U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM All Defendants

Case title: United States of America v. Rammal et al Date Filed: 08/14/2018

Assigned to: District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub Defendant (1) Kamel Mohammad Rammal TERMINATED: 04/22/2019
Pending Counts FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (12) Highest Offense Level (Opening)

represented by Federal Community Defender 613 Abbott 5th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 313-967-5555 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment
Nancy L. McGunn Federal Defender Office 613 Abbott 5th Floor Detroit, MI 48226 313-967-5846 Email: Nancy_McGunn@fd.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Public Defender or Community Defender Appointment
Disposition
IMPRISONMENT: 12 MONTHS AND 1 DAY; SUPERVISED RELEASE: 24 MONTHS; SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: $100.00; RESTITUTION: $469,485.00

Felony
Terminated Counts FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (1-11) FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (13-14)
Highest Offense Level (Terminated) Felony
Complaints None

Disposition DISMISSED DISMISSED
Disposition

Assigned to: District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds Referred to: Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub Defendant (2) Nassif Sami Daher
Pending Counts FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (8)

represented by Amir I Makled Hall Makled, PC 23756 Michigan Ave Suite 300 Dearborn, MI 48124 313-582-7930 Fax: 313-582-7962 Email: amakled@hallmakled.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: Retained
Disposition

FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (10) FRAUD BY WIRE, RADIO, OR TELEVISION (13-14)
Highest Offense Level (Opening) Felony
Terminated Counts None
Highest Offense Level (Terminated) None
Complaints None

Disposition Disposition

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Craig A. Weier U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-9100 Email: Craig.Weier@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: U.S. Attorney
Cathleen M. Corken U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-9100 Fax: 313-226-0206

Email: cathleen.corken@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: U.S. Attorney
Douglas C. Salzenstein United States Attorney's Office 211 West Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313-226-9196 Email: doug.salzenstein@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Designation: U.S. Attorney

Date Filed 08/14/2018 08/14/2018
08/16/2018
08/16/2018 08/16/2018
08/16/2018

# Docket Text

INDICTMENT as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal (1) count(s) 1-14,

1

Nassif Sami Daher (2) count(s) 8, 10, 13-14. (DPer) (Entered:

08/14/2018)

4 ORDER WITH MOTION to Seal 3 Arrest Warrant Issued, 1

Indictment, 2 Arrest Warrant Issued as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (DPer) (Entered: 08/14/2018)

5 ORDER WITH MOTION to Unseal 4 Order to Seal, 3 Arrest

Warrant Issued, 1 Indictment, 2 Arrest Warrant Issued as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (SOso) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Amir I Makled appearing for Nassif Sami Daher. (SOso) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford: Initial Appearance as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal held on 8/16/2018. Disposition: Defendant released on bond. Bond Information: $10,000 unsecured bond with conditions. (Court Reporter: Digitally Recorded) (Defendant Attorney: Jessica Lefort) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (MarW) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
Minute Entry for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford: Arraignment as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal (1) Count 1-14 held on 8/16/2018. Disposition: Not Guilty plea entered.

08/16/2018
08/16/2018
08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018

(Court Reporter: Digitally Recorded) (Defendant Attorney: Jessica Lefort) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (MarW) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford: Initial Appearance as to Nassif Sami Daher held on 8/16/2018. Disposition: Defendant released on bond. Bond Information: $10,000 unsecured with conditions. (Court Reporter: Digitally Recorded) (Defendant Attorney: Amir Makled) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (MarW) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

Minute Entry for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford: Arraignment as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) Count 8,10,1314 held on 8/16/2018. Disposition: Not Guilty plea entered. (Court Reporter: Digitally Recorded) (Defendant Attorney: Amir Makled) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (MarW) (Entered: 08/16/2018)

7

Public Audio File of Initial Appearance/Arraignment on

Indictment as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal held on 8/16/2018

before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. AUDIO FILE SIZE

(4.7 MB) (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

8

Public Audio File of Initial Appearance/Arraignment on

Indictment Part 1 of 2 as to Nassif Sami Daher held on 8/16/2018

before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. AUDIO FILE SIZE

(3.0 MB) (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

9

Public Audio File of Initial Appearance/Arraignment on

Indictment Part 2 of 2 as to Nassif Sami Daher held on 8/16/2018

before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. AUDIO FILE SIZE

(4.9 MB) (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

10 ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL DEFENDER as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Indictment by Kamel Mohammad Rammal. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

12 ACKNOWLEDGMENT of Indictment by Nassif Sami Daher. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

13 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

14 BOND as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal in the amount of $10,000 unsecured entered. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/16/2018

15 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to Nassif Sami Daher. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/16/2018

16 BOND as to Nassif Sami Daher in the amount of $10,000 unsecured entered. (SOso) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

08/20/2018

17 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Nancy L. McGunn appearing for Kamel Mohammad Rammal (McGunn, Nancy) (Entered: 08/20/2018)

08/22/2018

18 NOTICE TO APPEAR as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher, Status Conference set for 9/13/2018 @ 10:15 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

08/27/2018

19 Warrant for Arrest Returned Executed on 08/16/18 as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal. (DPer) (Entered: 08/28/2018)

09/12/2018

20 NOTICE of Change of Assistant U.S. Attorney: Cathleen M. Corken added. (Corken, Cathleen) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/12/2018 21

NOTICE of Intent To Use Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Information by United States of America as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher (Corken, Cathleen) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

09/13/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal and Nassif Sami Daher held on 9/13/2018. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (Defendant Attorney: Nancy McGunn and Amir Makled) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (LBar) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

09/19/2018

22 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 9/13/2018 until 1/8/2019. Motions due by 11/6/2018 and Jury Trial set for 1/8/2019 @ 09:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 09/19/2018)

11/19/2018

23 NOTICE TO APPEAR as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Plea Hearing set for 12/6/2018 @ 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

12/06/2018

Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Plea Hearing as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal held on 12/6/2019. (Sentencing set for 3/18/2019 @ 11:00 AM before

District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds) Disposition: Guilty plea entered. **Plea Agreement Taken Under Advisement (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (Defendant Attorney: Nancy McGunn) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (LBar) Modified on 12/6/2018 (LBar). (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/06/2018

24 PLEA AGREEMENT as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal (LBar) (Entered: 12/06/2018)

12/20/2018

25 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 1/8/2019 until 6/25/2019. Motions due by 1/31/2019 and Jury Trial set for 6/25/2019 @ 09:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

01/18/2019

26 MOTION AND BRIEF SUPPORT REQUESTING SUFFICIENT TIME TO RESPOND TO FISA-RELATED MOTION AND FOR THE COURT TO DESIGNATE A CLASSIFIED INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER by United States of America as to Nassif Sami Daher. (Corken, Cathleen) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

02/07/2019

27 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 6/25/2019 until 9/24/2019. Motions due by 3/7/2019 and Jury Trial re-set for 9/24/2019 @ 09:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) Modified on 3/7/2019 (LBar). (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/08/2019 28

MOTION for Discovery of Evidence Secured Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended by 50 USC 1801-1802 by Nassif Sami Daher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 02/08/2019)

02/14/2019

29 ORDER Granting 26 Government's Motion to Extend the Government Motion Response Date by 90 Days and to Designate a Classified Information Security Officer as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

02/14/2019

30 NOTICE of hearing on 28 MOTION for Discovery of Evidence Secured Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended by 50 USC 1801-1802 as to Nassif Sami Daher. Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2019 @ 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

03/06/2019

31 NOTICE TO APPEAR as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Sentencing re-set for 4/18/2019 @ 11:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 03/06/2019)

03/07/2019

Set/Reset Deadlines as to Nassif Sami Daher: Jury Trial set for 9/24/2019 @ 09:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 03/07/2019)

03/29/2019

32 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by United States of America as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal (Weier, Craig) (Entered: 03/29/2019)

04/09/2019 33

ORDER on Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release Bond Conditions as to Nassif Sami Daher - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 04/09/2019)

04/11/2019

34 SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by Kamel Mohammad Rammal (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G) (McGunn, Nancy) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/18/2019

Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Sentencing held as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal. Disposition: Rule 11 Plea Agreement accepted by the Court. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (Defendant Attorney: Nancy McGunn) (AUSA: Craig Weier) (LBar) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

04/22/2019

35 JUDGMENT as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (DPer) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

06/05/2019 36

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by United States of America as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher. (Corken, Cathleen) Modified on 7/31/2019 (LBar). (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/05/2019

37 ORDER Granting 36 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/05/2019

TEXT-ONLY NOTICE: Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2019 @ 10:00 am is Cancelled re 30 Notice of Hearing on Motion, as to Nassif Sami Daher (A new date will be set if needed) (LBar) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/05/2019 38

RESPONSE by United States of America as to Nassif Sami Daher
re 28 MOTION for Discovery of Evidence Secured Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended by 50 USC 1801-1802 (Corken, Cathleen) (Entered: 06/05/2019)

06/06/2019 39

NOTICE by United States of America as to Nassif Sami Daher (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (Corken, Cathleen) (Entered: 06/06/2019)

07/29/2019 40

ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 9/24/2019 until 4/7/2020. (Jury Trial re-set for 4/7/2020 @ 9:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds), (Reply due by 8/30/2019), (Jury Trial re-set for 4/7/2020 @ 9:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 07/29/2019)

09/19/2019

41 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 38 Response to Motion by Nassif Sami Daher as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1) (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/19/2019

42 REPLY to 38 Response to Motion for Discovery of Evidence Secured Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended by 50 USC 1801-1802 by Nassif Sami Daher as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/19/2019

43 MOTION to Dismiss CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT NASSIF SAMI DAHER FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT AT 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) by Nassif Sami Daher as to Kamel Mohammad Rammal, Nassif Sami Daher. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 09/19/2019)

09/20/2019

TEXT-ONLY ORDER Granting 41 Motion for Extension of Time

to File Reply to 28 Motion for Discovery of Evidence Secured Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as Amended by 50 USC 1801-1802 as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) (Reply, document 42 is accepted as timely filed) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 09/20/2019)

09/23/2019

44 NOTICE of Change of Assistant U.S. Attorney: Douglas C. Salzenstein added. (Salzenstein, Douglas) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

10/10/2019 11/25/2019 11/25/2019 11/26/2019
11/27/2019 12/18/2019
12/30/2019 01/02/2020

45 RESPONSE by United States of America as to Nassif Sami Daher re 43 MOTION to Dismiss CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT NASSIF SAMI DAHER FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT AT 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) (Salzenstein, Douglas) (Entered: 10/10/2019)
46 MOTION to Compel GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO BOARD AND TRAVEL UPON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PURSUANT TO HIS SIXTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION by Nassif Sami Daher. (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
47 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release and Modify Travel Restriction by Nassif Sami Daher. (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 11/25/2019)
48 NOTICE of hearing on 47 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release and Modify Travel Restriction, 46 MOTION to Compel GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO BOARD AND TRAVEL UPON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PURSUANT TO HIS SIXTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION as to Nassif Sami Daher. Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2020 @ 11:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
49 STIPULATION AND ORDER as to Nassif Sami Daher, (Response due by 12/17/2019) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
50 RESPONSE by United States of America as to Nassif Sami Daher re 46 MOTION to Compel GOVERNMENT TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO BOARD AND TRAVEL UPON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT PURSUANT TO HIS SIXTH AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 47 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release and Modify Travel Restriction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1) (Salzenstein, Douglas) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
51 STIPULATION AND ORDER as to Nassif Sami Daher, (Reply due by 1/3/2020) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
52 REPLY to 50 Response to Motion, by Nassif Sami Daher (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 01/02/2020)

01/06/2020 01/06/2020 01/08/2020 01/08/2020
01/08/2020
01/17/2020 04/03/2020 06/08/2020 10/29/2020

53 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 Response to Motion, by Nassif Sami Daher. (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
54 REPLY to 50 Response to Motion, by Nassif Sami Daher (Makled, Amir) (Entered: 01/06/2020)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER Granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) (documents 54 is accepted) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Motion Hearing as to Nassif Sami Daher held on 1/8/2020 re 46 MOTION to Allow Defendant to Board and Travel upon Commercial Aircraft; and 47 MOTION to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release and Modify Travel Restriction. Disposition: Motions denied. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (Defendant Attorney: Amir Makled) (AUSA: Douglas Salzenstein) (LBar) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
Bench Order rendered at a hearing held on 1/8/2020 before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Denying 46 MOTION to Allow Defendant to Board and Travel on Commercial Aircraft; and Denying 47 Motion to Modify Conditions of Pretrial Release as to Nassif Sami Daher (2). (TEXT-ONLY, NO IMAGE ATTACHED) (LBar) (Entered: 01/08/2020)
55 ORDER on Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release Bond Conditions Modified to Include Travel Restricted to the Eastern District of Michigan as to Nassif Sami Daher - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
56 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 4/7/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 6/18/2020 @ 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 04/03/2020)
57 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 6/18/2020 until 10/19/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 10/19/2020 @ 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds Plea Cut-Off by 10/19/2020 - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
58 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 4/7/2020 until 3/9/2021. Pretrial Conference

set for 2/10/2021 @ 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds and Jury Trial set for 3/9/2021 @ 9:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) Modified on 1/5/2021 (LBar). (Entered: 10/29/2020)

12/24/2020 59

ORDER denying 28 Motion for Discovery as to Nassif Sami Daher (2); denying 43 Motion to Dismiss as to Nassif Sami Daher (2) - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 12/24/2020)

01/05/2021

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to Nassif Sami Daher: Jury Trial set for 3/9/2021 @ 9:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

02/08/2021

60 ORDER TO CONTINUE - Ends of Justice as to Nassif Sami Daher Time excluded from 3/9/2021 until 4/13/2021. Pretrial Conference set for 3/11/2021 @ 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds; Plea Cut-Off 3/11/2021; and Jury Trial set for 4/13/2021 @ 9:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds - Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (LBar) (Entered: 02/08/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

03/01/2021 20:19:49

CRClearinghouse Client Code: Hudson-Erdman

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:18-cr-20559-NGEMKM

7

Cost:

0.70

 
 Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.1 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.2 Page 2 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.3 Page 3 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.4 Page 4 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.5 Page 5 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.6 Page 6 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.7 Page 7 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.8 Page 8 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.9 Page 9 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.10 Page 10 of 11

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 1 filed 08/14/18 PageID.11 Page 11 of 11

 
 Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 09/12/18 PageID.43 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, vs.

Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds Case No. 18cr-20559

D-1 KAMEL MOHAMMAD RAMMAL and

D-2 NASSIF SAMI DAHER,

Defendants. ________________________________/

NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT INFORMATION

The United States hereby provides notice to defendants Kamel Mohammad Rammal and Nassif Sami Daher and to the Court that, pursuant to Title 50, United States Code, Section 1806(c), the United States intends to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose in any proceedings in the above-captioned matter, information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to

1

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 09/12/18 PageID.44 Page 2 of 3
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), as amended, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1812.
Respectfully submitted, MATTHEW SCHNEIDER United States Attorney
/s/ Craig Weier Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: (313) 226-9100
/s/ Cathleen M. Corken Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: (313) 226-9100
2

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 21 filed 09/12/18 PageID.45 Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 12, 2018, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

By:

/s/

Cathleen M. Corken

Assistant United States Attorney

3

 
 Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.467 Filed 12/24/20 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v.
NASSIF SAMI DAHER D-2

Case No. 18-20559 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISCOVER AND MOTION TO DISMISS[28] [43]

In this criminal case, Defendant is charged with four counts of wire fraud in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2. The charges relate to allegations of food stamp fraud. On

September 12, 2018, the Government provided notice to Defendant and the Court that it

intends to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose information that was obtained

or derived from electronic surveillance conducted under the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act (“FISA”). (ECF No. 21.)

After receiving this notice, Defendant filed two related motions that are currently

pending before the Court: Defendant’s motion for discovery of evidence (ECF No. 28)

and Defendant’s motion to dismiss his indictment (ECF No. 43). Defendant argues the

Government’s use of FISA materials in this case is improper, and he seeks discovery and

suppression of the materials, and ultimately dismissal of the charges against him. The

Government opposes the motions. As discussed below, the Court conducted an ex parte

and in camera review of the FISA materials as required by 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). Having

completed its review and having considered the entire record in this matter as well as the

1

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.468 Filed 12/24/20 Page 2 of 10
relevant statutory and legal authorities, the Court finds that Defendant’s motions should be DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND On August 14, 2018, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Michigan returned an
indictment charging Defendant and a co-defendant with multiple counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2. The indictment accuses Defendant and his codefendant of engaging in a scheme to obtain Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds by fraudulent means. The indictment identifies fourteen allegedly fraudulent wire transfers related to this scheme, and Defendant is alleged to have been involved with at least four of those transfers.1
On September 12, 2018, the Government provided notice pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1806(c) of its intent to offer into evidence or otherwise use information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA” or “the Act”). Thereafter, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking, among other things, disclosure and then suppression of the FISA materials.2
Defendant was born in Michigan and is an American citizen. He is of Lebanese descent, meaning his ethnic heritage is Lebanese. He claims he is not an agent of a foreign power. And as he points out, he has not been charged with a crime related to national security or terrorism. To this end, Defendant contends the use of FISA materials is improper in the criminal prosecution of an American citizen for an entirely “domestic” criminal prosecution. He also claims that the FISA warrants at issue here were improper
1 On December 6, 2018, Defendant’s co-defendant pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, and on April 18, 2019 he was sentenced to one year and one day in prison.
2 Defendant also filed a motion seeking dismissal of the indictment, which in turn relies on suppression of the FISA materials.
2

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.469 Filed 12/24/20 Page 3 of 10
because in his view, the primary purpose of the warrants and subsequent surveillance was for a domestic criminal prosecution.
II. DISCUSSION A. Overview of FISA and the Role of the Court The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (as previously defined, “FISA” or
“the Act”) prescribes the methods whereby the Government may conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of a “foreign power” or “agent of a foreign power” after a high-ranking official certifies that a “significant purpose” of the search is to collect “foreign intelligence information.”3 If authorized by the United States Attorney General, information derived from FISA surveillance and searches may be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(b) and 1825(c). The statute does not expressly limit the types of criminal prosecutions in which such information can be used. However, before the FISA materials may be introduced, the Government must provide notice to the court and to the party against whom the evidence will be introduced. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(c) and 1825(d).
After receiving notice that the Government intends to use FISA materials, the “aggrieved party”—the party against whom the surveillance or search was conducted— may move to discover and/or to suppress the evidence based on the grounds that: (1) the information was unlawfully acquired; or (2) the electronic surveillance or physical search did not conform to the order authorizing the action. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(e) and 1825(f).
3 The role of FISA Courts and the process for obtaining search warrants under FISA is set forth in the statute, and discussed in significant detail in the Government’s briefing as well as in the opinion of many other district courts. See, e.g., United States v. Alwan, No. 1:11-CR-13-R, 2012 WL 399154, at *1–11 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2012).
3

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.470 Filed 12/24/20 Page 4 of 10
The motion must be made to the district court in which the matter is pending, and the district court has the jurisdiction to determine whether the surveillance or search was illegal or not in conformity with the order of the FISC. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(f) and 1825(g).
Once the district court receives a motion to discover or suppress FISA materials, the court may address the motion as it would in any other criminal case unless the Attorney General files an affidavit declaring that disclosure of the evidence or an adversarial hearing on the motion would harm the national security of the United States. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(f) and 1825(g).
If, as in the present case, the Attorney General files such an affidavit, the district court must “review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance [or physical search] as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance [or physical search] of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(f) and 1825(g). When reviewing the FISA materials in camera and ex parte, the district court may disclose the applications, orders, or other materials related to the surveillance or search to the aggrieved person “only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance [or search].” 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(f) and 1825(g).
Accordingly, when a motion to suppress by the defendant is followed by the affidavit of the Attorney General, in camera and ex parte review of the FISA materials is the rule, and disclosure of any such evidence to the criminal defendant is the exception. See United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141, 147 (D.C.Cir. 1982) ( “The language [of the FISA statutes] clearly anticipates that an ex parte, in camera determination is to be the rule. Disclosure and an adversary hearing are the exception, occurring only when
4

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.471 Filed 12/24/20 Page 5 of 10
necessary.”) Disclosure should only take place where the court is unable to make an accurate determination as to the legality of the evidence. See United States v. Daoud, 755 F.3d 479, 482 (7th Cir.), supplemented, 761 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussing 50 U.S.C. 1806(f)). If the court can make an accurate determination without disclosure to the defendant, then the FISA materials should not be disclosed. Id.
B. Standards of Review Applied to FISA Applications and Orders . When a Defendant's motion to suppress is followed by the Attorney General's affidavit requiring in camera and ex parte review, the district court must determine the legality of the FISA surveillance or search. The district court applies the following standards of review in conducting this analysis. 1. Standard of Review Applicable to FISA Applications. A FISA application is subject only to minimal scrutiny upon review by the reviewing district court. See United States v. Abu–Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102, 130 (2d Cir. 2010). Where a statutory application “was properly made and earlier approved by a FISA judge, it carries a strong presumption of veracity and regularity in a reviewing court.” See United States v. Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 736 (N.D. Ohio 2018). When reviewing an application, the district court must ensure that the application contains all of the requirements listed in 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823. In reviewing the procedural check list, the court's emphasis falls on the requirement that the application be accompanied by the certification of a high-ranking official. 50 U.S .C. §§ 1804(6) and 1823(6). Like the application itself, the “certification is ... subjected to only minimal scrutiny by the courts.” Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d at 736 (citing United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458, 1463 (11th Cir. 1987). The certification is used to ensure that a significant
5

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.472 Filed 12/24/20 Page 6 of 10
purpose of the surveillance or search is to ob tain foreign intelligence information. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804(a)(6)(B) and 1823(a)(6)(B). The FISA judge, reviewing the initial application “is not to second-guess the executive branch official's certification that the objective of the surveillance is foreign intelligence information.” Id. (quoting United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 77 (2nd. Cir. 1984)) . Similarly, “when a person affected by a FISA surveillance [or search] challenges the FISA Court's order, a reviewing court is to have no greater authority to second-guess the executive branch's certifications than has the FISA Judge....” Id. In all, the Government's application for a FISA order, and the certification of a high-ranking official accompanying it, are given substantial deference and only receive minimal scrutiny when reviewed by the district court.
2. Standard of Review Applicable to FISA Orders. Upon a defendant's motion to suppress pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(e) and
1825(f), a district court must also review the FISA order authorizing the surveillance or search and more specifically, the FISA Judge’s determination of probable cause. The Court must find that the FISA order contained a finding of probable cause by the FISA judge that the target of the surveillance or search is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power and that the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed or the premises or property to be searched is or is about to be owned, used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805(a)(2) and 1824(a)(2). Unlike the FISA application, however, the FISA judge's probable cause determination is reviewed de novo by the district court upon a defendant's motion to suppress. See Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d at 736. See also United States v. Hassan,
6

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.473 Filed 12/24/20 Page 7 of 10
742 F.3d 104, 138–39 (4th Cir. 2014) (stating that the district court reviewed the probable cause determinations de novo in accordance with the Fourth Circuit's precedent).
C. Analysis of the Legality of the FISA Materials in the Present Case. Defendant moves pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(e) and 1825(f) to discover and/or suppress all FISA materials including any evidence derived from or relating to any electronic surveillance or physical searches conducted against him as authorized by order of the FISC. The Government opposes Defendant’s motion and has submitted an affidavit of the United States Attorney General declaring that any disclosure of or hearing on these matters will harm the national security of the United States. As a result of the Attorney General's affidavit, the Court conducted an in camera and ex parte review of the FISA materials. This review included all of the FISA warrant applications, orders, and related documents and exhibits. Based on that review, the Court finds that: (1) the FISA applications complied with the statutory requirements, and (2) the FISA orders satisfied the statutory requirements and were based on probable cause. More specifically, after conducting its in camera and ex parte review, the Court makes the following findings: (i) the Court finds that each FISA application contained the requirements set
forth in 50 U.S.C. § 1084 and 1823. (ii) the Court finds that the applications contained a statement of the proposed
minimization procedures and a certification by a high-ranking official and that the proposed minimization procedures are those previously proposed by the Attorney General and approved of by the FISC. (iii) The Court finds that a “significant purpose” of the surveillance or search was to obtain “foreign intelligence information.” (iv) And the Court finds that the FISA applications for electronic surveillance or physical search complied with the FISA application statutes.
7

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.474 Filed 12/24/20 Page 8 of 10
As such, the Court finds no error in the applications or accompanying certifications, and where the applications are procedurally accurate, the Court's inquiry is complete.
In addition, after conducting its ex parte and in camera review, the Court finds that the orders complied with the procedural requirements set forth in 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805 and 1824, and contained the necessary findings, specifications, and directions required by those sections. Moreover, the Court finds there was sufficient probable cause to believe that Defendant was “an agent of a foreign power” and that each of the facilities, places, premises, or property at which the electronic surveillance or physical search was directed was, or was about to be owned, used, possessed by, or was in transit to or from Defendant. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805(a)(2) and 1824(a)(2). Thus any argument based on the Government's failure to demonstrate probable cause, or that the Government was required to make a greater showing of probable cause, are without merit. The FISA orders contained the elements required by statute and were issued based on a valid finding of probable cause.
Finally, the Court turns to Defendant’s argument that it is improper for the Government to use information discovered through a FISA warrant “for an entirely domestic prosecution.” In other words, according to Defendant, it is improper to use FISA materials to prosecute a crime like food-stamp fraud that is not directly related to the defendant’s alleged agency to a foreign power.
The Court recognizes the legitimacy of Defendant’s Fourth Amendment concerns. And the Court echoes similar concerns raised by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Gartenlaub:
8

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.475 Filed 12/24/20 Page 9 of 10

The idea that the government can decide that someone is a foreign agent based on secret information; on that basis obtain computers containing “[t]he sum of [that] individual’s private life,” Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2489, 189 L.Ed.2d 430 (2014); and then prosecute that individual for completely unrelated crimes discovered as a result of rummaging through that computer comes perilously close to the exact abuses against which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. However, the district court did not commit plain error by concluding otherwise.
United States v. Gartenlaub, 751 F. App'x 998, 1000 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S.
Ct. 1609, 203 L. Ed. 2d 757 (2019). Yet notwithstanding this warning, in Gartenlaub, the
Ninth Circuit approved the use of FISA-derived materials and found no Fourth
Amendment violation occurred in connection with a non-national security related
prosecution for possession of child pornography. Id.
Here, Defendant presents no authority supporting the notion that FISA materials
cannot be used in an entirely domestic criminal prosecution, and the Court is aware of
none. In fact, the case law appears to be in opposite. See Gartenlaub, 751 F. App'x at
998. Thus under the circumstances presented here, where the clear purpose of the
surveillance was to obtain foreign intelligence information and there is no indication of an
intent to uncover information about what the Defendant describes as “domestic crimes”,
the Court finds that Defendant fails to establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
III. CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, Defendant's motions are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge

Dated: December 24, 2020
9

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 59, PageID.476 Filed 12/24/20 Page 10 of 10 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on December 24, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Lisa Bartlett Case Manager
10

 
 Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 39-1 filed 06/06/19 PageID.280 Page 1 of 4

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 39-1 filed 06/06/19 PageID.281 Page 2 of 4

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 39-1 filed 06/06/19 PageID.282 Page 3 of 4

Case 2:18-cr-20559-NGE-MKM ECF No. 39-1 filed 06/06/19 PageID.283 Page 4 of 4