Doc. 48 at.46. He compares the protections provided by FISA and Tifle III to
' those in $ 702 and argues that $ 702 is unreasonable because it does not include the basic
safegrrards.incolporated into FISA and Title IIi, such as identificatiqn of targets, demonstration
of individualized suspicion to a coufi, and impositioir of strict limits on the communications that
'may be monitored and the duration of ,r*"ill*"e. Al-Jayab argues that the govemment's
targeting and minimization procedures under $ 702 are deiective because they do not meaningfully constrain the selection of foreign targets and do not impose an affirmative obligation to identify.and purge U.S. persons' communications once obtaingd, meaning that the govemment has rnonitored counfless U.S. persons' cornrnunications without a wanant. Al-Jayab also argues that $ 702 is unreasonable because the FISA Court does not have authority tq supervise the intelligenbe agencies' complianoe with minimization procedures during the course ofacquisitionS and agencies need not seekjudicial approval before analyzing, retaining, or disseminating domestic cornmunications.
The govemment responds that $ 702's targetikrg and minimization procedures sufficiently ensure that collections are appropriately targeted at non-U.S. persons located outside tbe United 'states for foreign intelligence purposes and that the privacy interests of individuatb located in the . United States.whose communications are incidentally collected are protected. The gov.elmment
5l

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 52 of 84 PageID #:1043
takes issue with al-Jayab's chalacterization of $ 702 collection as "dragnel" or o'bulk" surveillance, eonteuding instezid that, although the general certifications ilo not include specific urgets, gaclr specil\c collection is ditned at a particular target after an individualized
detcrmination is made using tiie taigeting procedures. Sae PCLOB Report at I l l ("[T]hc
Seetion 702 prograrn is not b[Sed 0h the indiscriminate collection of information in bulk. Instesd. the program consists eiitirely of targeting specific persons about whom an individualized
detennination has been made."); Augttst 26, 201 I FISA Ct. Op., slip. op. at 26 ("While in
. absolute temls. the scope of acquisitions un<ler Section 702 is substantial, the acquisitions are not conducted in a bulk or indiscriirtinate manner. Rather, they are effected thtough [redacted,l disercte'tatgetingdecisionsfoiinciividua1faciIities'.').
.Thg sc 702 application lh this case included the required certificalion and accompanying doeunrentu. wlrich detail the tdfgeting and minimization procedures in place to protecl the privaey of both U.S. and non-U,S. perlsons located in the United States. See Sealed Exs. t3--22t
50 U,S,e. $ 1881a(a). (g), (i). The FISA Coufi reviewed the certification and approved it,
finding that it met the stntutor! requirements and was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . ,$ee Sealed Ex, 27. This apptoval process by the FISA Court is not just a rubher stamp; the FISA eourl subjeets the proposeci pi'ocedtlres to scrutiny and considers prior implementation in coming to its eonclusions. CY fCaption RedauedJ.20Il WL 109456,18.at*23-28 (finding that
targeting and mininrization prcoedures proposed did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment's requirenlents as applied to utjsiredrn collection including multi-communication transactions), The Attorncy Gcneral and DNI tnllst also periodically submit assessments of the government's eompliance rvith the approvetl iiiirtimizatiorr and targetingprocedurcs to both thc FISA Court and
eongressionaloversight comntittees. 50 U.S.C. $ I88l(a)(l). This oversight, although not the
52

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 53 of 84 PageID #:1044
'same as that in the tradifional FISA context, does support finding that the $ 702 surveillance here was reasonable. See Clapper,l33 S. Ct. at i 144 ("surveiilarrce under $ i 88ia is subject to statutory conditions, judicial authorizatioq congressional supervision, and compliance with tire Fourth Amendment ."); Hasbajrami, 2A16 WL 1 029500, at * t 1 (finding that pversight provided by FISA Cour-t, executive branch, and Congress worked together to safeguard the Fourth
'Amendmerrt) . But see Mohamud 11,843 F.3d at 44344 (noting that '\rhere tJre only judicial
review comes in the form of the FISC reviewing the adequlcy of procedr.ires, this type of internal oversight does notprovide a robust safeguard')
(
Although al-Jayab complains that $ 702lacks aparticularity requirement, the Court does not find this fatal. See [Caption RedactedJ,zAll WL 10945618, at *6 (targeting and minimization procedures for to/fiom commulications comply with $ 7A2 and the Fourth Amendment). Generaliy, $ 702's targeting procedures ensure that, with each target, the govemment assesses whether the potential target is a non-U.S..person and.possesses andlor is Iikely to.communicate or receive foreign intelligence inJormation, ,See FCLOB Report at4142;. Sealed Exs. 1 8, 20.
The use of suclr "i[s]trong selectors, such 4s email addresses, weed out innocent or inadvertent communications '[b]ecause
of the small set of people with knowledge of the email address or phone number of a subject oi
foreign inielligence interest."' Hasbajrami;ZAft WL 102950 0, at *72 (second alteration in
'
original) (quoting Peter Margu lies, Dyrzamic Surveillance: Evolving Procedures in Metadata and
ForeignContent Collection arter Snowden,66 Hastings L.J. I,47 (Dec.2014)). Consequently,
53

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 54 of 84 PageID #:1045

the Court cannot find the governmeut's use of the targeting procedutes unreasonable in this'
instance.
Section 702's minim izationprocedures also "serve as an additional backstop against
. identification errors as well as a meaos of reducing the impact of incidental intr.usions into the . plivacy of non-targeted United States persons-" In re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1015- Butal-Jayab
contends that the minimization procedures are uot ddequate because the FISA Court does not supervise compliance and agencies need not seekjudicial approvai before.searching the collected communications of U-S. p.rroou br persons living in the United States, allowing for expansive ,,backdoor searches" ofthis information that invade individuals' privacy interests. Section ?02 regures rcgulax reports to the FISA Court concerning implemen+ta^t+io:^n- o^{f'+tLh^e -m:-ii*nimization prbcedures, 50'U.S.C. $ 18810), and the govemment must aiso report,ali instances of non-
-. compliance to.the FISA Court; see.FISA-e ourr-.R; i3(b).34 The-FtrSA- Cour+al.so may take-----. . --' - - - -
proactive action in instances of noncompliance, such as "seek additional informatiorq issue
orders to the governmeat to take specific action to address an ineident of noncompliance, or (if . deemed necessary) issue[ ] orders to the govemmeirt to cease an action that the court assesses to
benon-eompliant." PCLOB Report at 76-
1
Al-Jayab also argues that the government's ability to ionduct "backdoor searches" (i.e-, the querying of already collected information pursuant to $ 702 for law enforcement purposes)
makes $ 7 02 unreasonable'

3a Although al-Jayab higlrlights instances of non-compliance with minirnizatiotl procedures as reasons to

find $ 70i surveiilan"e unreasonable, reasotrableness does not demand "perfection," and so "[g]iven the number of decisions and volumo of inforrnation involved, it should not be surprising that occasionally

errors are made." November at 1016 (finding surveillance

6, at

201 5 issue

FtSA Ct.'Op., slip op. at 4546; sed also In re DirectiveJ, 551 satisfied reasonableness requirement where i'the risks of error

F.3d and

abuse are withil acceptable limits and effective rninimization procedures are in place")'

54

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 55 of 84 PageID #:1046
See Mohamud
11,843F..3d at 438,440n.24 (refusing to address querying of incidentally'collected information' where case involved only the targeting of a forei'gn nzitional, through which defendant's
Because alJayab was not aggrieved'by any backdoor searche!, the Court need not consider the issue firrther'
Going a step firther, however, $ 702's mirumization procedures generally sufficiently protect against unbridled searches of the,communications of U-S. pelsons and individuals located
in the United States. See November.6, 20.'5 FISA Ct Op., slip op. at 3945 (addressing FBI's
minimization procedures allowing use of U-S. person information to query $ 702 acquired inforrnation to find evidence of.crimes rmrelated to foreign intelligence and finding the minimization.procedwes "skike a reasonable balance" between the government's national security interests and individuals' privacy interests, making the procedrires reasonable under the
Fourth Amendmen t); [Caption RedactedJ,20l I WL 10945618, at *7 (approving querying
provision allowing for searches using U.S. person identifiers, noting that FISA Court has
approved sirnilar applications for inforrnation acquired under Titles i and III of FISA, and that
the NSA,s'minimization procedures for $ 702 collection'"should not be problematic in a collection that is focused on non-United States persons located outside the United States and -that, in the aggregate, is less likely to result in the acquisition of nonpublic information regarding non-consenting United States persons"), Moreover, "[a]ccessing stored records in a database iegitimately acquired is not a gearch in the context of the Fourth Amendment because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information," so no warrant is needed' Muhtorov, L87 '
55

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 56 of 84 PageID #:1047

I Spp. 3dat1256 MahamudJ,2014 WL 2866149,at*26 ("fS]ubsequeflt querying of a $ 702
collection, even if U.S- identifiers are used, is not a separate search and does not.make $ 702

surveillance ulreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.'). The government must review information collected pursuant to $ ?02, including that concerning U.S. persons or those iocated in the United'States, to determine rvhether to retain or disseminate it under its minimization procedures. The additional inkusion upon ar individual's privacy in searching that inforrnation

gsing a U.S. p5rson identifier is not significant and, in light of the minimization procedures

already in place, does not rend.er $ 702 unreasonable- See Hasbairami,2lT|Wl 1029500, at *12 n20; Mohamud 1.,2O\4WL286674I, at*26.

Having examined the totality of the circumstarces, and in light ofthe protections.
.he
provided by $ 702's targeting and minimizationprocedures, the Court concludes that ti
,+oI govemment's interesl in protecting'national r""*ity outweighs.the intusion

The Court therefore firdtI

ris applied

to al-Jayab, reasopable under the Fourth Amendment

.

5, Separation of Powers '

finally, ai-Jayab argues that $'702 is unconstitutional because the FISA Court does not
)
issue a warrant based on probable cause but rather authorizes and certifies general procedures,
which means it 'essentially renders advisory opinions on whether tha proposed targeting and

minimization procedures comply with the statute and.Constitulion instead of Iooking at
particularized facts orcontexl See'Ghafinv. Chafin,568 U.S. 165,'172,133 S. Ct. 1017, 185 L.

Ed. 2d 1 (2013) ('iFederal courts may not . . . give 'opinionfs] advising what the law would be
upon a hypothetical state of facts."' (alteration in original) (quoting l*wis v. Cont'l Bank Corp.,

, 494 U.S. 4'72, 477,1 10 S. Ct. 7249,1 08 L. Ed. 2d, 400(1 990)). Acc.ording to al-Jayab, when

s6

j

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 57 of 84 PageID #:1048
the FISA Court considers $ 702 requests, it does not function as the neutral and detachedjudge
- required by the Fourth Amendment See Steagald v. United States,4s1 U.S' 204,212,101 S- Ct.
1642, 6t L. Ed. 2d 3 8 (I9B 1) (noting that "[t]he purpose of a warrant is to a11ow a neutral judicial om"o to assess whether the police have pro.bable cause to make an a:rest or conduct a search,"
with the judge acting as a "checkpoint between the Govemment and the citizen"). But courts faced with this argument hdve rejected it, and this Court sees no reason to
deviate finm those mlings. See Mohamud 1,2014 WL2866149, aff'd, Mohamud 11,843 F-3d 420; Muhtorov; 187 F. Supp. 3 d 1 240. .ln Mohamud I, the district court rdj ected the idea that the FISA Court only provides advisory opinions oI assists in designing $ 702 procedures, concll'ding that the FISA Court's "review of $ 702 surveiliance submissions provides prior review by a
.' neutral and detached magistrirte 2014WL2866749, al*11. TheNinth Circuit agreedthat
-- -$ 702 suwived-separation of,-pow9rs.and.-non=delegation challenges,.finding that-the..ElSA.-- .-.
Court's review ofthe surveillance applications whs "similar to the review of search wzurants aBd wiretap applications- and was not advisory because the FISA Court either approved or denied &eapplications. MohartudII,S43 F.3dat 444n-2S..lnMuhtorov"althoughtlecourttqoka different view from Mohamud infinding that the FISA Court's 'tole in approving the surveilling of individual foreign powers or agents under traditional FISA is qualitatively different.from its role in approving the surveillance and incidental acquisition of strangers' communications under'. the FAA," the court nonetheless found that.for purpoies of the case before it,'that role <lid not
offend Artigle III so as to invalidate $ 702 as a foreign intelligence gathering tooi. 187 F. Supp. Sdat l25l-52. The Court sirnilariy. finds that, although differences do exist between traditional
warrantapplications and those made under $ 702 to the FISA Court, the role played by the FISA
Court in approving $ 702 applications does not improperly blur'constitutionai separation of
57

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 58 of 84 PageID #:1049

powers so as to render $ 702 unconstitutional. Therefore; the Court finds that $ 702 is coirstitutional as applied to al-Jayab:3|
Acquisition of $ 702 Materials in this Case' Having concluded that $ 702 js constitutional as applied to al-Jayab, the Court must still consider whether the governrnent lawfuliy acquired the $ 702 informatibn in this case and conducted the acquisitions in conformity with the orders of authorization. Al-Jayab briefly raises this issue, arguing that the acquisition may haveviolated the statute by, for example, inteationail.y targeting a person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States or a U.S- person believed to be outsid'e the United. States, that the acquisition was not made pursuant to the necessary certifications,'or that the targeting and.minimization procedures did not cornply with 50 U.S.C. $ lSSla(d) and (e). Although undeveloped, the Court finds these bases unfounded. Instead, based on.its fn carnera and ex partereview of the $ 702 materials, the Court concludes that the $ 702 acquisition in this case was lawfully authorized and.conducted, as set forth below.

1.

Section 702 Authorizations a.nd Procedures

Cerfification

'5 Be"ause the Court conctudes that $ 702 pasSes constitutional muster, it need not consider the govornment's argument that tlre good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides an independent basis for denying al-Jayab' s motion to suppress.'
58

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 59 of 84 PageID #:1050
tl:e certification under oath, and it was accompanied by. the applicable taigeting and' minitnization piocedures and supported by the required affidavits. See 5A U.S.C. $ 188la(g);
And the FISA Court found that the ameuded minimization procedures complied with the requirements of both $ 702 and the Fourth
/d Amendment. Similatly, the Court's review of the certification and amended submissions
indicates that they complied with all statutory and constitutional requirements.
b. Targeting and Minimization Procedures
lTh" CoW next examihes the targeting and minimization proceduresto ensure they complied with the statutory requirements. The pertinent targeting and minimization procedures
here are:
Although these procedures differ in some ways from the curent procedures in place, the govemment re;jresents that the differences are not relevant.
'To comply with the statutq targeting procedures rnust be '?eaSonably designed" to "ensurs that any acquisition authorized [bV $ 702] is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outsid.e ihe United States" and to "prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender. and all intended recipients are known at the time of
59

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 60 of 84 PageID #:1051

theacquisitiontobelocatedintheUnitedStates." 50.U.S.C. $ 1881a(d)(l). TheNSA's . targeting procedures require NSA analysts to examine tlie totality of the circumstances ih

determining whether an individual is a non-U.S- person reasonably believed to be located outside

the United States, searching lead infonnation, NSA databases and other available information,

and. conducting technical analyses of the facilities at issue to determine or verify the information

about thb person's location. A target is tasked only after interaal approvai. Various checks are

buiit into the-tasking determination, both pre- and posttargeting, to ensure that a person has not entered the United States since targeting and prevent the targeting of individuals within the

U$ted States. Like the FISA Court, the Court finds these targeting procedures satisfu the

statutory requirements.

According to the statuie; minimization procedrues muSt be "reasonably designed in light

gf the purpgse and Lechnique of the particular surveillance" to minimize the acquisition and retention of non-publiciy available information of non-consenting U.S. persons, andprohibit the

dissemination of such information that is acquired, consislent with the need to obtain,.produce,

and disseminate foreign inteliigence infonaation. 50 U.S.C. $$ 1801(hX1)-(3), 1881a(eXl). uu*tially, the government notes that the FiSA Court h?rs found that "[t]he targeting of

communications pursuant to Section 702 isdesighed in a'manner that diminishes the tii<"tiirooa

that U.S. person information will be obtdined." In re DNI/AG Certification 2Q084 Op., Sealed

Ex. l0 at 23 (FISA Ct. Sept. 4;2008). Theminimization procedures at issue hereprovide ftrther

. protection in ling with the statutory requirements. .,

Iprovide

that dissemiaations based on communications involving a U.S. pe5son are

60

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 61 of 84 PageID #:1052
authorized only if they meet certain criteria;3i otherwise, the identity of the U.S. person was to be replaced with a generic term or symbol. See Sealed Ex. 31 at I 1' The amended FBi minimization procedures contained similar provisions. See also Sealed Ex-32at26-12' The FBI,s minimization procedures do allow properly-trained persormel to conduct searches of
.
unminimize d S 702 acquiied information, including searches using te.rms with U-S' person information, as long as they are reasonably designed to "find and extracf' either "foreign intelligence information" or "evidence of a cnme." See id. at 77,24-25. But the Court does not find that ttrese U.S. person queries vioiate t RedacredJ,20 I I WL.l 0945618, at +7 -
Acqtrisition in this Case

,, Th" name of the person could be disseminated if, for example, the information was "necessary to

^ unaortuna foreign intelligerrce information" or if "the
United States person y A" engaging in international

communication or information terrorist activities-" Sealed Er.

indicate[d] that
3l at I t-12'

tlte

61

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 62 of 84 PageID #:1053
62

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 63 of 84 PageID #:1054

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 64 of 84 PageID #:1055

I

The Court again finds that the FBItook all steps requiled by its ininimization

procedures in connection with the acquired. communications.

Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the $ 702 mhterials at issue, the Corirt finds that the acquisition was lawfuIiy authorized and conducted. The Court denies al-Jayab's motion to
fromthil suppress the evidence obtained or derived IfI. Traditional FISA Collection
ln its response to al-Jayab's various motions, t[e government also argxes that the Coun

should fi.nd that the physical search conducted pursuant to traditional FISA authorities complied

with the statutory requirernents and that the Court shoutd not suppress the information obtained from the search. Al-Jayab did not make a formal motion to suppress information obtained
pursuant to traditional FISA authorities so as to trigger ex parte arrd in camerarevieW of that

information. ^jee 50 U.S.C. $ 1825(f)-(g), But because the govemment has provided this' information to the Court, and given al-Jayab's belated assertion of such a motion.in his reply, see

Doc. 69 at 13, the Court considers the legatity of the traditional FISA physical search that

occurred in this case.
As with the $ 702 col[ection, $ I S25(g) provides for an in bantera, ex parte review of FISA materials to determine whether the physical search was lawfully authorized and conducted
where'the Auomey General has filed an affrdavit indicating that disclosure or any adversary hearing would barm the national security of the United States. 50 U.S.C. $ 1825(g). The Court . may only disclose materials to the defense aftet undertaking this review'if the Court concludes "disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the physical

search." .Id.

64

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 65 of 84 PageID #:1056

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 66 of 84 PageID #:1057
In undertaking its review of the traditional FISA
collection, the Court addresses (l) whether the certification submitted in support of the FISA
application was properly made, (?) whether the FiSA Court properly found probable cause, and
. (3) whether the FISA collection was properly minimized tJnited States v. Turner,840 F,3d 336,
33g (7th Cir.2016);50 U.S.C. $$ 1823(a), 1824(a). The court reviews the proprietv of the FISA Court orders de novo;conducting the same revjew as the FISA Court. Turner,840 F.3d at 140' This de nouo review extends to consideration.of the FISA Court's probable cause determinations.
Id.
A. Probable Cause
FISA requires the government to establish probable cause that the target "is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power'l and that "'the premises or property to be searched is or is about to be owned, uscd, possessed by, or is in transit to or from an agent of a foreign powei or.a foreignpower." 50U.S.C. $ IS2a(a)(2). FISAdefines"foreignpower"toinclude'lagroup engaged in international te6orism or activities in preparation therefor." 50 U'S.C. $ 1801(a)( ). Ah ,,ug".nt of a foreign poweC' includes a non-U.S- person who "engages in intemational
terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," dd any person, including a U'S' person, who
"knowingly engages in sabotage or intemationul t"rro.irm, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power." 50 u.s.c. $ 180l(bx1xc), (bx2xc).
66

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 67 of 84 PageID #:1058
67

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 68 of 84 PageID #:1059
B. Certifrcation
The Court must also ensure that the ceidfication submitted by the go*r"*-"ni complied
with all the statutory requirements. This means that it "contains all statements and certifications required by section 1823 of this title, and, if the target is a United States person, the certification or certifications are.not clearly eroneous." 50 U.S.C. $ l82a(4(a). The certification must include information that (1) "the certifuing official'deerirs the information sought to be foreign
intelligence information i' (2) "a significant pupose of the search is to obtain foreigu intelligence
information," ard (3) the "informatioil caru:6l reasonabiy be obtained by normal investigative techniques." 50 U.S.C. $ i823(a)(6XA)-(C). The Court's role "is not.to secon&guess the executive branch official's certificationsj.' In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Special April2002 .Grond Jury, 347 F .3d 197 ,205 (7th Cir. 2003). Al-Jayab dees not challenge any specific factor set forth in $ 1823(a).
68

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 69 of 84 PageID #:1060
. C. Minimization
After the FISA Court approves FISA surveillance, the government must comply with specific minimization procedures, as described in its application. These minimization procedures provide protections for the communications and information of U.S. persons and must be "reasonably designed , . . to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information conceming unconsenting United States persons conslstent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign
inteiligence information )' See 50 U-S.C. $ 1821(4).
. "The.minimization requirement obligates the Govemment to make a good faith effort to
minimize the acquisition and retention of irrelevant tnformation ." (Jnited States v. Hammoud,
.381 F.3d 376,334(4th Cir- 2004),rev'donother grounds,543U.S. 1097 (2005). The procgdures "are subject to a rule of reason," Llnited States v. Rosen, 447 E . Supp. 2d 538, 5 53
69

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 70 of 84 PageID #:1061
(8,D. Va. 2006), with "nominal failure to abide by the minimization prqcedures" not intended . "to undercut entire investigations," (fnited States v. Aziz,228F. Supp, 3d 363,378 (M.D' Penn.
2017) (citing S. Rep, No. 95-701, at21-22).
AF The SMPs'govem the acquisition, retentio& and dissemination of non-publicly available
information conceming non-consenting U.S. persons acquired bV tfe FBI pursuant to FISA. They do not apply to information concerning non-U.S. persons except for provisions concerning attomey-client communibations, use of FlSA-acquired. information in criminal proceediirgs in both the United States and foreign countries, and the dissemination of raw FlSA-acquired ' information to other agencies. ,See Sealed Ex. 39, SMP $ I.B.
70

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 71 of 84 PageID #:1062
theJwas Having reviewed the traditional FISA materiai, the Court finds
properly authorized and qonducied. Thus, the Court will not suppress the information obtained
or cen!'ec rrom rna]. w. Al-Jayab's Request for Disclosure of FISA Materials.
. In his reply briefaddlessing $ 702 and FISA surveillancc, nT-Jayab requests the
disclosure bf all $ 702 arfiFISA related materials and objecls to any ex parte and in cqmera proceedings under 50 U.S.C. $ 1806(0 and $ I825(9) to determine whether any electronic br physical searches \pere lawfully conducted.ao But th"s" statutes prouia" tn"t? upon the filing of an afFrdavit by the Attorney General that disclosure or an adversary hearing of the materials relating to the $ 702 or FISA surveillance would harm the national security of the United States, the Court shall 'condu ct an in camera and ex pmte review of the materials to determine whether the surveillance was lawfirlly authorized arrd conducted, 50 U.S.C. $$ tS06(0, 1825(9). Only after undertaking this review may the Court order disclosure of the materials to the defense, and it may do so only where "necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the
oo lr, his opening brief cor:cerning $ 702 surveillarrce, al-Jayab did include a request that the Court order the govemment to disclose all $ 702 material to the Court, but he did not ask for such disslosure to his own couniel. See Doc.48 at48.
7l

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 72 of 84 PageID #:1063
surveillance,, or ..the physical search'o 50 U.S.C. $ 1806(f), 1S25(g); see Daoud,755 F'3d at 484 ..
(.Unless and until a district judge performs his or her'stanrtory duty of attempting to determine ' the Iegality of the suveillance without revealing any of the fruits of the surveillance to defense ,counsel, there is no basis for concluding that disclosure is necessary.in order to avert an erroneous conviction.").
Al-Jayab contends that disclosure wo'uld substantially promote the Court's understanding of the legality of the surveillance here, particularty in light of al-Jayab's "ompii"X"d' factual backgro*nd and the need to ensure the'accuracy of translations and atributions in the materials ' at issue. Although the Court agrees with al-Jayab that'1he legality of the survdillance and search would be better tested through the adversarial process," that is not the relevant inquiry' United
states i. Mubayyid,52l F -Supp. 2d 125,130(D. Mass. [AOT("The question under the statute,
hbwev?i, iEhdfhowtO optiinize the legal revierilof.thesuweillance and search; but whether disclosure is .gecessary' in order to make that determiuation.").
Al-Jayab also argues that disclosure is necessary to provide a basis for arry potential suppression motion pursuant to Franla v. Delaware; 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct-'2674,57 L.Ed"2d
667 (lg1t). The Courr acknbwledges the difficutty al-.layab faces in making the reguired
preliminary showingthat statements in the FISA or $ 702 applications were false to be entitled to a hearing without access to the underlying materials. But the court cannot provide access to marqrials ,.simply to ensure against the possibilily of a Franis violation" without such a
preliminary showing. Mubayyid,s2l F. Supp, 2d at 130-47; see also Mohamud I,2o14WL Zg6674g,at *3I (denying Frankshearing where defendantonly speculated about'false
stiatements or omrsslorrs and.relied on uruelateLd.,A c-^a-^s-.e^ s to ^s-u---g^^g+est errors in his case, collecting
cases); United States v. Medunianin,No.l0 CR f9 I (RJD), 2Ol2WL 526+28,at tl0 (E'D'N'Y'
't2

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 73 of 84 PageID #:1064
Feb.'16, 2ll2)('Defense counsel . . . mey not inslect thb FiSA docketS to construct a better argument for inspecting the FISA dockets. such a circular exercise would be patently ' inconsistent with FISA[.J"). Here, al-Iayabhas given the court no basis to suspect a Franks violation. But the.Court has kept the difficulties inherent in making a preliminary showing in mind in undertaking its careful, independent review of the FlSA'record. see Daoud,755 F '3d'at
4g4 (noting the difficulties for a defendant ig mounting a Frankschallenge without access to
classified materials, but stating that "[t]he drafters of the Foreign Intelligence surveillance Act devised a solution: the judge makes the additional determination, based on fulI access to all classified materials and the defense's proffer of its version of events, of whether it's possible to determine the validity of the Franlcs challenge without disclosure of any of the classifled materials to the defens e'l); Aziz,.228 F. Supp' 3dat37l ("In recognition [of the "all but insurmountable,, pre.liminary burtlen a defendarit faces in the FISA contcxt], congress mandated
'ln
carefui ex parte and. in cameraiudicial review of the FISA record' essence' the court's independent review rnay supplant thatof d'efense counsel '')' But see Daoud'?55 F'3d at 486-
496 (Rovner, J., conc.urring) (addressing the diffi.culties in reconciling Franl<s with FISA proceedings where defendants do not have access to ihe FISA applications)' Having reviewed the materials; the'iourt finds no eyid.eirce or indication of a material misstatement or omlsslon so
as to warrant a Franl*hearing. The Court has also found it possible to deterrnine the legality of
the investigations fromm rthe FIISS,AA. materials without disclosure to thne doeflensee'' SDee Du@aooud,755
F.3d at 484-85(where the jUdge is "capable" of "making an accurate determination without
disclosing any classified materials !o defense counsej ' . - disclosure was not'necessary' under any definition of that word"); Hasbairami,zalt-wl, 1029500, at *14 (finding that court could ,,evalulte the legality of the challenged surveillance without cohciuding that due process first
IJ

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 74 of 84 PageID #:1065

warranted'disclosure"); Mohamudl,2014 WL 2866749,at*32 (finding "necesSafI" to "be much closer to 'essential' than to 'helpful"' and that the court could make an accurate determination of

the legality of the surveillance without disclosure.to the defe4se). AI-Jayab also argues that disclosure is necessary as a matter of due process, relying on
the balancing test set foth in Ma thews v. Eldridge,4z4 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S. Ct' 8g3,47 L' Ed'
zdlS (1976). The gov.ernment contends that the Mathewsbalancing test does not apply in criminai cases. See Medina v. California, 505 U.S- 437, 44US , 1 12 S. Ct,2577', 120 L. Ed' 2d 353 (1992) (questioning the applicabllity of Mathews to resolving due process ciaims in criminal cases); tlnited States v. Warsame,547 F- Supp. 2d.982,988 (D. Mirn. 2008) ("The Court is . therefore not convinced that the Matheu,s balancing test supplies an appropriate framework for

evaluating FISA procedures in this case.'). But even those courts to have considered the

*:Yt Muthewsframework in the FISA

have all found that FISA's in camera, ex parte review

process complies with due process. See United Statesv. ELMezain,664 F.3d 467, 567-68 (sth

Cir. 201i) (concluding after engaglngin balancing test that due process did not require disclosure of FISA materials); (Jnired States v. Elshinawy, No. ELH-16-00 Og,2Ol7 WL
1048210, at *8-9 (D. Md Mar. 20, 2ll7)(collecting cases); Aziz,228l Supp, 3d at 369
({inding that FISAts "systern of legislative, executive, and judicial supervision adequately guards

a defendant's constitutionai rights"). Al-Jayab, does not raise any arguments that would compbl

the Corrrt to.deviate fiom these well-reasoned opinions. Following these opinions, then, the Court similarly finds that due process does not require disclosure of the FISA materials to

defense counsel. . Next,'al-Jayab argues that Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83, requires disclosure of the

FISA materials, contending that the government's application to the FISA Court and the FISA

74

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 75 of 84 PageID #:1066

Court order authorizing the elechonic and physical searches in this case would'be helpful to the

defense in preparing the motions to suppress the $ 702 and FlSA-derived evidence. But having

reviewed the FISA documents, the Court concludes that thesse documents include no exculpatory

Brady. material that must be disclosed under

.

Finally, in a supplemental filing, al-Jayabargues that the declassification and reiease in

February 2018 of trryo House Select.Committee on Intelligence memorandathat summarize

portions of a FISA application demonstrate that l'it i.s possible to discuss publicly the merits of a

FISA application without damaging national securit5/'and warrant disclozure of the FISA
materials in this case to cleared defense counsel. Doc. 99-1 at 5. In the case of tthhe. House Select .
Committee o.n.lntelligence rnemorand4 however, the President made an executive decision to

declassify the information, having determined thit "the public interest in disclosure dutweighs

- - .-any needtb-proteet"the .infsrr.ration.l' Doc,99-.1. at 1.0,. The lirnited deciassif,tcation.of.FlS,A.- - - - .. : . - .- - *. -
- materiah in those memoranda does not suggest that all FISA materials should now be made

available to defense counsel or the pubiic" where each FISA applic?rtion must be evaluated

individually to determine whether its disclosure would harm national security. Here, the
. executiye branch maintains that disclosure of the FISA information would harrn national

iecurity. The Court defers to the executive branch's certifications on such is sues,seb In re

Grand Jury Proceedings,34T F.3d at205, and may only diiclose the FISA materials to defense

counsel if it finds it cannot make an accurate determination of the legatity of the surveillance in

camera arrd ex parte, see Daoud,755 F.3d at 484. The recent disclosure of select FISA materials

does not affect this standard of review. As the Court has found disclosure unnecessary under this

standard, the Corirt denies al-Jayab's request for disclosure and his objection to the conduct ofex

' parte and in camerqproceedings with respect to the FISA materials.

t)

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 76 of 84 PageID #:1067

V. .

Al-Jayab,s Motion for Notice of Surveillance Techniques Used During the Course rif

the Investigation [52]

Al-Jayab also requests an order compelling notice and discovery of (1) each surveillance '

pro$am or technique the governrnent used tij obtain information about al-Jayab's communications or activities during its investigation, (2) the Iegal authority relied on, and (3) the

walTants, orders, directives, and court appiications that supported the surveillance used'al

Specifically, al-Jayab requests disclosure concerning.the following surveillance techniques:
(1) FISA $$ 703-705 (s0 u.s.c. $ 18s1b-d); (2) s0 u..s.c. $ 1861 ($ 2i5 of the Patriot Act); and (3) National Security Letters (specifically, l8 U:S.C. $ 2709), He claims disclosure is required
by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, 18 U.S.C. $ 3504, FISA, and Federal.Rules of Criminal

Procedure 12 and 16.
A. 'surueillance Techniques at Issue

As for surveillance under PISA $$ 703-705,aI-Jayab contends that although these sections target U.S. persons located bvers"as, they may berelevant because intelligence agencies could have intercepted al-Jayab's commr:nications with U.S. persons located overseas and also appesr to have intercepted his communications when he was allegedly overseas from late 2013 through early 2014. The government is expressly required to give notice of its intent to enter

into evidence or otherwise use or disclose information.obtained or derived from $ 703

surveillance. 50 U.S.C. g$ 1806(c), 1881e(b). This notice requirement does not apply to

surveillance derived from $ 7A4 or $.705. Sbction 2 I 5 of the Patriot Act allows for the production of "any tangible things" in

connection.with investigations to obtain foreign inteliigence information not concerning U.S.

al Al-Jayab's counsel atso made this request of the govemment in a June 30, 2016 discovery letter. 76

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 77 of 84 PageID #:1068
persons or to protect agrlinst intemational terroriim. 50 U-S.C. $ 1861(aXl )' The government
previously used $ 215 tosupport the bulk collectiou of call tecords, but the second circuit found
in 20.15 that $ zts did not allow for such collection' see AGLU v' Clapper,785 F'3d 787' 810s21 Qdcir. 2015), Al-layabalgues that because much of the surveillance in this case predated
clapperand congress' subsequent modification of $ 215 to expressly prohibit the bulk collection of catl records, the government may have relied on $ 215 to collect his call records' fie ulso contends that the government could have uSed this section to obtain his internet brcwsing records, travveell re"ccoorrds, iamnd flminanncial recbrds, including the international money transfers mentioned in the criminal complaint in the case pending against him jn the Eastem District of California.
Finally; al-Jayab posits that the government may have used national security lett"s to obtain his unique IP addresses;.account inforrnation across various online communication services, and his internet browsingrecords, 18 U'S'C' g 2709 provides.'that the FBI may compel wire or electronic cornmunication service providers to disclose subscriber informatioir and electronic communication transactional records when an FBI senior official certifies that such records are relevant to authorized investigations to protect against intemational terrorism'
B.AllegedBasesforRequiringNoticeofSurveillanceTechuiques
[. Fourth and Fifth Ameudmbnts
First,al-JayabcontendsthattheFourthandFifthAmendments.requirethegovernunentto disclose its use of surveillance methods so as to allow him to challenge the legaliry of these methods and.'seek suppression of the deriv ative evidence'' Essentially, at.Jayab argues that
if without knowing the methods of the government's surveilliance of him, he cannot detemline
anything the govemment intends to introduce against him at trial is derived from unlawful
?7

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 78 of 84 PageID #:1069
surveillance ,i.e., if itis the fririt of a potentially poisonous tree' The government represents th;t
it has complied with its notice and discovery obligations and so has no further obligation to inform al-Jayab of which, if any, additional suweillance techniques ii used' But al-Jayab argues that the government should not be entitled to make these determinations on its own and ttrat he is
entitled to know if the eviden"" 1" govelnment intends to use, wen if obtained through lawful
means, derived. ftom unlawful surveillance. Al'Jayab cttesAlderman v. (Jnited States,394 U'S'
t 6s, gg s. ct. 95 i, zzL. Ed.2d 176 (1969), to algue that the court cannot ailow the govemment
to unilaterally decide the relevance and legality of the evidence it has gathered' ln Alderman' the' supreme court required an adversarial hearing because unlawful surveilldnce had admittedly occurred, fd. at 180-82, in iontrast to the situation herc, where al-Jayab sqeks to first Ieam of the surveillance techniques used so as to determine whether any illegat surveillance occurred in the
first place. see (Jnited states y. D'Andrea,495 F.zd I l7O,ll74 (3d Cir. 1974) (distingrrishing Aldermanand approvin g of ex parte, in camerahearing to ad'dress the threshold question of ..whether the alleged illegal surveillance had occurred at ali")'
2. n Iq u.s.c. $ 3so4
Al-Jayab also arguei that he is entitled to notice of electronic surveillance under 18
u.s.c. $ 3504. Section 3504 provides that if a party in a proceeding claims that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawfirl act or because it was obtained by
.the exploitation of an uniawful act, the govemment must afftrm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawfui act. 18 U.S.C. $ 3504(a)(1). Section 3504 "concerns only unlawful ' surveillance; it.does not reguire affirmance or denial of a/I surveillance." Aziz,228F' Supp' 3d at370..
78

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 79 of 84 PageID #:1070
Al-Jayab argues that he need only make a colorable claim of having been subjected to
iilegal surveillance . See United States v. Apple,9l5 F.2d 899, 905 (4th Cir' 1990) (requirine
party claiming to be the victim of illegal surveillance to assert'a "cognizable claim," or t'a positive statement that illegal surveillance has taken place," ard make a prima facii showing that the party was aggrieved by that surveillance , i.e., thathe was a party to an intercepted communication, that the government's efiorts were directed at him, or that the intercepted communications took place on his premises, which must be based on more than o'mele
). suspicion AI-Jayab contends he has done so, positing that the government has collected
information about him and his online activities using investigative tools and lawful search
wanants without providing details regarding their collection while also providing notice that it intends to use materials collected pursuant to the FAA'
The govemment contends that al-Jayab has not made asufficient claim of being
- subjecred to illegal surveillance by making only conclusory allegations related to his own case.
supported by citatibns to sources about unrelated problematic foreign.intelligence coilections.
See (Jnited States v. Aref,,285 F. App'x 784,7g3 (2d Cir. 2008) (defendar.it's showing of
staternents.by unnamed sources in a newspaper article and prosecutor's pattern of objections not suftcient to show unlawful gurveillance so as to trigger $ 3504 ); United States u' Loniono-
Cardona,Xb. OS-iO:04^GAO,2008 WL 313473,at *2 (D. Mass. Feb- l, 2008) (requiring
aggrieved person to make "some showing of basis for suspecting illegat action" because otherwise..the statute would have to be understood to require automatic disclosure simply on the
79

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 80 of 84 PageID #:1071

making of.an unsupported suggestion that there had been sbme unlawful intercept, which is not

what Congress appaxently intended'. (citine United States v- Doe,460 F.2d 328, 336 (1st Cir. lg72)). Brit in the'seventh Circuit, even where the defendant has made an allegation of

electronic surveillance that is unsupported by affidavit or otherwise unverified, the govemment

must still respond, although an affidavit bassd on the investigating prosecutor's personal. .
knowledge suffices. In re Grand Jury Proceedings of Aug., I 984,7 57 F.2d 108, I 14 (7th Cir.

1g84). Based on this precedent, then, aithough al-Jaya!'s allegations of unlawful surveillance

are unsupported, the Court requires the government to resp.ond by affidavit afFrming or denying

the alleged'surveillance. See id.; In re DeMonte,667 F'2d 5.90, 595 (7th Cir. 1981)'

'

But the Court agrees with the government that the extent of this $ 3504 inquiry does not

encompass FISA surveillance. As one district court has stated, although without citation or

analysis,.'.'..FIS.A.-'s particu laized.notice, disclosure, and suppression procedures. srpplan-t- tbe
requirements of $ 3504. " Aziz,228F.Supp. 3d at370- FISA's notice provisions, adopted after
$ 3504, are more specific and control over $ 3504's general'discldsure requirement' See GozlonPeietzy. UnitedStates,498U.S.395, 407,111 S. Ct. 840, 112L.8d.2d919 (1991) ("Aspecific

provision controls over one of.more general application-','); Bhd: of Maint. of Way Emps' v' CSX

Transp.,Inc.,478F.3d814,8i7(7th Cit.ZOOT)(Tnlookingattwostatuteswhichmightbesaid

to deal with the same subject maffer, we must apply certain priuciples. A specific statute takes ' precedence over a more gene.ral statute, and a later enacted statute may limit the scope of an
.
earlier statute.',). To the extent that al-Jayab seeks notice of other electonic surveillance not

covered by F1SA, however, the goVernment must comply with.$ 3504 as set forth above.

80'

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 81 of 84 PageID #:1072

3.

F'ISA

' To the extent that al-Jayab contends that he is entitled to notice under FISA, the

.governrnent represents that it has provided al-Jayab with all the notice to which he is entitled- As

the Court has already found, FISA's gotlce provisions comply with due process and so the Court

finds no fiuthEr'need for disclosure on this ground.. S/e Aziz,228 F. Supp. 3d at 369 (finding

constitutional deficiency in FISA's notice and disclqsure provisions3').

4. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12 and 16

'

Finally, al-Jayab argues that Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1 2 and 16 require

notice and disclosure of the government's surveillance techniques. Witil respect to FISA surveillance, FISA's statutory disclosure provisions displaced these rules. .See id. at370

(.,Congress intentionally replaced these discovery rules with FISA's disclosure framework. ' . .

FederaiRulesl2add16donot,andcannot,supersedeFISA,sstatutoryprohibitionon disclosure.?);UnitedStatesv. Thomsotn,752F. Supp. 75,Il-(W.D.N.Y- 1990) (*FlsA'rendered Rute 16 and other existing laws inapplicable to discovery of FISA surveillance information[']")Otherwise, the government represents that it has complied with Rule 12 and 16's disclosure requirements. To the extent events ultimately prOve otlerwise, the Court will address such'

violations as theY arise,
1,rI. Al-Jayab's Motion for Discovery Regarding Intelligence Agenciest Surveillance
Pursuant to Executivi Order 12333 [5U Finally, in a related mo{on, al-Jayab seeks the production of any material conceming the intelligence agencies' use of surveillance pusuant to Executive Order 12333 ('EO 12333"). He asks not only for production of additional materials but also that the government identiff previously. disclosed mateiials acquired under the authority of,EO 12333 . 'Additionall y, al-Jayab

8I

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 82 of 84 PageID #:1073
seeks all materials reflecting the use of EO 123333during the investigation into'al-Jayab's
communications and activities-
EO lz333provides that the intelligence bommunity shall conduct intelligence activities "necessary for the conduct offoreign relations and the piotection ofthe national security ofthe United States." EO 12333$ 1.4. This includes the "[c]ollection of information concerning, and
the conduct of activities to piotect against, intelligence activities directed against theUnited States, international terrorist . . . activities, and other hostilej activities directed against the United States by foreign pgwers, organizations, persons, and their agents." EO 12333 $ 1-a(c)' EO 1 23 3 3 authorizes co llection of inforrnati on'iconstituting forei gn intel li gence or countbrintelligence," provided that no foreign intelligence collection by agencies of the intelligence community "be undertaken for the prirpose of acquiring information concerning the dornestic activi.ties of United States persons." EO 12333 $ 2-3(b). The eollectionpr'ocedures ' "--'
used should."protect constiiutional and other legal rights and iimit rr" of such information to lawful governmental purposes." EO 12333 $ 2.4. Eq .J/1.I33 allows the use of techniques that
typically require a warant if the Attorney General determines there is probable cause to believe ihut th" technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of,a foreign power, even if the
technique is.beiug used in the United States or against a U.S. person abroad' EO 12333 $ 2-5. AI-Jayab contends he is entitled to nOtice of the use of EO 12333 for several reasons:
(l) to allow him ro potentially mount a challenge to rtb legality of the surveillance and seek
suppression of any derivative evidence, (2) to ensureproduction of exculpatory material pu;suant to Brady v. Maryland,373 U.S. 83,'and (3) because counsel is entitled to all of al-Jayab's
statements in the'government's possession, custody, or control pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(aXlXB). Altematively, al-Jayab argues thht, at a minimum, 18 U-S.C.
82

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 83 of 84 PageID #:1074
' $ 3504 entitles him to notice of sr:rveillance conducted pursuant to EO 12333. AI:Jayab claims
that based on discovery showing his online qommunications with indi'iiduals located overseas, inctuding in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, there is a colorable basis to believe that the government's case is obtained or derived from EO 12333 surveillance, requiring the government to affrrm or deny the use of surveillance pursuant to EO 12333.

The Court thus denies al-Jayab's motion for discovery

regarding surveillance pursuant t9 EO 12333.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Corut grants in part and denies in pafi the govemment's

motion for a protective order pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA [55]- The govemmen! may withhold

from discovery all but the

tocIPA$4-

83

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 115 Filed: 06/28/18 Page 84 of 84 PageID #:1075

The Court grants in part and denies in part alJayab's motion for notice of surveillance teclniques used during the course of the investigation [52]. The government must provide a.l-
Jayab with an affidavit in complian"" *ith 18 U.S.C. $ 3504. .The Court deriies al-Jayab's
motion to suppress evidence obtained or derived from warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Actl47),motion for disclosure to cleared counsel and objection to secret ex p.arte ClPAlitigation of Fourth Amendment suppression issue [50], and motion for discovery regarding the intelligence agbncies' surveillance pursuant to Executive Order 12333 [51]. The Court also denies al-Jayab's motion to.suppress evidence obtained or derived frorn the physical surveillance conducted pursuant to FISA and al-Jayab's motion fo.r disclosure of the underlying FISA arrd $ 702 materials.

Dated: June 28, 2018

United States District Judge

84

 
 Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:1102

%

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ucr 3 1 ?018
J:.?Bi.?Ar,.i5tH?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
AWS MO}IAMMED YOUNIS AI-JAYAB

No. 16 CR 181 No. 18 CR72L Judge Sara L. Ellis

PLEAAGREEMENT
1. This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the

Northern District of Illinois, JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., and defendant AWS

MOIIAMMED YOUNIS AL-JAYAB, and his attorneys, THOMAS ANTHONY

DURKIN and JOSHUA G. HERMAN, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule 11(c)(1)(C), as more fully

set forth below. The parties to this Agreement have agreed upon the following:

Charges in This Case
2. The superseding information in the Northern District of Illinois (16 CR

1"81) charges defendant with knowingly providing material support to a foreign

terrorist organization, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 23398 (the
"Chicago Case"). The indictment filed in the Eastern District of California

(2:16CR0008), and transferred to the Northern District of Illinois under RuIe 20
(18 CR 727), charges defendant with knowingly providing a materially false

statement to federal agents in a matter involving international terrorism, in violation

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2) (the "Sacramento Case").

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:1103
3. Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the
superseding information filed in the Chicago Case and the indictment filed in the
Sacramento Case, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his attorney.
4. Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with
which he has been charged.
Charges to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty
5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of
guilty to the superseding information filed in the Northern District of Illinois, which charges defendant with knowingly providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 23398; and the indictment filed in the Eastern District of California, which charges defendant with
knowingly providing a materially false statement to federal agents in a matter
involving international terrorism, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1001(aX2).
Factual Basis
6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges
contained in the Northern District of Illinois superseding information and the
Eastern District of California indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt:

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:1104
a. With respect to the Chicago Case:
Beginning no Iater than in or about October 2012, and continuing until on or about January 23, 2014, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant knowingly provided material support and resources, namely personnel, to a foreign terrorist organization, namely Ansar Al-
Islam, knowing that the organization was a designated foreign terrorist organization,
a
r**€*ism g.//AlW{
More specifically, beginning in or around October 20L2, defendant began
planning to travel to Syria to support Ansar Al-Islam, identified Turkey as a probable transit point, and sought to arrange the finances and logistics for his travel. From in
or about October 20L2 through November 2013, defendant communicated with
numerous friends and family members residing in the United States and outside the
United States in order to arrange and finance his travel to Syria. For example, on October L3,2012, defendant told Individual A, an associate located in Iraq, "I want togoback...I'IlgotoTurkeyandentersmuggledtoSyria...Whenlcome, I'llcall. Don't go with anyone except the Front. t. . .l Go with Ansar [Al-Islam] or with the [Al
Nusral Front only."
Defendant also communicated with friends residing inside and outside the United States about training to fight with groups in Syria. For example, on or about April 9,2013, defendant and his Facebook friend Omar Al-Hardan, who was residing

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:1105

in Texas, discussed their plans to travel from the United States to Syria to frght with

terrorist organizations. Defendant promised to train Al-Hardan when they arrived in

Syria, including on how to use firearms, such as Glock pistols and ML6 assault rifles,

and expressed his commitment to jihad, writing, "O God, grant us martyrdom for your

sake while engaged in fighting and not retreating; a martyrdom that would make you

satisfied with us."

On or about November 9, 20L3, defendant flew from Chicago to Istanbul,

Turkey. Soon thereafter, defendant traveled to Syria. While in Syria, defendant

ioined and fousht with Ansar Al-Sham and Ansar

lslam ffiaJ3^e-m

terronst ac

ng that Ansar Al-

On or about January 23,2014, defendant left Syria and returned to the United

States, via Turkey and the United Kingdom. Upon his return to the United States,

defendant's Customs Declaration Form made no mention of his travel to Turkey and

Syria; "Jordan," and "IJ.K." were the only entries in the "countries visited" field.

At the time defendant engaged in the conduct set for the above, he knew
Ansar Al-Islam was a designated foreign terrorist organization, ir_

b. With respect to the Sacramento Case:

On or about October 6,20L4, in the County of Sacramento, within the Eastern

District of California, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch of

the Government of the United States, to wit: the United States Citizenship and

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:1106
Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security, defendant did knowingly and willfully make materially false, fraudulent, and fictitious statements and representations, an offense involving international terrorism.
More specifically, oo or about October 6, 2014, defendant was interviewed by
USCIS agents in connection with his application for adjustment of his immigration status. During that interview, when directed to list the countries he visited during
the last time he traveled outside the United States in 2013-20t4, defendant
responded that he went to Turkey, and from Turkey he went to Britain and returned to the United States. This response was false because, as defendant then and there
well knew, he traveled to Syria in 2013-2014, and his travel was not confined to
Turkey and Britain before returning to the United States. When asked the purpose of that trip, defendant responded that he went to Turkey to see his grandmother and to visit the place. This response was false because, as defendant then and there well knew, he went to Turkey in order to get to Syria and did not have a grandmother living in Turkey.
In addition, during the interview, defendant denied (1) having ever been a member of or assisting a rebel group, militia, or insurgent organization; and
(2) providing any type of material support to any person or group that engaged in terrorist activity. Defendant's denials were false because, as defendant then and there well knew, he was a member of and provided material support to Ansar Al-

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:1107
Sham and the foreign terrorist organization Ansar Al-Islam while he was in Syria
between on or about November L9,20t3, and on or about January 17 ,20L4. Defendant statements were material to the determination by USCIS of his
eligibility for immigration benefits. Maximum Statutory Penalties
7. Defendant understands that the charges to which he is pleading guilty
carry the following statutory penalties:
a. The Chicago Case carries a maximum sentence of 15 years of
imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a life term of supervised release.
b. The Sacramento Case carries a maximum sentence of 8 years of
imprisonment, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years.
c. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant
will be assessed $100 on each count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any
other penalty imposed.
d. Therefore, under the charges to which defendant is pleading guilty, the total maximum sentence is 23 years of imprisonment. In addition,
defendant is subject to a total maximum fine of $500,000, a life term of supervised release, and special assessments totaling $200.
6

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:1108
Sentencing Guidelines Calculations
8. Defendant understands that in determining a sentence, the Court is
obligated to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and to consider
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. $ 3553(a), which include: (i) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (ii) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote
respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational orvocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (iii) the kinds of sentences available; (iv) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct; and (v) the need to provide restitution to any victim of the offense.
9. For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree
on the following points:
a. Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be
considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following
statements regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the
Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2016 Guidelines
Manual.

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:1109

b. Offense Level Calculations.

18 U.S.C. $ 23398
i. The base offense level is 26, pursuant to Guideline

g 2M5.3(a).

ii.

The offense level is increased by 2 levels because the

offense involved the provision of material support with the intent, knowledge, or
reason to believe that the support was to be used to commit or assist in the

commission of a violent act, pursuant to Guideline $ 2M5.3(b)(1)(E).

l1l.

The offense level is increased by 12 levels, pursuant to

Guideline $ 3A1.4(a), because the offense is a felony that involved a federal crime of terrorism as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section Zg32b(il(5), namely, the

offense: (1) was calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by

intimidation and coercion, and to retaliate against government conduct; and (2) was

a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 23398.

rv.

The total offense level for the violation of 18 U.S.C. $ 23398

is 40.

18 U.S.C. $ 1001(aX2)
v. The base offense level is t4, pursuant to Guideline

$ 2J1.2(a), because the offense involved obstruction of justice of a matter related to

international terrorism.

8

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:1110

vl.

Pursuant to Guideline $ 2J1.2(b)(l)(C), the offense level is

increased by 12levels because defendant was convicted under 18 U.S.C. $ 1001, and

the statutory maximum term of 8 years of imprisonment applies because the matter

relates to international terrorism.

vu.

The total offense level for the violation of 18 U.S.C.

$ 1001(a)(2) is 26.

Grouping

vltl.

Pursuant to Guideline $ 3D1.2(c), the offenses are grouped

because the $ 23398 charge embodies conduct that is treated as a specific offense

characteristic in the guideline applicable to the $ 1001(a)(2) conduct, namely because

the offense involved a matter related to international terrorism.

tx.

Pursuant to Guideline $ 3D1.3(a), the offense level

applicable to the Group is 40, because it is the offense level for the most serious of the

charges comprising the Group.

Acceptance of Responsibilit],
x. Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the

government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of

Guideline $ 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney's Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:1111

satisfr any fine that may be imposed in this case, a two-level reduction in the offense

level is appropriate.

xi.

In accord with Guideline $ 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely

notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting

the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its
resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline $ 3E1.1(b), if the Court
determines the offense level to be L6 or greater prior to determining that defendant

is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government

will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level.
c. Criminal History Category. With regard to determining

defendant's criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts

now known to the government, defendant's criminal history points equal zero.

Pursuant to Guideline $ 3A1.4(b), defendant's criminal history category is VI because

the offense is a felony that involved a federal crime of terrorism.
d. Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range.

Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, the anticipated offense

level is 37, which, when combined with the anticipated criminal history category of
VI, results in an anticipated advisory sentence of 276 months' imprisonment,

pursuant to Guidelines $ 5G1.1(a), in addition to any supervised release and fine the

Court may impose.

10

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:1112
e. Defendant and his attorney and the government acknowledge
that the above guidelines calculations are preliminary in nature, and are non-binding predictions upon which neither party is entitled to rely. Defendant understands that further review of the facts or applicable legal principles may lead the government to
conclude that different or additional guidelines provisions apply in this case.
Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation and that the Court ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing,
and that the Court's determinations govern the final guideline calculation.
Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the probation officer's or the Court's concurrence with the above calculations, and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of the Court's rejection of these
calculations.
10. Both parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is not governed
by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and that erors in applying or interpreting any of the sentencing guidelines may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. The parties may correct these errors either by stipulation or by a statement to the
Probation Office or the Court, setting forth the disagreement regarding the applicable
provisions of the guidelines. The validity of this Agreement will not be affected by
such corrections, and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea, nor the government the right to vacate this Agreement, on the basis of such corrections.
11

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:1113
Agreements Relating to Sentencing
1,1. This Agreement will be governed, in part, by
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C). That is, the parties have agreed that the maximum term of imprisonment in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons in total for both charges shall be 15 years. Other than the agreed maximum term of imprisonment, the parties have
agreed that each party is free to recommend whatever sentence it deems appropriate;
the Court remains free to impose the sentence it deems appropriate, subject to the maximum total term of 15 years of imprisonment. If the Court accepts the agreed
maximum term of incarceration set forth herein, defendant may not withdraw this plea as a matter of right under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d) and (e). If, however, the Court
refuses to the agreed maximum term of incarceration set forth herein, thereby
rejecting this Agreement, or otherwise refuses to accept defendant's plea of guilty, either party has the right to withdraw from this Agreement.
12. Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $ZOO at the time of
sentencing with a cashier's check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S. District Court.
Acknowledgrnents and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty Nature of Agreement
13. This Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire
agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant regarding defendant's criminal liability the Chicago Case and the Sacramento Case.
L2

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:1114
14. This Agreement concerns criminal liability on1y. Except as expressly set
forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver, or
release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial
civil claim, demand, or cause of action it may have against defendant or any other
person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States Attorney's Offices for the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of
California and cannot bind' any other federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities, except as expressly set forth in this
Agreement.
1,5. After sentence has been imposed on the Chicago Case and the
Sacramento Case, to which defendant pleads guilty as agreed herein, the government will move to dismiss the indictment filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
Waiver of Rights
16. Defendant understands that by pleading guiltSr he surrenders certain
rights, including the following:
a. Right to be charged by indictment. Defendant understands
that he has a right to have the charge prosecuted by an indictment returned by a concurrence of twelve or more members of a grand jury consisting of not less than sixteen and not more than twenty-three members. By signing this Agreement, defendant knowingly waives his right to be prosecuted by indictment and to assert at
13

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:1115

trial or on appeal any defects or errors arising from the information, the information

process, or the fact that he has been prosecuted by way of information.
b. Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not

guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public

and speedy trial.

The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge

sitting without a jury. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the judge

sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that

the trial be conducted by the judge without a jury.

ii.

If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of

twelve citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney
would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove

prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or

by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory challenges.

1tl.

If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that

defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him
unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each charge separately. The jury would

have to agree unanimously as to each count before it could return a verdict of guilty

or not guilty as to each charge.

t4

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:1116

lV.

If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge

would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering

each count separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government

had established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
v. At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government

would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant.

Defendant would be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney

would be able to cross-examine them.
vi. At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear

voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the

Court. A defendant is not required to present any evidence.

vu.

At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-

incrimination so that he could decline to testifr, and no inference of guilt could be

drawn from his refusal to testifu. If defendant desired to do so, he could testi$r in his

own behalf.
c.

Waiver of appellate and collateral rights. Defendant further

understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been available if he

had exercised his right to trial. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code,

Section L291, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, afford a defendant the
right to appeal his conviction and the sentence imposed. Acknowledging this,

15

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:1117
defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal his conviction, any pre-trial rulings by the Court, and any part of the sentence (or the manner in which that sentence was determined), including any term of imprisonment and fine within the maximums provided by law, and including any order of forfeiture, in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this Agreement. In addition, defendant also waives his right to challenge his conviction and sentence, and the manner in which the sentence was determined, in any collateral attack orfuture challenge, includingbut not limited to a motion brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. The waiver in this paragraph does not apply to a claim of involuntariness or ineffective assistance of counsel, nor does it prohibit defendant from seeking a reduction of sentence based directly on a change in the law that is applicable to defendant and that, prior to the filing of defendant's request for relief, has been expressly made retroactive by an Act of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the United States Sentencing Commission.
17. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is waiving all the
rights set forth in the prior paragraphs, with the exception of the appellate rights
specifically preserved above. Defendant's attorney has explained those rights to him, and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.
Presentence Investigation ReportlPost-Sentenee Supervision
18. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney's Office in its
submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the
16

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:1118
nature, scope, and extent of defendant's conduct regarding the charges against him,
and related matters. The government will make known all matters in aggravation
and mitigation relevant to sentencing.
19. Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial
Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney's Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his recent income
tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that
providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to provide this information, may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to Guideline $ 381.1 and enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of justice under Guideline $ 3C1-.L, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 or as a contempt of the Court.
20. For the purpose of monitoring defendant's compliance with his
obligations to pay a fine during any term of supervised release or probation to which defendant is sentenced, defendant further consents to the disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney's Office of defendant's individual
income tax returns (together with extensions, correspondence, and other tax
information) filed subsequent to defendant's sentencing, to and including the final year of any period of supervised release or probation to which defendant is sentenced.
Defendant also agrees that a certifred copy of this Agreement shall be sufficient t7

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:1119
evidence of defendant's request to the IRS to disclose the returns and return
information, as provided for in Title 26, United States Code, Section 6103(b). Other Terms
21. Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney's Office
in collecting any unpaid fine for which defendant is liable, including providing
frnancial statements and supporting records as requested by the United States
Attorney's Office.
22. Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with
respect to his immigration status if he is not a citizen of the United States. Under
federal law, a broad range of crimes are removable offenses, including one or more offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty. Indeed, because defendant is pleading guilty to an offense that is an "aggravated felony" as that term is defined in Title 8,
United States Code, Section 1101(a)(43), removal is presumptively mandatory.
Removal and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate
proceeding, however, and defendant understands that no one, including his attorney or the Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. Defendant nevertheless affirms that he wants to plead guilty regardless of
any immigration consequences that his guilty plea may entail, even if the
consequence is his automatic removal from the United States.
L8

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:1120
Conclusion
23. Defendant understands that this Agreement will be filed with the Court,
will become a matter of public record, and may be disclosed to any person.
24. Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this
Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further
understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafber prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or
may move to resentence defendant or require defendant's specific performance of.this
Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that in the event that the Court
permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of its terms and the government elects to void the Agreement and prosecute defendant, any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against defendant in accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of
19

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 129 Filed: 11/02/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:1121
limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such
prosecutions.
25. Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth in this Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty.
26. Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and carefully
reviewed each provision with his attorney. Defendant further acknowledges that he understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this
Agreement.
/r,/rt /" AGREED THIS DATE:

SHOBA PILLAY
REGO OTT nited States Attorney
Eastern District of California

JOSHUA G. Attorneys for Defendant

20

 
 Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:2044

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2045

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:2046

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:2047

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:2048

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:2049

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:2050

Case: 1:16-cr-00181 Document #: 154 Filed: 10/31/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:2051

 
 AO 9l (Rev

:1
Umren S IESDTSTruCT CoU
for the
Eastern District of California

FILED
JAN - 6 2016

United States of America

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN'DISTR ICT OF CALI FORNI A
cufix

Case No.
---oc,PlnY
21 6-MJ-1 :-EtB*

4w ! MQ H aUVI_Eo_vplUIlA t--JAYAq
Defendant(s)

CRIMTNAL COMPLATNT

l, Elizabeth Buckm i I ler, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge

and belief.

In or about the date(s) of

October 6,2014

in the county of

Sacramento in the

Eastern District of

California

, the defendant(s) violated:

Code Section

Offense Description

l8 u.s.c. $ r00r

Providing materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of an agency of the Uilited States, an offense involving intemational terrorism as defined in l8 U.S.C. $ section 233 1

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:
(see attachment)

X Continued on the attached sheet.
Sworn to betbre me and signed in my presence.
Date: /-/r - /CI/6
{f'wlfr: City and starc: Ct7,

C omp lainant's signature Elizabeth Buckmiller, Special Agent, FBI
Printed name and title
Judge's signature Edmund F. Brennan, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Printed nante and title

AFFIDAVIT
I, Elizabeth Buckmiller, being duly swom, hereby state as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION AND AFFIANT'S BACKGROUND
1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and have been so
employed since February 2013. I am currently assigned to the Sacramento Field Office. I have training in the preparation, presentation, and service of criminal complaints and arrest and search warrants. I have participated in numerous investigations into terrorism-related activities and am familiar with tactics, methods, tradecraft, and techniques of terrorists and their agents. I have received training regarding counterterrorism investigations, operations, and strategies, and have knowledge of various extremist groups, their ideologies, and their involvement in terrorist activity. I am involved in the investigation of offenses against the United States, including crimes of terrorism as set forth in Title I 8, United States Code, Section 2331, et seq.
2. This affidavit is submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause to - support a criminal complaint charging the subject - Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab
(hereinafter Al-Jayab) - with knowingly providing and attempting to provide materially false,
fictitious, and tiaudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1001 . This affidavit does not purport to set fbrth all of my knowledge of, or investigation into,
this matter.
3. The facts set forth in this affidavit are based on, among other things: my personal
knowledge gathered from participation in the investigation of Al-Jayab; information obtained from the investigative activities of other law enforcement officers; my review of documents and computer records related to this investigation; communications with others who have personal knowledge of the svents and circumstances described herein; and information obtained from interviews of Al-Jayab by United States government personnel.
4. Certain quotations herein are taken from draft transcripts of written communications that
transpired primarily in Arabic and were translated by FBI language analysts. Additional quotations herein are taken from draft transcripts of recorded conversations that transpired in English and Arabic and were translated contemporaneously with the assistance of an interpreter.

Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all conversations described or quoted in this affidavit are related in substance and part only. For example, the use of an ellipsis within brackets denotes text which was not included in this aftidavit for the sake of brevity and clarity. The conversations and other events described herein occurred on or about the ref'erenced dates. In addition, the identities of Al-Jayab's associates and others have been redacted by replacing names with the word o'Individual" followed by a letter.
5. For the reasons stated herein, I respectfully assert that there is probable cause to believe
that on or about October 6,2014, Al-Jayab, a person who currently resides in the United States,
did willfully and knowingly make and cause to be made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or
agency of the United States, specifically the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and an agency of the executive branch, and the otfense involved international terrorism as detined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2331,a11 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.
II. SUBJECT: AWS MOHAMMED YOUNIS AL.JAYAB
6. As confirmed by photo identification and USCIS records, Al-Jayab is a 23-year-old male
who currently resides in Sacramento, California. Al-Jayab was born in Iraq, and he emigrated from Syria to the United States as a refugee in October 2012. Travel, bank, and electronic communications records establish that Al-Jayab resided in the United States from approximately October 2012 to November 2013 and again from January 2014 to the present.l He remains in refbgee status to the present date, and as such, he is subject to the jurisdiction of USCIS for purposes of this offense.

'

After arriving in the United States as a refugee in October 2012, Al-Jayab resided in Tucson, Arizona and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He first began to reside in Sacramento, within the Eastern District of California, upon his

return flonr Syria in lale January 2014,

III. SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION
1. USCIS officers conducted an in-terview of Al-Jayab on October 6,2014, at the
Sacramento USCIS office, with the assistance of an Arabic language interpreter.2 Al-Jayab was advised it was unlawful to provide false statements to the interviewers. Specifically, Al-Jayab was placed under oath and the following statement was read to him: "Title l8 USC makes it
against the law to provide false statements to the government. If you knowingly and willfully
provide false information or conceal a material fact, you are subject to criminal penalties. It is against criminal law to lie or cover up information during the interview." Al-Jayab acknowledged he understood this statement.
8. During the October 6,2014 interview with USCIS, Al-Jayab made the following
statements:
a) When directed to list the countries he visited during the last time he traveled
outside the United States, in 2013 to 2014, Al-Jayab responded that he went to Turkey, and from Turkey he went to Britain and returned to the United States.
b) When asked the purpose of his trip, Al-Jayab responded he went to Turkey to see
his grandmother and to visit the place.
c) Al-Jayab responded, o'No," to the following inquiries:

if he had ever been a member of any rebel group, militia" or
insurgent organization,

11.

if he had ever assisted any rebel group, militia, or insurgent organization,

111. if he had ever solicited membership or funds for any terrorist group or
organization,

lv. if he had ever provided any type of material support to any person or group that engages in terrorist activity,

2

An FBI language analyst fluent in the traqi dialect of the Arabic language (spoken by Al-Jayab) was

available to and used by Al-Jayab telephonically during the interview.

if he had ever called for, helped with, or committed the killing of any
person,
vl. if he had ever called tbr, helped with, or committed the intentional and severe injury ofany person,
vll. if he had ever been a member of a group of any kind in which he used or threatened to use any type of weapon against any person, and
u1r. if he had ever assisted in a group where other people used or threatened to
use a weapon against any person.
9. As supported by the facts outlined below, there is probable cause to believe that Al-
Jayab's statements and representations to USCIS listed above were materially false.
IV. EVIDENCE OF'THE OFFENSE
A. Activity prior to travel
10. The investigation has established the following facts concerning Al-Jayab's activities
from approximately October 2012 to October 2013.
a) According to records of Al-Jayab's online social media communications obtained
pursuant to search warrant, beginning as early as mid-Oct ober 2}l2,Al-Jayab told multiple family members and associates that he intended to travel to Syria. Al-.Iayab expressed his desire to return to Syria to o'work,"3 identified Turkey as a probable transit point, and sought to arrange the finances and logistics for his travel.
b) On October 13,2012, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual A, who was then
located in Iraq, according to Individual A's communications with Al-Jayab. Al-Jayab
wrote, 'ol want to go back. God is my witness. [...] I'll go to Turkey and enter smuggled

''

Based on the tenor and content of Al-Jayab's extensive electronic communications, in this context I believe

the term "work" refened to assisting in and supporting violent jihad.

to Syria," and advised Individual A, "When I come, I'll call. Don't go with anyone except the Front. [.. ] Go with Ansar or with the Front only." 4
c) On October 30,2012, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual B, who was likely
located in Syria based on the content of his communications with Al-Jayab. Al-Jayab
wrote, "My return will cost me much. [,..] Tell [Individual C] if I come to Turkey to find
me a way to enter into Syria."
d) On October 31,2012, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual B, "Tell [Individual C] I want
them to help me financially so I can retum." Individual B replied, "He said, 'If he wants to come through Turkey, we could get him in."'
e) On January 20,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual D, who was likely
located in Syria based on his communications with Al-Jayab. Individual D asked, "When are you coming?" and Al-Jayab replied, "As a matter of fact, money t do not have." Individual D wrote, "findividual C] will send you." Individual D wrote that he was afraid that he would die and not see Al-Jayab and explained he (Individual D) had been shot
twice in the hand and side. Al-Jayab wrote, "I have someone in Turkey. He wants to come to Syria and pull the trigger. Do you understand? Via the Turkish borders. [...] Tell findividual C] about him." Individual D advised Al-Jayab, "Tell flndividual B] to tell [Individual C]." Individual D wrote, "Tell me how much you need so we can plan ahead for you before you arrive. [...] findividual C] once asked how much you need so he can send you. I will tell him now to send you. [...] Do not worry, [Individual C] will
manage."

0

On February 1,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual E. Al-Jayab wrote;

"I was told by the young men to talk with you so that you could arrange my return."

Individual E wrote, "You just tell us and we will do it," and explained that another

o

"Front" is likely a reference to al Nusrah Front. According to the United States Department of Stote

Country Reports on Terrorism 201j, Al-Qa' ida in Iraq (AQI) was established in 2004 by long-time Sunni extremist

Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, who the same year pledged lris group's allegiance to Osana Bin Laden. On December 17,

2004,the Department of State designated AQI as a fbreign terrorist organization (FTO) and Specially Designated

GlobalTenorist (SDGT). On December 11,2012, the Depaftment of State amended the designation of AQI to

include the al Nusrah Front (ANF)/ Jabhat al Nusrah (JAN) as aliases of AQI. The Deparhnent of State's finding in

support of amending the AQI designation was that ANF and JAN committed hundreds of terrorist attacks in Syria,

individual "told me to find out how much you need." Al-Jayab responded, "Whatever God enables," and Individual E advised, "Make affangements with [Individual F] to send you the money."

g) On Februar y 5,2013,A1-Jayab communicated with Individual F, who was likely
located in Syria, based on his communications with Al-Jayab. Individual F wrote, 'oI'll go to Damascus to transfer the money to you," and provided wire transfer details to AlIayab. Later that same day, Al-Jayab discussed the wire transfer from Individual F with Individual B.

h) According to records from Westem Union, on February 5, 2013, an individual
believed to be lndividual F sent Al-Jayab $231 frorn Damascus, Syria. This individual also sent $450 in the name of one of Al-Jayab's associates, who, along with Al.Jayab, was then residing in Arizona. Both wire transfers were received at a Western Union
agent in Arizona. On Februar y 7 ,2013,Al-Jayab confirmed to Individual F, "l received
the transfer [. ]. . the total 681 ."

i)

On March 13,2013,Individual F wrote to Al-Jayab, "Just come to Turkey

t without a passport and enter Aleppo from there. Tell them you are Syrian." Al-Jayab

replied,'ol'll come with temporary American passport." Individual F wrote, 'oI'll show

you the way, because [an associate] knows someone in Aleppo and I asked him to help you." Al-Jayab asked, o'How to enter Syrian borders if my passport is American?" and

Individual F and Al-Jayab discussed various options for travel routes to Syria.

j)

On March 23,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with lndividual G, who was likely

located in lraq, based on his communications with Al-Jayab. Al-Jayab wrote,'oI am

coming to Syria [...] I have planned a route and everything. [.. .] The most important is the duty of the path." Al-Jayab offered, "If you want in Iraq,I will anange it for you. I

will arrange it for you in Syria also. I will take you with me at your convenience, so

decide what you want to do. [...] Only the Jabhat al-Nusrah group. It is impossible that

we go with others."

Aleppo is a city located in northr'vestern Syria.

k) Also on March 23,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual H, who was
then likely residing in Turkey according to his communications with Al-Jayab. Al-Jayab explained that he wanted to travel to Turkey to enter Syria, and he asked Individual H to pick him up at the airport. Individual H asked if Al-Jayab "want[ed] Al-Nusra Front," and Al-Jayab responded, "that's for sure." Individual H advised, "You know those who arrive to Syria from Turkey, most of them are citizens of Sweden and Australia and
others, because war is to advance and retreat. [...] Syria is one hour away from where'I
am now and smuggling takes place in our area." When Al-Jayab told Individual H that he would be traveling to Turkey with a United States travel document, Individual H
reminded Al-Jayab of the importance of maintaining the ability to travel legally. Al-
Jayab proposed, "l'll go to the American Embassy in Turkey. I will tell them that due to circumstances, I can't return now. [...] I'll say tourism, or I'll tell him my grandmother
is sick in Turkey and I wanted to be with her."

l)

On April 8, 2013, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual F about Individual I's desire to

travel to Syria, and noted that Individual I was oorecommended" to Al-Jayab by an "active

brother." Individual F wrote, ool'll send you flndividual C]'s number and you tell him

about [Individual I]'s affair. [...] You explain to him [Individual I] if he comes here, he

shouldn't go back fto America]. Either victory or martyrdom." Al-Jayab replied, "When
I arrive, I'll arrange with [Individual C]. [...] America will not isolate me from my

Islamic duty. Only death will do us par1. My only wish is to see you and start the

action."

m) On April 9,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual I, who resided in
Texas according to immigration records. Al-Jayab infbrmed Individual I, "[Individual F] spoke with me. He told me, 'Tell your friend to come and not retum."' Al-Jayab discussed various weapons with Individual I, to include the PKC, GC, Glock, and M16.6 Individual I wrote to Al-Jayab, "I need to learn from your weapon expertise." Individual
I asked, "lf God makes it easier and wills it, would they place me at a center that would
suit me or do I get to choose?" Al-Jayab responded, "No, they will arrange things for

u

I believe PKC, GC, Glock, and M16 are references to various fireams, including the Soviet-designed PK

machine gun and the M 16 assault rifle.

you. If you arrive and I am still there, I will train you. And once you are done [training], I will submit a request to the person in charge so you would come and work with me." Individual I asked, "So they will assign me to a certain job according to my abilities, which they see,'o and Al-Jayab explained, "No, we will make your abilities very strong." Individual I asked, "In your opinion, what kind ofjob [will they] assign me to?" AlJayab replied, "Let us arrive and we will arrango there. Our concern now is only to arrive there. [...] When you arrive to al-Sham [Syria] you will be trained."
n) On April 13,2013, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual I, "O God, grant us martyrdom
for your sake while engaged in fighting and not retreating; a martyrdom that would make
you satisfied with us." Individual I wrote, "lt is better if we leave together when the Turkish route is open, so that if we are confronted by any resistance from the enemy, there is the two of us [...] I mean we would help each other." Individual I related that he
learned fiom a Syrian associate, "He who enters illegally from Turkey to Al-Sham [Syria] does not have to pass through checkpoints." Al-.layab wrote, "When I arrive in
Turkey, I will call our youth in Turkey, and they will solve the situation for me. [...] We
just arrive to Turkey, everything would be solved."
o) On April 16,2013,A1-Jayab communicated with Individual J, Individual J wrote,
o'l am in Damascus, but I also work in Jirmanah."T Al-Jayab wrote,'oGod willing, I'll return soon. [...] I am coming to you." Individual J wrote, o'Do you know that we just
killed ten of the Syrian militia, the Shabihah. Hahaha, with an IED." Al-Jayab \Mrote, o'l was told that you and I will work together." Individual J wrote, "I wish, come, let us do the killing together." Al-Jayab asked, "What do you do now? Using IEDs or fighting," and Individual J responded, ooBoth." Al-Jayab wrote, "Hey man, please do not die: wait for me to come. [...] Do you not want us to work together?" Individual J replied, "Of course." Al-Jayab wrote, o'I do not want anything in the world, just to get to Syria safely and find you there, you and [Individual F], [Individual D], and [ndividual C] [...] I am
eager to see blood."
Jirmanah is a suburb or neighborhood of Damascus, Syria.

p) On April 21,2013, Individual I wrote to Al-Jayab,'oDo you know that I have
never sprayed fire with a Kalashnikov?" Al-Jayab replied, 'oGod willing, you will have your chance to shoot [...] The most shots I made with it in my lif-e was in the biggest battle I participated in. Sevenmagazines in one breath. [...] Just shooting, spraying, spraying." Individual I clarified, "You mean you were there during the battle against the Assadists?" and Al-Jayab confirmed,'oYes. Certainly." Al-Jayab wrote, "Brother, God willing, you will be bored of shooting with guns. I have not seen anything better than the Glock. All my work was with the Glock and a nine Tariqs and also its silencer [...] Once it hits someone, you would think the person fainted right before your eyes. It does not look like you killed him." Individual I asked, "Are there operations conducted with
silencers in Damascus?" Al-Jayab replied,'oYes. We were using silencers in Damascus [on] control checkpoints, otficers, everything." Individual I asked what "Assad's soldiers scream when you raid," and Al-Jayab replied, "They fall silent. They stiffen. I
remember once I went down together with a brother. We executed I...] three. As for the brother who was with me, he shot two. The third one aimed the Russian at the brother
[...] and would not unlock the safety. He was so scared, he could not do it." Individual I
interjected, 'oGod is great! And you silenced him." Al-Jayab replied, "Yes. At the time, the operation was without the use of silencer [. ..] in the chest, in the head. And when he falls, we shoot again." Al-Jayab continued, "Do you remember the national security
headquarters building in Syria? The mujahidin, Al-Nusra Front struck it. [...] Those
suicide bombers they want to break in. There is a control checkpoint that would stop them. Their call is full of ammunition and suicide vests, its booby traps were visible, so
they would stop them and arrest them. We got down and overran the control checkpoint and opened the way for them to raid, and we retreated." Individual I confirmed, "You mean you were there during the raid?" and Al-Jayab replied, 'oYes. Look, God is with the Mujahidin."
q) On April 25,2013, Individual I wrote to Al-Jayab, "O God please do not deprive
me, my brothers, and my brother Aws from the blessings of Jihad in Syria," and asked,

t

Ibelieve"nineTariq"isareferencetothelraqi-nranufacturedcopyoftheBerettaN,{1951pistol. TheTariq

rvas tlre service pistol of the Iraqi Army from approxirnately the 1980s to 2003, according to open-source

infbrmation.

"Tell me, when did you join?" Al-Jayab wrote, "I was a little over 16 years old. My tribe, half of them are Mujahidin. I did not tind any difficulty to get to Al-Jihad," and further explained, "This group that I worked with [...] those were fiom Saddam's era in Kurdistan. Their Emir['s] name is Mullah Krikar [...] their name was Ansar al-Sunnah
and now they are called Ansar al-Islam."e
r) On May 21,2013, Al-Jayab communicated with Individual K. Individual K
informed Al-Jayab that Individual B and two others had been arrested by the Syrian government. lndividual K wrote, "They are accused of working for Al-Nusra Front. They were amested in Jaramana."
s) On May 26,2013, Al-Jayab informed Individual I that "the brothers" had been
arrested. Al-Jayab wrote, "I really did not want to disturb you. For some time I knew. I
did not want you to lbel uneasy about Jihad and be concerned with being detained."

0

On June 30,2013, Al-Jayab wrote to IndividualL,':1am at the shooting club. I

want to learn long range shooting," and sent photos from an identit'ied gun range in

Wisconsin, as well as photos of Al-Jayab with various weapons.

u) On July 9,2013, Al-Jayab pleaded with Individual D, "Try to raise some t.unds
fbr me. Otherwise I am going to explode. t. . .] I need money, I want to come."

v) On July 11,2013, Al-Jayab wrote again to Individual D, "Try to manage the
money this week, my dear. You and [Individual C]."

w) On August 18, 2013, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual D,'oI have left $400 until I
come there. I want that you plan for me a route quickly."

x) On August lg,2}|3,Al-Jayab communicated with Individual M, who was likely
residing in Syria based on his communications with Al-Jayab, as well as Individual M's social media account profile, which stated that he lived in Damascus, Syria. Al-Jayab

e

According tothe United States Department o/'Slate Countrlt Reports on Ten'orism 2014, Ansar al-lslanr,

also knowr.r as Arrsar al-Suuua among other aliases, is a Sunni ten'orisi group which has vorved to establish an

independent Islamic state in Iraq. Ansar al-lslam originated in lraqi Kurdistan and u'as fbunded by MLrllah Ifuekar

Ansar al-lsiam became a designated foreign terrorist organization on Malch 22,2A04.

l0

wrote, "Finally, light at the end of the tunnel. I need $400 and I will come. I want you to plan a route. t...] I need people in Turkey to take me to Aleppo."
y) On August 26,2013,A1-Jayab communicated with Individual N. Based on
records obtained via search warrant, Individual N's social media account appeared to be used to distribute ISIL propaganda and to communicate with individuals who are believed to be affiliated with ISIL and other terrorist organizations.r0 Individual N told Al-Jayab, "May God protect you and grant success through you. [..,] Haji, keep our job
in your mind. And think. And it is tedious a little bit. We ask God to reward you." Al-
Jayab responded, "Okay. By God, I am trying."
z) On August 30,2013, Al-Jayab told Individual N, "The most important thing is to
send me money to return. t...] I want to come. God has facilitated the work before. [...] I will come."
aa) On September 8, 20t3,Al-Jayab wrote to Individual D, "I am burning with desire
to come there and work," after which he and Individual D discussed a photo of various weapons including a gray gun and Kalashnikov rifle that Individual D claimed belonged
to Individual D. Individual D wrote to Al-Jayab, "'When you arrive here, we will give you better ones [...] along with five magazines, one of which holds 30." Al-Jayab replied, "I wish you will not die until I come."
bb) On Octobe r 26,2013, Al-Jayab wrote Individual N, "Sheikh, I need a path."
Individual N replied on October 29,*I tasked [Individual D] and I will provide him with the money so he would transfer it to you."

Travel to Turkey and Syria

l.1

The investigation has established the following facts concerning Al-Jayab's activities

from approximately November 2013 to.Ianuary 2014.

r0

According to the l-Jnited States Deparnnent oJ'State Country Reports ctn Terrorism 201 4 and infbrmation

published by the National Counterterrorism Center, AQI publicly re-named itself the Islamic State in Iraq in October
2006. In April2013, AQI's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadiciianged the group's public nante to the lslamic Staie ol

Iraq arid the Levant (ISIL), to reflect its operational expansiori into the Syrian conflict. In NIay 2014, thc

Depafiment olstate ameirded the FTO designation of AQI to inciude tire alias ISIL as its priutary nan.re.

ll

a) In early November 2013, Al-Jayab was residing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin
according to travel, bank, and electronic communications records. Bank records indicate Al-Jayab received approximately $4,500 from an auto insurance settlement on November 6,2013.

b) On November 7,2013, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual N, "Haji, I managed to get
money and everything, I do not want money from you, just find me a way, I beg you.
Make arrangements for me, my Sheikh t...] I will be going to Turkey and it is very
important that you provide me with a telephone number."

e) On November 8, 2ll3,Al-Jayab purchased an airline ticket in Chicago, Illinois.
Travel records establish that Al-Jayab flew directly frorn Chicago to Istanbul, Turkey on November 9,2013.
d) Al-Jayab maintained contact with several of his family members and associates
while he was outside of the United States between November 2013 and January 2014 and kept them apprised of his movements and wellbeing.

e) I have reviewed electronic communications records of Intemet Protocol (IP)
addresses that Al-Jayab utilized to connect to the internet to access social media and email accounts during his travel to Syria. Analysis of those IP addresses and other information establishes that Al-Jayab accessed the internet in the time period at issue through a satellite that covered both eastern Turkey and areas of norlhern Syria.

0

On November 10, 2013, Al-Jayab communicated Individual O, who was then

residing in Cyprus, and explained that he (Al-Jayab) was in Turkey, planned to enter

Syria, and would be'ogoing with the Mujahidin."

g) On November 19, 2013,Al-Jayab informed Individual O that he fAl-Jayab] had
safely arrived in Syria and was in Aleppo.

h) On November 26,2013, Al-Jayab told Individual N (see paragraphs 10(y, z,bb)
and 1l(b), above) that he (Al-Jayab) was in Aleppo and providecl a telephone number that began with the numbers 0992 to Indi.ridual N in orcler to contact him (Al-Jayab). Basecl

t2

on publicly available intbrmation, this phone number corresponds to a Syrian telephone number,

i)

On November 28, Z}l3,lndividual O advised Al-Jayab to avoid using his phone

because it showed "that [Al-Jayab was] writing from Aleppo." Al-Jayab replied, "Okay." Individual O wrote, "Aws, I need you to get out of Syria as soon as possible," and noted

Al-Jayab's phone'owill reveal that you are in Syria [...] and this is dangerous to your

situation over there."

j)

On December 10, zll3,Individual O informed Al-Jayab, "It shows that you are

typing from Al-Hasakah."ll Al-Jayab responded, "How did you know?" Individual O

wrote, "l am telling you, it [is] shown to me that you are writing from Al-Hasakah," and
Al-Jayab replied, "Okay." Shortly thereafter, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual O, "Forgive

me, I might become amartyr."

k) On Decemb er 17 ,20'13, Al-Jayab told Individual O he was o'afraid of being
imprisoned in America [because] the government is alert for everything, [and] my trip here constitutes a charge."

l)

On December 23,2013, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual O, ool have ml6." Based on

my training and experience as well as communications between Al-Jayab and his

associates during his travel, I believe "m 1 6" is a reference to the M I 6 assault rifle. On

the same day, Al-Jayab informed Individual O that he (Al-Jayab) was returning to

Aleppo.

m) On Decemb er 25,z}|3,lndividual O told Al-Jayab to remove a picture that
"shows that you are wearing military uniform."

n) On December 28, z}l3,Al-Jayab communicated with Individual P, who was then
located in Indonesia according to his communications with Al-Jayab. Al-Jayab informed Individual P that he (Al-Jayab) was in Aleppo. Al-Jayab explained that he joined Ansar al-Sham, "the same as Ansar al-Islam, just with another name."l2 Al-Jayab continued,

''

Al-l-lasakah is a city located in northern Syria.

't

On December 28,2013, Al-Jayab erpressed to individual P iris understanding that, "Ansar al-lslam and

Ansar al-Sham have one and the same faiih and approach." Al-Jayab explained, "Ansar al-Sham and tlie Ansar al-

l3

"lt is the one that leads the new Islamic Front formed after merging with Jabhat al-
Nusrah," but he noted that the alliance was not publicly declared. Al-Jayab wrote, "The Army of Islam and Ahrar al-Sham and Al-Tawhid Brigade became the al-Jabhah alIslamiyyah.13 When they engage in battles [they are] led by Jabhat al-Nusrah and Ansar al-Sham." Al-Jayab detailed the cooperation and 'Joint action" that existed between certain Sunni extremist groups engaged in the conflict against the Syrian regime. When Individual P encouraged Al-Jayab to not "be harsh on the State,"l4 Al-Jayab wrote that the State o'have killed many from Jabhat al-Nusrah and hundreds of mujahidin fare
detained] by the State." Al-Jayab wrote, "I came to Syria. t...] I fight alongside." He
then expressed concern over conflict that was occurring amongst some of the Islamic groups in the area: 'oBrother, this is the blood of Muslims shed at the hands of the State," and continued, oolf it weren't for the State's bloodletting, I would have been the first one
to join it. [That's] why I joined the al-Ansar even though there's little action; the al-
Ansar, at least they don't kill Muslims."ls Al-Jayab continued, "Brother, I'lljoin alNusrah shortly [...] and if any sedition arises, I'll leave my weapon and go to Turkey."
o) On January 2,2014, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual O, "I have been thinking of
joining the State and abandon[ing] the al-Ansar." Al-Jayab explained he was familiar with Ansar al-lslam because heooused to work with them in Iraq," and his "commander" came to Syria from Iraq. Al-Jayab wrote,'oI came to him." Al-Jayab also asked Individual O's opinion of al-Ansar.

Islam are but one, lts Emir is Abu Hashim." According to the Uniled States Department of State Country Reporls on Terrorism 2014, Ansar al-lslam is a Sunni terrorist group which has vowed to establish an independent Islamic state in Iraq. Ansar al-lslam became a designated FTO on March22,2004. Abu Hashim Muhammad bin Abdul
L Rahman al Ibrahim became the leader of Ansar al-lslam in December 201 See also footnote 9, above. .

'3

Al-Jabhah al-lslamiyyah is an Arabic phrase that franslates to "the Islamic Front." According to open

source reporting, the Islamic Front was an umbrella organization of Sunni Salafist groups fighting to depose the

Syrian regime and seeking to establish an Islamic state in Syria. In late November 2013, founding members of the

Islamic Front included Ansar al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham, the Tawhid Brigade, and the Army of Islam, among others.

'o

Based on my training and experience as well as open source infomation, I believe "the State" is shorthand

commonly used to ret'er to ISIL.

'5

Based on my training and experience as rvell as the content of Al-Jayab's electronic communications, I

believeAl-Jayab'srefbrenceto"Muslir.ns"excludesShiaNluslinrs. Al-Jayabref-erstoShiitesusingterirssucitas

"rafidah," meaning rejectionists or rejectors; this is a derogatory tenlr corrlrloilly used by Sunni extreurists u,irei.t

discussing Shia.

l4

p) On January 6,2014,A1-Jayab wrote to Individual M (see paragraph 10(x) above),
that Al-Jayab was in "Haritan, Aleppo, a fighting zone [between] the State and the Free
Army."l6 When Individual M asked if Al-Jayab was with "the Free now," Al-Jayab replied, "No. Ansar al-Islam." Individual M asked, "Who do they belong to?" and AlJayab replied, "Ansar al-lslam in lraq." Al-Jayab discussed the infighting that occurred
between various Islamic extremist goups engaged in the Syrian conflict.
q) On January 7,2074, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual P,'oBrother, we do not sit and
watch. [...] Our heaclquarters is next to the State exactly, and we are against the Free Army. We have prevented the Free Army from entering the area and attacking the
State's headquarters. And if the Free Army advances, we will fight it. [...] We installed
the DoshkaslT in the street and spread among all of our headquarters because we are at the entrance of Aleppo. The Free Army is under the control of our forces." Al-Jayab
concluded, "I swear that the State is killing [members of] al-Ansar and al-Nusrah. They
are our brothers, but they are making a mistake. And we are going to stand with the State
against the [Free Arn y]." That same day, Al-Jayab wrote to Individual M,'oI might withdraw. [...] When the seditious acts are over, I will retum. t...1 I did not come to fight
for the sake of sedition."

C. Return to Turkey and the United States

12. The investigation has established the following facts conceming Al-Jayab's activities

during approximately January 2014.

a) On January 8,2014, Al-Jayab informed Individual O the border crossing with
Turkey was closed and he (Al-Jayab) remained in Aleppo.

b) On January 9 and 13,2014, according to telephone toll records, the Syrian phone
number Al-Jayab providecl to Individual N (see paragraph 1i(h), above) was also in

r6

Accordirrg to open source infbrnation, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was established in 201 I by Syrian

military def'ectors, and it lras since become an umbrella organization for various armed opposition groups fighting to

depose the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. Elements of the FSA liave historically stated suppofi fbr secular

govcn)arlce in Syria.

t7

I believe "Doshkas" is a reference to the DShK lreavy machine guir. oi variani, con.ririonly i';ferred to as

"dushka" ancl rvidell, used in the Syrian conflict.

l5

contact with one of Al-Jayab's family members, who was then residing in Sacramento, Califomia.
c) On January 17,2014, Al-Jayab informed Individual P that he would "leave in two
hours [for Turkey]." Al-Jayab added, "Once I arrive in Turkey I will call you." Several hours later that day, Al-Jayab's social media account was accessed tiom an IP address
which resolved to Turkey.
d) Travel records confirm Al-Jayab returned to Sauamento, California via London,
United Kingdom and Los Angeles, Califomia on January 23,2014. Upon his return to the United States, Al-Jayab's Customs Declaration Form made no mention of his travel to Turkey and Syria; "Jordan," and "U.K." were the only entries in the "countries visited" field.
e) Materials gathered in the course of the investigation show that Al-Jayab made no
retbrence to visiting his grandmother during communications he exchanged with family members or associates from mid-November 2013 to mid-January 2014.
/
D. USCIS and FBI Interviews
13. On July 29,2014, Al-Jayab was interviewed by USCIS in conjunction with his
application for adjustment of his immigration status. During that interview, Al-Jayab said that he had traveled to Turkey and returned to the United States about six months earlier. Six months before was January 2014.
14. As outlined in paragraph 8, Al-Jayab was interviewed by USCIS a second time on
October 6,2014.
15. On June 18, 2015, Al-Jayab voluntarily and without solicitation from the FBI, was
interviewed by FBI agents rbgarding problems he experienced at the airport when traveling. During that interview Al-Jayab stated he had traveled to Turkey for a vacation. He denied traveling to Syria.
l6

16. The tbregoing establishes probable cause to believe that Al-Jayab lied during his
interview with USCIS officers on October 6,2014. There is probable cause to believe that, contrary to what he stated in the interview:
a) Al-Jayab traveled to Syria and his travel was not conlined to Turkey and Britain
before returning to the United States.;
b) he went to Turkey to get to Syria and for reasons other than to visit his
grandmother;

c) he was a member of and assisted a rebel group, militia, or insurgent organization;
d) he solicited membership for a terrorist group or organization and provided
material support to a person or group that engages in terrorist activity;

e) he called for, helped with, or committed the killing and intentional and severe
injury of any person;

0

he was a member of a group in which he used or threatened to use a weapon

. against any person; and

g) he assisted in a group where other people used or threatened to use a weapon
against any person.

17. Based on my training and experience as well as discussions with USCIS and Homeland
Security Investigations (HSI) personnel, Al-Jayab's statements were material to the determination by USCIS of Al-Jayab's eligibility for immigration benefits. If Al-Jayab admitted to being in Syria, USCIS would have asked additional questions and Al-Jayab's file may have been subjected to further process. If Al-Jayab admitted to supporting terrorist activities or a terrorist group, Al-Jayab's refugee status may have been subject to termination. In addition, intentional misstatements to USCIS, if proven, could negatively impact a refugee's ability to remain in the United States and may subject the individual to removal proceedings or criminal prosecution.

t1

V. CONCLUSION
18. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully assert that there is probable cause to believe Aws
Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab knowingly and willfully provided and attempted to provide materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations in a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, specifically United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services, a component of the United States Department of Homeland Security, and the offense involved international terrorism as defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 2331, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.
vI. REQUEST FOR SEALING
19. I further request that the Court seal the arrest warrant, the affidavit, and the criminal
complaint in support thereof except that copies of the warrant in full or redacted fonn may be maintained by the United States Attorney's Office and may be served on Special Agents and other investigative and law enforcement officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, federally deputized state and local law enforcernent officers, and other govenment and contract personnel
\\
18

acting under the supervision of such investigative or law enforcement officers, as necessary to effectuate the warrant. These documents pertain to and discuss an ongoing crirninal investigation that is neither public nor known to all the talgets of the investigation at this tiine. Accordingly, there is good cause to seal these documents because their premature disclosure may seriously jeopardize the investigation. Sealing these documents will also better ensure the safety of agents and others.
EliZabeth Buckrniller Special Agent, FBI
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me
LTNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
t9

 
 Sacramento Man Arrested for Terrorism Offense U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of California Thursday, January 7, 2016 http://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/sacramento-man-arrested-terrorism-offense
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Sacramento resident was arrested today on a federal charge of making a false statement involving international terrorism. Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, is charged in a criminal complaint that was unsealed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California following his arrest. He is in custody and will be making an initial appearance Friday in federal court in Sacramento at 2:00 PM.
The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner of the Eastern District of California, and Special Agent in Charge Monica M. Miller of the FBI’s Sacramento Division.
“Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab allegedly traveled overseas to fight alongside terrorist organizations and lied to U.S. authorities about his activities,” said Assistant Attorney General Carlin. “The National Security Division’s highest priority is protecting the nation from terrorism, and we will continue to hold accountable those who seek to join or aid the cause of terrorism, whether at home or abroad.”
“According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant traveled to Syria to take up arms with terrorist organizations and concealed that conduct from immigration authorities,” said U.S. Attorney Wagner. “While he represented a potential safety threat, there is no indication that he planned any acts of terrorism in this country. I commend the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force for their dedicated work on this matter.”
“In today’s complex terrorism environment, our Joint Terrorism Task Force plays an important role in combating the threat of terrorism. The collaboration is stronger than ever and essential to protect our communities from harm,” said Special Agent in Charge Monica M. Miller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Sacramento Field Office. “The public plays an equal, if not more important, role in protecting the community. We encourage those who encounter individuals who express an intent to do harm or claim allegiance to a terrorist group—whether in person or online—to voice their concerns to law enforcement.”
According to the complaint, Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who emigrated from Syria to the United States as a refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, AlJayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
The complaint alleges that on October 6, 2014, Al-Jayab was interviewed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and responded in the negative to numerous questions, including whether he had ever been a member of any rebel group or militia; whether he had ever provided material support for any person or group engaged in terrorist activity; and whether he had ever been a member of a group, or assisted in a group, which used or threatened the use of weapons against others. Al-Jayab also allegedly stated during the interview that he had traveled to Turkey in late 2013 and early 2014 to visit his grandmother. The complaint alleges that all of those answers were materially false.
If convicted, Al-Jayab faces a maximum statutory penalty of eight years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Sacramento Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), a team of federal, state, and local law enforcement agents and officers investigating domestic and international terrorism. Assistant United States Attorney Jill Thomas and Trial Attorney Andrew Sigler of the National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section are prosecuting the case. The investigation is ongoing.
USAO - California, Eastern National Security & Homeland Security Download criminal_complaint.pdf (1.1 MB) http://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/file/811711/download Updated January 7, 2016

 
 Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 1 of 14
COX,INTERP
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16−cr−00181−1

Case title: USA v. Al−Jayab Assigned to: Honorable Sara L. Ellis Defendant (1) Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab TERMINATED: 10/31/2019
Pending Counts PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT TO TERRORISTS (1) PROVIDING MATERIAL SUPPORT OR RESOURCES TO TERRORISTS (1s)

Date Filed: 03/17/2016 Date Terminated: 10/31/2019
represented by Thomas Anthony Durkin Durkin & Roberts 515 W. Arlington Pl. Chicago, IL 60614 312−913−9300 Email: tdurkin@durkinroberts.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: CJA Appointment
Anthony Matthew Durkin Durkin & Roberts 2446 North Clark St. Chicago, IL 60614 (312) 913−9300 Email: mdurkin@durkinroberts.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua G. Herman Law Office of Joshua G. Herman 53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 457 Chicago, IL 60604 312−909−0434 Email: jherman@joshhermanlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: CJA Appointment
Robin Valentina Waters Durkin & Roberts 2446 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60614 312−913−9300 Email: rwaters@durkinroberts.com TERMINATED: 01/29/2019 Designation: Retained
Disposition
Count dismissed on the Motion of the United States.
The Defendant pleaded guilty to count(s) 1s (one) of the Indictment. The Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 60 months on Count 1s. Terms to run concurrent with Docket No. 18cr721. The Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal. Upon release from

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 2 of 14

imprisonment, Defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of 20 years to run concurrent to run concurrent with Docket No. 18cr721. Criminal Monetary Penalties. Schedule of Payments.

Highest Offense Level (Opening)
Felony

Terminated Counts None

Disposition

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None

Complaints None

Disposition

Plaintiff USA

represented by Barry Jonas United States Attorneys Office 219 S. Dearborn Chicago, IL 60604 312 886 8027 Email: barry.jonas@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Assistant US Attorney
Shoba Pillay United States Attorney's Office (NDIL − Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 312−886−7631 Email: shoba.pillay@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Assistant US Attorney
AUSA − Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL − Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Assistant US Attorney
Pretrial Services . (312) 435−5793 Email: ilnptdb_Court_Action_Notice@ilnpt.uscourts.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Pretrial Services
Probation Department .

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 3 of 14

408−5197 Email: Intake_Docket_ILNP@ilnp.uscourts.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Probation Department

Date Filed 03/17/2016 03/17/2016 03/17/2016
03/17/2016 03/29/2016 03/29/2016 04/06/2016
04/07/2016
04/07/2016
04/07/2016
04/07/2016 04/07/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016

# Docket Text
1 INDICTMENT as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1) count(s) 1 (las, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
3 DESIGNATION Sheet: FELONY (Category 3). (las, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
4 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sidney I. Schenkier as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: To issue bench warrant. The government will seek to have the defendant detained without bond pursuant to Title 18 United States Code, Section 3142. Defendant is currently in the custody of the U.S. Marshal's Service in Sacramento California, and will be extradited to the Northern District of Illinois. (las, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
5 BENCH WARRANT issued to U.S. Marshal as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (las, ) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
6 ATTORNEY Appearance for defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab by Thomas Anthony Durkin (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
7 ATTORNEY Appearance for defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab by Robin Valentina Waters (Waters, Robin) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Arraignment set for 4/8/2016 at 11:30 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
9 MOTION by USA for protective order as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Government's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order Governing Discovery (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
10 MOTION by USA for protective order as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Government's Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
11 NOTICE of Motion by Barry Jonas for presentment of motion for protective order 9 , motion for protective order 10 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/8/2016 at 11:30 AM. (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
12 MOTION by USADesignate a Classified Information Security Officer as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
13 MOTION by USASet Pretrial Conference as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
14 NOTICE of Intent to Use FISA Information by USA as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
15 PRETRIAL Bail Report as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (SEALED) (MB) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
16 SEALED Document (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
17 SEALED Document (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
ORAL motion by USA for early return of trial subpoenas as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. (las, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
18 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1): Arraignment held. Defendant waives formal reading of Indictment and enters plea of not guilty to Indictment. Government's unopposed motion for entry of protective order governing discovery 9 is granted. Enter Protective Order General and Sensitive Discovery Materials. Government's motion for protective order pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act 10 is granted. Enter Protective Order Pursuant to Section 3

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 4 of 14

04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 04/08/2016 06/14/2016
06/14/2016
07/07/2016 07/22/2016 07/22/2016 07/27/2016
07/29/2016

of the Classified Information Procedures Act. Government's agreed motion to designate a classified information security officer 12 is granted. Enter Order designating Classified Information Security Officers Daniel O. Hartenstine. The Court further designates the following persons as Alternate Classified Information Security Officers: Joan B. Kennedy, Michael P. Macisso, Maura L. Peterson, Carli V. Rodriguez−Feo, Debra Guerrero Randall, Harry J. Rucker, and W. Scooter Slad. Government's motion for pretrial conference pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act and Memorandum of law in Support Thereof 13 is granted. Status hearing set for 6/14/2016 at 10:15 AM. The Court requests that defendant be held in Chicago, Illinois preferably at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The Court grants oral motion for early return of trial subpoenas as to all parties. Without objection time is excluded from 4/8/2016 to and including 6/14/2016 in the interest of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/8/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
19 PROTECTIVE Order General and Sensitive Discovery Materials as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/8/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
20 PROTECTIVE Order Pursuant to Section 3 of the Classified Information Procedures Act as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/8/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
21 ORDER Designating Classified Information Security Officers as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/8/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
24 MEMORANDUM of Understanding as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab by Thomas A. Durkin. (las, ) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
25 MEMORANDUM of Understanding as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab as to Thomas A. Durkin. (las, ) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
22 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 6/14/2016 and continued to 8/3/2016 at 10:00 AM. Without objection time is excluded from 6/14/2016 to and including 8/3/2016 in the interest of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
23 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing held. Government shall file its ex parte CIPA motion by 9/30/2016. Ruling by 11/30/2016. Defendant's statement of defense due by 9/30/2016. Defense motion due by 10/31/2016. Government's ex parte response due by 1/31/2017. Defendant's reply due by 3/17/2017. Ruling on said motion by 5/24/2017. Jury trial set to 10/10/2017 at 9:00 a.m. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 6/14/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
26 BENCH WARRANT returned executed as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab on 4/4/16 (las, ) (Entered: 07/08/2016)
27 PETITION filed by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for Court Appointed Counsel (Unopposed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
28 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Anthony Durkin for presentment of before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 7/27/2016 at 10:00 AM. (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
29 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Defendant's unopposed petition for court appointed counsel 27 is granted. The Court finds Defendant eligible for court appointed counsel and further finds that this case is sufficiently complex as to warrant appointment of two attorneys to represent him. The Court appoints Thomas Durkin and Joshua Herman to represent Defendant and permits the use of court appointed funds for an Arabic translator to review discovery and to assist in consultation with Defendant, his family, and prospective Arabic speaking witnesses. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 7/27/2016. Mailed notice (yap, ) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
30 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Due to scheduling conflict of the Court, Status hearing set for 8/3/2016 is

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 5 of 14

08/11/2016
08/11/2016 08/11/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 08/31/2016 12/01/2016
12/01/2016 12/07/2016 12/15/2016 12/21/2016
01/09/2017

stricken and reset to 8/11/2016 at 1:30 PM. Time is excluded from 8/3/2016 to and including 8/11/2016 in the interest of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
31 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis: Status hearing held. Government's oral motion for extension of time to file ex−parte CIPA motion is granted. Government shall file its ex parte CIPA motion by 12/09/16. Ruling by 02/14/17. Defendant's statement of defense is due by 12/09/16. Defendant's FISA motion is due by 01/13/17. Government's ex parte response is due by 03/24/17. Defendant's reply due by 04/28/17. Ruling by 06/09/17. Status hearing set for 12/06/16 at 1:30 PM. Without objection, time is excluded in the interest of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) from 8/11/2016 to and including 10/10/17. Mailed notice. (et, ) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
32 MEMORANDUM of understanding as to Joshua G. Herman as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. (las, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
33 MEMORANDUM of understanding by Joshua G Herman as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (las, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
34 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Enter CJA Appointment Order Appointing Counsel Under CJA. Enter Order Appointing Interpreter Under CJA. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 8/31/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
35 CJA ORDER Appointing Counsel Joshua G Herman Under the Criminal Justice Act. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 8/31/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
36 CJA ORDER Appointing Counsel Thomas Anthony Durkin Under the Criminal Justice Act. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 8/31/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
37 CJA ORDER Appointing Interpreter Under the Criminal Justice Act Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 8/31/16. Mailed notice (las, ) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
38 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Due to scheduling conflict of the Court, status hearing set for 12/6/2016 is stricken and reset to 12/20/2016 at 10:00 AM. Time is excluded in the interest of justice through trial date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
39 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, TIME CHANGE: Status hearing set for 12/20/2016 at 1:30 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
40 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. At the joint request of the parties, the Government shall file its ex parte CIPA motion by 1/20/17. Ruling by 3/28/17. Defendant's statement of defense is due by 1/20/17. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
41 BENCH WARRANT returned executed as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab on 4/4/16 (las, ) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
42 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 12/20/2016. Status hearing set for 2/28/2017 at 11:00 AM to decide on whether to keep the trial date and report on the release of the Swiss documents. Time is excluded in the interest of justice through trial date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
43 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Defendant's FISA motion is due by 3/14/17. Government's ex parte response is due by 5/23/17. Defendant's reply due by 6/27/17. Ruling date set for 8/8/17 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 01/09/2017)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 6 of 14

01/27/2017 02/27/2017 02/28/2017
03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/14/2017 03/29/2017
03/29/2017

44 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Government shall file its ex parte CIPA motion by 3/14/17. Defendant's statement of defense is due by 3/14/17. Status hearing set for 8/8/2017 at 10:00 AM for ruling. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
45 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing reset for 2/28/2017 at 12:00 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
46 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 2/28/2017. Status hearing set for 3/30/2017 at 1:30 PM. Government reports that Swiss government has not agreed with release of Swiss documents. If Swiss documents are not released, a representative from the Department of Justice is ordered to appear in person on 3/30/2017 at 1:30 PM to report to the Court. Jury Trial set for 2/12/2018 at 9:00 AM. Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/22/2018 at 1:30 PM. Without objection, time is excluded in the interest of justice through trial date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
47 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to suppress Evidence Obtained or Derived From Warrantless Surveillance Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
48 MEMORANDUM by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab in support of MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to suppress Evidence Obtained or Derived From Warrantless Surveillance Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act 47 (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
49 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages (Dkt. #48) (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
50 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for disclosure Defendant's Objection to Secret Ex Parte CIPA Litigation of Fourth Amendment Suppression Issues And Motion for Disclosure to Cleared Counsel (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
51 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for discovery Regarding the Intelligence Agencies' Surveillance Pursuant to Executive Order 12333 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
52 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for disclosure Defendant's Motion for Notice of Surveillance Techniques Used During the Course of the Investigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
53 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages (Dkt. #50, #52) (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
54 SEALED MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Defendant's Ex Parte and Under Seal Memorandum of Defense (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
55 MOTION by USA for protective order as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
56 SEALED MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Defendant's Ex Parte and Under Seal Motion for Authorization of Interim Payments and for Excess Compensation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
57 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Defendant's motion for leave to exceed Local Rule page limit 49 is granted. Defendant's motion for leave to file necessary pleadings concerning surveillance issues and CIPA, and for leave to exceed Local Rule page limit 53 is granted. The briefing schedule on 50 , 51 , and 52 will follow the FISA briefing schedule with the government's responses due by 5/23/17, defendant's replies due by 6/27/17 and a ruling date set for 8/8/17 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
58 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing set for 3/30/2017 at 1:30 PM to stand. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 03/29/2017)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 7 of 14

03/30/2017 04/18/2017
05/17/2017 05/17/2017 05/23/2017
05/24/2017 06/20/2017 06/20/2017 06/21/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/17/2017 07/25/2017 08/29/2017

59 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 3/30/2017. Government provided Swiss documents to Defendant. Parties agree to briefing schedule for defense motions. Status hearing set for 4/18/2017 at 12:00 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 03/30/2017)
60 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 4/18/2017. The Court grants Defendant's motion to appoint Dr. Stephen Xenakis. Without objection, time is excluded in the interest of justice through trial date pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/19/2017)
61 MOTION by USA for leave as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to File a Brief in Excess of 15 Pages (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
62 NOTICE of Motion by Shoba Pillay for presentment of motion for leave to 61 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 5/24/2017 at 10:00 AM. (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
63 RESPONSE by USA to MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for disclosure Defendant's Motion for Notice of Surveillance Techniques Used During the Course of the Investigation 52 , MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to suppress Evidence Obtained or Derived From Warrantless Surveillance Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act 47 , memorandum in support, 48 , MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for discovery Regarding the Intelligence Agencies' Surveillance Pursuant to Executive Order 12333 51 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 05/23/2017)
64 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Government's unopposed motion to file brief in excess of fifteen pages 61 is granted. No appearance required, 5/24/17. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
65 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for extension of time to file any replies in support of his pretrial motions (UNOPPOSED) (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
66 NOTICE of Motion by Joshua G. Herman for presentment of motion for extension of time 65 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 6/22/2017 at 01:45 PM. (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
67 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time to file any replies in support of his pretrial pleadings 65 is granted. Defendant's replies are due by 7/7/17. Ruling date of 8/8/17 to stand. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 06/21/2017)
68 ATTORNEY Appearance for defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab by Anthony Matthew Durkin (Durkin, Anthony) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
69 Removed per court order dated 9/29/17. (Herman, Joshua) (Main Document 69 replaced on 9/29/2017) (sm, ). Modified on 9/29/2017 (sm, ). (Entered: 07/07/2017)
70 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages (Unopposed) (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
71 NOTICE of Motion by Joshua G. Herman for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 70 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 7/18/2017 at 10:00 AM. (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
72 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Defendant's unopposed motion to exceed Local Rule page limit 70 is granted. No appearance required, 7/18/2017. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
73 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing set for 8/8/2017 is stricken and reset for 9/19/2017 at 10:15 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
74 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing set for 9/19/2017 is stricken. In Court hearing set for 9/29/2017 at 3:00 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 08/29/2017)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 8 of 14

09/25/2017 09/27/2017 09/29/2017 10/04/2017 10/10/2017 10/11/2017
10/18/2017
10/19/2017 10/31/2017 11/02/2017 11/03/2017 11/09/2017

75 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Due to scheduling conflict of the Court, In Court hearing set for 9/29/2017 is stricken and reset for 10/11/2017 at 1:30 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
76 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. The government is ordered to provide a response to Defendant's request for disclosure of FAA and FISA materials, raised at p. 8−21 of Defendant's Consolidated Reply 69 , by 10/10/17. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Docket entry 69 and the attachment associated with this entry are stricken. The Clerk of the Court is directed to remove docket entry 69 and the associated attachment. Counsel is ordered to refile the documents following the correct procedure. Mailed notice (tmh, ) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
78 REPLY by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to response,, 63 (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
79 RESPONSE by USA to reply 78 (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
80 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, In court hearing held on 10/11/2017. In Court hearing set for 10/19/2017 at 3:00 PM. Defendant's motion on combatant immunity is due November 13, 2017, the government's response is due November 27, and the defendant's reply is due December 4, 2017. Oral motion by United States for early return of trial subpoenas is granted as to both parties. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
81 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab held on 10/11/17, before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis. Order Number: 28648. Court Reporter Contact Information: Kathleen_Fennell@ilnd.uscourts.gov.<P>IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.</P> Redaction Request due 11/8/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/20/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/16/2018. (Fennell, Kathleen) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
82 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, In court hearing held on 10/19/2017. In Court hearing set for 11/9/2017 at 3:00 PM. Without objection, exclusion of time continues through trial date. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, CIPA (ex parte) hearing with the government set for 11/3/2017 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 10/31/2017)
84 NOTICE of Intent to Use Foreign Records of Regularly Conducted Activity Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3505 by USA as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
85 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, In Chambers Conference held on 11/3/2017. CIPA hearing with the United States set for 11/17/2017 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
86 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing held on 11/9/2017. Final pretrial conference set for 1/22/2018 is stricken. Jury Trial set 2/12/2018 is stricken and reset for 9/17/2018 at 9:00 AM (counsel to report at 8:30am). Defendant's motion on combatant immunity is due 1/16/2018, the government's response is due 2/20/2018, and the defendant's reply is due 3/6/2018. Ruling on defendant's motion on combatant immunity set for 5/8/2018 at 10:00 am. Without objection, time is excluded in the interest of justice through 9/17/2018 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (rj, ) Modified on 11/13/2017 (rj, ). (Entered: 11/13/2017)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 9 of 14

11/14/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017 01/16/2018 01/16/2018 01/17/2018 01/17/2018 01/25/2018 02/16/2018 02/16/2018 02/22/2018
04/04/2018 04/05/2018 04/10/2018
04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/20/2018 04/24/2018

87 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, CIPA hearing with the government set for 11/17/2017 is stricken and reset for 12/1/2017 at 10:30 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
89 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, CIPA hearing with the government held on 12/1/2017. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
90 SEALED ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on December 11, 2017. Mailed notice (td, ) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
91 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to dismiss the Indictment Based on Combatant Immunity (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
92 Brief by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab regarding motion to dismiss 91 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Combatant Immunity (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
93 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
94 NOTICE of Motion by Joshua G. Herman for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 93 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 1/25/2018 at 01:45 PM. (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
95 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Motion for leave to file in excess of 15 pages 93 is granted as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
96 MOTION by USA for extension of time as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (UNOPPOSED) (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
97 NOTICE of Motion by Barry Jonas for presentment of motion for extension of time 96 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 2/22/2018 at 01:45 PM. (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
98 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1) : Government's unopposed motion for extension of time 96 is granted. Government's response to motion to dismiss is due by 4/20/18 and Defendant's reply is due by 5/11/18. The Court strikes the ruling date of 5/8/18 and resets it to 7/31/18 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
99 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file supplemental authorities (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
100 NOTICE of Motion by Thomas Anthony Durkin for presentment of motion for leave to 99 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/11/2018 at 10:00 AM. (Durkin, Thomas) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
101 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental authorities is granted. The Court grants the government until 5/11/18 to file a response to the supplemental authorities cited by Defendant. No appearance required, 4/11/2018. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
102 RESPONSE by USA to MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to dismiss the Indictment Based on Combatant Immunity 91 , brief 92 (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
103 MOTION by USA for leave to file brief in excess of fifteen pages as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
104 NOTICE of Motion by Shoba Pillay for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages 103 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 4/25/2018 at 10:00 AM. (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
105 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Motion for leave to file excess pages 103 is granted. No appearance is required on 4/25/2018. Mailed notice (ags, ) (Entered: 04/24/2018)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 10 of 14

05/04/2018 05/04/2018 05/10/2018 05/11/2018 05/21/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018 07/18/2018 07/30/2018 07/31/2018 08/01/2018 08/07/2018
08/16/2018

106 MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for extension of time to file Reply Brief (Unopposed) (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
107 NOTICE of Motion by Joshua G. Herman for presentment of motion for extension of time 106 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 5/10/2018 at 01:45 PM. (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
108 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1): Motion for extension of time to file reply brief 106 is granted. Defendant's reply brief in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment based on combatant immunity is due by 5/21/18. Ruling date of 7/31/18 to stand. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
109 RESPONSE by USA to MOTION by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab for leave to file supplemental authorities 99 (Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
110 REPLY by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to response 102 Defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayabs Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Combatant Immunity (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
111 OPINION AND ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab as to (doc. # 47 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 55 ). Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 6/28/2018. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
115 REDACTED OPINION and ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 6/28/18 111 . (gcy, ) Text Modified on 8/2/2018 (gcy, ). (Entered: 08/02/2018)
112 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, The Court strikes status hearing set for 7/31/2018 and reset for 8/1/2018 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
113 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, At the parties' joint request, status hearing set for 8/1/2018 is stricken and reset for 8/9/2018 at 1:30 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
117 EX PARTE SEALED ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 7/31/2018. (Received for docketing on 8/9/2018). (jjr, ) (Entered: 08/09/2018)
114 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Status hearing set for 8/9/2018 is stricken and reset for 8/7/2018 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
116 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing held. For the reasons stated on the record, Defendant's motion to dismiss the Indictment Based on Combatant Immunity 91 is denied. Jury trial reset to 9/24/2018 at 9:00 a.m. Pretrial conference set for 9/18/2018 at 2:00 p.m. Ex parte hearing set for 8/16/2018 at 10:00 a.m. with Government's counsel. Both sides to disclose experts by 8/14/20185. Motions in limine and any Daubert motions to be filed by 8/24/2018. Responses to be filed by 8/31/2018. By 8/24/2018, Defendant to advise Government's counsel and are to file his notice of Combatant Immunity defense. Defendant is further given leave to file his motion for a jury questionnaire by 8/24/2018, after consultation with Government's counsel. Parties are to submit proposed jury instructions (including any disagreements), proposed statement of the case, and proposed voir dire by 8/31/2018. Without objection, time is excluded in the interest of justice and for preparation for trial through 9/24/2018 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h) (7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(iv) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
118 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing held. Counsel for Government advised the Court that they anticipate filing a superseding information. At the parties' request, change of plea hearing set for 9/21/2018 at 11:00 a.m. As stated on the record, all other trial and pretrial dates are stricken. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 11 of 14

09/13/2018 09/20/2018 09/25/2018
10/26/2018 10/26/2018 10/29/2018
10/29/2018 10/29/2018 10/31/2018
10/31/2018 11/02/2018 11/05/2018

119 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Parties' request to strike change of plea date set for 9/21/2018 is granted. Status hearing set for 9/20/2018 at 2:00 p.m. Mailed notice (mw,) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
120 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing set for 9/20/2018 is stricken and reset for 9/25/2018 at 10:30 am. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
121 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing held and continued to 10/31/2018 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel for Defendant advised the Court that the proposed plea has been translated and copies provided to Defendant. Defendant advised the Court that it is still his intention to plead. In the interest of justice and for continued negotiations, time is excluded though and including 10/31/2018 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A)(B) without objection. Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
122 MOTION by USA for Reassignment Based on Relatedness as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Unopposed) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
123 NOTICE of Motion by Barry Jonas for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief 122 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/31/2018 at 02:00 PM. (Jonas, Barry) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
124 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: As to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1). Government's unopposed motion for reassignment based on relatedness 122 is granted. It is hereby ordered that Case No. 18−cr−721, United States of America v. Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, currently assigned to USDJ Ronald A. Guzman is reassigned to USDJ Sara L. Ellis pursuant to Local Rule 50.1. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
125 SUPERSEDING INFORMATION as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1) count(s) 1s. (ew, ) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
126 DESIGNATION Sheet: FELONY (Category 3). (ew, ) (Entered: 10/29/2018)
127 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Change of plea hearing held. Defendant withdraws his plea of not guilty and enters a plea of guilty to Superseding Information. Enter Waiver of Indictment. Enter (revised) Plea Agreement. Government's version is due by 1/31/2019. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Defendant to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 4/12/2019. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Government to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 4/19/2019. Sentencing set for 4/26/2019 at 11:00 AM. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court's website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/31/2018. Mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
128 WAIVER of Indictment by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (bg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
129 PLEA Agreement as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (bg, ) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
130 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: As discussed on the record on 10/31/2018, the United States Attorney shall file a revised Superseding Information. Minute order dated 10/31/2018 127 is amended to reflect the following: Defendant withdraws his plea of not guilty and enters a plea of guilty to Revised Superseding Information. Remaining parts of Order to stand. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 12 of 14

11/05/2018 01/25/2019 01/25/2019 01/29/2019 03/19/2019 04/01/2019 04/02/2019
04/04/2019 05/13/2019
05/13/2019

on 11/5/2018. mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
131 REVISED SUPERSEDING Information by USA as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (bg, ) (Entered: 11/07/2018)
132 MOTION to withdraw as attorney as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab Robin Waters (Waters, Robin) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
133 NOTICE of Motion by Robin Valentina Waters for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 132 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 1/30/2019 at 10:00 AM. (Waters, Robin) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
134 ORDER as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Defendant 132 is granted. The Court withdraws the appearance of Robin Waters, Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 1/29/2019. Mailed notice. (bg, ) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
135 PRESENTENCE Investigation Report as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (SEALED) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Plea Agreement)(Dawson, Sabrina) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
137 NOTICE by Joshua G. Herman of Change of Address (Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
138 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Defendant ordered to appear and be transported by U.S. Marshals Service. Sentencing set for 4/26/2019 is stricken and reset for 5/24/2019 at 10:00 AM. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Defendant to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 5/10/2019. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Government to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 5/17/2019. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court's website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/02/2019)
139 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. The Probation Office is directed to release sentencing recommendation to counsel of record. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
141 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Defendant ordered to appear and be transported by U.S. Marshals Service. Sentencing set for 5/24/2019 is stricken and reset for 7/15/2019 at 9:30 AM. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Defendant to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 7/1/2019. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Government to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 7/8/2019. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court's website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
142 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Defendant ordered to appear and be transported by U.S. Marshals Service. Sentencing set for 7/15/2019 is stricken and reset for 7/26/2019 at 9:30 AM.

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 13 of 14

07/12/2019 07/12/2019 07/16/2019
07/26/2019 07/26/2019 08/19/2019 09/26/2019 10/02/2019 10/03/2019 10/04/2019

Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Defendant to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 7/12/2019. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Government to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 7/19/2019. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court's website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
143 STRICKEN from the Record, pursuant to Minute Entry dated 7/26/2019. (Herman, Joshua) (Main Document 143 replaced on 7/26/2019) (jh, ). Modified on 7/26/2019 (jh, ) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
144 SEALED Document (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (under seal), # 2 Exhibit G (under seal))(Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
145 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: Status hearing held. Sentencing set for 7/26/2019 is stricken and reset to 10/3/2019 at 1:30 p.m. As stated on the record, parties are given leave to file their sentencing memoranda in excess of 15 pages. Sentencing memoranda and any objections filed by the Government to the presentence investigation report should be filed in writing with the Clerk of Court with courtesy copy provided to chambers through Courtroom Deputy on or before 8/19/2019. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(1), if restitution is being sought in this case, 60 days prior to the sentencing date, the Government shall provide the Probation Office and the courtroom deputy an electronic standardized spreadsheet (available on the Court's website) with a list of victims and their full current contact information. This list shall include any amounts subject to restitution. If the Government is not able to provide the full victim list 60 days prior to sentencing, they shall file a motion to request an extension of time to compile the information, to the extent permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(5). Mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
146 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab: At the request of the parties, Defendant's Clarifications to the Presentence Investigation Report and Sentencing Memorandum (Doc. # 143 with attachments) is to be stricken from the record. Defendant is granted leave to refile his sentencing position papers instanter. Mailed notice (cn). (Entered: 07/26/2019)
147 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit F, # 6 Exhibit H)(Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 07/26/2019)
148 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pillay, Shoba) (Entered: 08/19/2019)
149 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, TIME CHANGE ONLY. Defendant ordered to appear and be transported by U.S. Marshals Service. Sentencing set for 10/3/2019 at 1:30 PM is stricken and reset to 10/3/2019 at 3:00 PM. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 09/26/2019)
150 REPLY by Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab to sentencing memorandum 148 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Herman, Joshua) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
151 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis:as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab, Sentencing held on 10/3/2019. Judgment in a criminal action to issue. Mailed notice (rj, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
152 PRESENTENCE Investigation Report (Corrected) as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (SEALED) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Plea Agreement)(Tsinoukas, Angelo) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

Case: 1:16-cr-181 As of: 06/20/2020 01:54 PM CDT 14 of 14

10/23/2019

153 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab held on 10/03/19, before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis. Order Number: 36325. Court Reporter Contact Information: Patrick Mullen, (312) 435−5565, patrick_mullen@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

IMPORTANT: The transcript may be viewed at the court's public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through the Court Reporter/Transcriber or PACER. For further information on the redaction process, see the Court's web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov under Quick Links select Policy Regarding the Availability of Transcripts of Court Proceedings.

10/31/2019
10/31/2019 11/01/2019 11/01/2019

Redaction Request due 11/13/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/21/2020. (Mullen, Patrick) (Entered: 10/23/2019)
154 JUDGMENT (Sentencing Order) as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (1), Count 1 dismissed on the Motion of the United States. Count(s) 1s, The Defendant pleaded guilty to count(s) 1s (one) of the Indictment. The Defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 60 months on Count 1s. Terms to run concurrent with Docket No. 18cr721. The Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal. Upon release from imprisonment, Defendant shall be on supervised release for a term of 20 years to run concurrent to run concurrent with Docket No. 18cr721. Criminal Monetary Penalties. Schedule of Payments. (Terminated defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab). Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/31/2019. Mailed certified copy to defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab's counsel of record Thomas Anthony Durkin and Joshua G. Herman. Mailed notice (jh, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
155 STATEMENT of Reasons as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab. Mailed certified copy to defendant Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab's counsel of record Thomas Anthony Durkin and Joshua G. Herman. (SEALED) (jh, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
JUDGMENT and Commitment as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab issued to U.S. Marshal via e−mail in PDF format. (jh, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
FORWARDED certified copy of Judgment (Sentencing Order) with Statement of Reasons to the Docketing Department of the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. District Court's Fiscal Department as to Aws Mohammed Younis Al−Jayab (jh, ) (Entered: 11/01/2019)