The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption to read as shown above. *

1

09-1375-cr (L)

United States v. Abu-Jihaad

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

 

August Term, 2009

(Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: December 20, 2010)

Docket Nos. 09-1375-cr (L), 09-1384-cr (XAP)

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Appellee,

—v.— 

HASSAN ABU-JIHAAD, also known as Paul R. Hall,

Defendant-Appellant.

*

_________________

Before:

RAGGI, HALL, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

 ______

Appeal from a judgment of conviction entered after a jury trial in the United States

District Court for the District of Connecticut (Mark R. Kravitz, Judge), at which defendant

Hassan Abu-Jihaad was found guilty of communicating national defense information

respecting the movements of a United States Navy battlegroup to unauthorized persons in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d). Defendant contends that (1) inculpatory evidence procured
2

pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., should have

been suppressed because (a) that statute is unconstitutional and (b) in any event, was not

complied with in this case; (2) erroneous evidentiary rulings deprived him of a fair trial; (3)

the trial evidence was insufficient to support conviction; and (4) the district court abused its

discretion in entering protective orders pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures

Act, 18 U.S.C. app. 3, §§ 1-16. We reject these arguments as without merit. 

AFFIRMED.

_____________________ 

DAN E. LABELLE, Halloran & Sage LLP, Westport, Connecticut, for

Defendant-Appellant.

WILLIAM J. NARDINI, ALEXIS COLLINS, Assistant United States Attorneys

(Stephen Reynolds, Assistant United States Attorney; David Kris, Assistant

Attorney General, National Security Division; John De Pue, Senior Litigation

Counsel, Counterterrorism Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,

D.C., on the brief), on behalf of Nora R. Dannehy, United States Attorney for

the District of Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut, for Appellee.

 

REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judge:

United States citizen Hassan Abu-Jihaad, whose birth name is Paul Raphael Hall,

appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the

District of Connecticut (Mark R. Kravitz, Judge) on April 3, 2009, after a jury found him

guilty of having communicated national defense information, specifically, the anticipated

movements of a United States Navy battlegroup being deployed to the Persian Gulf, to
Jihad has been defined as “a religious war of Muslims against unbelievers in Islam, 1

inculcated as a duty by the Koran and traditions.” 8 Oxford English Dictionary 238 (2d ed.

1989). Although jihad is also understood to denote “the struggle against one’s evil

inclinations or efforts toward the moral uplift of society,” 7 Encyclopedia of Religion 4917

(Lindsay Jones ed., 2d ed. 2005), it is in the former sense that the concept has been invoked

to support terrorist acts against the United States, see, e.g., United States v. Rahman, 189

F.3d 88, 104-09 (2d Cir. 1999) (detailing Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman’s support for “violent

jihad” against the United States). In this case, the jury heard testimony that jihad warriors,

known as mujahideen, commonly select noms de guerre.

There can be no question that the United States was then aware that it was a target 2

of jihad terrorism, as evidenced by the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center

3

unauthorized persons in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d). Presently serving a ten-year prison

term for that crime, Abu-Jihaad contends that (1) inculpatory evidence obtained pursuant to

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq., should have

been suppressed because (a) that statute is unconstitutional and (b) in any event, was not

complied with in this case; (2) erroneous evidentiary rulings deprived him of a fair trial; (3)

the trial evidence was insufficient to support conviction; and (4) the district court abused its

discretion in entering protective orders pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act

(“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, §§ 1-16.

We identify no merit in any of these arguments and, accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of conviction.

I. Background

In 1997, defendant Paul Raphael Hall changed his name to “Hassan Abu-Jihaad,” the

surname of which translates to “Father of Jihad.” This curious choice appears not to have 1

raised any concern in the United States Navy when, in January 1998, Abu-Jihaad enlisted.2
in New York City, see United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 78-79 (2d Cir. 2003); foiled

plots in June 1993 and January 1995 to bomb United States aircraft en route from Asia and

New York City bridges, tunnels, and buildings, see id. at 79; United States v. Rahman, 189

F.3d at 109-11, 155; and the June 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a residential

complex on a United States military base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, see Estate of Heiser v.

Islamic Republic of Iran, 659 F. Supp. 2d 20, 22 (D.D.C. 2009). 

4

Indeed, over the course of Abu-Jihaad’s military service, from 1998-2002, the Navy would

clear defendant to receive classified national defense information. The Navy’s trust was

misplaced. As the jury found, sometime in early 2001, Abu-Jihaad leaked classified

information about the movements of Navy ships destined for the Persian Gulf to

unauthorized persons supportive of jihad. Because Abu-Jihaad challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence supporting the jury verdict, we discuss that evidence in some detail.

A. Discovery of the Classified Information in a London Search

The first link in the chain of circumstantial evidence proving Abu-Jihaad’s guilt was

discovered in London where, on December 2, 2003, British authorities conducted searches

of various locations associated with Babar Ahmad, an information technologist at London’s

Imperial College with ties to Azzam Publications. 

1. Azzam Publications’ Support for Jihad

London-based Azzam Publications (“Azzam”) was an organization that in 2001

maintained a number of websites that glorified martyrdom in the name of jihad and the

violent exploits of mujahideen around the world. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F.

Supp. 2d 362, 366 (D. Conn. 2009) (reviewing trial evidence in denying post-verdict motions
 This is only one of a number of thoughtful published and unpublished opinions filed 3

by the district court in this case. Others include United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 531 F. Supp.

2d 299 (D. Conn. 2008) (addressing FISA challenge); United States v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 07

Cr. 57, 2008 WL 282368 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2008) (ruling on admissibility of recorded

statements); United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 553 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D. Conn. 2008) (ruling on

admissibility of expert, videotape, and website evidence); United States v. Abu-Jihaad, No.

07 Cr. 57, 2008 WL 346121 (D. Conn. Feb. 4, 2008) (ruling on first CIPA motion); United

States v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 07 Cr. 57, 2008 WL 596200 (D. Conn. Feb. 22, 2008) (ruling on

second CIPA motion).

 On October 12, 2000, Islamic terrorists in a small boat laden with explosives 4

attacked the U.S.S. Cole, a Navy destroyer, off the coast of Yemen, killing seventeen

members of the ship’s crew. See The Nat’l Comm’n on Terrorist Attacks Upon the U.S., The

9/11 Commission Report 190-91 (2004). 

5

for judgment of acquittal or new trial). Its name paid tribute to Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, a 3

leader in urging the revival of violent jihad in the twentieth century. In addition to marketing

jihadist audio and video recordings on its websites, Azzam offered English translations of

books written by Sheikh Azzam. It also provided access to the 1996 fatwa issued by Osama

bin Laden, entitled a “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the

Two Holy Places,” which charged Muslims to take up arms against the United States to rid

the Arabian Peninsula of “infidels.” Id. at 367. It solicited assistance for jihadist groups, for

example, requesting that readers aid the Taliban “by sending money or gas masks, or

traveling to Afghanistan to provide battlefield medical services” in anticipation of an offense

by American and Russian forces in retaliation for the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole.

Id. at 366-67. One of Azzam’s most popular postings instructed Muslims living in Western 4

countries as to how they, too, could train as mujahideen. 
 For example, one of the files on the seized disk, entitled “FOR THE GUY IN 5

CHARGE TO READ (01_08_01).zip,” provided passwords for Azzam’s various email

accounts and instructions for the management of Azzam’s video and book inventory. United

States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 369 & n.4.

 At the beginning of the Battlegroup Document, a statement appears in brackets: 6

“[Necessary changes made in grammar and spelling and for the sake of clarity.],” Gov’t Ex.

1, signaling that the document was edited by someone other than the original author.

Accordingly, the excerpts reproduced here are verbatim, with no attempt to signal, much less

correct, grammar, spelling, or punctuation errors, and with highlighting appearing as in the

document. 

6

2. The December 2, 2003 Discovery of the Battlegroup Document

In the course of searching Babar Ahmad’s bedroom on December 2, British authorities

discovered a computer disk containing materials related to Azzam. Of particular 5

significance to this case was a file denominated “letter.doc,” which contained a three-page

unsigned document describing the anticipated spring 2001 deployment of ten U.S. Navy

ships carrying approximately 15,000 sailors and marines from the Pacific coast of the United

States to the Persian Gulf (“the Battlegroup Document”). Id. at 367. The significance of the

Battlegroup Document is best illustrated by quoting it directly. The first page states as 6

follows:

In the coming days the United States will be deploying a large naval/marine

force to the Middle East.

This will be a two group force: the Battle Group (BG) and the Amphibious

Readiness Group (ARG) – these groups will be replacing the already deployed

groups in the gulf.

The BG mission is to hold up the sanctions against Iraq, e.g. patrolling the NoFly Zone, carry out Maritime Interception Operations (MIO) or launch strikes.
 Hereafter, we will refer to all ships at issue as “the Constellation battlegroup” or, 7

simply, “the battlegroup.”

7

There is a possibility that the ships and submarines that are capable will carry

out a strike against Afghanistan. Main targets: Usama and the Mujahideen,

Taliban, etc.

A two star admiral, COMCRUDESRON 1 (his title), a high ranking officer of

the BG said that “there will be certain ships of this BG sitting off the coast of

Pakistan with ‘launch pads.’”

Most of the ships that are part of the BG will deploy on March 15 2001 leaving

their home ports out of California and Washington State. They will meet up

with the other ships that are part of the BG which are stationed in Hawaii.

Their first port stop is Hawaii on March 20 2001, where some ships will load

Tomahawk D missiles. The same missles used on Afganistan and Sudan. It

has a warhead and 166 [mm?] fragment bomblets. Then the whole BG will

head towards Austrailia. The main ship with high ranking officials will be at

Sydney on April 6 2001, other ships – Melbourne, Perth, Bunbary etc. The BG

will be going through the straits of Hormuz on the April 29 2001 at night,

cutting off certain “infocoms” and “Emcoms” to divert their enemies on how

many ships are actually coming through. This will be a night time set-up.

Gov’t Ex. 1.

Immediately beneath this text is a diagram showing a two-column formation in which

identified ships in the battlegroup, including the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Constellation and the 7

destroyer U.S.S. Benfold – on which Abu-Jihaad served as a signalman – were expected to

enter the Strait of Hormuz. Following the diagram are brief descriptions of the capabilities

of each ship. For example, with respect to the battlegroup ships, the document states:

1. USS Constellation (CV 64) Kitty Hawk Class carrier

Personnel: 5,500 to 6,000

Special team: onboard Explosive Ordnance Disposal team (EOD)

Mission: No-fly zone, patrol, etc.
8

2. USS Chosin (CG-65) Ticonderoga class

Personnel: 350 to 400

Specialisation: anti-air warfare

Plus carrier escort all these ships

3. Kinkaid (DD965) Sprvance class3

Personnel: 300-350

Specialisation: MIO etc

4. USS Benfold (DDG-65) Arleigh Burke class

Personnel: 300

Multi-capable ship

. . .

7. USS Rainer (AOE-7)

Personnel: 400 to 500

Ammo and fuel replenishing ship for the BG.

Id. With respect to the Amphibious Readiness Group, the document reveals that three ships

were expected to deploy “out of homeport San Diego, March 14 2001” with a port visit in

South-East Asia, specifically, in Thailand and Singapore, before heading to the Middle East.

Id. Among the ships described is the following: 

1. USS BOXER (LHD9) com ship, Wasp class

Personnel: 1,500 sailors, 2,500 marines; high ranging officials abroad; also

special forces, Navy Seals and Marines Special Unit 

Reconnaissance ships carries lots of helos [helicopters?] all kinds.

Id.

The document concludes by identifying the battlegroup’s vulnerabilities, highlighting

its operation schedule in the Persian Gulf, and then exhorting the recipient to destroy the

communication:
 In support of this conclusion, the agent testified, inter alia, that the metadata in 8

certain computer files recovered from Ahsan’s residence matched the metadata contained in

the Battlegroup Document.

9

Weakness:

They have nothing to stop a small craft with RPG etc, except their Seals’

stinger missiles.

Deploy ops in Gulf 29 April – 04 October.

29th APRIL is more likely the day through the Straits. For the whole of

March is tax free – a moral booster. Many sailors do not like the Gulf.

Please destroy message.

Id. 

Based on forensic analysis of the totality of evidence obtained in the ensuing

investigation, a federal agent testified at trial that the disk containing the Battlegroup

Document appeared to have been created by British citizen Syed Talha Ahsan, an Azzam

employee who handled product backlog. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d

at 369. Further, although the Battlegroup Document was created on April 2, 2001, the 8

diagram depicting the battlegroup’s formation was not embedded in the file until April 12,

2001, the date the document was last saved. See id. at 370. On that date, the author field

in the document’s properties was changed from “S A Ahsan” to “Jon Greene.” Id. Forensic

analysis revealed that “wiping” software had been used to remove other material from the

disk, but federal authorities were unable to recover that material. Id.

In the course of their larger investigation, authorities would recover no other
 The Battlegroup Document transmitted to Azzam thus correctly identified April 29, 9

2001, as an important date in the transit plan, but misascribed it to entry into the Strait of

10

electronic data from any source revealing trace information pertaining to transmittal of the

Battlegroup Document, research into United States naval forces generally or the

Constellation battlegroup in particular, or any evidence relating to “Jon Greene.”

B. Abu-Jihaad’s Transmittal of the Battlegroup Document

To prove Abu-Jihaad’s transmittal of the Battlegroup Document (or the information

contained therein) to persons at Azzam, the government relied on evidence showing: (1)

defendant’s access to the information; (2) his communications with Azzam expressing

support for jihad; and (3) his implicit admission in a 2006 recorded statement to having

disclosed confidential national security information while in the Navy.

1. Defendant’s Access to the Transit Plan

The 2001 deployment of the Constellation battlegroup from San Diego to the Middle

East was executed pursuant to a Navy transit plan that went through many drafts beginning

on September 29, 2000, and continuing through finalization on February 24, 2001. Each of

these iterations highlighted the date April 29, 2001, when, just before midnight, the

battlegroup would cross the “change of operation control” (“CHOP”) point, i.e., enter into

the geographic region controlled by the United States Fifth Fleet. Only the final transit plan

referenced a stop in Hawaii by a single vessel, the U.S.S. Benfold, to load ammunition. No

version of the transit plan specified the date on which the battlegroup would pass through the

Strait of Hormuz. 

9
Hormuz, rather than crossing the CHOP point. The Constellation battlegroup in fact traveled

through the Strait a few days later, on May 2-3, 2001.

Thus, Admiral Hart testified that, despite the Battlegroup Document’s inaccuracies, 10

its transmittal raised concerns because of its disclosure of “the time frame at which we would

be operating in the Fifth Fleet area of responsibility,” and its effort to identify

“vulnerabilities.” Trial Tr. at 633. He stated that if he had known about the unauthorized

transmittal, he would have sought “to change the time and nature of our transit through the

strait of Hormuz.” Id. at 523.

11

Each iteration of the transit plan was classified “confidential,” which denotes

“information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause

damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or

describe.” Exec. Order No. 12,958, § 1.3(3), 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (Apr. 17, 1995); see also

United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 377 (noting Navy’s operational instructions

stating that “precise current or future operational deployment, locations of surface combatant

ships, and planned foreign port calls should be classified as ‘confidential’ until after

deployment or the visit has been approved by the host government” (some internal quotation

marks omitted)). Retired Rear Admiral David C. Hart, Jr., who commanded the

Constellation battlegroup during the time here at issue, explained that the Navy does not

disclose anticipated ports of call because ships are particularly vulnerable in such locations.

A similar concern counseled against disclosure of plans for ships to travel through areas

where their maneuverability was limited, such as the Strait of Hormuz.10

Because of these concerns, even among persons assigned to ships in a battlegroup,

only those with a “secret” clearance would be given access to a transit plan. Of 300 sailors

on board the U.S.S. Benfold, Abu-Jihaad was one of 40 afforded such access by virtue of
 It appeared that still more emails between Abu-Jihaad and Azzam had been deleted. 11

12

his status as a signalman who worked alongside quartermasters in the preparation of the

ship’s navigational charts. He did not, however, have access to the Navy’s secure intranet

for classified information (“SIPRnet”), which contained information even more sensitive to

the national defense than that contained in the transit plan. Significantly, the Battlegroup

Document revealed no information for which SIPRnet clearance would have been required,

thus limiting the likely source of the information it contained to persons with access only to

the transit plan.

2. Abu-Jihaad’s Communications with Azzam

Even before United States officials received a copy of the seized Battlegroup

Document from their British counterparts, federal agents, acting pursuant to court order, had

searched various Azzam-affiliated electronic accounts and discovered therein eleven email

exchanges in the time frame of August 21, 2000, to September 3, 2001, between Azzam and

a United States sailor serving on the U.S.S. Benfold: the defendant Hassan Abu-Jihaad.11

Abu-Jihaad used both his personal and military email addresses in these communications.

In its review of 23,000 Azzam emails, the government discovered only two correspondents

with military email addresses: (1) a Navy Commander who commented angrily on Azzam’s

support for jihad and (2) Abu-Jihaad. Moreover, Abu-Jihaad’s military email address was

one of the few addresses saved in an Azzam email account address book. In his early emails

with Azzam, Abu-Jihaad discussed purchases of various materials, including the videos

Martyrs of Bosnia, Russian Hell 2000, Part I, and Chechnya from the Ashes (which included
 Excerpts from these videos were shown to the jury. From Martyrs of Bosnia, the 12

jury heard Sheikh Abdullah Azzam “criticize[] western Muslims for failing to shed any of

their own blood in behalf of the cause” and an instruction from a mujahideen leader in

Bosnia for “viewers who wanted to contact the mujahideen to do so through Azzam.” United

States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 372. The excerpts from Russian Hell 2000, Part I

and Russian Hell 2000, Part II, depicted combat scenes, including an execution and a suicide

truck bombing.

13

the feature Russian Hell 2000, Part II). In later emails, Abu-Jihaad revealed his identity and 12

status as an active duty member of the Navy and his personal support for jihad, even when

directed against the United States. 

In a July 2001 email sent from Abu-Jihaad’s personal email account to

qoqaz@assam.com – the email address to which Azzam’s websites directed readers to send

their messages of support – defendant praised the “martyrdom operation against the uss cole”

and the debilitating effect of that action on the United States (“Cole email”). Trial Tr. at 333-

34; Gov’t Ex. 19. The text of the Cole email, which was retrieved only because it was

embedded in Azzam’s reply, states as follows: 

i am a muslim station onboard a u.s. warship currently operating depolyed to

the arabian gulf. it shall be noted before usama’s latest video was viewed by

massive people all over the world. that psychological anxiety had already set

in on america’s forces everywhere. all this is due to the martyrdom operation

against the uss cole. since then every warship station either on the western or

eastern shores of america who come to operate in the 5th fleet op area has to

be given a force protect brief. well during the brief, i attended there was one

thing that stuck out like thorns on a rose bush. i do not know who was the

originator of this either top brass or an american poitician. well here is his/her

statement: “america has Never faced an enemy with no borders, no

government, no diplomats, nor a standing army that pledges allegiance to no
 The Arabic phrase “Allahu akbar,” known as the “takbir” in Arabic, is usually 13

translated as “God is Great.” See, e.g., 12 Encyclopedia of Religion, supra, at 8057. Used

in Islamic prayer and incorporated into the flags of countries such as Iran and Iraq, the phrase

has been appropriated by some jihad terrorists. See, e.g., Notes Found After the Hijackings,

N.Y. Times, Sept. 29, 2001, at B3 (reporting that document used by September 11, 2001

hijackers instructed, inter alia, “[w]hen the confrontation begins, . . . [s]hout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’

because this strikes fear in the hearts of the nonbelievers”); Michael Wilson, Judgment Day

in Two High-Profile Cases: Times Square’s Would-Be Bomber Is Defiant as He Gets a Life

Term, N.Y. Times, Oct. 6, 2010, at A25 (reporting that defendant responded to

pronouncement of life sentence with phrase “Allahu akbar”); Benjamin Weiser, In Terrorism

Case, a Plea Bargain Secretly in the Making for 2 Years, N.Y. Times, Oct. 24, 2000, at B1,

B3 (reporting with respect to prosecution for the 1998 bombings of the United States

embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that, “[i]n June 1999, one defendant leapt out of his chair

in the courtroom and charged toward Judge Sand, while another defendant screamed ‘Allahu

akbar,’ Arabic for “God is great”). 

14

state.” Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! i give takbirs [praise to Allah] because 13

i know deep down in my heart that the american enemies that this person has

discribe is the Mujahideen Feesabilillah [holy warriors fighting in the cause of

Allah]. these brave men are the true champions and soldiers of Allah in this

dunya [world]. i understand fully that they are the men who have brong honor

to this weak ummah [Islamic community] in the lands of jihad afghanistan,

bosnia, chechnya, etc. Alhamdulillah! [Praise to Allah!] With their only

mission in life to make Allah’s name and laws supreme all over this world. i

want to let it be known that i have been in the middle east for almost a total of

3 months. for these 3 months you can truly see the effects of this psychological

warfare taking a toll on junior and high ranking officers. but after the latest

video supporting palestine. the top brass and american officials were running

around like headless chickens very afraid, wondering if there is a possible

threat. but this time the american population got wind of this and they came to

know just how afraid the u.s. government is. thomas l. friedman wrote an

article in the new york times called: “what it takes to make the americans to

turn tail, run.” this article was distributed on my ship and most of the sailors

said it was so true about the american government, and they feel like they are

working for a bunch of scary pussies..........a Brother serving a Kuffar [infidel]

nation. Astaghfir’Allah [Forgiveness from Allah].... Hassan

Id. at 372-73 (emphasis and bracketed material added by district court). Abu-Jihaad’s Azzam

correspondent replied in relevant part:
15

You said it all, and all I can add is that the Kufar know that they cannot defeat

the Mujahideen (the warriors of Allah). I trust that you are doing your best to

make sure that the other brothers & sisters in uniform are reminded that their

sole purpose of existence in this duniya [world] is purely to worship our Lord

and Master, Allah (SWT) [praise being given to Allah].

May Allah be with you & your brothers and sisters and keep you from

all harm. 

Keep up with the Dawah [preaching Islam] and the psychlogical

warefare.

Id. at 373 (bracketed material added by district court).

In the last of the eleven emails recovered by the government, Abu-Jihaad praised

Azzam’s coverage of the Taliban in Afghanistan, but opined that the Taliban were too lenient

in failing to execute foreign aid workers who converted Muslims to other faiths.

None of Abu-Jihaad’s recovered emails referenced the Battlegroup Document or the

information contained therein. 

3. Abu-Jihaad’s 2006 Recorded Statements

In 2006, by which time Abu-Jihaad had been out of the Navy for four years and was

living in Phoenix, Arizona, Abu-Jihaad’s telephone conversations with his friend Derrick

Shareef and a confidential informant were intercepted by a court-authorized wiretap. In

excerpts of four calls from late 2006 that were played for the jury, Abu-Jihaad revealed his

familiarity with Azzam’s websites, see Gov’t Ex. 141c, and his high degree of concern with

“tapped” telephones, Gov’t Ex. 141e. Abu-Jihaad stated an intent to “secur[e] myself” to

avoid “hand[ing] myself to a Kafir [infidel].” Gov’t Ex. 141f. He cautioned those with

whom he spoke not to refer to associates by their real names, see Gov’t Ex. 141g, and he
 It was suggested at trial that the number “7” referred to “seventh heaven,” the 14

resting place of Islamic martyrs according to advocates of jihad. Trial Tr. at 962.

The confidential informant testified that, in the recorded conversations, “meals” 15

meant military intelligence, which Shareef and the informant were soliciting from AbuJihaad. 

 “CW” refers to the confidential informant. 16

16

frequently employed code, referring to jihad as “J” or “7,” e.g., Gov’t Ex. 141c, logistics 14

as “L,” e.g., Gov’t Ex. 141g, martyrdom operations as “M.O.,” e.g., Gov’t Ex. 141f, and

military intelligence as “meals,” e.g., Gov’t Ex. 141k. Thus, Abu-Jihaad’s references to a 15

“cold meal” meant outdated intelligence, whereas a “fresh meal” or “hot meal” referred to

current intelligence. Trial Tr. at 975-76.

In a November 11, 2006 conversation, Abu-Jihaad stated that he no longer had current

logistics information: “Now ‘L’ for me is like a cold meal. ‘Cuz it ain’t fresh. . . . If it ain’t

fresh, it’s un-fresh and it, it’s un-beneficial to you – just put it that way.” Gov’t Ex. 141g.

He repeated this point in a subsequent conversation with Shareef and the confidential

informant the same day:

ABU-JIHAAD: And I said, and I’ll say it again, with whatever I can give

you, that’s beneficial, I’ll give it to you. But whatever’s

cold turkey, if it’s cold turkey, I can’t give it to you. 

CW : Ak . . . 

16

ABU-JIHAAD: ‘Cuz that means that, if it’s cold turkey – I’m talking

about “L” you figure it out – ‘cuz then that means that,

that’s just saying that, I haven’t been on that job, so I

don’t – you know what I’m saying, I haven’t been there

. . . to see . . . what the fresh meal is. 
17

SHAREEF: Okay.

ABU-JIHAAD: You understand that?

SHAREEF: Yeah.

CW: Tell him, man I already got brothers . . . 

ABU-JIHAAD: If I can’t, if I can’t give you the fresh meal – I ain’t been

there in “X” amount of years. 

SHAREEF: Yeah, I – I understand what you’re saying.

ABU-JIHAAD: See what I’m saying? Now if . . . the Hispanic, if the

Mexican, he just, was there a minute ago – he can give

you a fresh meal. 

SHAREEF: Okay.

ABU-JIHAAD: So you put that together. 

. . . 

ABU-JIHAAD: If it’s – if it’s . . . in those terms, he can give you a fresh

meal ‘cuz, you know what I’m saying, he just finished

his job, there, less than a month ago, or . . . 

SHAREEF: Okay.

ABU-JIHAAD: . . . two. (LAUGHS). But I, I mean – in those terms and

“L’s,” – I would be giving you a cold meal. 

CW: I understand.

SHAREEF: All righty.

ABU-JIHAAD: You got me?

SHAREEF: Yeah, I got you.
18

ABU-JIHAAD: Because, um – and then I can elaborate on that more if

you want me to . . . 

CW: No, no . . . 

ABU-JIHAAD: . . . to your face – not on the phone. I’m just saying . . .

if we . . . you got me?

SHAREEF: Yeah, man . . we good, we good.

ABU-JIHAAD: A fresh meal and a cold meal.

Gov’t Ex. 141h at 1-2. The informant testified that when Abu-Jihaad said he had not “been

on that job,” the informant understood Abu-Jihaad to mean he was no longer in the Navy.

By contrast, the informant understood the “Mexican” to be a reference to Miguel Colon, a

man who had left the Marine Corps only recently in September 2006.

Still later on November 11, 2006, Abu-Jihaad spoke with Colon about Shareef’s wish

to procure military intelligence: 

ABU-JIHAAD: [H]e wants a hot meal. You know what I’m saying? 

COLON: Yeah.

ABU-JIHAAD: I don’t know how to get him no hot meal. I told him I, I

ain’t been working uh, in, in, in the field of making

meals and or, you know . . . 

COLON: Yeah.

ABU-JIHAAD: . . . in a, in a long time. I’ve been out of that for, uh, over

uh, quatro years you know.

Gov’t Ex. 141k at 7. At trial, the government argued that, by explaining his present inability

to provide military intelligence by reference to the fact that he had not been “working . . . in
 The district court concluded that Abu-Jihaad’s provision of information about the 17

Constellation battlegroup could not, as a matter of law, support a conviction for providing

material support to terrorism in either of the forms – physical assets or personnel – urged by

the government. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 394-402. As the

government has not appealed this ruling, we have no reason to consider it in this opinion.

19

the field of making meals” for four years, Abu-Jihaad was effectively admitting that he had

leaked military intelligence while in the Navy.

C. Conviction and Sentencing

Based on the evidence summarized, on March 5, 2008, the jury found Abu-Jihaad

guilty of both providing material support to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A and

communicating national defense information to unauthorized persons in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 793(d). On March 4, 2009, the district court granted Abu-Jihaad’s motion for a

judgment of acquittal as to the first count and denied the motion as to the second count. See

United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 394, 402. The following month, on April 17

3, 2009, the district court sentenced Abu-Jihaad on the single count of conviction to the

statutory maximum term of ten years’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years’

supervised release.

This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

A. The FISA Challenge

In securing Abu-Jihaad’s conviction, the prosecution relied on certain recorded

evidence intercepted pursuant to court orders issued under the Foreign Intelligence
 Although FISA originally applied only to electronic surveillance, the law was 18

amended in 1994 to extend to physical searches for foreign intelligence information. See

Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-359, 108 Stat. 3444

(1994); see also 50 U.S.C. §§ 1821-29.

 FISA defines “foreign intelligence information” as: 19

(1) information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is

necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against – 

(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power

or an agent of a foreign power;

(B) sabotage, international terrorism, or the international proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign

power; or

(C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network

of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power; or

(2) information with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates

to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to – 

20

Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Abu-Jihaad submits that the district

court erred in refusing to suppress this evidence because (1) on its face, FISA violates the

Fourth Amendment; and (2) in any event, the statute’s requirements were not satisfied in this

case. We identify no merit in either argument.

1. FISA Is Constitutional on Its Face

a. FISA’s General Operation

Enacted in 1978, FISA permits the Chief Justice of the United States to designate

eleven federal judges as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISA Court”), see id.

§ 1803(a)(1), with jurisdiction to entertain ex parte executive applications for electronic

surveillance “for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information,” id. § 1802(b). 18 19
(A) the national defense or the security of the United States; or

(B) the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States.

50 U.S.C. § 1801(e). 

As amended in 2001, FISA requires an application for a surveillance warrant to

include, inter alia, a certification from a high-ranking executive official: 

(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign

intelligence information;

(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign

intelligence information;

(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal

investigative techniques;

(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought

according to the categories described in section 1801(e) of this title; and

(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that – 

(i) the information sought isthe type of foreign intelligence information

designated; and 

(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal

investigative techniques[.]

Id. § 1804(a)(6). As discussed infra, subsection (B) – the “significant purpose” clause

– is at the core of Abu-Jihaad’s constitutional challenge to FISA. 

 FISA defines “foreign power” to mean 20

(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized

by the United States; 

(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of

United States persons; 

(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or

21

To issue a FISA warrant, a judge must find, inter alia, that there is probable cause to believe

that the target of the surveillance is a “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” and that

the place or facilities to be surveilled are “being used, or . . . about to be used, by a foreign

power or an agent of a foreign power.” Id. § 1805(a)(2).20
governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or

governments; 

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation

therefor; 

(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of

United States persons; 

(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or

governments; or 

(7) an entity not substantially composed of United States persons that is

engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. 

50 U.S.C. § 1801(a).

FISA defines “agent of a foreign power” to mean

(1) any person other than a United States person, who– 

(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power,

or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this

section; 

(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine

intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the

United States, when the circumstances of such person's presence in the

United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the

United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in

the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to

engage in such activities; 

(C) engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore;

(D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or 

(E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction, or activities in preparation therefor for or on behalf of a

foreign power; or 

(2) any person who– 

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for

or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a

22
violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; 

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a

foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence

activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve

or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United

States; 

(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities

that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; 

(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity

for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States,

knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a

foreign power; or 

(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities

described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any

person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Id. § 1801(b).

23

Rulings by the FISA Court are subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court of Review (“FISA Review Court”), comprised of three judges also

designated by the Chief Justice. See id. § 1803(b). The FISA Review Court has convened

only twice since the statute’s enactment: (1) when it heard and rejected a constitutional

challenge to FISA not dissimilar to that pursued by Abu-Jihaad in this case, see In re Sealed

Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002); and (2) when it heard and rejected an as-applied

constitutional challenge to certain provisions of the Protect America Act of 2007 (“PAA”),

Pub. L. No. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552, that permitted the executive to conduct warrantless

foreign intelligence surveillance on targets reasonably believed to be located outside the

United States, see In re Directives Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act (In re FISA Section 105B Directives), 551 F.3d 1004 (FISA Ct. Rev.
The PAA provisions at issue in In re FISA Section 105B Directives, which were 21

codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1805a-1805c, were subject to a February 16, 2008 sunset and were

repealed on July 10, 2008, as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-

261, § 403, 122 Stat. 2436, 2473-74.

 A 2008 amendment to FISA renumbered certain FISA provisions. Among other 22

changes, it redesignated former subsection (a)(7) as subsection (a)(6). See Pub. L. No. 110-

261, § 104(1)(B), 122 Stat. at 2461. Unless otherwise noted, references herein conform to

the present statutory numbering. 

24

2008).21

b. The PATRIOT Act’s Amendment of FISA’s Purpose

Certification Requirement

As originally enacted, FISA required a high-ranking member of the executive branch

to certify that “the purpose” for which a warrant was being sought was to obtain “foreign

intelligence information.” 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(7)(B) (Supp. V 1981). Referencing this 22

language in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984), we observed that “the

requirement that foreign intelligence information be the primary objective of the surveillance

is plain not only from the language of § 1802(b) but also from the requirements in § 1804 as

to what the application must contain.” Id. at 77 (emphasis added). Duggan rejected a Fourth

Amendment challenge to the procedures established by FISA for issuance of foreign

intelligence surveillance warrants, see id. at 72-74, a decision we recently had occasion to

reaffirm in United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2009). 

In 2001, Congress amended FISA as part of the Uniting and Strengthening America

by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

(“PATRIOT Act”), Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 271 (2001). Among other things, Congress
25

indicated that it did not, in fact, require foreign intelligence gathering to be the primary

purpose of the requested surveillance to obtain a FISA warrant. Rather, upon satisfaction of

all other FISA requirements, Congress authorized FISA Court judges to issue warrants upon

executive certification that acquisition of foreign intelligence information is “a significant

purpose” of the requested surveillance. See id. § 218, 115 Stat. at 291 (codified as amended

at 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(6)(B)) (emphasis added). 

Because neither Duggan nor Stewart considered FISA’s constitutionality in light of

the statute’s amendment by the PATRIOT Act, Abu-Jihaad submits that we must address the

question of constitutionality yet again. Specifically, Abu-Jihaad submits that the primary

purpose requirement is, in fact, essential to the constitutionality of FISA, lest the government

misuse the statute to procure warrants for criminal investigations without demonstrating the

probable cause essential to that latter purpose, i.e., probable cause to believe “that an

individual is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense” and that

“particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through” the

surveillance. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a)-(b) (stating probable cause required by Title III of

the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197

(codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522)). 

In support of his challenge, Abu-Jihaad cites Mayfield v. United States, 504 F. Supp.

2d 1023 (D. Or. 2007) (holding FISA in violation of Fourth Amendment). That district court

decision, however, has now been vacated by the Ninth Circuit on standing grounds. See
26

Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). Meanwhile, all other courts

that have considered the issue, both before and after enactment of the PATRIOT Act, have

rejected constitutional challenges to FISA. See United States v. Ning Wen, 477 F.3d 896,

898 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Damrah, 412 F.3d 618, 625 (6th Cir. 2005); In re Sealed

Case, 310 F.3d at 742-46; United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d 565, 573 (1st Cir. 1991);

United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1075 (4th Cir. 1987); United States v. Cavanagh, 807

F.2d 787, 790-92 (9th Cir. 1987); United States v. Kashmiri, No. 09 Cr. 830-4, 2010 WL

4705159, at *3-5 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2010); United States v. Warsame, 547 F. Supp. 2d 982,

993 (D. Minn. 2008); United States v. Mubayyid, 521 F. Supp. 2d 125, 135-41 (D. Mass.

2007); United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., No. 04 Cr. 240, 2007 WL

2011319, at *5-6 (N.D. Tex. July 11, 2007); United States v. Jayyousi, No. 04 Cr. 60001,

2007 WL 851278, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2007); United States v. Benkahla, 437 F. Supp.

2d 541, 554 (E.D. Va. 2006); United States v. Marzook, 435 F. Supp. 2d 778, 786 (N.D. Ill.

2006); United States v. Nicholson, 955 F. Supp. 588, 590-91 (E.D. Va. 1997); In re Kevork,

634 F. Supp. 1002, 1014 (C.D. Cal. 1985); United States v. Falvey, 540 F. Supp. 1306, 1312

(E.D.N.Y. 1982). We do the same here.

As we discuss more fully in this opinion, the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement

demands a showing of probable cause reasonable to the purpose being pursued. Thus,

identification of purpose is necessary to assess the reasonableness of the probable cause

standards at issue. Where multiple purposes are significant to an investigation, however, the
 We need not here decide how the purpose for which a warrant is sought might 23

inform the duty to minimize the interception of material not relevant to that purpose. The

FISA record in this case, which both the district court and this court have carefully reviewed,

raises no minimization concerns.

27

Fourth Amendment does not require the government to identify a primary purpose or limit

its ability to secure a warrant to satisfaction of the standards for that purpose. Rather, the

government may secure a warrant under the probable cause standards applicable to any

purpose that it pursues in good faith. Thus, we identify no constitutional defects in FISA’s 23

certification requirement of “a significant” rather than a primary “purpose . . . to obtain

foreign intelligence information.” 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(6)(B). 

c. The “Primary Purpose” Requirement’s Origins as a Limit on the

Executive’s Claimed Inherent Authority to Conduct Warrantless

Surveillance for Foreign Intelligence Information

To explain the basis for our decision, we begin by noting that the “primary purpose”

requirement urged by Abu-Jihaad was originally formulated to address a constitutional

concern not present in this case: the scope of presidential authority to conduct warrantless

foreign intelligence surveillance. In United States v. United States District Court (Keith),

407 U.S. 297 (1972), the Supreme Court rejected a claim of inherent executive authority to

conduct warrantless domestic security surveillance, while specifically not deciding the scope

of executive authority to conduct surveillance “with respect to activities of foreign powers

or their agents,” id. at 321-22 (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit addressed that question

in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980), a case involving
28

warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance conducted before enactment of FISA, and

resolved it favorably to the executive: “the Executive Branch need not always obtain a

warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance,” id. at 913. At the same time, however, the

court ruled that the executive’s power to act without a warrant was cabined by the Article II

authority over foreign affairs from which it derived. Thus, Truong held that warrantless

foreign intelligence surveillance was constitutionally authorized only with respect to “a

foreign power, its agent or collaborators” and when “conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign

intelligence reasons.” Id. at 915. Some twenty-eight years later, however, the FISA Review

Court declined to impose a comparable primary purpose requirement on the warrantless

surveillance provisions of the PAA, applicable to foreign powers or agents of foreign powers

reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. See In re FISA Section 105B

Directives, 551 F.3d at 1010-12 (holding that “more appropriate consideration” is whether

“programmatic purpose of the surveillances . . . involves some legitimate objective beyond

ordinary crime control”).

We have no occasion here to consider these warrantless surveillance decisions. We

note simply that there is an important distinction between warrantless surveillances premised

exclusively on executive authority, and surveillances pursuant to warrants issued by courts

in compliance with standards enacted by Congress. The former require identification of an

exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See United States v. Duggan,

743 F.2d at 72 (collecting cases recognizing such exception); see also In re FISA Section
29

105B Directives, 551 F.3d at 1011-12. By contrast, the latter implement that requirement.

Whatever purpose limits might be placed on the president’s authority to conduct warrantless

surveillance to ensure that the exception does not extend beyond the constitutional ground

for its recognition, it does not follow that the Fourth Amendment demands the same

limitation when, as under FISA, the powers of all three branches of government – in short,

the whole of federal authority – are invoked in determining when warrants may reasonably

be sought and issued for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. Cf.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-37 (1952) (Jackson, J.,

concurring).

d. The Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Requirement Is Flexible.

As this court has recognized, the Constitution’s warrant requirement is “flexible,” so

that “different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment in light of the

different purposes and practical considerations” at issue. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d

at 72. Thus, when a warrant is sought for the purpose of investigating “ordinary crime,” the

Fourth Amendment requires a showing of probable cause to believe that the target of the

warrant “is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a particular offense,” and that

“particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through” the

surveillance. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(a)-(b); see Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255

(1979). But when the government pursues a different purpose, such as obtaining security

intelligence, “[d]ifferent standards” of probable cause reasonable to that purpose may
30

support issuance of a warrant. See Keith, 407 U.S. at 322-23.

The considerations that the Supreme Court identified in Keith as distinguishing

domestic security surveillance from the surveillance of “ordinary crime” and, therefore, as

supporting different warrant standards, pertain equally to foreign intelligence surveillance:

The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the

interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of

such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance

operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the

emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful

activity or the enhancement of the Government’s preparedness for some

possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance

may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of

crime.

Id. at 322. Also noteworthy is Keith’s recognition of Congress’s particular competence to

weigh these considerations and to establish reasonable warrant requirements for security

surveillance, as distinct from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III. See

id. at 322-23. 

The benchmark for judicial review of the constitutionality of warrant requirements

established by Congress is reasonableness: “Different standards may be compatible with the

Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of

Government for intelligence information and the protected rights of our citizens.” Id. at 322-

23. Consistent with this pronouncement, the Court in Keith observed that Congress might

well judge that the application and affidavit showing probable cause for security surveillance

“need not follow the exact requirements of [18 U.S.C.] § 2518 but should allege other
 To the extent Abu-Jihaad asserts that Duggan did not explicitly address the 24

reasonableness of FISA’s notice and duration requirements, we here clarify that these

standards raise no Fourth Amendment concerns. As the FISA Review Court observed,

Congress determined that “‘[t]he need to preserve secrecy for sensitive counterintelligence

sources and methods justifies elimination of the notice requirement’” in FISA. In re Sealed

Case, 310 F.3d at 741 (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-701, at 12 (1978)). The reasonableness of the

concern is obvious. See United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141, 144 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

(recognizing that “notice that the surveillance has been conducted, even years after the event,

may destroy a valuable intelligence advantage”). Further, the same reasons that informed our

rejection of a challenge to ex parte, in camera review of questioned evidence in In re

Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, – specifically, “the imperatives of

national security and the capacity of in camera procedures to adequately safeguard . . . Fourth

Amendment rights,” 552 F.3d 157, 166 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and brackets

omitted) – support a conclusion that FISA’s limited notice requirement does not render the

statute’s warrant standards unconstitutional.

31

circumstances more appropriate to domestic security cases; that the request for prior court

authorization could, in sensitive cases, be made to any member of a specially designated

court . . .; and that the time and reporting requirements need not be so strict as those in 

§ 2518.” Id. at 323.

This discussion in Keith informed our decision in United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d

at 72-74, upholding the warrant standards established by Congress in FISA for court-ordered

surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information. The PATRIOT Act did not modify

the standards FISA applies to warrant applications for the purpose of obtaining foreign

intelligence. Rather, it modified the degree to which foreign intelligence gathering must be

the purpose of the surveillance. Thus, we need not here reconsider Duggan’s holding as to

the reasonableness of FISA’s warrant standards for the purpose of obtaining foreign

intelligence information. We need consider only whether any constitutional concerns are 24
Similarly, the fact that FISA authorizes surveillance for a longer period than Title III,

compare 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1) (authorizing surveillance of U.S. person for up to 90 days)

with 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5) (authorizing surveillance for up to 30 days), is not unreasonable

in light of “the nature of national security surveillance, which is ‘often long range and

involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information,’” In re Sealed Case,

310 F.3d at 740 (quoting Keith, 407 U.S. at 322). Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967),

relied on by Abu-Jihaad, is not to the contrary. In invalidating New York’s wiretap statute

on Fourth Amendment grounds, Berger cast doubt, inter alia, on the law’s 60-day duration

provision. See id. at 59. Although “Title III was enacted, in large part, to meet the

restrictions imposed on electronic surveillance practices and procedures by Berger,” United

States v. Figueroa, 757 F.2d 466, 471 (2d Cir. 1985), Berger’s focus was on the proper

bounds of surveillance in an ordinary criminal case. As the Supreme Court subsequently

recognized in Keith, to address national security concerns, Congress could constitutionally

enact surveillance legislation in which “the time and reporting requirements” might “not be

so strict” as those in Title III. See 407 U.S. at 323. Thus, we conclude that Congress’s

decision to permit FISA surveillance of a U.S. person to be authorized for up to 90 days is

reasonable in light of the purpose being pursued. 

32

raised by Congress’s decision to allow FISA warrant standards to apply upon the executive’s

certification that a “significant” rather than a “primary” purpose of the surveillance is to

obtain foreign intelligence information.

e. A “Significant” Rather than “Primary” Purpose to Obtain

Foreign Intelligence Information Does Not Render FISA’s

Warrant Standards Unreasonable

(1) Duggan Recognized “Primary” Purpose as a Matter of

Statutory Construction not Constitutional Mandate

In concluding that the “significant purpose” certification requirement does not raise

constitutional concerns, we note that when, in Duggan, we construed FISA’s original

reference to electronic surveillance for “the purpose” of obtaining foreign intelligence

information,” as a “requirement that foreign intelligence information be the primary objective
 Insofar as a footnote in United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d at 914 n.4, 25

could be read to conclude that the dual requirements it established for warrantless foreign

intelligence surveillance – a foreign power target and a “primarily” foreign intelligence

purpose, see id. at 915 – would also be required for court-ordered surveillance, the

conclusion appears to be dictum and, in any event, is not binding on this court. Further, the

conclusion was expressed before concerns arose that satisfaction of the “primary purpose”

requirement effectively precluded the coordination of intelligence and law enforcement

efforts in ensuring national security. We discuss these concerns further in the next section

of this opinion. 

33

of [any court-ordered] surveillance,” id. at 77 (emphasis added), we were identifying

Congress’s intent in enacting FISA, not a constitutional mandate, see generally W.R. Grace

& Co.-Conn. v. Zotos Int’l, Inc., 559 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing obligation “to

look to the plain language of the statute to effectuate the intent of Congress”). This is

evident from the fact that we articulated this construction in the context of determining

whether the surveillance at issue in Duggan was conducted in accordance with FISA’s terms,

not in the context of our earlier, and separate, determination of FISA’s constitutionality. See

United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 71-74. In short, nothing in Duggan erected a

constitutional bar to Congress reconsidering and reframing the purpose requirement of FISA

as long as it maintained warrant standards that in their totality were “reasonable both in

relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information and the protected

rights of our citizens.” Keith, 407 U.S. at 323. 

25

(2) Considerations Prompting Congress’s Adoption of the

“Significant” Purpose Amendment

In considering Congress’s decision to allow FISA standards to be triggered by a
34

showing of a “significant” rather than “primary” purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence

information, we may properly consider the “practical considerations” informing that choice.

See Keith, 407 U.S. at 322 (observing that different standards may be compatible with the

Fourth Amendment in light of the “different policy and practical considerations” at issue);

see also United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 72. The relevant background is discussed in

detail in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 722-29. We summarize it here only as necessary to

highlight two considerations that emerged from years of Justice Department experience

trying to satisfy the “primary purpose” requirement and that informed Congress’s amendment

of FISA’s purpose certification provision: (1) if intelligence and law enforcement officials

coordinate efforts in pursuing national security inquiries, it can be difficult, if not impossible,

to identify whether their “primary” purpose is to obtain foreign intelligence information or

evidence of a crime; and (2) the segregation of intelligence and law enforcement officials

to ensure the executive’s ability to certify a “primary” foreign-intelligence-gathering purpose

can compromise national security.

FISA’s original purpose certification requirement was not uniformly construed by the

courts. Although we thought it clear that the statute’s original reference to “the purpose” to

obtain foreign intelligence information referenced the primary purpose, United States v.

Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77, the First Circuit construed the requirement in the negative, holding

that “the investigation of criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose” of a surveillance

order under FISA, United States v. Johnson, 952 F.2d at 572. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit
35

hesitated to define FISA’s purpose requirement “to draw too fine a distinction between

criminal and intelligence investigations,” noting that “‘[i]nternational terrorism,’ by

definition, requires the investigation of activities that constitute crimes.” United States v.

Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959, 965 (9th Cir. 1988). The FISA Review Court echoed this concern

in In re Sealed Case, questioning the soundness of any purpose certification standard that

assumed “that the government seeks foreign intelligence information (counterintelligence)

for its own sake – to expand its pool of knowledge.” 310 F.3d at 727. It concluded that

“FISA as passed by Congress in 1978 clearly did not preclude or limit the government’s use

or proposed use of foreign intelligence information, which included evidence of certain kinds

of criminal activity, in a criminal prosecution.” Id. 

In United States v. Duggan, we had “emphasize[d]” this same point, even though we

construed “the purpose” requirement of FISA to mean “primary purpose”: 

[O]therwise valid FISA surveillance is not tainted simply because the

government can anticipate that the fruits of such surveillance may later be

used, as allowed by § 1806(b), as evidence in a criminal trial. Congress

recognized that in many cases the concerns of the government with respect to

foreign intelligence will overlap those with respect to law enforcement. 

743 F.2d at 78. We concluded that where information sought through FISA surveillance

“involved international terrorism[,] . . . the fact that domestic law enforcement concerns may

also have been implicated did not eliminate the government’s ability to obtain a valid FISA

order.” Id. 

In the years after our decision in Duggan, this important point became muddled, if not
 For example, the order vacated by the FISA Review Court in In re Sealed Case 26

prohibited law enforcement officials, inter alia, from making any recommendations to

intelligence officials respecting “the initiation, operation, continuation, or expansion of FISA

searches or surveillances.” See 310 F.3d at 720 n.3.

36

lost. In 1995, the Justice Department not only committed itself to satisfying the primary

purpose test but, “[a]pparently to avoid running afoul” of that test, it adopted procedures

limiting contacts between intelligence and law enforcement officials. See In re Sealed Case,

310 F.3d at 727-28 (noting that procedures “eventually came to be narrowly interpreted

within the Department of Justice” so as to erect a “wall” to “prevent the FBI intelligence

officials from communicating with the Criminal Division regarding ongoing [intelligence]

investigations”); see also The Nat’l Comm’n on Terrorist Attacks Upon the U.S., The 9/11

Commission Report 78-80 (2004) (discussing constraints imposed by “primary purpose”

requirement on sharing of intelligence information between prosecutors and intelligence

agents). Moreover, as the FISA Court became aware of these Justice Department procedures

for segregating intelligence and criminal investigative officials, it “adopted elements of

them” into certain of its orders. In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 728. The net result was to 26

shift “the focus” of FISA surveillance applications from the “purpose of the surveillance”

to “the nature of the underlying investigation.” Id.

As the FISA Review Court observed, these practices imposed a cost on national

security. See id. at 744 & n.29 (citing congressional hearings indicating that practices

implemented to segregate intelligence from law enforcement officials to avoid running afoul
37

of primary purpose test “may well have contributed, whether correctly understood or not, to

the FBI missing opportunities to anticipate the September 11, 2001 attacks”). In the

aftermath of September 11, 2001, the executive asked Congress to substitute “a purpose” for

“the purpose” requirement of FISA so as to allow it to dismantle the wall between

intelligence and law enforcement personnel erected to ensure that the primary purpose of any

FISA surveillance or search was to obtain foreign intelligence information and not evidence

of crime. Id. at 732. 

Congress did not accept the executive’s proposed language, but it did agree that

certification of a primary purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information should not be

required to secure a FISA warrant. Although no committee reports accompanied the

PATRIOT Act, Senator Feinstein, one of the act’s strong supporters, provided a cogent floor

statement as to the reasons for recasting FISA’s purpose certification requirement:

Under current law, authorities can proceed with surveillance under FISA only

if the primary purpose of the investigation is to collect foreign intelligence.

But in today’s world things are not so simple. In many cases, surveillance will

have two key goals – the gathering of foreign intelligence, and the gathering

of evidence for a criminal prosecution. Determining which purpose is the

“primary” purpose of the investigation can be difficult, and will only become

more so as we coordinate our intelligence and law enforcement efforts in the

war against terror.

Rather than forcing law enforcement to decide which purpose is primary – law

enforcement or foreign intelligence gathering, this bill strikes a new balance.

It will now require that a “significant” purpose of the investigation must be

foreign intelligence gathering to proceed with surveillance under FISA.

The effect of this provision will be to make it easier for law enforcement to
38

obtain a FISA search or surveillance warrant for those cases where the subject

of the surveillance is both a potential source of valuable intelligence and the

potential target of a criminal investigation. Many of the individuals involved

in supporting the September 11 attacks may well fall into both of these

categories.

147 Cong. Rec. S10591 (Oct 11, 2001) (quoted in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 732-33).

 

To address these practical considerations – i.e., the difficulty in identifying the

primary purpose when surveillance is pursued jointly by intelligence and law enforcement

officials, and the importance of such joint efforts to protect national security – Congress in

the PATRIOT Act amended FISA to provide that, upon satisfaction of all other statutory

requirements, FISA warrants could be issued on certification “that a significant purpose of

the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information.” See Pub. L. No. 107-56, 

§ 218, 115 Stat. at 291 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(6)(B)). In a separate

amendment, Congress expressly authorized federal officers conducting surveillance with the

aim of obtaining foreign intelligence information to coordinate their activities with law

enforcement officers. See Pub. L. No. 107-56, § 504, 115 Stat. at 364 (codified as amended

at 50 U.S.C. § 1806(k)(1)) (“Federal officers who conduct electronic surveillance to acquire

foreign intelligence information under this title may consult with Federal law enforcement

officers or law enforcement personnel of a State or political subdivision of a State . . . to

coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against [, inter alia, actual or potential attack by

a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, sabotage, international terrorism, or other

clandestine intelligence activities by a foreign power or agent of a foreign power].”). In so
 Although some senators who voted for the PATRIOT Act thought it possible that 27

courts might impose a constitutional requirement of “primary purpose,” see In re Sealed

Case, 310 F.3d at 737 (quoting remarks of Senator Leahy, 147 Cong. Rec. S11003 (Oct. 25,

2001), and Senator Edwards, 147 Cong. Rec. S10589 (Oct. 11, 2001)), for reasons stated in

the next section of this opinion, we agree with the FISA Review Court that “a significant

purpose” requirement is adequate to ensure that FISA standards are reasonably applied to the

purpose for which they were identified. 

39

doing, Congress made clear that such coordination would preclude neither a finding that

FISA’s “significant purpose” certification requirement was met, nor the entry of an order of

approval under § 1805. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(k)(2).27

(3) A “Significant Purpose” To Obtain Foreign Intelligence

Information Is Sufficient to Support the Application of

FISA’s Standards to Surveillance Applications

Abu-Jihaad does not dispute the considerations prompting Congress’s adoption of the

“significant purpose” amendment. Rather, he argues that if FISA’s probable cause standards

are applied without a “primary” government purpose to obtain foreign intelligence

information, the executive will be able to manipulate FISA to obtain surveillance warrants

for criminal investigations without demonstrating the probable cause required by Title III for

that purpose. Because we conclude that the required certification of “a significant purpose”

to obtain foreign intelligence information adequately protects against this possibility, we

reject Abu-Jihaad’s constitutional challenge to this language. 

As Congress and the courts have recognized, government investigations relating to

nationalsecurity frequently pursue more than one purpose. See United States v. Duggan, 743

F.2d at 78 (stating that, in enacting FISA, “Congress recognized that in many cases the
40

concerns of the government with respect to foreign intelligence will overlap those with

respect to law enforcement”); see also in re FISA Section 105B Directives, 551 F.3d at 1011

(“A surveillance with a foreign intelligence purpose often will have some ancillary criminal

law purpose.”). Indeed, multiple purposes may be inevitable given FISA’s definition of

“foreign intelligence information” and “agent of a foreign power” by reference to serious

criminal conduct. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 724 (observing that “foreign

intelligence information” as defined in FISA “‘can include evidence of certain crimes

relating to sabotage, international terrorism, or clandestine intelligence activities’” (quoting

H.R. Rep. No. 95-1283, at 49 (1978)) (emphasis omitted)); see also 50 U.S.C. § 1801(b)

(defining “agent of foreign power” by reference to involvement in, inter alia, clandestine

intelligence gathering, sabotage, and international terrorism). In such circumstances,

intelligence and law enforcement purposes “‘tend to merge,’” making it difficult to identify

one as primary. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 724-25 (quoting S. Rep. No. 95-701, at

10-11 (1978)). Indeed, as experience has taught, if the executive is required to certify that

its “primary” purpose in conducting surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information,

it may well have to exclude law enforcement officials from playing any part in the

surveillance. Such a segregation of purposes makes no sense in terms of protecting national

security. See id. at 727 (“[I]f one considers the actual ways in which the government would

foil espionage or terrorism it becomes apparent that criminal prosecution analytically cannot

be placed easily in a separate response category.”). More important for our purposes, it is
 Because In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, was decided in 2002, before the FISA 28

orders here at issue here were entered, we can assume that its construction of the statute’s

provisions controlled the issuance of those orders.

41

not compelled by the Fourth Amendment. 

For Fourth Amendment purposes, the critical question is not whether the executive

can certify that obtaining foreign intelligence information is its “primary” purpose, but

whether it can certify that it is a bona fide purpose of the surveillance. Thus, where the

executive in good faith pursues both intelligence and law enforcement purposes, it may apply

for surveillance authority under either FISA or Title III, provided it satisfies the particular

warrant standards of the statute invoked. A Fourth Amendment concern would arise only if

the executive, without a bona fide purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information, tried

to secure a warrant under the standards identified in FISA as reasonable for that purpose.

We need not here decide at what point a purpose advanced by the executive might be

so trivial as to preclude it from being pursued in good faith. Congress adequately

safeguarded against that possibility in FISA by demanding certification of “a significant

purpose” to obtain foreign intelligence information, rather than simply “a purpose” as

originally requested by the executive. Moreover, the FISA Review Court, whose rulings bind

the FISA Court in issuing surveillance warrants under the statute, has construed the

significant purpose standard to require “that the government have a measurable foreign

intelligence purpose, other than just criminal prosecution of even foreign intelligence

crimes.” Id. at 735. Indeed, the FISA Review Court has ruled that the significant purpose 28
42

requirement specifically “excludes from the purpose of gaining foreign intelligence

information a sole objective of criminal prosecution,” even for foreign intelligence crimes.

Id.; see also id. at 736 (rejecting government’s argument that “significant purpose”

requirement allowed it to have primary objective of prosecuting foreign agent for nonforeign-intelligence crime, and noting that “the manifestation of such a purpose” would

“disqualify an application”). 

The FISA Review Court has also plainly ruled that the government’s certified purpose

in seeking a FISA warrant is subject to judicial review. See id. at 735-36 (recognizing FISA

Court’s authority to seek more information pertaining to government’s purpose). While “a

significant purpose standard” eliminates “any justification for the FISA Court to balance the

relative weight the government places on criminal prosecution,” if the court determines that

the government’s sole objective is “merely to gain evidence of past criminal conduct – even

foreign intelligence crimes – to punish the agent rather than halt ongoing espionage or

terrorist activity, the application should be denied.” Id. at 735. Thus, the FISA Review

Court has ruled that to satisfy the significant purpose test, it must appear that “the

government entertains a realistic option of dealing” with the target of the FISA surveillance

“other than through criminal prosecution.” Id. 

We do not here decide which, if any, of these FISA Review Court conclusions are

constitutionally compelled. We conclude simply that FISA’s “significant purpose”

requirement, so construed, is sufficient to ensure that the executive may only use FISA to
43

obtain a warrant when it is in good faith pursuing foreign intelligence gathering, the purpose

for which that statute’s warrant standards apply. The fact that the government may also be

pursuing other purposes, including gathering evidence for criminal prosecution, compels no

different conclusion. 

Accordingly, we reject Abu-Jihaad’s argument that FISA is unconstitutional because

it does not require certification of a primary purpose to obtain foreign intelligence

information. Rather, we hold that certification of a significant purpose to obtain foreign

intelligence information, together with satisfaction of all other FISA requirements, is

reasonable and, therefore, sufficient to support the issuance of a warrant under the Fourth

Amendment.

2. FISA Was Lawfully Applied to This Case

Abu-Jihaad submits that, even if FISA is not unconstitutional on its face, his

conviction must be vacated because the statute’s conditions were not satisfied in securing

some of the evidence supporting his conviction. Specifically, Abu-Jihaad contends that the

government’s application for a surveillance order (a) failed to satisfy the “significant

purpose” requirement of 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a)(6)(B); (b) failed to demonstrate probable cause

to believe that he was an agent of a foreign power or that his telephones were being used or

about to be used by a foreign power or agent of such a power, see id. § 1804(a)(3)(A)-(B);

(c) included “clearly erroneous” § 1804(a)(6) certifications; and (d) was based on false

statements, requiring a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Moreover,
44

he faults the district court for deciding these questions against him without affording him

access to the FISA warrant application papers and an adversarial hearing.

a. The District Court Properly Denied Disclosure and a Hearing

In FISA, Congress expressly provided that where, as here, the Attorney General

certifies that “disclosure [of FISA materials] or an adversary hearing would harm the national

security of the United States,” a district court must “review in camera and ex parte the

application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary

to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and

conducted.” 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). While the district court retains authority to order

disclosure of FISA materials “under appropriate security procedures and protective orders,”

it may do so “only where such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of

the legality of the surveillance.” Id. Where the court “determines that the surveillance was

lawfully authorized and conducted, it shall deny the motion of the aggrieved person except

to the extent that due process requires discovery or disclosure.” Id. § 1806(g). Mindful of

these provisions, we have concluded that disclosure of FISA materials “is the exception and

ex parte, in camera determination is the rule.” United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 129

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 

Here the district court found that “review of the FISA materials in this case [was]

relatively straightforward and not complex.” United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 531 F. Supp. 2d

299, 310 (D. Conn. 2008). Further, while keeping “the requirements of the Constitution, the
45

statute, and Duggan fixed firmly in mind[,]” the district court determined that disclosure and

an adversary hearing were unnecessary because its in camera, ex parte review permitted it

to assess the legality of the challenged surveillance and the requirements of due process did

not counsel otherwise. Id. at 311 & n.11. Upon our own review of the materials supporting

the challenged FISA orders, we reach the same conclusions. Accordingly, we identify no

denial of due process in the district court’s decision not to order disclosure of FISA materials

to the defendant, or to conduct a preliminary hearing to rule on Abu-Jihaad’s challenge to

FISA’s implementation in this case.

b. The Government Satisfied FISA’s Warrant Requirements, and

There is No Basis in the Record for a Franks Hearing

In considering Abu-Jihaad’s claims that the government failed to satisfy the

significant purpose, probable cause, and certification requirements of FISA, and proffered

false information warranting a Franks hearing, we have conducted a careful in camera review

of the challenged FISA orders, the government’s applications for those orders, and the

classified materials submitted in support of those applications. We have similarly reviewed

the government’s classified Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion for

Suppression of FISA Evidence and Motion for Disclosure of FISA Applications, Orders and

Related Materials and an Adversary Hearing; the classified declaration of Joseph Billy, Jr.,

Assistant Director of the Counterterrorism Division of the FBI; and the FBI’s classified

declaration regarding its compliance with minimization procedures applicable to the

challenged orders. Like the district court, we conclude that there is no merit to any of Abu-
46

Jihaad’s challengesto the government’s compliance with FISA requirements in this case, nor

any basis for a Franks hearing.

FISA warrant applications are subject to “minimal scrutiny by the courts,” both upon

initial presentation and subsequent challenge. United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77. Of

course, even minimal scrutiny is not toothless. Cf. Wilson v. C.I.A., 586 F.3d 171, 185 (2d

Cir. 2009) (observing in non-FISA context that “[d]eferential review” of classification

challenge “does not equate to no review” (citing John Doe, Inc. v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861,

881 (2d Cir. 2008))). In reviewing a warrant application, the FISA Court properly considers

whether (1) the application makes the probable cause showing required by FISA, i.e., that

the target of the warrant is a foreign power or agent thereof and that the facilities or places

to be searched or surveilled are being used or about to be used by a foreign power or its

agent; (2) the application is otherwise complete and in the proper form; and (3) when the

target is a United States person, the application’s certifications are not “clearly erroneous.”

United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77. Further, as the FISA Review Court has now

clarified, in deciding whether to grant a warrant application, the FISA Court may also request

more information – including information as to purpose – as necessary to make these discrete

determinations. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 736 (“[I]f the FISA court has reason to

doubt that the government has any real non-prosecutorial purpose in seeking foreign

intelligence information it can demand further inquiry into the certifying officer’s purpose.”).

In considering challenges to FISA Court orders, however, “the representations and
47

certifications submitted in support of an application for FISA surveillance should be

presumed valid” by a reviewing court absent a showing sufficient to trigger a Franks hearing.

United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d at 77 n.6. 

Although the established standard of judicial review applicable to FISA warrants is

deferential, the government’s detailed and complete submissions in this case would easily

allow it to clear a higher standard of review. While we are necessarily circumspect in our

discussion of these materials, like the district court, we observe that they “described at length

the facts supporting the Government’s assertion that there was probable cause to believe that

the target of the FISA surveillance” – who was “described with particularity” – “was an agent

of a foreign power,” as well as “the basis for believing that the facilities at which electronic

surveillance would occur [were] being used, or about to be used, by the target.” United

States v. Abu-Jihaad, 531 F. Supp. 2d at 313. Further, the application papers detailed facts

“supporting the Government’s certification that a significant purpose of the surveillance was

to gather foreign intelligence information.” Id. 

This record convincingly satisfies FISA’s purpose and probable cause requirements,

and further reveals no clear error in the certifications by high-ranking executive officials.

See id. at 312. We therefore reject Abu-Jihaad’s conclusory claims to the contrary as without

merit. Further, because nothing in the record before this court – which includes the full trial

record – provides any basis to think that the FISA application contained any false statement,

much less one made “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,”
48

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 155, we identify no error in the district court’s decision not

to hold a Franks hearing.

In sum, because we identify no constitutional infirmity in Congress’s decision to allow

FISA warrants to issue on certification of a “significant purpose” to obtain foreign

intelligence information, and because we conclude that the record – without need for further

disclosure or hearing – convincingly demonstrates that all FISA warrant requirements were

satisfied in this case, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Abu-Jihaad’s motion

to suppress FISA-derived evidence.

B. The Evidentiary Challenges

Abu-Jihaad asserts that evidentiary errors deprived him of his due process right to a

fair trial. Specifically, he submits that (1) recordings of telephone conversations in which

he participated in 2006 were not relevant to the charged 2001 communication of national

defense information, see Fed. R. Evid. 401, and, in any event, more prejudicial than

probative, see Fed. R. Evid. 403; and (2) videos obtained from and materials available on

Azzam’s websites should also have been excluded under Rule 403. The district court ruled

to the contrary in two detailed written decisions. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 553 F.

Supp. 2d 121 (D. Conn. 2008) (ruling on videos and website materials); United States v.

Abu-Jihaad, No. 07 Cr. 57, 2008 WL 282368 (D. Conn. Jan. 31, 2008) (ruling on 2006

recordings). 

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings deferentially, mindful of its superior
49

position to assess relevancy and to weigh the probative value of evidence against its potential

for unfair prejudice. See United States v. Royer, 549 F.3d 886, 901 (2d Cir. 2008). We will

reverse an evidentiary ruling only for “abuse of discretion,” see United States v. Quinones,

511 F.3d 289, 307 (2d Cir. 2007), which we will identify only if the ruling was “arbitrary and

irrational,” United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 649 (2d Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks omitted). That is plainly not this case.

1. The 2006 Recordings

A review of the recorded conversations confirms the district court findings that therein

Abu-Jihaad demonstrated his familiarity with Azzam as an organization sympathetic to jihad

and admitted his own correspondence with Azzam through its websites, specifically in an

email discussing the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 2008 WL

282368, at *4. In the conversations, Abu-Jihaad further demonstrated an obsession with

secrecy in discussing matters related to jihad. Not only did he routinely employ code in

discussing confederates and objectives, he discussed his inability to provide a purported jihad

sympathizer with current military intelligence in coded terms that supported an inference that

he had provided such intelligence in the past. See id. at *5-6. Although these conversations

made no mention of the charged disclosure of the Battlegroup Document and, in fact, took

place more than four years after that charged crime, they were undoubtedly relevant to a

jury’s assessment of Abu-Jihaad’s guilt. 

To be relevant, evidence need not be sufficient by itself to prove a fact in issue, much
50

less to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. See Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. Famous

Music Corp., 557 F.2d 918, 927 (2d Cir. 1977) (“Evidence need not be conclusive in order

to be relevant.”). Rather, evidence is “relevant” if it has “any tendency to make the existence

of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

probable than it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401; see United States v.

Schultz, 333 F.3d 393, 416 (2d Cir. 2003) (“Nonconclusive evidence should still be admitted

if it makes a proposition more probable than not.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

 Abu-Jihaad’s discussions of Azzam, its websites, and his email communications with

that organization were relevant because they linked him to the recipient of the Battlegroup

Document. This fact made it more probable that, among the discrete group of persons with

knowledge of the classified information at issue, Abu-Jihaad was the source of the

unauthorized disclosure to Azzam. Although Abu-Jihaad endeavored to reduce this

likelihood by offering evidence that some transit plan information was more widely available

than the Navy maintained, see infra at 59-60, such evidence would have affected only the

weight, not the admissibility, of the recorded conversations. See United States v. Schultz,

333 F.3d at 416 (observing that “factors which make evidence less than conclusive affect

only weight, not admissibility” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Similarly, the recordings demonstrating Abu-Jihaad’s keen concern with secrecy were

relevant both generally in demonstrating consciousness of guilt and specifically in explaining

why there was no evidence on Azzam websites about transmittal of the Battlegroup
51

Document or the information contained therein. As for Abu-Jihaad’s recorded discussion

of why he could not provide current military intelligence – “I ain’t been working ah in, in the

field of making meals and or, you know . . . [i]n a, in a long time. I’ve been out of that for,

ah, over ah, quatro years you know,” Trial Tr. at 989-90; Gov’t Ex. 141k at 7 – the statement

permitted an inference that, four years earlier, Abu-Jihaad had been engaged in “making

meals,” i.e., providing military intelligence, an admission highly probative of his commission

of the charged crime. That the statement might be construed more innocently was a matter

properly addressed through cross-examination and argument to the jury, not a ground for

excluding the evidence as irrelevant. 

Rule 403 warrants no different conclusion. As we observed in United States v.

LaFlam, 369 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2004), when we review a district court’s evaluation of

evidence under Rule 403, we “generally maximize its probative value and minimize its

prejudicial effect,” id. at 155 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Applying this

standard, we conclude that the recorded discussions were both highly probative of the

charged crime and, to the extent they referenced uncharged contemporaneous support for

jihad, no more inflammatory than the charges alleged in the indictment. In any event, the

district court properly minimized the risk of unfair prejudice through limiting instructions.

See United States v. Mercado, 573 F.3d 138, 142 (2d Cir. 2009) (upholding Rule 403

determination where challenged evidence “not especially worse or shocking than the

transactions charged” and where district court “gave several careful instructions to the jury
52

regarding what inferences it could draw from the admitted evidence”). 

The district court instructed the jury that (a) “Abu-Jihaad [was] not . . . charged with

anything based on the conversations . . . from 2006,” (b) “the events that form[ed] the basis

of the charges against . . . Abu-Jihaad in this case occurred in 2001, not 2006,” and (c) the

jury was “not to speculate about what was the nature of the investigation” involving Shareef

and the confidential informant or “whether or if any charges resulted from that

investigation.” Trial Tr. at 992. Abu-Jihaad does not challenge the adequacy of these

instructions. Thus, his contention that the 2006 recordings permitted the jury to speculate

about Shareef’s plans reduces to a challenge to the presumption that jurors follow the

instructions they are given. See United States v. Downing, 297 F.3d 52, 59 (2d Cir. 2002)

(“Absent evidence to the contrary, we must presume that juries understand and abide by a

district court's limiting instructions.”). Because Abu-Jihaad points to nothing in the record

to undermine this presumption, we identify no merit in his argument, and we conclude that

the district court acted well within its discretion in admitting the 2006 recordings.

2. Azzam Website Materials

We reach the same conclusion with respect to the admitted Azzam website materials,

which consisted of (a) excerpts from three videos purchased by Abu-Jihaad from Azzam, and

(b) other materials marketed and/or posted on Azzam’s webstites. Abu-Jihaad concedes the

relevancy of these materials to an understanding of Azzam’s operations and to his own mens

rea. Nevertheless, he contends that the evidence should have been excluded under Rule 403.
 Thus, the government was permitted to show only one minute of a nine minute 29

segment of the bloody bodies of jihad martyrs. It was required to redact scenes depicting a

headless body and one with a badly severed neck. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 553 F.

Supp. 2d at 128. We express no opinion as to whether such scenes could be displayed to

a jury without violating a defendant’s right to a fair trial. We cite their redaction only to

illustrate the care taken by the district court to avoid unfair prejudice. 

53

We are not persuaded.

a. Video Evidence

With respect to the videos, which we briefly describe supra at 12-13 & n.12, the

district court determined that the pro-jihadist contents of the videos were relevant to

understanding Abu-Jihaad’s motive and intent in communicating information that could have

resulted in the destruction of the very ship on which he served. See United States v. AbuJihaad, 553 F. Supp. 2d at 127-28. At the same time, the district court was conscientious in

ensuring against unfair prejudice. See United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 110 (2d Cir.

1998). It reviewed the films in their entirety before approving only selected excerpts for

display to the jury. Although these excerpts included depictions of violence, as was

necessary not to distort the sense of the films as a whole, the depictions were limited and, as

the district court accurately observed, less gruesome than many seen on “nightly news

dispatches from Baghdad.” United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 553 F. Supp. 2d at 128. 

29

We identify no error, let alone arbitrary or irrational error, in the decision of

admissibility under these circumstances. See United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d at 110-11

(holding that where video depicting embassy bombing and instructions for making explosive
 The district court charged the jury that the videos could be considered only in 30

determining the knowledge and intent with which Abu-Jihaad undertook any actions proved

against him. See Trial Tr. at 259-60, 401. Moreover, the court instructed the jury to consider

the video evidence “dispassionately, and even if there’s material that you find personally

distasteful, you can’t let your personal opinions, your fears, your biases, to enter into your

consideration.” Id. at 401.

54

devices was relevant to motive and nature of conspiratorial agreement, district court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that probative value of evidence outweighed any unfair

prejudice). Moreover, any danger of unfair prejudice was here again minimized by the

district court’s limiting instructions, see United States v. Bermudez, 529 F.3d 158, 163 (2d

Cir. 2008), which we presume the jury followed, see United States v. Downing, 297 F.3d at

59. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in allowing 30

the jury to view the challenged video evidence.

b. Website Materials

The district court also allowed the jury to view various materials, including Osama

bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa against the United States, that were marketed or posted on Azzam’s

websites in or around 2001. The government could not prove that Abu-Jihaad saw a

particular posting, only that he visited the site during times when the postings were available.

See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 553 F. Supp. 2d at 128-29. The court acknowledged that

such materials had the potential to “inflame a juror’s passions.” Id. at 129. Nevertheless, it

concluded that the risk of such prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the

materials to the jury’s assessment of Abu-Jihaad’s intent and motive in communicating with
55

Azzam. In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasized that it had gone to “extraordinary

lengths” to select jurors who would not let passion or bias infect their consideration of

evidence and who would conscientiously follow appropriate limiting instructions. Id. On

this record, we identify no abuse of discretion in admission of the Azzam website materials.

C. The Sufficiency Challenge

Abu-Jihaad argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal on

the 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) count of conviction because the trial evidence was insufficient to

prove guilt. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. The rule of constitutional sufficiency derives from the

Due Process Clause and instructs that no conviction may be obtained “except upon proof

beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime . . . charged.” In

re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19

(1979). While we review de novo the denial of a Rule 29 sufficiency challenge, see United

States v. Pizzonia, 577 F.3d 455, 462 (2d Cir. 2009), we apply the same deferential standard

as the district court in assessing the trial evidence, i.e., we view that evidence in the light

most favorable to the government, assuming that the jury resolved all questions of witness

credibility and competing inferences in favor of the prosecution, see United States v. Burden,

600 F.3d 204, 214 (2d Cir. 2010); United States v. Payne, 591 F.3d 46, 60 (2d Cir. 2010).

A defendant mounting a sufficiency challenge thus “bears a very heavy burden,” United

States v. Desena, 287 F.3d 170, 177 (2d Cir. 2002), because a court must uphold a jury

verdict so long as “‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
 Title 18 U.S.C. § 793(d) states: 31

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over,

or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,

signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative,

blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note

relating to the national defense, or information relating to the

56

crime beyond a reasonable doubt,’” United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 109 (quoting

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. at 319 (emphasis in original)). That is certainly this case.

The thrust of Abu-Jihaad’s sufficiency challenge is that the government’s case rested

entirely on circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence, however, is not constitutionally

required to support a conviction. The law is well established that the government may secure

conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence, provided it is sufficient to prove the

elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Lorenzo, 534

F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2008). To convict Abu-Jihaad of the § 793(d) crime with which he

was charged, the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he (1)

lawfully had possession of, access to, control over, or was entrusted with information relating

to the national defense; (2) had reason to believe that such information could be used to the

injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation; (3) willfully

communicated, delivered, transmitted, or caused to be communicated, delivered, or

transmitted such information; and (4) did so to a person not entitled to receive it. See 18

U.S.C. § 793(d); see also United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 384 (quoting jury

charge).31
national defense which information the possessor has reason to

believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the

advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates,

delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or

transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or

cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to

any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same

and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of

the United States entitled to receive it . . . [s]hall be fined under

this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 Although Abu-Jihaad argues that information in the Battlegroup Document was 32

publicly available, the evidence he offered in support of that claim showed only that some

general information regarding the Constellation battlegroup’s transit schedule had entered

57

Abu-Jihaad does not – and cannot – challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

establish the first, second, and fourth elements of the crime. The trial evidence convincingly

showed that, as a member of the U.S.S. Benfold’s navigation division with a “secret” security

clearance, Abu-Jihaad had access to the Constellation battlegroup’s transit plan and the

classified information contained therein. Further, because the transit plan was classified as

“confidential” and contained information about the anticipated movements of Navy ships into

areas of heightened vulnerability to attack, there can be no question that this information

related to the national defense. See Gorin v. United States, 312 U.S. 19, 28 (1941)

(construing phrase “national defense” in context of Espionage Act as “generic concept of

broad connotations, referring to the military and naval establishments and the related

activities of national preparedness” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v.

Heine, 151 F.2d 813, 815-17 (2d Cir. 1945) (L. Hand, J.) (construing “information relating

to the national defense” to include only information that is closely held). Moreover, given 32
the public domain prior to the date of deployment. See infra at 59-60. The public

information adduced by Abu-Jihaad at trial did not preclude any rational jury from

concluding that the transit plan with which he was entrusted, and the Battlegroup Document

derived therefrom, contained information relating to the national defense.

58

the classified nature of the information and Abu-Jihaad’s demonstrated understanding in his

Cole email of the impact of an attack on a United States warship, a rational juror could

certainly conclude that the defendant had reason to believe that information regarding the

navigational route and schedule to be followed by the Constellation battlegroup could be

used to injure the United States. Finally, there is no question that neither Babar Ahmad, from

whose residence the Battlegroup Document was recovered, nor Syed Talha Ahsan, who

appeared to have created the file containing that document, nor any other person associated

with Azzam, was authorized to receive classified United States military information. 

Thus, Abu-Jihaad’s sufficiency challenge is reasonably understood to focus on the

third element of the crime. He submits that the trial evidence was insufficient to permit any

rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who willfully made

the charged disclosure of national defense information. Although the district court observed

that this challenge was not “insubstantial” given that the supporting evidence for this element

was largely circumstantial, see United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 365, upon

careful review of the record, it concluded that the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury

to find the third element proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon our own review of the

record, we reach the same conclusion. From circumstances indicating that (1) the
59

information in the Battlegroup Document communicated to Azzam came from a Navy

insider, (2) Abu-Jihaad was an insider with access to that information and the only identified

member of the Navy who communicated support for jihad to Azzam in the relevant time

period, and (3) Abu-Jihaad admitted disclosing military intelligence while in the Navy, a

reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Abu-Jihaad was, in fact, the

person who had willfully disclosed the classified information in the Battlegroup Document

to Azzam. 

1. The Information in the Battlegroup Document Came from a Navy

Insider

The contents of the Battlegroup Document, specifically, its identification of

significant dates referenced in the classified transit plan – notably March 20, 2001, for an

ammunition stop in Hawaii; April 6, 2001, for a port call in Sydney; and April 29, 2001, for

passage through the Strait of Hormuz (in fact, the date for crossing the CHOP point) –

strongly supported an inference that the source of the information contained therein had to

have been a Navy insider. In urging otherwise, Abu-Jihaad relies on arguments that he

unsuccessfully made to the jury: that the Battlegroup Document contained so much publicly

available information and so many errors that it could just as easily, if not more likely, have

been transmitted by someone outside the Navy. The jury’s rejection of this argument was

hardly irrational.

To the extent the defense adduced evidence in the public domain about movements

of the Constellation battlegroup, it failed to demonstrate that the majority of that information
60

was available prior to the battlegroup’s March 15, 2001 deployment, as would have been

necessary for publicly available information to have informed creation of the Battlegroup

Document. The information that was shown to have been publicly available before

deployment failed to provide sufficient facts from which to compile the Battlegroup

Document. Specifically, a February 11, 2001 post to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology

alumni website stated only that a carrier pilot would be deploying for six months aboard the

U.S.S. Constellation, which was expected to make port calls in Sydney, Perth, Bahrain, and

Dubai. We need not here assess the relative indiscretion of such a post. We note simply that

it did not provide specific dates for the identified ports of call, as contained in the

Battlegroup Document. Nor did it mention Hawaii as a port of call, a fact included only in

the final transit plan. Similarly, although a pre-deployment press release from the Canadian

Navy indicated that the Constellation battlegroup would arrive in the Arabian Gulf in early

May 2001, and a February 2001 article about the Tarawa Amphibious Readiness Group

identified Phuket, Thailand, as a favorite port of call for the Navy and the Marines, neither

document provided any specific information about the Constellation battlegroup’s expected

ports of call, let alone the dates on which any ships would reach those ports.

Similarly unavailing is Abu-Jihaad’s reliance on errors in the Battlegroup Document

to argue that the source of its information could not have been a Navy insider. To the extent

the errors involve misspelling of Navy terms, the jury would have seen that Navy insider

Abu-Jihaad routinely misspelled ordinary words in his emails with Azzam. Insofar as
61

defendant points to the Battlegroup Document’s misidentification of April 29, 2001, as the

date for transit through the Strait of Hormuz (when in fact it was the date for crossing the

CHOP point) and March as a tax-free month (when in fact it was April), a reasonable jury

could have concluded that the errors were either inadvertent, introduced after the information

was originally conveyed, or reflective of a Navy insider conveying information outside his

particular area of responsibility. Indeed, a jury might reasonably have rejected the

coincidence of anyone other than an insider selecting the same date (April 29, 2001) for

transiting the Strait of Hormuz as had been emphasized in each iteration of the transit plan

for crossing the CHOP point, particularly as the latter event would take place only a short

time before the ships entered the Strait of Hormuz, an easily identified natural geographic

reference compared to the CHOP point, which was defined only by degrees of latitude and

longitude. Moreover, a jury was entitled to consider that the Battlegroup Document

concluded with the instruction: “Please destroy message.” Gov’t Ex. 1. A person

transmitting publicly available information would have less reason to include such an

instruction than a Navy insider transmitting classified information. 

2. Abu-Jihaad’s Access to the Disclosed Information and Ties to Azzam

That Abu-Jihaad was the insider who transmitted classified information about the

Constellation battlegroup’s transit plan was established, in part, by evidence of his

opportunity and motive to do so. Abu-Jihaad does not seriously dispute that, as a signalman

with a secret-level security clearance, he had access to the transit plan and, thus, the
62

opportunity to transmit it to an unauthorized person. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 600

F. Supp. 2d at 377 (referencing evidence that Abu-Jihaad “regularly worked on the bridge

where . . . the ship’s paper charts and classified transit plans were stored”). Nor does he

dispute that he frequently communicated with Azzam, the unauthorized recipient of the

classified information in 2001, or that the contents of his communications revealed a motive

to transmit classified information, i.e., his support for jihad, even when directed against his

own country.

Instead, Abu-Jihaad submits that any inference that he transmitted classified

information to Azzam was undermined by his open display of jihadist sympathies in the

Navy, as evidenced by his sharing Azzam videos with shipmates and his use of a Navymonitored email account to communicate with Azzam. While Abu-Jihaad was free to make

this argument to the jury, it was hardly compelled to accept it and to return a verdict of not

guilty. The jury could have determined that if Abu-Jihaad used his military account to

convey national defense information, he did so prior to the battlegroup’s March 15, 2001

deployment and, thus, at a time when his Navy email was not being monitored.

Alternatively, the jury could have found that Abu-Jihaad likely used his personal email

account to transmit classified information. That, after all, was the account he used to send

his Cole email to Azzam praising the murderous bombing of a Navy ship as a “martyrdom

operation.” See Gov’t Ex. 19.

In urging otherwise, Abu-Jihaad observes that in the Cole email, sent in July 2001, he
63

introduced himself as a United States sailor, an unnecessary action if he had previously

disclosed military intelligence to Azzam. The Cole email, however, was sent to an Azzam

email account specifically designated for the general public to send emails of support. A

rational jury might well have concluded that Abu-Jihaad sent the classified information to

a different Azzam email address, with or without introducing himself.

In sum, even if the email evidence could have supported inferences more favorable

to Abu-Jihaad, it was nevertheless sufficient to support a reasonable inference that AbuJihaad was the only person shown to have had both the opportunity and motive to transmit

the classified transit plan information to Azzam. See United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d at

226 (reiterating established rule that it is for jury to choose among competing inferences

supported by evidence).

3. Abu-Jihaad’s Admitted Disclosure of Navy Intelligence

In addition to evidence establishing Abu-Jihaad’s opportunity and motive to disclose

classified information, the jury heard recorded statements in which Abu-Jihaad effectively

admitted to having actually done so. In a series of conversations intercepted in 2006, which

we detail in our discussion of the facts, see supra at 15-19, Abu-Jihaad repeatedly discussed

providing Shareef, a suspected terrorist sympathizer, with “meals.” A confidential informant

who participated in some of the conversations testified at trial that “meals” was a code for

military intelligence. Thus, while generally promising Shareef support, Abu-Jihaad

explained that he had been out of the Navy too long to have any current intelligence to
64

convey: “I haven’t been on that job, so I don’t – you know what I’m saying, I haven’t been

there . . . to see . . . what the fresh meal is.” Gov’t Ex. 141h at 1. Abu-Jihaad nevertheless

encouraged Shareef to speak with “the Mexican,” identified at trial as Miguel Colon, who

had been discharged from the Navy only two months earlier: “[H]e can give you a fresh meal

‘cuz . . . he just finished his job, there, less than a month ago . . . .” Id. at 1-2. Then, in a

conversation that same day with Colon about Shareef’s desire for intelligence, Abu-Jihaad

made the statement that the government argued acknowledged his past transmittal of

intelligence information: “I don’t know how to get him no hot meal . . . . I ain’t been

working uh, in, in, in the field of making meals and or, you know . . . in a long time. I’ve

been out of that for uh, over uh, quatro years you know.” Gov’t Ex. 141k at 7.

Although Abu-Jihaad suggests that the statement only indicated that he was not in a

position to secure current intelligence because he had been out of the Navy for four years,

a reasonable jury could have construed the statement as an admission of past intelligence

disclosures. Abu-Jihaad did not, after all, state simply that he had never worked “in the field

of making meals,” i.e., providing military intelligence. Rather, he stated that he “ain’t been

working uh, in, in, in the field of making meals and or, you know . . . in a long time.”

Implicit in a statement that one has not done something “in a long time” is an admission to

having done that thing at some time in the past, in Abu-Jihaad’s case, “working . . . in the

field of making meals,” i.e., providing military intelligence, some four years ago when he

was in the Navy and held a security clearance to access certain classified information. 
65

While Abu-Jihaad’s implicit admission is general, making no specific reference to the

Battlegroup Document, on a sufficiency challenge, we review pieces of evidence not in

isolation, but in conjunction. See United States v. Rigas, 490 F.3d 208, 230 (2d Cir. 2007);

United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 676 (2d Cir. 1997). Here the totality of the evidence

permitted the jury to find, inter alia, that: classified information about Navy operations was

transmitted to Azzam, an organization sympathetic to violent jihad; the source of the

disclosed classified information was a Navy insider; Abu-Jihaad was a Navy insider with

access to the classified information at issue; defendant was in regular communication with

Azzam at and about the time relevant to the charged disclosure; although some of AbuJihaad’s communications had been deleted, those that were retrieved revealed his strong

support for jihad, even when directed against his own country; no other member of the

United States military had such a record of communication with Azzam; and Abu-Jihaad

essentially admitted in recorded conversations to disclosing classified information during his

service in the Navy. These findings, in turn, were sufficient to support a finding beyond a

reasonable doubt that Abu-Jihaad was the person who communicated national defense

information pertaining to the 2001 transit plan for the Constellation battlegroup to persons

at Azzam in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(d). Accordingly, we conclude that Abu-Jihaad’s

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction is without merit.

E. CIPA Protective Orders

In his final challenge, Abu-Jihaad contends that the district court erred not only in
66

granting the government’s motions for protective orders pursuant to Section 4 of the

Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. app. 3, §§ 1-16, but also in

considering ex parte whether the classified materials – submitted and reviewed in camera –

were discoverable. The district court set forth its reasons for issuing the challenged orders

in two opinions. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 07 Cr. 57, 2008 WL 346121 (D.

Conn. Feb. 4, 2008); United States v. Abu-Jihaad, No. 07 Cr. 57, 2008 WL 596200 (D. Conn.

Feb. 22, 2008). Nevertheless, because neither Abu-Jihaad nor his counsel has had access to

the government’s submissions or the transcripts of the ex parte conferences, all of which

have been maintained under seal, defendant submits that he “is in no position to present

factual arguments that th[e] procedure [adopted by the district court] resulted in any

prejudice.” Appellant’s Br. at 63. His CIPA challenge can thus be understood as a general

request for this court to examine the sealed records and to assess the propriety of the district

court’s decision to grant protective orders.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to issue a protective order

pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA, including its determination whether evidence is helpful or

material to the defense and whether unclassified summaries or admissions are properly

substituted for classified information. See United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 131; United

States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 80 (2d Cir. 2008). We detect no such abuse here. 

CIPA, which establishes certain procedures for the handling of classified information

in criminal cases, is designed “to protect[] and restrict[] the discovery of classified
67

information in a way that does not impair the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” United States

v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 78 (alterations in original; internal quotation marks omitted); see also

United States v. Pappas, 94 F.3d 795, 799 (2d Cir. 1996) (observing that purpose of CIPA

is to “establish procedures to harmonize a defendant’s right to obtain and present exculpatory

material upon histrial and the government’s right to protect classified material in the national

interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)). CIPA defines “[c]lassified information” as

“any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government

pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against

unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.” 18 U.S.C. app. 3, § 1(a). In

regulating the discovery of such information, Section 4 of CIPA instructs as follows:

The court, upon a sufficient showing, may authorize the United States to delete

specified items of classified information from documents to be made available

to the defendant through discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, to substitute a summary of the information for such classified

documents, or to substitute a statement admitting relevant facts that the

classified information 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 following such an ex parte showing, the entire text of the

statement of the United States shall be sealed and preserved in the records of

the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

Id. app. 3, § 4. As we have recently observed, “[t]his section clarifies district courts’ power

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) to issue protective orders denying or

restricting discovery for good cause, which includes information vital to the national

security.” United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 130 (internal quotation marks omitted).
 Information that is helpful or material to the defense “need not rise to the level that 33

would trigger the Government’s obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),

to disclose exculpatory information.” United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 80 (citation

omitted); see also United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (observing that,

for purposes of CIPA, “information can be helpful without being ‘favorable’ in the Brady

sense”).

68

To be clear, CIPA does not confer on the government a privilege to refrain from

disclosing classified information; it merely presupposes one. See id. The privilege it

presupposes has its origins in the common-law privilege against disclosure of state secrets,

see id.; United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 78, which “allows the government to withhold

information from discovery when disclosure would be inimical to national security,”

Zuckerbraun v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544, 546 (2d Cir. 1991). Although

applicable in criminal cases, the state-secrets privilege must – under some circumstances –

“give way . . . to a criminal defendant’s right to present a meaningful defense.” United States

v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted). In determining when a

defendant’s right to present a defense displaces the state-secrets privilege, we apply the test

announced in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), asking first, “whether the

material in dispute is discoverable, and if so, whether the state-secrets privilege applies”; and

second, if the privilege applies, “whether the information is helpful or material to the

defense, i.e., useful to counter the government’s case or to bolster a defense,” United States

v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Roviaro). For 33

purposes of this test, the state-secrets privilege applies if “(1) there is a reasonable danger
 Since the district court’s challenged decisions in this case, we have held that 34

representations about the security risks posed by disclosure must be made by the “head of the

department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that

officer.” United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 80 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the

extent that was not done here, we conclude, as we have in other cases, that there would be

little gained by remanding the case solely to have the appropriate department head reassert

the state-secrets privilege. See id.; United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 132. This is not to

trivialize the need for a formal claim of privilege “lodged by the head of the [relevant]

department.” United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 80 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Indeed, “[w]e expect that, in light of the holding in Aref, we will not need to address this

issue in appeals from future prosecutions in which the state-secrets privilege is invoked as

the government is now well-informed of this obligation.” United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d

at 132.

69

that compulsion of the evidence will expose . . . matters which, in the interest of national

security, should not be divulged, and (2) the privilege is lodged by the head of the department

which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.” United

States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 80 (ellipsis in original; internal quotation marks omitted). 

1. The Government Adequately Established that the State-Secrets

Privilege Applies

Having carefully reviewed the classified materials that are the subject of the

challenged protective orders, we reach the same conclusion as the district court: that the

government has demonstrated a reasonable danger that disclosure would jeopardize national

security. Again, our discussion of the classified information is necessarily circumspect.

Nevertheless, we conclude that the affidavits submitted by government officials satisfactorily

identify specific facts that (a) render the materials here at issue classified and (b) support the

conclusion that disclosure of those materials would pose a risk to national security. 

34
 In United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d at 622, the D.C. Circuit employed a “relevant 35

and helpful” standard for determining whether classified information may be withheld under

CIPA. In explaining the standard, the court held that “classified information is not

discoverable on a mere showing of theoretical relevance,” but only where relevant

information “is at least helpful to the defense of the accused.” Id. (internal quotation marks

and brackets omitted).

 Insofar as the standard applied by the district court differed in any respect from that 36

announced in United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d at 80, we identify no material difference given

the facts of this case.

70

2. Abu-Jihaad Was Not Denied Information Helpful or Material to

His Defense

We further conclude that the challenged protective orders did not deny Abu-Jihaad

evidence that was either helpful or material to his defense. Although this court had not yet

issued its decision in United States v. Aref, at the time the district court considered this

question, that court did rely on a test, similar to that announced in Aref, identified by one of

our sister circuits. See United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 2008 WL 346121, at *3-4 (citing United

States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 622-25 (D.C. Cir. 1989)); United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 2008

WL 596200, at *1 (referring to standards governing discovery of classified information under

CIPA set forth in prior CIPA ruling). Applying that test, the district court concluded that 35

none of the materials at issue in the government’s first motion for a protective order were

discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.

150 (1972), or Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In particular, it noted 36

that (a) “[m]ost of the information ha[d] nothing whatsoever to do with any issue in th[e]

case or any criminal activity at all”; (b) none of the information could be deemed “helpful
71

or beneficial to the defense,” let alone exculpatory or impeaching; and (c) because AbuJihaad already had knowledge and/or possession of much of the information, its production

would have been duplicative. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 2008 WL 346121, at *5. 

While the district court concluded that four of the six categories of information at

issue in the government’s second motion for a protective order were either undiscoverable

or not “helpful or favorable to the defense,” it determined that the remaining two categories

contained discoverable information. United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 2008 WL 596200, at *2-4.

Nevertheless, because one of the categories was cumulative of information already provided

to Abu-Jihaad in the course of discovery, the district court determined that the government

had no obligation to disclose such information. See id. at *3. As for the second category,

the district court found the government’s disclosure obligation satisfied by its production of

various letters, FBI reports, and other discovery to the defense. See id. at *2-3. 

Upon our own in camera review of the underlying materials and the sealed records

preserved for appeal, including a detailed comparison of original discoverable documents

with the unclassified summaries approved by the district court, we conclude that the district

court’s rulings with respect to the discoverable nature of the classified materials and the

government’s compliance with any extant discovery obligations manifest no abuse of

discretion. Indeed, we commend the district court’s careful discharge of its CIPA

obligations, particularly its effective protection of Abu-Jihaad’s rights despite the defense’s

limited ability to participate in the CIPA proceedings. 
72

3. The District Court Properly Considered the Government’s Motions for

Protective Orders Ex Parte

Insofar as Abu-Jihaad faults the district court for entertaining the government’s

motions for protective orders ex parte, his argument is unconvincing. Abu-Jihaad does not

dispute that Section 4 of CIPA and Rule 16(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

both authorize ex parte proceedings. Accordingly, his contention that such submissions are

improper “[a]bsent a showing of exceptional circumstances,” Appellant’s Br. at 63, amounts

to a challenge to the district court’s exercise of discretion to proceed ex parte. The argument

fails in light of our decision in United States v. Aref, in which we recognized that where the

government moves to withhold classified information from the defense, “an adversary

hearing with defense knowledge would defeat the very purpose of the discovery rules.” 533

F.3d at 81 (internal quotation marks omitted). In such circumstances, a district court’s

decision to conduct ex parte hearings manifests no abuse of discretion. See id.; see also

United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d at 132 (identifying no error in district court’s ex parte, in

camera review of materials subject to CIPA motion because such a “method for protection

of classified material is necessary,” and CIPA procedures “have been established by

Congress and held to be constitutional”); United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d

1249, 1261 (9th Cir. 1998) (concluding that while “[e]x parte hearings are generally

disfavored,” in a case involving classified documents, “ex parte, in camera hearings in which

government counsel participates to the exclusion of defense counsel are part of the process

that the district court may use in order to decide the relevancy of the information”). 
73

In sum, because we conclude that the government’s submissions fully support the

district court’s entry of the challenged CIPA orders, that the district court acted well within

its discretion in reviewing those submissions ex parte and in camera, and that the orders did

not deny Abu-Jihaad any information helpful or material to his defense, we identify no basis

in CIPA for vacating the conviction.

III. Conclusion

To summarize, we conclude that:

1. Evidence obtained pursuant to FISA warrants was properly admitted into evidence

against defendant because FISA was not rendered unconstitutional by a PATRIOT Act

amendment that allows surveillance warrants to issue upon certification by the executive of

a “significant” rather than “primary” purpose to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Such a certification, together with FISA’s other requirements, strikes a reasonable balance

between the government’s interest in obtaining foreign intelligence information and the

protection of individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights. 

2. Inculpatory evidence obtained pursuant to FISA warrants was properly admitted into

evidence against defendant because all FISA requirements were complied with in this case,

and due process did not demand disclosure of FISA applications to defendant or an

adversarial hearing.

3. The district court acted within its discretion in admitting into evidence (a) recorded

telephone conversations from 2006 in which defendant participated, (b) excerpts of three
74

videos purchased from Azzam by defendant, and (c) other materials marketed and/or posted

on the Azzam websites in or around 2001.

4. The trial evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for disclosing

national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 793(d).

5. The district court acted within its discretion in granting government motions for

protective orders pursuant to Section 4 of CIPA.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.