1

0 1

- 1 5 3 5

- c r ( L) In re T erro ri st B om bings o f t he U

. S

. E m ba ssi es i n E

. A fr.

UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT


## SUMMA RY ORDER

Ru li ng s b y su m m ar

y o r de r do no t h ave pr ece de nt ial e ffe ct. Cita ti onto su m m ar y o r de r s f

il ed on or af ter January 1, 2 0 0 7 , is permit ted and is governed by F ederal Rule of Appellate Pr ocedure 32.1 and thi s court’s Local Rule 32

. 1

. 1

. W he n c iting a summar

y order in a docum ent file d wit h t hi s co ur t, a p ar ty m us t c ite ei the r the F ed er al App en di x o r

anel ect r on ic da ta ba se (withthe not ation “ s um ma ry ord er”). A part y citing a sum mary or der m ust serve a copy of it on any part

y not r epresented by cou nsel.

1 Ata st at edte r mof th e U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t o f Ap pe al s f or th e S eco nd

Cir cu it , h el d a t t he 2 Daniel Pat rick Moynihan Un ited Stat es Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, 3 on the 26thday of January, two t housand eleven. 4 5 P R E S E N T : 6 7 W I L F R ED F EI NBERG , 8 J ON O. N EW M AN , 9 J OS É A. C AB R ANES , 10 Circuit Jud ges

. 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 12 I N R E T ER RO RI S T B OM B I NGS OF T HE U.S

. E MB A S S I ES I N 13 E AST A FR I CA 14 15 U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA , 16 17 Appellee
, 18 Nos. 01-1535-cr (L) 19 -v.- 05-0920-cr (Con) 20 21 M OHA MED R A S HE D D AOU D AL -O’ W HALI , also known as Khali d 22 Sal imSal eh B inRas hed , al s o kno wn as M oath, als o kno wn as Abd ul 23 J abb ar -Ali A bel -L ati f, 24 25 De

fe ndant -A ppella nt. 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 27 28 F OR

DE F EN DAN T- AP P ELLAN T: Fr ede r ick H. Coh n, New

Yor k, N Y. 29 30 F OR

AP P ELLEE : David R askin, Assis tant United States Attorney (Preet 31 B har ar a, U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , o n th e br ie f, andKather

in e 32 Po lk F ailla, As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r ney , of counsel ), 33 United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern Distr ict 34 of New Yor k, N ew Yo r k, N Y.2 1 Appea l from a February 9, 2010 order of the United States District Court for the Southern 2 Di s tr

ict of New Yor k (Kev

inT ho mas Du ff

y, Judge ). 3 4 UPON DUE CONSIDERAT ION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, A DJUDGED, AND 5 DE CRE ED th at the o r der of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t b e AF F IRME D

. 6 7 OnM ay 8, 200 0, a n i ndictmen t ag ain s t d ef end ant -a pp ell ant

M oh ame d Ras hedDao udal- O’whal i 8 (“defendant”) wa s filed in 308 counts, charging de fendant and others with participating i n an 9 in te r nat

io nal con s pi r acy t o b om b the U .S. emb as s ies inNai r ob i, Keny a andDar es Sal aam, T anza ni a. 10 T he b om bi ngs of

th os e em bas s ies , whichocc urr ed o n Augus t 7 , 19 98, killed224peo pl e, i ncl udin g 12 11 Ame r

icancit izen s . D ef

end ant was als o ch argedwith s ub s tan ti ve o ff ens es r elat ed t o his r ol e inth e 12 bo mb ing of

th e U. S. e mb as s y inNai r ob i. 13 14 On May 29, 2001 , after a six-month tr ial in the U nited States Distr ict Court for the Southern 15 Di s tr

ict of New Yor k ( Le on ar d B . Sa nd
, Judge

), the jury convicte d defendant on a ll counts with which it 16 was ul ti mat ely p r es ent ed. Def end ant was s ent enc ed t o l

if e inpr is on

. 17 18 On a pp ea l, we a ffi rme d d ef en da nt’ s co nv

ic ti on a nd , a mo ng

oth erthi ng s, u ph el d Ju dg e S a nd ’s 19 denial

of def end ant ’s mo ti onto s up pr es s cer tai n i nculp ato ry s tat eme nt s he m ade i n K eny a. See In re 20 Terr

orist B ombin

gs o f the U.S. Em bassies in E. Af r. (Fifth Amend

ment C hall enges) , 55 2 F .3d177 , 21 3- 14 ( 2dCir

. 21 200 8)
, aff’g Uni

ted States v. Bin La den , 13 2 F . Supp . 2d168 (S .D .N .Y. 200 1)

. 22 23 On Ap ril14 , 2 00 9, de fe nd a nt m ov ed to r em a nd the ca se t o th e D ist ric t C ou rt fo r pro ce ed in gs 24 regarding the volunta riness of his s tatements based on information newly disclosed by the g overnment 25 a bo ut t he ci rc um sta nc es o f hi s co nfe ssio n. On Ap ril30 , 2 00 9, we gra nte d th e m oti on to r em a nd for t hi s 26 limit ed p urpo s e. 27 28 On remand, the ca se was assigned to Judge Duffy. On September 8, 2009, defenda nt sought t o 29 r eop en his s up pr es s io n h ear in g infull, clai mi ng that

th e in fo r mat

io n r ecen tly di s clo s ed b y the 30 government had be en withhel d in violation of Br ady v. M aryland , 37 3 U. S. 8 3 ( 196 3) . O n F ebruar y 9, 31 201 0, a ft er

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t h ad r evi eweds ub mi s s io ns fr omth e par ti es , h elda on e- witnes s hear in g, 32 a nd vi ew ed vi de ota pe s of o the r re le va nt t estim on y, itde ni ed de fe nd a nt’ s mo ti on in a llre spe ct s. Th is 33 app eal f

ollo wed

. 34 35 Af

te r con s id er in g the p ar ti es ’ ar

gum ent s infull, we f

in d d ef end ant ’s clai ms onapp eal t o b e 36 wi tho ut m erit . Th e o rde r of t he Di stri ctC ou rt i s AF F IRME D for the reasons s tated by the District 37 Cou r t i n i ts com pr ehe ns ive M emo r and um& O r der of Fe bruar y 9, 201 0. 38 39 40 FO R T HE CO URT
, Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk of Court