## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 2552 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P RI NCE S. K NO X, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C R 917

— Suzan ne B. C onl on, Judge .

____________ A RG UE D M AY 9, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2008

____________
Befo re F LA UM, K ANN E , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Ap pel lan t Pr i nce S ol om on Knox en te r ed th e Uni te d S ta te s a s pa r t o fa r efug ee r es et tl ement p ro gr am . H e w as lat e r in d ict ed an d co n vic te d es se n tia lly f o r l ying to the Uni te d S ta te s g o ve r nm en t byde ny i ng i nvol vem ent with ar m ed rebelgr oups i n connect ion w i th hi s a dm i tta nce into th e c ou ntry
. W e a dd re ss thre e m ain i ssues i n thi s a pp eal

— a ven ue qu estion; K nox ’s re quest, wh i ch the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed, to go to A fri ca2 N o. 07

- 2552 f o r i nv es ti g at i o n/ depo si ti o ns ; a nd tw o c ha l l en g es t o the su fficie n c y of t h e e vid en c e.

I . B a c kg r o und Du ring the 19 90s Libe ri a was i n the m i dst o fse ver al ci vi l co nfl i c t s . T he De pa r t men to fS t a t e , the Offi c e o f Uni te d Nat i o ns Hi g h Co m m i ss i o ne r f o r Refug ee s, and the Depa r tmento fHomel an d S ecuri ty( “DHS” ) b eg ana U n ite d Sta te s re se tt lem en t p ro gr am for L ibe ria n s in Côte d’I voi re ( a. k. a. the I vor y Coa st ) w ho co uld not r etur n t o Libe r i a o r r emai n in Côt e d’ I vo i r e be ca us e o fthe ci vil unrest
. El i gibl e ind i vi du al s co uld appl y t o enter the Unite d Sta tes as r efugees . Defendant Prince S ol om on K nox w as fro m S ierra Leone, but hi s wife, El i zabe th K nox, fro m Liber i a, co uld a pp l y forherenti re f am i l y. K nox , El i zabe th Kn ox, and thei r daughter appli ed und er thi s pro gr am . Of cour se, to be ad m i tte d, appli cants had to m eetthe quali fi cati ons, o ne o fwh ich , r el evanther e, deem ed p er sons w ho had bel onge d to oras si ste d disf avo re d arm ed gr oups i nel i gibl e. There ar e three such r ebel gr oups w e co ncer n our sel ves w ith i n th is c as e: th e N at ion al P at riot ic F ro n t o f L ibe ria ( “N PFL”), the I nd ependent N ati onalPatr iot i c F ro nt o f Libe r i a ( “IN PFL”) , a nd the Re vo l ut i o na r y Uni te d F r o nt ( “RU F”)
. The RU F w as known f or gr i evo us hum an rights viol ations, th e d isturbin g d etails ofw hich are un ne cess ary to recou nt f or o u r p resen t pu rp oses. See Revolu tionary U ni ted Fr ont, h tt p ://en

. w i ki pedia. or g/w i ki/ Revoluti onary_ U n ite d _F ro n t (la st vis ite d A u g. 4, 20 0 8 ) ; see also Ka m a ra v . A tto rney G enera l of th e U nited Sta tes , 4 2 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 2 , 20 7N o. 07

- 2552 3 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 5) ( des cr ibing som e o fthe RUF’ s “g r i ev o us hum an r i ghts vi ol ati ons”)
. The S tat e Depart m ent has des i g na te d the RU F a s a te r r o r i sto r g an i za ti o n o n the ter ro ri st excl usi on l i st si nce Decem ber20 01. On D ecem ber9, 20 03, a St ate Departm ent e m plo yee i nter vi ew ed the K n ox fa m i l y in A bi dj an, Côte d’I voi re . A t that t i m e, i n re sponse to questi ons fro m DH S i m m i gr ati on office r Davi d Rad el, Kn ox deni ed that he had eve r been a m em ber of disf avo re d a rm ed gr oups, den ied that he ha d as si st ed th em, an d den i ed ha ving se r ve d or parti ci pated i n m i l i tar y ser vi ce or ar m ed confl i ct. Sim i l ar l y, on F or m I

- 590, R egi str ati on f orCl ass i fi cati on a s Refugee, K nox answered thathe ha d no m em ber shi p i n and pro vid ed no a i d to ar m ed gr oups. H e a l so answ er ed “none” w hen dir ecte d on the f or m to l i st “pol i ti cal, pro fessional orso ci alo rg an iza ti ons ofwh i ch Iam now orhave bee n a m em bero r w i th wh i ch Iam now orhave bee n a ffi l i a t e d w i th s i n c e my1 6 th b i r th d a y . ” Ra d e la l s o c o mpl et ed F o r m G-6 46 , Sworn St at ementofRe fug ee Appl y i ng fo r A d m issi on, i nt o the U nited States on K nox ’s beha lf

. K n ox answered “no ” t o the fol l owing questi ons: “Have you eve r provi ded support, i ncl ud i ng housing, tr anspor tati on, co m m unica tio ns, fund s, docum ents, weapons or tr ai ni ng f orany perso n oro rg ani zati on that has ev er engag ed i n orco nspir ed to engag e in sabo tag e, ki dn api ng, ass assinati on, hij acking, o r any o therf or m o fte rr or i st acti vi ty?” and “H ave yo u eve r been a r epres entat i ve or m em ber of a terrorist organization or a m em ber of a gr oup w hi ch endors es ter ro ri st acti vi ty?” These a nd o ther si m i l arst ate m ents ar e al so confi rm ed i n Radel ’ s wri tte n n o t e s o fth e i n t e r v i e w.4 N o. 07

- 2552 Radel re com m ended that K nox be re set tl ed i n the U ni ted S t a t e s o n o r ab o u t De c e mb e r 9 , 2 0 0 3
. Kn o x e n t er ed th e U ni ted S tat es on Ap ril14, 20 04, thr ough the Chic ago O ’H are intern ational airport. H e pres en ted the I- 590 Form sta m ped by Radelto the DH S office r at O’Hare. Kn ox then m ove d t o St
. Loui s, M i sso uri
. I t was i n M i sso urithat Knox was a r r es te d o n De ce m be r 2 1, 2 00 6. The g o ve r nm en t ha d c o me t o b e l i e v e tha tK nox h a d b e l o ng e d t o o rs up port ed the R U F, N PFL, and/o r I N PFL, and ther ef or e, lied on th e fo rm s a n d to R ad el. Knox was c ha r g ed i n a f o ur - co un t i ndi ct m en t

— t wo c o un t s f or m a k i ngma t e r i a l l y f a l s e s t a t e men t s t o fe der alag ents and tw o counts for vis a fra ud , i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1001 and 154 6. The fi rs t co unt addresse d l yi ng under o ath o n Fo rm I

- 590, wh i ch w as sub m itted at O ’H ar e t o gain entr y. The se cond w as f orf al se sta tem ents on F or m G-6 46. Count Three w as f orm aking si m i l ar fal se st at ement s to Ra deli n Cô te d’ I vo i r e. Co untF o ur w as f orl yi ng to an I m m i gr ati on a nd Custom s Enfo rce m en t agen t on or abou t M arch 29, 2006 , “in th e E a s tern D ist ric t o fM iss ou ri an d N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois .” (It appears that thi s “ l i e” w as K n ox c l ai m i ng he had never h e l d a g u n, a s t a t e me n tma d e i n a r e c o r d e d t e l e p h o ne cal lbetw een Knox and a gov er nm ent a gent. ) The di str i ct c ou rtfou n d K n ox ind ige n t a n d ap p oin te d co u n se l. The f ac t u a lc r u x o fth e c a s e i s wh e th e r Kn o x l i e d ab o ut hi s i nv o l ve m en t i n the se re be lg r o ups . The maj o r i tyo fthe eve nts r el ate d to the c harg es occur red in Si er ra Leone, Libe ri a, and Côt e d’I voi re . A ccor dingl y, th e d efense soughtto i n ve st i gat e a nd poss ibl y depose pote nti alwit-N o. 07

- 2552 5

nesse s in W estA fri ca. Kn ox fi l ed a w ri tte n appli cati on f or author i zati on of extr aor dinar y and s ubstanti al tra vel an d ex p er t w itn e s s e x p en se s w ith th e in te n t t o u ltim at ely tak e for ei gn deposi ti ons und erF ed er alRule o fCri m i nal Pro cedure 15. The di str i ct j ud ge denie d the appl i c at i on w i thout prej ud i ce due t o “vagueness” and a “ f ai l ure to addr es s th e l eg al ba si s f o r ta k i ng f o r ei g n de po si ti o ns inth re e u n id en tifie d W es t A fric an co u n tr ies .” K nox fi l ed another m oti on f orl eave t o take f or ei gn deposi ti ons an d identi fi ed f our pros pecti ve w i tness es by nam e and a dd re ss w ho w er e bel i eve d t o h av e p er sonal fi r st
- ha nd kno wl edg e co nc erni ngwhethe r the de fen dan t w as a m em bero fany ofthe re l ev an t gro up s. Kn ox al so po i nt ed o uttha t th e g o ve r nm en t woul d b e br i ng i ng ove r w i tness es fro m A fri ca. The co u rtga ve K nox an op p ortu nity to su p p ly ad d iti ona l inform ation (costs, etc. ), i nc l ud i ng i n c a mer a di s c l o s ur e s o f the b a s i s f or bel i evi ng the witnes ses would appear vol untari l y, how they w oul d be co ntacte d, etc. The governm ent a l so fi l ed i ts opposi ti on to K n ox’s r equest( s)
. The co urt concl ud ed th at th e d efense di d n o t p rovide enou gh de tailed inform ati on, Kn ox having o nl y e xplained that t ra velto W est A fri ca was nece ssa ryto i nvest i gat e, l ocat e, and i nter vi ew th es e in d ivid u als a n d t h at th en m or e in for m at ion w ou ld be a va i l abl e. The c o ur t f o und thi s “pr o bl emat i c an d unw or kabl e. ” The defense coul d not provi de the re quis i te not ice ofw he n an d w he re the d ep osition s w ou ld occ ur. The dis t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f a ul t e d Kn o x f o r f a i l i ngt o a ddr e ss th e l eg al i tyo fthe pr o po se d i nv es ti g at i o ns unde r the so ve r ei g n l aws o fthe r el ev an t f o r ei g n n at i o ns o r the d iplom atic im p li cation s to the U nited States . Th e cou rt6 N o. 07

- 2552 f o und i t “s pec ul at i ve ” th atK nox ’s pr o po se d de po si ti o ns w oul d eve r eve n occuror that they w oul d prese rv e m ate
r i ale vi den ce un derthe se unr el i ab l e ci r cumst an ce s. The cour t, i n a s epara te rul i ng, al so denied e x penses f or tr aveland expertse rv i ces i n A fri ca. K nox pers i ste d nonethel ess , fi l i ng an em er ge ncy m oti on a nd an a m ended emer g en cy m o ti o n f o r th e di st r i ct co ur t to r ec o ns i der

. The dist ri ct cou rt w as not persuaded, and the cour t deni ed th e m o ti o ns f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n. At t r i althe g o ve r nm en t’ s wi tn es se s tes ti fi ed to the f ol l owing: they s aw Kn ox s er vi ng as a bodyguar d fo r an R U F lea d er , saw h im ca rry in g a n A K -4 7 r i f le, sa w h im at R U F m eetings , observ ed him w ith RU F m em bers, heard h im go b y t h e n am e o f a lea d er of t h e IN P FL , saw h im i n RU F a pp ar el, hear d him br ag about b ein g a r ebel fi g ht er, o ve r he ar d hi m t el labo utkill in ga f ami l y, a nd kn ew that he w as ha ving an aff air w it h a n R U F l ead er’s w i fe. Kn ox’ s o nl y tr ialwitnes s was hi s e str anged wife, w ho hadn’ t m ethi m unt i l1 99 6 o r 1 99 7 ( a g o ve r nm en t w i tness te sti fi ed r egardi ng ev ents dati ng as f arbac k a s 1992 )
. S he d eni ed eve r see i ng him in rebe lgarb oras soc i ati ng with the r ebelgr oups. S he a d m itt ed to a 7- 8 m onth se p a r a t i on an d ad m itt ed th at K n ox n ev er to ok h er to h is hom e a nd thathe t old h eri t was none ofherbusi ness who hi s peo pl e wer e when sh e as k ed. The g o ve r nm en t al so elic ited test i m ony that K nox hi t herand thr eat ened t o t a k e th e i r d a u g h t e r s h o r tly b e f o r e th e i r i n t e r v i e ws w i th the S tat e Depart m ent. At the c l o se o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ca se the de fen dan t m ad e a R u le 2 9 m ot ion for a c q u itt al, bu t c ite d n o s p ec ificN o. 07

- 2552 7 gr ounds. H e renewed the m oti on aft erclo si ng ar gum ents. The j u r y c o n v i c t e d o n a l l f o u r c o u n t s . Kn o x wa s s en tence d to 12 m onths’ im pri sonm ent a nd thr ee yea rs o f supervi sed re l eas e. H i s sente nce w as com ple ted on o r ab o utDe cemb e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7
. Kn o x i s c ur r e nt l y i n c us t o dy w i th the Bureau o fI m m i gr ati on a nd Custom s Enfo rce m ent, wh i ch has i ni ti ate d rem ova lpro ceedi ngs. K n ox n o w a p p e als . Th er e a re th re e m ajor a sp ec ts to h is appe al th at we wi l l ta k e up i n tu r n: a que st ion abo ut properve nue; a re vi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s d ec isio n to deny K nox’ s r equest to go to W estA fri ca t o i nvesti gat e a nd de po s e p o t e nti a lwi tnesse s; and two suffi ci ency- of

- theevi dence chal l enges .
I I . Ve nue K nox ar gues th at v en ue i n the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o f I l l i no i s was i m pr o per w ith r es pec t to Co unt s Thr ee a nd Four
. The ge nera lr ule is thatwe re vi ew de nov o a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m oti on f orj ud gm ent o facqui tta l d u e t o im p ro p er ve n u e. See U nited Sta tes v. R ing er, 30 0 F
. 3d 78 8, 7 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Howev er, thi s i ts el fpr esents us w ith a h u rd le

— w hetherK n ox p re ser ved thi s i ssue w i th hi s gener i c Rul e 2 9 m oti on f oracqui tta l, as to ei thero r both cou nt s, an d i f not pres erved , w he th er that f ail ure w as w ai vero r f or fei ture
. Co n ve n tio nal l y, a w ai veri s a kno w i ng and i ntenti onal re l i nquishm ent o fa ri ght, w h ile f or fei ture i s the r esul t o f u n in te n tio n al re lin q u ish m en t. E.g
. , U nited Sta tes v . Ch a rles , 476 F.3d 492, 495 (7th Cir. 2007). Wa i v e r p r e c l u d e s r e v i e w,8 N o. 07

- 2552

w here as f or fei ture per m i ts re vi ew f orpl ai n er ro r. Id. In R i n g erw e fo u n d th at “[a ] cla im of im p ro p er ve n u e is w ai ved i fthe i ssue i s a p p arent o n the f ace ofthe i nd i ctm en t an d a n obj ec ti o n i s no t m ade before the c l o se o fthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se. ” R ing er, 300 F. 3d at 790. W e c o nt i nu e d, “[I]f th e ind ict m en t d oe s n otp ro vid e n ot ice of a p os sib le defec t in v enue a nd the g o ve r nm en t r es ts wi th o ut pr o v i ngtha tthe c r i mes o c c ur r e d in the d i str i c tc ha r g e d, th e defen dan t m ay th enfi l e a ve nue o bj ec ti o n in a m oti on f oracqui tta l

. ” Id.

A . Count Th r ee W e be gi n w i th Count Three

. The al l ege d vi ol ati on of 18 U
. S. C. § 1 001 occur red “ i n A bi dj an, I vor y Coas t” ac c or d in g t o th e in d ict m en t. T h e in d ict m en t d i d n o t in any way pl ead thatthe al l ege d fa l se st at em ents w i th w hich K nox w as ch arged had any im p act in t he N orthe rn Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s. The r efo r e, we co nc l ud e, wi th o ut m uchdi ffi cul ty, tha t no ti ce o fa po ss ibl e defec t i n v enue w as “apparent on the f ace ofthe i nd i ctm ent. ” Accordi ngl y, K nox w ai ve d t h e argum ent b y no t m aking an obj ecti on b efo re th e c los e o f th e g ov er n m e n t’s ca se . Id. ; U nited St at e s v. Br ando n , 50 F .3d 46 4, 46 9 (7 th C ir. 19 95 ); U nited St at e s v. John , 518 F. 2d 705, 709 (7th C ir. 1975); U nited Sta tes v. B ohle, 44 5 F
. 2d 54, 58

- 59 ( 7th Ci r. 19 71) ( expla i ni ng tha t “whe r e th e f ac t o fi m pr o perv enue is a ppar en t o n the f ac e o fthe i ndi ct m en t, i t ha s be en uni f o r m l y he l d tha t th e o bj ec ti o n i s wai ve d i fnotpre se nt ed be f o r e the c l o se o fthe Gover nm ent’ s ca se” ( ci tin g W ri ght’ s F edera lPra cti ce & P ro c ed u re : C rim in a l § 3 06 )), overr ule d on othergrounds b yN o. 07

- 2552 9

E v en ifw e w e re to re ject R i n geras K nox reques ts and som e- 1 h o w c o n c l u d e th a th e h a d u n t i l th e e n d o f th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s c as e t o rai s e a ve nue obj ec t i on, we woul d ne ver the l es s fi nd thathe w aiv ed the ar gum en t, be c aus e hi s “o bj ec t i on” atthe c l os e o fthe g ov e r nme nt ’ s c a s e , di s c us s e d i n f ra in P a rt B, was ina d equ ate a nd d id no t pr eserv e the v en u e issue for a p p eal. U ni t e d S t at e s v. La wson , 653 F.2d 299 , 303 n. 1 2 ( 7 t h C ir. 1981 ); see a lso U ni t ed Sta tes v. M cDonough , 60 3 F
. 2d 19, 22 n.1 (7th C ir. 1979). K nox u r g e s u s t o di s c a r d R ing er ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o ft he w ai verst andard and app l y the di stincti on we now draw betw een w aiver and f orfei tu re

— w hi ch Kn ox be l i eve s w oul d res ultin o u r fi nd i ng tha t he onl y for fei ted, r ather than waiv ed, the ar gum ent. W e d i sag re e, however, with Knox ’s pr emi se tha t o urc o ur t’ s m o r e r ec en t appl i ca ti o ns ofthe w ai ver/for fei ture di stincti on a re i nconsi ste n t with R ing er . W here venue w as not adequatel y ple aded fr om th e o ut se t an d the po te nt i alde fec t i s appa rent o n the fac e o f th e in d ic t m e n t (s u c h as th is c as e w h er e t h e o n ly l oca ti on m enti oned i s in A fri ca) , f ai l i ng to r ai se such an o bv i o us i ss ue i s l o g i ca l l y c o ns i der ed a k no wi nga nd i ntenti onalr el i nquishm ent. There f or e, co nsi ste nt with bo tho urt r adi ti o na lwai ve r / f o r fei tu r e dist i nc ti o n a nd o urg o ve r ni ngc as e l aw, Kno x wai ved a ny v enue a r g um en t wi thr es pec t to Co untThr ee b y no t r ai si nga v enue obj ecti on be f or e the cl ose o fthe gov ernm ent’ s ca se. 110 N o. 07

- 2552

The r el eva nt exch anges wer e bri efi ndee d. Atthe e nd ofthe 2 g ov ern m en t’ s case, cou nsel for K no x ad d ressed the co u rt: “I w ou ld m ak e a ru le 29 m otio n for jud g m en t o f acq u ittal on all f our counts ofthe i nd ic tm ent, but I willw aive any argum ent at thi s t i m e. ” Th e j udge re s ponde d aton c e, fi rs tno t i ng h i s c ons t ru c t i o n o f th e e v i de n c e i n a l i g h t mos t f a v o r a b l e t o t he go ve r nme nt, the n fi nd i ng “ [ T] he go ve r nme nth a s e s t a bl i s he d a pri m a f ac i e c as e as t o a l l f our c ount s . ” Later, aft erc l os i ng ar gum en t s , K nox ’ s c ouns elag ai n r eques t ed “ [ C] oul d the re c or d re fl ec ta re ne wal ofm y Rul e 29 m ot i on ofac qui t t al, an d I wil l wai ve ar gum en t ? ” Th e c our tr es ponde d: “Al l r i ght

. Your m o tio n is n o te d an d d en ie d .” B . C o untF o ur The venue i ssue re gar ding Count Four i s m or e di ffi cul t. Co un tFo ur o fthe i nd i c t men ta l l e g e d tha tthe 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 001 vi ol ati on o ccurr ed “in t h e east er n Dis tr i ct o fM i ssour iand the N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i nois .” Therefor e, unli ke Count Three that onl y m enti oned Côte d’I voi re , w e ca nnot s ay that any pot en ti alve nue def ect prese nted i ts el fo n the f ace o fthe i ndi ct m en t. As we s ai d i n R ing er, “if t h e in d ict m en t d oe s n otp ro vid e n ot ice of a p os sib le defect inv enue . . . the de fen dan t m aythe n fi l e a ve nue o bj ec ti o n in a m o ti o n f o r acqui tt al ” a t th e en d o fthe g o ve r nm en t’s ca se . R ing er, 300 F. 3d at 790. Thus w e a re pre sente d wi ththe que st i o n o fwhethe r the b are R ule 29 mot i o n, w h ich d id n otm en tio n ve n u e (o r an yth in g e lse ) sp ec ifical l y, was suffi ci ent t o prese rv e the ve nue i ssue. 2 The go ver nm ent ha s the bur den ofpro vi ng ve nue by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e. E.g
. , Un i t e d S t a t e s v. M u h am m ad , 5 02 F
. 3d 64 6, 6 52 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. In U nitedN o. 07

- 2552 11 Sta tes v. Jon es , we f ound that “ the m ot ion for a cquit tal m ade atthe concl usi on o fal lthe evi dence pro perl y r ai sed the quest i on o f v en u e in the c ourtbel ow.” 174 F
. 2d 746, 748 ( 7th Ci r. 19 49)
. W e e xplained thati t was a chal l enge that the g ove rnm ent f ai l ed i n i ts proo fand that th e rul es do not re quir e speci fi cs i n the m oti on. The go ver nm ent has a d u ty to p ro ve its ca se , in c lu d in g v en u e, an d if it “ is chal l enged as to suffi ci ency by a g ener alm ot ion fo r a c q u i t t a l, i t i s th e Go v e r n me n t ’ s d u t y t o r e q u i r e t he defe nd ant t o be s peci fi c i n hi s obj ecti on, and a fa i l ure to do so wil lnotenabl e the Governm ent o n app ea l t o say that the quest i on was notspeci fi cal l y r ai sed be l ow.” Id. H o wev er, thi rty ye ar s l at erwe ex pr es se d do ubtabo ut Jo nes and have continued to m ove away fro m thathol ding. M cDonough , 60 3 F
. 2d at 22 ( “[ W ] e hav e s om e quest i on about the c onti n u ed vi abi l i ty ofthe Jo nes ru le . .

. .”). In M cDonough , di stingui shi ng witho ut o ver rul i ng Jo nes , we focus ed on th e d istri ct j ud ge’s qu estion ask ing ifthere w as anythi ng speci fi c tha t would j usti fy a di re cted ac quit

tal, and f ound that “ the f ai l ure to urge t he m att er [ o fv enue ] whena sk ed to b e speci fi c f o r ec l o se s, i n o ur opi ni on, r ai si ng the questi on o n thi s a p p eal. ” Id. We criti cized the d efend an t’s i nt erp retation of Jo nes w hi ch w ou ld giv e “ th e d efe n d an t t h e rig h t t o c o n c ea l p os sib le re ver sibl e e rr or, ev en . . . wh en the gr ou n d s foro bj ecti on w oul d have be en . . . ea si l y d isco ver ed. ” Id. W e a l so wento n t o di sc us s th e uni que na tu r e o fve nue , e xpl aini ng that w h i l e par t o fthe gov er nm ent’ s ca se, i t ca n be w aiv ed , i s n otp ar t o ft h e c h ar ge d offe n se , an d n ee d on ly b e p ro ve d by a p re p on d er an c e o f th e e vid en c e. Id.12 N o. 07

- 2552 S i m i l ar l y i n U nite d State s v. Todo si je vic, 161 F. 3d 479, 48 2 ( 7th Ci r. 1 998) , we f ound a Rule 29 m oti on insuffi ci ent t o prese rv e a n i ssue “beca use [ the defendant] re sts her curr ent c hal l enge on g ro und s di f f e r e ntfr o m th o se s he re l i ed on in herm oti on t o the t ri alco urt. ” Id. W e high

l i g h t e d , as i n M cDonough , the defe nd ant’ s f ai l ure to ra i se add i ti onali ssues i n re sponse to th e j ud ge’ s quer y a s t o w hetherther e were othe r possibl e g ro u n d s. See a lso id. at 48 2 n. 3 ( m en ti o ni nga no th erc as e i n whi chwe ha d e xp lai ned i n di ct a th at“ th e defen dan t wai ve d the s uffi ci ency ofev i dence ar gum ent o n al lgr ounds ex c ep t that w h ich h e re lied u p on atth e t r i a l co u rtlev el” ). A n d in U nited Sta tes v. R o d r igu ez , we co nc l ude d, i n di ct a, tha t th e d efend an t’s “con ten tion w ith re s p e c t to ven ue [ w a]s unti m el y” because hi s “ m oti on f oracqu ittaldi d not r ai se th e ven ue i ssu e.” 67 F. 3d 1312, 1317-18 (7th C ir. 1995). Other ci rcui ts see m to f ol l ow approa ches m or e a ki n to ou r r ec en t ca se s r athe r tha n the a ppr o ac h in Jo nes . M an y ca se s co nc l ude , s i m i l art o o ura ppr o ac h in Todo si je vic, that if sp ec ific is su es are arg u ed w ith th e m ot ion for a c q u itt al, th e o n es th at are n otas se r t e d a re w aiv ed

. Se e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Phi l l ips , 4 77F
. 3d 21 5, 2 19 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( fi ndi ng w h en a d efe n d an t a ss er t s , ina R u le 2 9 m ot ion, sp ec ific g r o unds f o r a s pec i fi c el emento fa s p ecifi c co unt, he w aiv es all ot h er s fo r th at co u n t); U nite d State s v. C hance, 30 6 F
. 3d 35 6, 3 69 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( “Althou gh s pec i fi ci tyi n a Rul e 29 mot i o n i s no t r equi r ed, wh ere t he de fen dan t mak e s a Rul e 2 9 mo t i o n o n s pe c i fi c g r o un ds , a l lg r o un ds no ts pe c i fi e d in the mo t i o n a r e wai v e d. ” )
. Othe r s c o nc l ud e m or e di re ctl y that a n obj ecti on t o venue i s waived w hen n otsp ec ifica lly ra ise d in t h e R u le 2 9 m ot ion
. S e e, e . g. ,N o. 07

- 2552 13 Un i t e d S t a t e s v . R o mmy, 50 6 F
. 3d 108, 119 ( 2d Cir

. 20 07) ( “[ T]he l aw tr eat s obj ecti ons to venue a s wai ved ‘ unle ss speci fi cal l y a rt icu l ate d i n def ense counsel ’ s m oti on f or ac q u itt al.’ ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Car b aj al , 290 F. 3d 277, 28 9 n. 19 (5t h C ir. 20 02 ) (“[T h e d efe n d an t] failed to p re se r v e t h is iss u e fo r a p p e a l by sp ec ifica lly ra isin g t h e is su e in h is m oti on f oracqui tta lo r by req u es ting a j ury i nstr ucti on on ve nu e.”) ; U nite d State s v. P ota m it is , 73 9 F
. 2d 784, 79 1 ( 2d Cir
. 1984 ) ( “A gener al m oti on f or a j ud gm en t of acqui tta l

. . . i s no t s uffi ci ent t o ra i se and preserve f or appeal the questi on o fve nue. ”). B uts e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Z idel l , 32 3 F
. 3d 412, 42 1 ( 6th C ir. 20 03) ( concl ud i ng tha t a gen eral Ru le 29 m otion p reserved the ven ue cha ll en ge). I n re ac h in g these concl usi ons, thes e co urts f ocuse d, as w e ha v e i n thi s c i r c ui t, o n the u nu s ua ls t a t us o fv e nue. W hi l e ve r y i m po r ta nt

— as th e d efe n d an t n ot e s , it’s in the Co ns t i t ut i o n t wi c e , U. S
. Co ns t
. a r t
. I I I, § 2 , c l

. 3 ; a men d. VI

— venue i s unive rs al l y re cogni zed as w ai vabl e. I t is no t ane l em ento fthe c ha r g ed cr i m es . And, a s su ch, w hi l e the bur den does r estwith the pro secut ion, that burden ofpro ofi s o nl y a prep on d er an ce o fthe evi dence ( unli ke the “ beyo nd a re aso nabl e doub t” st andard f or th e e lem en ts of th e c rim e it se lf). Fu rt h er m o re , a de fe nd a nts ho ul d n o tb e p e r mi t t e d t o h i de i n the we e ds wi tha n obj ec ti o n ( es pec i al l y o n a wai vabl e i ss ue wi tha low er p ro of b u rd en ) on ly to p ou n c e o n ap p ea l j u st in ca se thi ng s do no t g o a s des i r ed in th e cou r t be l o w. The t a k e - a wa y me s s a g e i s th a t v e n u e c a n b e wa i v e d a n d a defe nd ant ne eds to be speci fi c i n a m oti on f oracqui tta l inord er to p re se rv e a ve n u e a rg u m en t fo r ap p ea l.14 N o. 07

- 2552

This opini on has been c ir culat ed am ong al l j ud ges ofthi s court 3 i n r e g u l a r a c t i v e s e r v i c e u n de r C i r c u i t Ru l e 4 0 ( e )
. No j udge f avor ed a r eh ea ri ng e n ba nc onthe question ofove rr ul i ng U n i te d S tat es v. Jon es . Thi s conc l us i on i s anal ogou s t o o ur di s c us s i on supr a ex pl ai n- 4 i ng th a t wh e r e a v e n u e i s s u e i s o b v i o u s o n th e f a c e oft he i ndi c t m en t, the f ai l ur e t o r ai s e the i s s ue i s a knowi ng r el i nqu i s hm ent ( es pecial ly s ince venue is w aivable anyw ay). S ee Ring er, 30 0 F .3d a t 7 9 0
. O nc e the go v ern m en t reach es the en d of its cas e without proving v en u e, then i t’ s j ust as ifthe defic ie ncy i s o b v i o u s o n th e fa c e o f th e in d i c t m e n t, a n d a d e fe n d a n t ’s failure to ra ise a v e nu e ob jection b y tha t tim e is logica lly con sid ered kn ow ing an d inten tion al. U nl i ke M cDonough a nd Todo si je vic, the re cor d here does no t refl ec t an y i nqui r y o n the pa r t o fthe j udg e i nv i ting the defendant to ar gue s peci fi c g ro und s o fthe Rule 29 m o ti o n. The r efo r e, we ca nno t si m pl y di st i ng ui sh Jo nes . G i v e n th e mo v e i n o u r o wnc i r c u i ta wa y fr o m Jo nes a nd the s i m i l artr eat m ent in case s fro m o ur s i ste r ci rcui ts, w e t ak e t h is op p or tu n ity to cla rify ou r p o s i tio n an d in doi ng so o ver rul e Jo nes . W e no w m ake expl i ci t that a 3 bar e Rul e 2 9 m oti on f or acquitt althatdoes notev en m enti on ve nue w ai ves the v enue ar gum ent a nd f ai ls to prese rv e the i ssue forappeal

. A pp l yi ng thi s t o the f acts 4 ofthe i nstant case we fi nd thatKn ox di d not pre serve the v enue c ha l l en g e. Thu s, the i ss ue i s wai ve d, a nd no thingmo r e n e e d b e s a i d.N o. 07

- 2552 15 I I I . F o r e i g n F und i ng K nox app lied f orfund s t o tr avelto W estA fri ca t o i nv e s t i g a t e a nd d epo s e wi tne s s e s u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 006A(e) ( 1) and Fe deral R u l e o fCri m i nalPro cedure 15; the di s t r i c tj ud ge de ni e d h i s r e qu e s t s . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 30 06 A(e ) ( 1) a utho r i ze s i nv estig at i ve a nd e xpe r t ex pend i ture s o n behal fo fi nd i gent defe nd ants w hen neces

sar y for adequate re prese ntati on. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s decis ion to gr ant o r deny such fund s under 18 U .S.C . § 30 06 A (e)(1 ) for a b u se of d i s c r e t i on . See U nited State s v. Sm ith , 50 2 F
. 3d 680, 68 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. R u l e 1 5 ofthe Feder alRu les o fCri m i nalPro cedure al so perm i ts a defendant to m ake a m oti on t o depose witnesses

— an unu sualo c c u rr ence i n a c ri m i nalcas e

— whe n “ e xc e pti onalci rcum sta nces” w ar ra nt i t. Thi s is als o re vi ew ed f or ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 62 F. 3d 1332 , 1340 (11th C ir. 1 995); U nited Sta tes v. Kelley, 36 F. 3d 1118 , 1125 (D
. C
. Cir. 1994). I n Sm ith , the de fen dan t so ug ht funds f o r a fi ng er pr i nt expert . W e expla i ned that und er18 U
. S. C. § 3 006A(e) ( 1) “[ t] he go ver nm ent wil lgi ve an i nd i gen t d efendant acce ss to exp ert se r v ic e s ad eq ua te to facil itate the de fend an t’s rep rese n t a tion ifthe cou rt find s tha t the services are ne cess ary” an d that they sh ou ld be p rovide d “w he re ‘a reaso n a b le attorney w ou ld en gage su ch services for a cl i ent havin g the i nd ependent fi nanci alm eans to pay f or them

. ’ ” Sm ith , 50 2 F
. 3d at 686 ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Crav e ns , 275 F
. 3d 637, 63 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) )
. Fur th er m or e, bef or e g ra n ting the e xpend i ture s, the cour t m ay consi der whethe r th e defen dan t ha s a “pl au sibl e defen se” as the16 N o. 07

- 2552 go ve rn m en t d oe s n oth av e t o “ fin an c e a fish in g e x p ed iti on. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 35 6 F
. 3d 774, 77 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) (i nt erna l qu otation om itted ). W e a dd re sse d the Rul e 1 5 “ excepti onalci rcum sta nces” r equi r ement brie fl y i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. M or r i s on , 94 6 F. 2d 4 8 4 , 4 9 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) , wh e r e we a ffi r med a di s t ri ct cour t’ s deni alof a r equest f orm oneyto tr avelto Puert o R ico to int er vie w w itn es se s, ta ke d ep os itio n s, an d inv es tig a t e th e s c e n e o fa d r u gr i n g ’ s a l l e g e d o p e r a t i o n s . We expl a i ne d tha t“ a s ho wi ngo fe xc e pt i o na lc i r c ums t a nc es m ust be co nsi derabl y m or e co ncre te and part icul ar i zed th an m er e s p ec u lat ion ab ou t th e po ss ible n ee d for d ep os it i o ns i n the future. ” Id. B ey on d th is b rie f tre at m en t in M or r i s on , w e ha ve no t ha d the o cc as i o n t o o ut l i ne a ny “t es t” for w h en t h e “e x c ep tio n al c irc u m st an c es ” t h re sh old w ou ld be m et j u st ifyin g a u th or iza tio n of fore ign d ep os iti ons; ther ef or e we tak e no te of som e f acto rs co nsi dered re l evant by othe r ci rcui ts. The N i nth Cir cui t con sid er ed w hetherthe deponent w oul d be avai l abl e at the pro posed loc at ion of th e d ep os itio n, w h et h er th e d ep on en t w ou ld b e w illing to te st ify, an d th e s afe ty of U n ite d Sta te s o ffici al s i n g o i ngt o the f o r ei gn l o ca ti o n. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. O l af s on , 20 3 F
. 3d 560, 5 67 (9 th Ci r. 20 00)
. The El eve nth C irc u it foc u se d on th e m at er ialit y of t h e p ro p os ed te st im on y, the a vai l abi l i ty ofthe w i tness , wh etheri nj usti ce wi l lo th er wi se r es ul t wi th o utthe m at er i alt es ti m o ny th at th e d ep ositi on cou ld p rovide , a n d w he th er cou nt erva i l i ngf ac to r s woul d m ak e th e depo si ti o n unj us t to the n on m ov in g p ar ty
. Se eThom as , 6 2 F
. 3 d a t 1 3 4 0

- 4 1
. T he D. C. Ci r cui t l i st ed as c r i ti ca lf acto rs the mate r i al i tyo fthe testim ony and the u na vailabil ity ofthe w itn e s s to testifyN o. 07

- 2552 17

a tt r i al and a l s o n o t e d th a tth e r e i s “ t y p i c a l l y s o me s h o win g, b ey on d ‘u n su b st an tia te d sp ec u lat ion,’ th at th e e vidence excul pates t he defendant. ” Kelley, 36 F. 3d at 1125 (citing cases from the T hird , Fi fth, and N inth Circu its). A s w e d es c rib ed , K n ox m ad e m an y a tt em p ts to ob ta in author i zati on f orexpenses to i nvest i gat e a n d dep ose w i tness es i n the W est A fri can co untri es ofS i er ra Leone, Lib e r i a , a nd Cô t e d’ I v o i r e . W e a r e no t un s y mpa the ti c to his d esire to inve stigate an d de p ose w itness es th ere

— he i s co rr ect that m any o fthe eve n ts re l evantto hi s ca se o cc ur r ed th er e. Howev er, we do no t fi nd that the dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc retion i n denyi ng fund s for a p rop osal accu rately cha racterized by the dist r ic t cou rt as “p ro b lem at ic a n d u n w or ka b le.” S p e c i fi c a l l y, a d d r e s s i n gR u l e 1 5 ’ s r e q u i r e me n t s , we concl ud e K n ox ’ s r equest w as not suffi ci entl y “ concr ete and parti cul ar i zed” t o j us t i fya utho r i z ingthe expend i ture s. M or r i s on , 946 F.2d at 49 0. M or eo ve r, K n ox ’s re q u es t w ou ld f ai lu nd e r n e a r l y a l lo fthe f a c t o r s we c i t e d fr o m o ther cir cui ts
. Kno x c o ul d no t pr o vi de when o r where th e p o t en tia l w itn es se s w ou ld be fou n d . H e h ad th eir ad d re ss es bu t o ffer ed n ot h in g to es ta b lish th e in d iv i d u a l s w o u l d b e p r e s e n ta ta n y g i v e n d a t e o r t i me

— or how he woul d get ove r th e hurdl e o fno phone or em ai lava i l abi l i ty. Fo r exam ple , o ne witness’ s a dd re ss w as in S ier ra Leone, but K nox i nd i cate d that the witnes s was a l s o b e l i e v e d t o s p e n d t i me i n C ô t e d ’ I v o i r e a nd th at h e m igh t b e fo u n d th er e; p lan s fo r tr ac kin g t h is w i tness dow n w er e no t o ffer ed. Consi deri ng thi s s ear ch w oul d i nvol ve cro ssing int ernati onalbo rder s, i t i s no t18 N o. 07

- 2552

I n e s s e nc e , Kno x was s e e ki ng fun ds t o fi r s tfi nd the s e i nd i vi d- 5 uals , then to int ervie w them , and only after that to an n ounce whe the r he wou l d s e e k t o de po s e the m . I f no thi ng e ls e was fl a we d a bo utthi s r e q ue s t, the h ol di ngpa t t e r n tha twou l d b e i mpo s e d o n th e a t t o r n e y f o r th e g o v e r n me n tr a i s e s s e r i o us c onc er ns . Gover nm en tc ouns elwoul d ne ed t o be i n a pos i t i on t o be i n a n u nspe c i fi ed l oc at i on i n W es tAf ri c a, pe rh aps on s ho r tn ot i c e , f ora n i nd e fi ni t e pe r i od

. an i nsi gni fi cant questi on. Such an abse nce of att ention to det ai lpe r va ded Knox ’ s en ti r e r eque st
. S i m i l arly, the 5 m ate ri al i ty ofthe potenti al test i m ony see m ed base d en tirel y on conj ectu re and sp ec u lation

. N o de tails w ere g i ve n reg ar d in g t h e e x p ec te d su b st an c e o f th eir te st im ony or how i t would e xculpate Kn ox. Kn ox al so did not di sc l o se a ny b as i s, ot hertha n a f ami l i alr el at i o n t o the defen dan t, f o r why th es e in di vi dual s woul d b e wi l l i ng to te sti fy v ol untari l y. There was al so a r athercav al i er at ti tu de to war d i nt erna ti o na ll aw a nd di pl o m at i c co ncer ns r ai sed bythe dis tr i ct j ud ge. Kn ox ar gued that such m at te r s were n o t hi s co nc ern; ne ve r th el es s, s ur ely he cannot expect a U ni ted S tat es court t o author i ze such e x p e n s e s t o e n g a g e i n i n v e s t i g a t i ngt e r r o r i s tg r o u p me mbe r sh i p wi th o ut det ai l o n th e l eg al i ty o fi nv es ti g at i nga nd tak i ng deposi ti ons i n thes e co untri es. In the end K nox si m plydi d not dem onstrat e the r equi si te “excepti onal ci rcum sta nces” f orRule 15 deposi ti ons. K nox arg u es t hat he m ay have been abl e t o furni sh th es e an swe r s i f he ha d b ee n g i ve n inv es ti g at i ve fundi ng und er§ 3006 A ( e) ( 1)
. H e asse rt s that his request w as a tw oste p proce ss and that he co uld have bee n gi ven fund s t oN o. 07

- 2552 19 go i nvest i gat e, afterwh i ch he c ould sati sfy the Rul e 1 5 re quir em ents. But w e co ncl ud e hi s § 30 06A(e) ( 1) r equ ests f ai l ed f orm an y of the s am e r eas ons. H e co uld notpro vi de su ffi ci en t det ai l s f o r th e tr i p r eg ar di ng w he n, w her e , a nd ho w he wo ul d mak e c o nt a c t wi th the witnesse s. W e underst and th at ther e were diffi cul ti es given th e un d evelop ed com m un ication s infrastruc tu re i n s o m e ar eas; h oweve r, Kno x di d no t su g g es t ho w he i ntended to ove rcom e thi s chal l enge. H e pr ovi ded o nl y a vagu e trip itine rary, an d the est im ated exp en ses w ere eq u ally br oa d an d w ith ou t d et ail, as w e l l as p os sib ly in ex c es s o f th e s ta tu to ry am ou n t. See 18 U
. S. C. § 3 006A(e) ( 3) ( “Co m pen sa ti o n t o b e pai d t o a pe r so n f or s er vi ce s r en dered byhi m to a perso n und erthis subsecti on, o r to be p a i d t o a n o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d b y a n e mp l o y e e th e r e o f, s h a l ln o te x c e e d $ 1 , 6 0 0 , e x c l u s i v e o fr e i mburse m ent forexpenses r eas onabl y incurr ed, u n l ess pay m en t i n e xc es s o ftha t li m it is c er ti fi ed bythe cour t .
. . . ”)
. H i s “ sprea dsheet” f orthe 12- day tr i p had on ly six ite m ize d en tr ies an d to ta led $3 4,5 65 .30 . (A lth ou gh in a lat er m ot ion h e d id ind ica te t h e c os ts w ou ld be l ess . ) Kn ox di d not m ake a c onvinci ng sho w i ng tha t these expenses were “neces sar y” f or adequate r epres entati on a nd that“a r eas onable at torney woul d engag e s uch ser vi ces f ora cl i ent hav i ng the i nd ependent fi nanci al m ea n s t o p ay for th em .” To r e c a p, wh i l e Kn o x wa s p e r s i s t e nti n hi s r e qu e sts , thos e requ est s s i m plydi d not pro vi de enough info rm ati o n t o j us ti fy g r an tingthe m . He h ad no t co nt ac te d po te nti alwitnes ses ; he c ou ld notpro vi de a pr opose d i ti nera ry ; h e d id n ot su fficie n tly ad d re ss th e p ra c tic al or d ip lom at ic20 N o. 07

- 2552 i ssues i nherent l y r el ate d to go in g t o f or ei gn co untri es f o r th es e pur po se s. H e co ul d no t pr o vi de th e g o ve r nm en t wi thno ti ce o fwheno r wher e s uchde po si ti o ns might o c c uro r e v e n a p r o po s a lo fh o w thi s mi g htb e a r r a ng e d. W hile som e difficulties m aking arran gem en ts to intervie w an d d ep os e t h es e w itn es se s m a y b e u n d er st an d ab le given th e rem ote ar e as being de alt w ith, it i s thos e very ci r cumst an ce s an d th e na tu r e o f th i s ca se ( i nv o l ving ter ro ri st acti vitie s and r ebelgr oups) wh i ch hei ghtene d the c oncerns and m ade the need f orpl anni ng m or e a cute. Too m any unknowns re m ai ned u n re sol ved and unresea rche d for t h e gover nm ent t o f oo t the bi l lf orwh at ap p ea re d a b it like a “fis h in g e x p ed itio n ” in to se em in gly unknow n and potenti al l y shark

- i nfe ste d w ate rs . Kn ox has not shown on appeal that the dist ri ct cour t abused its disc re ti on in denyi ng the r equests
. W e a l so note thatKn ox pre sente d a co nsti tu ti onal ar gum ent o n thi s i ssue, speci fi cal l y r ai si ng hi s S i xth A m endm ent r i ght t o prese nt a defe nse. H owever, as K nox adm i tte d i n hi s bri ef, this ri ght “i s not un l i m i ted and m ay
‘ bow to a cc o m m o dat e o th erl eg i ti m at e i nt er es ts i n the cri m i naltr i alpro cess . ’ ” Ho rton v . Litsch er, 42 7 F
. 3d 498, 50 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quoti ng Cham b e rs v. M i s s i s s ippi, 410 U
. S. 2 8 4 , 295 (19 73 )). Re q u irin g m or e fro m K n ox in t h is i ns ta nc e to su ppo r t hi s r eque st s was qui te r ea so nabl e an d clearly in furth eran ce of o th er l egitim ate interes ts. C ertainl y, ther e a re o ccasi onal l y s i tuati on s w here pro cedural rul es m ust be nd to the dem ands ofthe Consti tu tio n . See, e . g. , C ha m bers , 41 0 U.S. at 302- 03. Kn ox, however, has prese nted no c om pel l i ng r eas o n that the r ule s a pp l i ed her e, R u le 1 5 a n d § 30 06 A , sh ou l d b e n d t o a c c om m od at e h isN o. 07

- 2552 21 “fi shi ng expedi ti on, ” a nd he ha s pre se n ted no persuas i ve argu m en t tha t the rules w ere “arbitrary” or “d isp r o p orti onate to the pu rpos es they ar e desi gned to se rv e. ” Hor t on , 427 F.3d at 503 (“[R]ules ‘des ign e d to assu re both f airne ss an d r el i ab i l i tyi n the a sc er ta i nm en t o fg ui l t an d i nnocence’
. . . do notabr i dge an accused’ s r i ght t o prese nt a defe nse s o l ong as they ar e n ot ‘ arbi tr ar y o r dispr opor ti onate to the pur p ose s they a re desi gned to ser ve. ’ ” (q uoti ng C ha m bers , 4 1 0 U. S
. a t3 0 2 a nd Rock v. Ark a nsas , 483 U .S. 44 , 56 (1 98 7)). W e d o n otfind th at h is co ns ti tu ti o na lr i g ht s wer e vi o l at ed, e spe ci al l y s i nc e he fel lsho rti n es ta bl i shi ng the m ate ri al i ty ofthe potenti al tes ti m ony and t h e avai l abi l i ty ofany ofthe potenti al wi tn es se s an d di d no t es tabl i shthe “ ne ces si ty ” o fthe fun di ng, as we di s c us s e d sup ra . Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Loggi ns , 4 8 6 F
. 3 d 9 7 7, 9 8 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( fi nd i ng the ev i dence ati ssue “ l ac k [ ed] th[ e] e xc ul pat o r y s i g ni fi ca nc e an d the r el i ab i l i tyne ce ss ar y t o s upport a S i xth Am en dm en t vio lat ion ”).

I V . Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce Lastl y, Kn ox chal l enges the suffi ci en c y of the ev i dence w i th r e s pe c tt o Co un t s On e a nd T wo . We r e v i e w de n ovo and w i l lr eve rs e a co nvi cti on o nly w hen no r ati onaltr i er of fac t, vie w in g th e evid en c e in th e li gh t m os t f a v o r a b le to th e pros ecuti on, co uld have f ound the es senti alel em en ts of th e crim e be yo n d a re as on ab le d ou b t. E.g
. , U nited St at e s v. M e ndoz a , 510 F.3d 74 9, 75 2 (7 th C i r . 200 7). T h is stand ar d i s “ hi ghl y defer enti al ” a nd “nea rl y insurm ountabl e. ” Id. (i nt erna l qu otations om itted ).22 N o. 07

- 2552 Count On e char ged Knox i n connect ion with r esp on d in g “ n on e” w h en as ke d to list p olit ica l, p ro fes sio n al, orso ci alo rg an iza tions ofwh i ch he was now orhas been a m e mbe r o r wi th whi c h he wa s o r h a d b e e n a ffi l i ate d sinc e hi s 16 th bi r th day o n F o r m I

- 59 0. H e ar g ue s tha t the gov er nm ent ne verpro ved thatthe RU F o r any other ar m ed rebelgr oup at i ssue w as a “pol i ti cal, pro fess i onal, o r s o c i a lo r g a ni z a t i o n. ” He ma k e s a n a na l o g y t o the Uni ted St ate s Arm y, expres si ng doubt that a Un i ted S tat es so ld ier w ou ld sa y h e b elo n ge d to a “p olit ica l, p ro fes sio n al, or socialorganization
. ” Th e RU F and rel ated group s w ere described as te rr or i st or gani zati ons, notgr oups w i th pol i ti calo r soc i alag endas. Kn ox a grees the evi dence supp o r t e d a fi nd i ngtha th e b e l o ng e d t o a n a r med g r o up , but he poi nts o ut thatwas not w hat the go ver nm ent had t o s h o w. K nox ’s argum en t w ith resp ect to C ou nt Tw o i s sim il ar. Count Tw o al l ege s tw o knowing f al se sta tem ents of m at er i alf ac t: F i r st, th atKno x l i ed o n F o r m G- 64 6 den y i ng he ev erpro vi ded s up port, incl ud i ng housing, tr anspor tati on , com m unica ti ons, fund s, weapons, docum ents, et c. f orany perso n oro rg ani zati on that has enga ged i n or co ns pi r ed to eng ag e i n s ab o ta g e, k i dna pi ng, a ss as sina ti o n, hij a c k i ng, o r any oth e r f o r m o ft e r r o r i s ta c t i v i t y ; S e c o nd , th a th e l i e d o n F o r m G

- 6 4 6 wh e n h e d e n i e d e v e r b ei ng a r epres entati ve orm em bero fa ter ro ri st or gani zati on o r a m em bero fa gr oup w hi ch end or ses te rr or i st acti vi ty. Knox ar g ue s th at whi l e he st i pul at ed at tr i al that the R U F i s o n th e t er ro ris t e x c lu sio n list, th e g ov er n m en t d id not est abl i sh that K nox knew any o fthi s when he w as r es po ndi ngt o Ra del ’ s que st i o ns . He a ss er ts tha t th eN o. 07

- 2552 23 te st i m o ny fr o m the g o ve r nm en t’ s wi tn es se s es tabl i sh i ng K nox’ s connecti on with thes e g ro up s ( ser vi ng as an ar m ed gu ar d a t a sp ee c h, w ea rin g re b el ga rb , etc .) falls sh or t o f ac ts (kid n ap in g, as sa s s i n a tio n, hijac kin g, et c .) re fer re d t o i n the f or m and doe s not est abl i sh th at K n ox knew that the RU F was a terr or i st or gani zati on e ngage d i n such act s. The g o ve r nm en t, i n r es po ns e to the Coun t One a r g um ent, not es that tes ti m ony fro m m ult i ple witnes ses est abl i shed that the RU F w as a pol i ti calo r soc i alo rg ani zatio n . Sp ec ifica lly an ex p er t te st ified t h at t h er e w er e s oc ial, p o l i t ica l, an d m ilita ry as p ec ts to th e o rg an iza tio n . Te st im o ny fr o m o th erwi tn es se s in c lu d e d r e fe r en ce s to “ ba tt l i ng the g ove rnm ent” and othersi m i l arco m m ents. The go ver nm ent’s re sponse w i th r espectto Count Tw o i s that K nox ’s cl aim th at he did not kn ow RU F enga ged i n terrori st acti vi ti es, et c. i s incre dibl e. W i tness es tes ti fi ed that L ibe ria an d C ôt e d ’Ivo ire w er e w ar -to rn co u n tr ies ex p er ien cings ev er e ci vi l c o nfl i ctwi tha r m ed g r o ups b ur ni ng w hol e v i l l age s a nd m ass acr i ng ci vi l i ans. In f act, thes e ci rcu m st an ce s ar e whatpr o m pte d the c r ea ti o n o fthe r e fug e e p r o g r a m t o wh i c h the Kn o x f a mi l y a pp l i e d. Give n a defendant’s “uphil lbat tl e” i n m ounti ng a su ffi ci en cy - o f- th e- ev i den ce c ha l l en g e, we co nc l ude the ev id en c e w as suffi ci ent forany tr i ero ff act to fi nd Kn ox gu il ty ofvi sa fra ud as char ged i n Counts One and Tw o. T he testim ony coll ectively w as su ffici en t to enab le a j ury to rea so nabl y c o nc l ude tha t th e r eb elg r o ups a t i ss ue w ou ld ac c u ra te ly b e d es c rib ed as “p olit ica l, p ro fes sio n al, orso ci al ” o rg ani zati ons. W i tness es al so tes ti fi ed that K nox24 N o. 07

- 2552

s e r v e d a s a b o d y g u a r d f o r a RUF l e a d e r, wa s s e e n a tR UF mee t i ng s , wa s s e e n c a r r y i nga g un, h a d s a i d h e ki l l ed a f ami l y, a nd wen t bythe na m e o fa n I N PF L l ea der, a m o ng ot h er th in gs . G ive n th is in vo lve m en t an d th e s ta te of civ il u n re st ge n er ally , a j u ry co u ld rea so n ab ly in fer , w ith lit tle effor t, th at K nox cou ld not he lp bu t be aw are of the group ’s ter ro ri st bent. T h u s, K nox does not preva i lo n thes e suffi ci ency- of

- the- evi dence chal l enges .
V . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fco nvi cti on i s A FFI RMED .

9- 2- 08