Opinion ID: 4465383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Further Proceedings at the District Court

Text: The district court denied the motion to suppress in a text order dated February 20, 2015. The order stated that [a]n opinion [would] follow, but that the motion would be denied as to the fruits of the FAA surveillance, including the defendant's post-arrest statements. App'x at 16. The court noted that it would hold a conference and inquire of the government whether it intends to offer once again the charge bargain that was previously accepted by the 41 defendant, and whether it has considered the prospect of allowing the defendant to enter such a plea pursuant to Rule ll(a)(2), reserving his right to seek appellate review of [the district court's] denial of the motion to suppress evidence. Id. The parties prepared for trial, but Hasbajrami in due course again pleaded guilty, this time to a two-count Superseding Information, which charged him with providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists. According to the terms of the agreement, Hasbajrami: [A]gree[d] not to file an appeal or otherwise challenge ... the conviction or sentence in the event that the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of 180 months or below, with the sole and limit�d exception that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure ll(a)(2), the defendant may appeal the District Court's February 20, 2015 denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was obtained or derived from surveillance conducted pursuant to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881a et seq. App'x at 48. Hasbajrami also consented to his removal, after serving his sentence, from the United States. The district court sentenced H asbajrami to a term of 180 months' imprisonment on Count One and 12 months' imprisonment on Count Two, each to run consecutively. 42 On March 8, 2016 - more than one year after it denied the motion - the district court issued a redacted opinion on the public docket explaining its reasons for denying suppression. Hasbajrami requested that the full decision be released to his cleared defense counsel, so that he might better prepare his appeal. The court (Dora L. Irizarry, C./.)14 held that PISA required redaction and that Defendant's counsel are not entitled to view the Unredacted Opinion because releasing it would reveal classified foreign intelligence informatio n and circumvent FISA ....  United States v. Hasbajrami, l:11-cr-623, 2017 WL 3610595 at '3 (E.D.N.Y. April 6, 2017).