Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________________ ) AMMAR AL-BALUCHI ) a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-cv-2083 (PLF) ) JIM MATTIS, ) Secretary of Defense, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) RESPONDENTS’ UPDATED CROSS-MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE PENDING COMPLETION OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS Respondents respectfully move to hold Petitioner’s habeas petition in abeyance pending completion of his military commission proceedings. For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum, the Court should hold Petitioner’s habeas petition in abeyance so as to avoid interfering with his ongoing military commission and any subsequent appeals. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for Respondents conferred with Petitioner’s counsel in January 2018, during the parties’ discussion of their Joint Status Report (ECF No. 197). Petitioner opposes this motion. Dated: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General /s/ Kristina A. Wolfe TERRY M. HENRY Assistant Branch Director RONALD J. WILTSIE KRISTINA A. WOLFE Trial Attorneys Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 2 United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 353-4519 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: Kristina.Wolfe@usdoj.gov Counsel for Respondents 2 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________________ ) AMMAR AL-BALUCHI ) a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-cv-2083 (PLF) ) JIM MATTIS, ) Secretary of Defense, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) RESPONDENTS’ UPDATED MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION OR MANDAMUS WITH RESPECT TO HIS UNLAWFUL CAPITAL MILITARY COMMISSION AND CROSS-MOTION TO HOLD PETITION IN ABEYANCE PENDING COMPLETION OF MILITARY COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 2 I. The Military Commissions Act of 2009. ................................................................ 2 II. Petitioner’s Military Commission Proceedings.. .................................................... 7 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9 I. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider Petitioner’s Claims. ........................... 9 II. The Court Should Abstain From Considering The Claims In Petitioner’s Updated Motion To Enjoin His Military Commission. ........................................ 12 III. A. Principles of Councilman Abstention. ...................................................... 14 B. In re al-Nashiri II: Application of Councilman to Military Commissions Convened under the MCA. ................................................ 16 C. In re al-Nashiri II Requires Abstention Here. .......................................... 19 Petitioner’s Claims Do Not Constitute An “Extraordinary Circumstance” Warranting An Exception From Abstention. ........................................................ 21 A. An Exception to Abstention is Not Warranted Because Petitioner Does Not Raise A Substantial Argument That He Has A Right Not To Be Tried. .............................................................................................. 22 1. Petitioner’s cruel and unusual punishment claims do not provide a right not to be tried. ....................................................... 26 2. Petitioner has not alleged a colorable double jeopardy claim. ............................................................................................. 29 3. Petitioner’s allegations of outrageous government conduct do not provide him with a right not to be tried. ............................ 31 4. Proceedings involving capital charges are not evaluated differently under Councilman and In re al-Nashiri II. ................. 35 IV. Because Abstention Is Warranted, It Is Unnecessary For The Court To Determine If Petitioner Has Satisfied The Permanent Injunction And Mandamus Requirements...................................................................................... 38 V. The Court Should Stay Or Hold In Abeyance Petitioner’s Habeas Petition Pending Completion Of Petitioner’s Military Commission Proceedings. ............ 40 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 44 ii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 57 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 10 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) .................................................................................................................. 21 Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987)................................................................................................. 43 al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 26, 27 al Odah v. Bush, 593 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2009) ......................................................................... 16, 40, 41, 43 Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 7 Al-Madhwani v. Obama, 642 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 26 Al-Nashiri v. Obama, 76 F. Supp. 3d 218 (D.D.C. 2014) ...................................................................................... 16, 40 Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, No. 11-5907, 2012 WL 1642306 *11 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2012) ................................. 16, 21 Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 9-10 Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 27 Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757 (D.D.C. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 26 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) .................................................................................................................. 27 Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) .............................................................................................................. 9, 26 iii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 57 Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975) .................................................................................................................. 29 Brown v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 715 F.3d 662 (D.C. Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................. 43 Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376 (1986) .................................................................................................................. 14 Catholic Comm’n for Justice for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney-General, 1 Zimb. L.R. 239 (1993) (S. Ct. of Zimbabwe) ........................................................................ 36 Ceja v. Stewart, 134 F.3d 1368 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 36 City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290 (2013) .................................................................................................................. 25 Cort v. Ash, 442 U.S. 66 (1975) .................................................................................................................... 28 Creek v. Stone, 379 F.2d 106 (D.C. Cir. 1967) .................................................................................................. 10 Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863 (1994) .................................................................................................................. 22 Doe v. Rumsfeld, 683 F.3d 390 (D.C. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 28 Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 65 (1857) ...................................................................................................................... 23 eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 39 Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) .................................................................................................................... 2, 3 Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886) .................................................................................................................. 13 Fosier v. Kassulke, 898 F.2d 1144 (6th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 36 iv Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 57 Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002) .................................................................................................................. 36 Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) .................................................................................................................. 34 Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) .................................................................................................................. 36 Greene v. United States, 454 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1971) .................................................................................................... 33 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) .................................................................................................................. 36 Gusick v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128 (1950) .................................................................................................................. 13 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 344 F. Supp. 2d 152 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Hamdan I”) rev’d, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005) rev’d and remanded, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) .............................................................................. 10 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (“Hamdan II”) ............................................................................... 3, 23, 24 Hamdan v. Gates, 565 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Hamdan III”) ......................................................... 17, 38 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) .................................................................................................................... 2 Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484 (1976) .................................................................................................................. 32 Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500 (1979) .................................................................................................................. 21 Hennis v. Hemlick, 666 F.3d 270 (4th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 35, 37 Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219 (1914) .................................................................................................................. 12 Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) .................................................................................................................. 20 v Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 57 In re Iraq & Afghanistan Detainees, Litig., 479 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................................ 26 In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890) .................................................................................................................. 36 In re al Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir. 2015), (“In re al-Nashiri I”) ........................................................ 3, 6, 11 In re al Nashiri, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied, 138 S. Ct. 354 (Mem. ) (“In re al-Nashiri II”)............................................... passim In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890) .................................................................................................................. 36 Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) .................................................................................................................. 27 Jawad v. Gates, 113 F. Supp. 3d 251 (D.D.C. 2015) aff’d 832 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied, 137 S. Ct. 2115 (May 15, 2017) ............................................................................ 28 Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) .................................................................................................................. 36 Kent v. Reid, 316 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir. 1963) .................................................................................................. 14 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) .................................................................................................................. 34 Keyes v. United States, 109 U.S. 336 (1883) .................................................................................................................. 23 Khadr v. Bush, 587 F. Supp. 2d 225 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Khadr I”) .......................................................... 17, 40, 42 Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Khadr II”) ..................................................................... 39, 41 Khadr v. Obama, 724 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2010) (“Khadr III”).......................................................... 17, 40, 43 vi Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 57 Kiyemba v. Obama, 561 F.3d 509 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Kiyemba II”) ......................................................................... 26 Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2009), vacated and remanded, 559 U.S. 313 (2010), reinstated in relevant part, 605 F.3d 1046 (D.C. Cir. 2010) cert denied, 563 U.S. 954 (2011) .............................................................................................. 26 Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999) .................................................................................................................. 37 Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117 (1975) ........................................................................................................... 21, 22 Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) ................................................................................................................ 36 Latif v. Obama, 677 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 27 Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 22 Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................... 34 McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49 (1902) .................................................................................................................... 23 McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281 (1960) .................................................................................................................. 23 McKennzie v. Day, 57 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................................... 36 Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (1989) .................................................................................................................. 21 Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 785 F.3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 39 Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008) ............................................................................................................ 14, 41 vii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 57 Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 896 F. Supp. 577 (E.D. Va. 1995) ...................................................................................... 29, 30 Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 31 People v. Anderson, 493 P.2d 880 (Cal. 1972) .......................................................................................................... 36 Pratt v. Attorney-General for Jamaica, 2 A.C. 1, 1993 WL 963003 (P.C. Nov. 2, 1993) ...................................................................... 36 Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 10 Prunte v. Universal Music Grp., 484 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................................ 28 Rasul v. Meyers, 563 F.3d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 26, 27 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) ...................................................................................................................... 23 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) .................................................................................................................. 37 Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (1984) .................................................................................................................. 29 Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21 (1943) ............................................................................................................... 11-12 Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) .................................................................................................................. 32 Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543 (1887) .................................................................................................................. 23 Salahi v. Obama, No. 05-0569, 2015 WL 9216557 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2015)........................................................ 26 Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975) ........................................................................................................... passim viii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 57 Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) ............................................................................................................ 14, 40 Sher Singh v. Punjab, 2 C.S.R. 582 (India) (Mar. 24, 1983) ........................................................................................ 36 Smith v. Arizona, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 36 Soering v. United Kingdom, 339 U.S. 9 (1950) ...................................................................................................................... 36 Solesbee v. Balkcom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser.A) (1989)............................................................................................... 36 Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997) .................................................................................................................. 25 Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................................... 1, 11, 19 Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) .................................................................................................................. 27 Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 40 Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) .................................................................................................................... 36 United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1975)........................................................................................................ 34 United States ex rel. Stevens v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, 675 F.2d 946 (7th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 30 United States ex rel Toth v. Quarels, 350 U.S. 11 (1955) .................................................................................................................... 23 United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992) .................................................................................................................. 34 United States v. Andrews, 146 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 29 ix Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 57 United States v. Awadallah, 202 F. Supp. 2d 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)......................................................................................... 34 United States v. Best, 304 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2002)...................................................................................................... 34 United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11 (3d Cir. 1983)........................................................................................................ 33 United States v. Bogart, 783 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................. 32 United States v. Boone, 437 F.3d 829 (8th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 32 United States v. Burns, 1 C.S.CR. 283 (Can. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 37 United States v. Cordero, 668 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1981) ....................................................................................................... 34 United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 34 United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................ 34 United States v. Dean, 43 C.M.R. 52 (C.M.A. 1970) .................................................................................................... 23 United States v. Fulton, 55 M.J. 88 (C.A.A.F. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 31 United States v. Gaspard, 35 M.J. 678 (A.C.M.R. 1992) ................................................................................................... 23 United States v. Grisanti, 4 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 1993) ......................................................................................................... 30 Untied States v. Gutierrez, 343 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 32 United States v. Haas, 141 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 33 x Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 57 United States v. Harnish, 31 C.M.R. 29 (C.M.A. 1961) .................................................................................................... 23 United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850 (1978) .................................................................................................................. 21 United States v. Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 34 United States v. Padilla, No. 04-60001, 2007 WL 1079090 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2007) ..................................................... 33 United States v. Pemberton, 853 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................... 32 United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862 (5th Cir. 1979) .................................................................................................... 34 United States v. Robinson, 33 C.M.R. 206 (C.M.A. 1963) .................................................................................................. 23 United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 32 United States v. Ryan, 5 M.J. 97 (C.M.A. 1978)........................................................................................................... 23 United States v. Sullivan, No. 201400071, 2014 WL 2434710 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 29, 2014) ............................. 23 United States v. Torres, 115 F.3d 1033 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................... 26-27 United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974)...................................................................................................... 34 United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978)...................................................................................................... 33 United States v. Umeh, 527 Fed. App’x. 57 (2d Cir. 2013)............................................................................................ 34 United States v. Warneke, 199 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 30 xi Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 57 United States v. White, 45 C.M.R. 357 (C.M.A. 1972) .................................................................................................. 23 United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ................................................................................................ 34 United States v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011) .................................................................................................... 31 Valle v. Florida, 132 S. Ct. 1 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 36 Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 41 Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) .................................................................................................................. 36 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) ............................................................................................................. passim Statutes 10 U.S.C. § 813 ............................................................................................................................. 31 10 U.S.C. § 844 ....................................................................................................................... 30, 31 10 U.S.C. § 948a(1) ........................................................................................................................ 4 10 U.S.C. § 948a(7) ........................................................................................................................ 4 10 U.S.C. §§ 948b(a)-(b) ................................................................................................................ 3 10 U.S.C. § 948d ....................................................................................................................... 5, 20 10 U.S.C. § 948h ............................................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 948i(a) ......................................................................................................................... 4 10 U.S.C. §§ 948j(a) & (b) ............................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 948k ............................................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 948m(a) ....................................................................................................................... 6 10 U.S.C. § 948q ............................................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 948r(a) ......................................................................................................................... 5 10 U.S.C. § 949a ............................................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(B) .............................................................................................................. 5 10 U.S.C. § 949a(b)(2)(C)(ii) .................................................................................................... 4, 6 10 U.S.C. § 949c ............................................................................................................................. 4 10 U.S.C. § 949f(a) ......................................................................................................................... 4 10 U.S.C. § 949h ........................................................................................................................... 30 10 U.S.C. § 949l(c)(1)..................................................................................................................... 5 10 U.S.C. § 949m(b)(2)(C) ............................................................................................................. 7 10 U.S.C. §§ 949m(b)(2)(A), (C)-(D)............................................................................................. 7 10 U.S. C. § 949m(c) ...................................................................................................................... 6 xii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 57 10 U.S.C. § 949s ........................................................................................................................... 28 10 U.S.C. § 950b ............................................................................................................................. 5 10 U.S.C. § 950b(c) ........................................................................................................................ 5 10 U.S.C. § 950c ............................................................................................................................. 5 10 U.S.C. § 950c(b)(1).................................................................................................................... 7 10 U.S.C. § 950f ............................................................................................................................. 5 10 U.S.C. § 950g ............................................................................................................... 11, 20, 38 10 U.S.C. §§ 950g(a), (c) ................................................................................................................ 6 10 U.S.C. § 950g(d) ........................................................................................................................ 6 10 U.S.C. § 950g(e) ........................................................................................................................ 6 10 U.S.C. § 950i(b)-(c) ................................................................................................................... 7 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2).............................................................................................................. 1, 11 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd(d) .................................................................................................................. 28 Pub. L. No. 107-40 § 2(a) ............................................................................................................... 7 Pub. L. No. 109-366........................................................................................................................ 3 Pub. L. No. 111-84.......................................................................................................................... 1 Pub. L. No. 112-81 § 1021(a), (b)(2) .............................................................................................. 7 Other Authorities R.M.C. 201(b) ........................................................................................................................... 5, 20 R.M.C. 401...................................................................................................................................... 4 R.M.C. 406...................................................................................................................................... 4 R.M.C. 601...................................................................................................................................... 4 R.M.C. 905...................................................................................................................................... 5 R.M.C. 905(b) ........................................................................................................................... 5, 20 R.M.C. 907(b) ................................................................................................................................. 5 R.M.C. 907(b)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 20 R.M.C. 1004(b)(3) .......................................................................................................................... 6 R.M.C. 1004(b)(4)(A), (C) ............................................................................................................. 7 R.M.C. 1004(d) ............................................................................................................................... 6 xiii Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 57 INTRODUCTION Petitioner attempts to circumvent Supreme Court and Circuit precedent and invoke this Court’s habeas jurisdiction to collaterally attack his military commission. But Petitioner does not explain how his claims – that any military commission that has the power to sentence him to death is ultra vires and must be enjoined for lack of jurisdiction, and that the charges against him should be dismissed as a remedy for alleged government misconduct – challenge any aspect of his confinement or the fact of his detention. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the permanent injunction Petitioner seeks. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2). This Court also lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s motion because the Military Commissions Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-84, 123 Stat. 2190 (codified at §§ 948a et seq.) (“2009 MCA” or “MCA”), channels challenges to military commission proceedings to the D.C. Circuit. See Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr. v. F.C.C., 750 F.2d 70, 74-77 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Moreover, even if the Court were to determine it has jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims, the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in In re al-Nashiri, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied 138 S. Ct. 354 (Mem.) (2017) (“In re al-Nashiri II”), instructs this Court to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction pursuant to the principles first announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and reiterated in Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975). See In re al-Nashiri, 835 F.3d at 118-135. In In re al-Nashiri II, the D.C. Circuit determined that the integrated military commission-Article III system Congress created to try Guantanamo detainees for alleged violations of the laws of war – and then to consider any resulting appeals – is fully adequate to protect an accused’s rights without interference from a habeas court while the proceedings are ongoing. Id. at 122-23. The Court of Appeals explained that Congress had an important interest, grounded in national security concerns, in delaying any Article III 1 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 57 review of any asserted commission errors until a detainee’s appeal as of right to that Court; an interest sufficient to compel a habeas court to abstain from interfering in ongoing commission proceedings. Id. at 124-26. Accordingly, this Court should decline Petitioner’s invitation to elude this precedent; it should reject the claims raised in Petitioner’s motion for lack of jurisdiction or abstain from considering the merits of those claims. Petitioner may raise his claims in his military commission where they will be subject to robust adversarial proceedings that, if Petitioner is convicted, will culminate in Article III review in the Court of Appeals. This precedent also instructs that the Court should grant Respondents’ cross-motion to hold Petitioner’s habeas petition in abeyance pending completion of those proceedings.1 BACKGROUND I. The Military Commissions Act of 2009. It is well established that the “capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by ‘universal agreement and practice,’ are ‘important incident[s] of war.’” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion) (quoting Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28 (1942)). The Supreme Court has long recognized not only the authority to hold belligerents for the duration of ongoing hostilities, but also the established “practice of trying, before military tribunals without a jury, offenses committed by enemy belligerents against the law of war.” Quirin, 317 U.S. at 41; accord In re al Nashiri, 835 F.3d at 124. An “important incident to the conduct of war is the adoption of measures by the military command not only to repel and defeat the enemy, but to seize and subject to disciplinary measures those enemies who in their attempt to thwart or impede our 1 Petitioner has requested oral argument. Respondents believe that oral argument is not necessary to resolve Petitioner’s motion given the D.C. Circuit’s clear mandate in In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016). 2 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 57 military effort have violated the law of war.” Quirin, 317 U.S. at 28-29. As the Supreme Court explained, “[u]nlawful combatants are . . . subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.” Id. at 31; see also id. at 29 (asking whether it is “within the constitutional power of the national government to place petitioners upon trial before a military commission” and concluding that it is). Congress has invoked this well-settled power through the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which superseded but substantially re-enacted the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (“2006 MCA”). Both of these Acts were “the product of an extended dialogue among the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court.” In re al-Nashiri, 791 F.3d 71, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“In re al-Nashiri I”). The Supreme Court first decided that the initial military commissions established by the Executive to try Guantanamo detainees for violations of the laws of war exceeded the authority that Congress had granted the President. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 114. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to find them adequate to protect detainee rights. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 613, 620-28 (2006) (“Hamdan II”). In so doing, the Court invited the President to seek authorization from Congress for a follow-on system. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 114-15. The President accepted that invitation, and four months after Hamdan II, Congress passed the 2006 MCA. Id. at 115. The 2009 MCA followed. Id. Through the MCA, Congress authorized the President to establish military commissions to try alien unprivileged enemy belligerents for violations of the laws of war and other offenses triable by military commission. 10 U.S.C. § 948b(a)-(b). The MCA defines “unprivileged enemy belligerent” as an individual (other than someone qualifying under the Geneva Conventions as a prisoner of war) who: “(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition 3 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 57 partners; (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (C) was part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense.” Id. § 948a(7). An “alien” is “an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.” Id. § 948a(1). When the Government seeks to try an individual before a military commission convened under the MCA, the first step is the “swearing” of charges and specifications against the individual by a member of the armed forces having knowledge or reason to believe that the matters alleged are true. 10 U.S.C. § 948q. Upon receipt of the charges, the Secretary of Defense or his designee— known as the Convening Authority—considers the charges and supporting evidence provided by the prosecution, and decides the proper disposition of the charges. See id. § 948h. Only when the Convening Authority receives written advice from his legal advisor, and thereafter independently concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe an offense triable by military commission has been committed by the accused, may the Convening Authority refer the charges and specifications to trial by a military commission. See Rules for Military Commissions (“R.M.C.”) 401, 406, 601.2 Once charges are referred, the resulting military commission is presided over by a detailed military judge, who must be a commissioned officer qualified to be a military judge of general courts-martial, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948j(a) & (b), and is composed of at least five commissioned officers of the armed forces. Id. § 948i(a). The MCA provides a panoply of procedural protections to ensure the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, including, for example: the right to have military defense counsel appointed, 10 U.S.C. § 948k; the right to retain private counsel, id. §§ 949a(b)(2)(C)(ii); 949c; the right to an impartial judge and trier of fact, see id. § 949f(a) (allowing the accused to challenge for cause the 2 Rules of procedure for military commissions are set forth in the Rules for Military Commissions, Part II of the Manual for Military Commissions (2016 rev. ed.) (published pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 949a), http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/2016_Manual_for_Military_Commissions.pdf 4 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 18 of 57 military judge and the members of the military commission); the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, id. § 949l(c)(1); the right to be present during trial, id. § 949a(b)(2)(B); and rights to discovery, to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and to call witnesses, id. § 949j. Furthermore, statements found to be “obtained by the use of torture or by cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” are expressly excluded as evidence. Id. § 948r(a). Defendants may also directly challenge the military commission’s jurisdiction at any time during the proceedings. See 10 U.S.C. § 948d (“A military commission is a competent tribunal to make a finding sufficient for jurisdiction.”); R.M.C. 201(b) (“A military commission always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction.”); R.M.C. 907(b)(1) (providing for motion to dismiss “at any stage of the proceedings” when the “military commission lacks jurisdiction to try the accused for the offense” and that such grounds are “[n]onwaivable”). Defendants are also permitted to present pretrial motions regarding “[a]ny defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue of guilt.” R.M.C. 905(b). If convicted, a defendant may invoke an extensive appellate-review process. First, any conviction and resulting sentence is subject to review by the Convening Authority. See generally 10 U.S.C. § 950b. The Convening Authority has the discretion to dismiss any charge on which an accused was found guilty; to change a finding of guilt on a charge to a conviction of a lesser included offense; and to approve, disapprove, suspend, or commute (but not enhance) the sentence in whole or in part. Id. § 950b(c). Thereafter, cases are automatically referred, absent an express waiver by the accused (an appeal from a sentence imposing the death penalty may not be waived, see infra at 6-7), for review by a panel of no fewer than three judges of the United States Court of Military Commission Review (“USCMCR”). Id. §§ 950c, 950f. The USCMCR may affirm only those verdicts of guilt and the resulting sentences that it “finds correct in law and fact . . . on the 5 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 19 of 57 basis of the entire record,” and in doing so is authorized to “weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact . . . .” Id. § 950f(d). Most importantly, after review by the USCMCR, an accused who has been found guilty of any offense may appeal as of right to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”), to which Congress has extended “exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment rendered by a military commission (as approved by the [C]onvening [A]uthority and, where applicable, . . . the [USCMCR]).” Id. § 950g(a), (c) (emphasis added). The scope of the D.C Circuit’s review encompasses all “matters of law, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.” Id. § 950g(d). Beyond the D.C. Circuit, review is available in the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. Id. § 950g(e). The USCMCR and the D.C. Circuit also exercise mandamus jurisdiction in appropriate cases. See USCMCR Rules of Practice 22(a)(2016); In re al-Nashiri I, 791 F.3d at 75. Defendants charged with capital offenses receive additional procedural protections under the MCA. For example, capital defendants are entitled, to the extent practicable, to the assistance of additional counsel learned in the law relating to capital cases, id. § 949a(b)(2)(C)(ii), and the accused is given “broad latitude to present evidence in extenuation and mitigation” during the sentencing phase of the proceedings, R.M.C. 1004(b)(3). Further, a capital military commission is, in all but extraordinary circumstances, composed of no fewer than twelve commissioned officers of the armed forces. 10 U.S.C. §§ 948m(a), 949m(c). Although death is an authorized punishment in a capital military commission, all other punishments authorized under the Rules for Military Commissions for capital offenses, including “confinement for life, may be adjudged in lieu of the death penalty.” R.M.C. 1004(d). A sentence of death may not be adjudged unless all twelve commissioned officers (1) find the accused guilty of the capital offense, see 10 U.S.C. 6 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 20 of 57 §§ 949m(b)(2)(A), (C)-(D); (2) find that at least one aggravating factor exists, R.M.C. 1004(b)(4)(A); (3) concur that any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by any aggravating circumstances, id. 1004(b)(4)(C); and (4) concur in imposing a death sentence, see 10 U.S.C. § 949m(b)(2)(C). Should a defendant be found guilty of a capital offense and sentenced to death, appellate review by the USCMCR of the capital conviction and death sentence is not waivable. 10 U.S.C. § 950c(b)(1). Further, a death sentence may not be carried out until the President has approved the sentence and a final judgment regarding the legality of the commission proceedings has been rendered. Id. §§ 950i(b)-(c). In reviewing the death sentence, the President may “commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, as he sees fit.” Id. § 950i(b). II. Petitioner’s Military Commission Proceedings. Petitioner is a Pakistani national currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,3 and is facing charges before a military commission convened pursuant to the MCA. The charges pending against Petitioner, which include the capital offense of murder in violation of the law of war, were sworn on May 31, 2011, and supplemented on January 25, 2012, and relate to his alleged role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of approximately 3,000 people. See United States v. Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, et al., Charge Sheet, as amended by Convening Authority for referral (attached as Exhibit A). Similar to the allegations set forth in the Factual Return, the charge sheet alleges Petitioner provided financial and other support to three of the 3 Petitioner is detained pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, as informed by the law of war, which permits the United States to detain persons who were part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, Taliban, or associated forces. Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001); see also National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, § 1021(a), (b)(2), 125 Stat. 1298, 1562; Al-Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Petitioner challenged the legality of his detention in his petition in this habeas action. 7 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 21 of 57 September 11, 2001, hijackers by transferring money to them on at least six separate occasions from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, after the hijackers arrived in the United States. Compare Ex. A. ¶¶ 33-35, 41, 51, 53, 56, 59, 62 with Resp’ts’ Factual Return (ECF No. 91, Dec. 17, 2009), ¶¶ 37-39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50. The Convening Authority referred the sworn charges, as supplemented, to the military commission on April 4, 2012, with directions that Petitioner be tried with four co-defendants: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. See Ex. A. In the more than five-and-a-half years since the charges against Petitioner were referred to a military commission there have been extensive pretrial proceedings.4 Petitioner and his four codefendants have filed more than five hundred procedural and substantive motions, including motions challenging the military commission’s jurisdiction or otherwise seeking dismissal;5 the government has filed more than fifty motions; and the military judge presiding over the commission has held one hundred seventeen days of hearings and issued more than fifteen hundred rulings and orders. The government has also produced more than 400,000 pages of discovery. Petitioner asks this Court to enjoin his military commission on grounds not previously raised before that tribunal. Petitioner first contends that his military commission is ultra vires and 4 To view the docket for Petitioner’s military commission proceedings, open http://www.mc.mil/ CASES/MilitaryCommissions.aspx in a web browser and click the link on that page labeled 9/11: Khalid Shaikh Mohammad et al. (2). 5 See, e.g., AE 031 (moving to dismiss on grounds of unlawful influence by governmental officials); AE 091 (arguing that the MCA unconstitutionally requires the Convening Authority to act as both prosecutor and judge); AE 104 (contending that Congress exceeded its authority under the Define and Punish Clause when it enacted the MCA); AE 105 (arguing that the MCA violates the Appointments Clause); AE 106 (arguing that the MCA violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause); AE 107 (asserting the commission lacks jurisdiction because the Government failed to demonstrate that the charges were crimes under the law of war at the time the alleged conduct occurred); AE 502 (moving to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on grounds unrelated to those Petitioner advances here). 8 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 22 of 57 thus without jurisdiction because it subjects him to the possibility of execution allegedly in violation of the prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment embodied in the Detainee Treatment Act (“DTA”), the MCA, and the Fifth and Eighth Amendments. See Pet’r Updated Motion for Permanent Injunction or Mandamus with Respect to Unlawful Trial by Capital Military Commission, ECF Notice No. 200 (Mar. 26, 2018) (hereafter “Pet’r Mem.”), at 9-24. Second, Petitioner argues that execution would subject him to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy component of the MCA, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”), and the Fifth Amendment. See id. at 26-29. Finally, Petitioner asserts that the Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction and enjoin his military commission as a remedy for alleged government misconduct. See id. at 24-25. For the reasons discussed below, the Court should reject Petitioner’s claims for lack of jurisdiction or should abstain from considering his claims, and, in all events, should hold his habeas petition in abeyance pending completion of his military commission proceedings. ARGUMENT I. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Consider Petitioner’s Claims. This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner’s motion to enjoin his military commission for either or two separate reasons. First, although Boumediene v. Bush struck down Congress’s attempt to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts to entertain habeas petitions from individuals detained at Guantanamo, 553 U.S. 723, 792 (2008) (holding 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1) unconstitutional), the D.C. Circuit has held that the companion jurisdiction-removal provision, section 2241(e)(2), continues in force, Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez, 669 F.3d 315, 319 9 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 23 of 57 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Through that companion provision, Congress expressly withdrew jurisdiction from the federal courts to consider other, non-habeas types of detainee claims.6 Consequently, in evaluating Petitioner’s challenges to his military commission, the relevant inquiry is whether those “claims [are] the sort that may be raised in a federal habeas petition under [28 U.S.C.] section 2241.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1030 (D.C. Cir. 2014). In making that inquiry, challenges to the fact or duration of detention “lie at the heart of habeas corpus.” Id. at 1030 (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). In this Circuit, habeas also extends to claims challenging conditions of confinement, id. at 1032, and “is available not only to an applicant who claims he is entitled to be freed of all restraints, but also to an applicant who protests his confinement in a certain place, or under certain conditions, that he claims vitiate the justification for confinement,” Creek v. Stone, 379 F.2d 106, 109 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (per curiam). But as Petitioner himself acknowledges, see Pet’r Mem. at 30 (“The fact that [Petitioner’s requested] relief does not necessarily affect [his] continued custody is no bar to this form of relief in a habeas corpus case.”), the relief he seeks in his motion for a permanent injunction does not go to any aspect of his confinement, nor does he allege that his confinement will change in place, character, condition, or duration if the relief he seeks is granted. Contrast Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 344 F. Supp. 2d 152, 173 (D.D.C. 2004) (“Hamdan I”) (pre-section 2241 case ordering that the petitioner not be tried before pre-MCA military commission and that he be “released from the preCommission detention wing of Camp Delta [at Guantanamo] and returned to the general 6 Section 2241(e)(2) provides, in pertinent part: [N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the United States or its agents relating to any aspect of detention, transfer [or] trial . . . of an alien who is or was detained by the United States and has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such a determination. 10 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 24 of 57 population” of detainees “unless some reason other than the pending charges against him requires different treatment”); rev’d, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005), rev’d and remanded, 548 U.S. 557 (2006). Rather, each of Petitioner’s claims simply challenge only an “aspect of [his] . . . trial[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(2), and are thus barred by section 2241(e)(2). Jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims is also barred in this Court because the MCA vests exclusive jurisdiction over review of military commission proceedings in the D.C. Circuit. 10 U.S.C. § 950g (vesting D.C. Circuit with “exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of a final judgment rendered by a military commission”). Under Circuit precedent, the grant of exclusive jurisdiction deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider not only the merits of any appeal from Petitioner’s military commission, but also any matters or issues that might pertain to those future appeals. See Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr., 750 F.2d at 77 (“By lodging review of agency action in the Court of Appeals, Congress manifested an intent that the appellate court exercise sole jurisdiction over the class of claims covered by the statutory grant of review power.”); id. at 74-79 (request for relief in district court that might affect Court of Appeals’ future, exclusive jurisdiction is subject to the exclusive review of the Court of Appeals); cf. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 125 (“[B]y providing for Article III involvement at a particular point, Congress [has] ‘implicitly’ signal[ed] that Article III courts should get involved no sooner.”). Because the MCA channels review of all questions concerning the validity of Petitioner’s military commission (and any resulting judgment) to the D.C. Circuit, if any Article III court were to have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims, it would be the D.C. Circuit on mandamus in relation to its exclusive jurisdiction over military commission matters. See In re al-Nashiri I, 791 F.3d at 76 (“[W]e can issue a writ of mandamus now to protect the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction [over military commission matters] later”); id. (citing Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 11 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 25 of 57 21, 25 (1943) (“[An appellate court’s mandamus jurisdiction] extends to those cases which are within its appellate jurisdiction although no appeal has been perfected. Otherwise the appellate jurisdiction could be defeated . . . by unauthorized action of the district court obstructing the appeal”)). For these reasons, the claims raised in Petitioner’s motion to enjoin his military commission are outside the habeas jurisdiction of this Court and should be rejected. II. The Court Should Abstain From Considering The Claims In Petitioner’s Updated Motion To Enjoin His Military Commission. Even if the Court were to determine that it had jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s constitutional and statutory claims challenging his military commission, it should abstain from exercising that jurisdiction. Habeas is not a substitute for pretrial motions or appeal. As the Supreme Court stated over a century ago, habeas jurisdiction typically should await completion of the normal criminal adjudication process, namely indictment, pretrial motions, trial, and appeal: [T]he hearing on habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error, nor is it intended as a substitute for the functions of the trial court. Manifestly, this is true as to disputed questions of fact, and it is equally so as to disputed matters of law, whether they relate to the sufficiency of the indictment or the validity of the statute on which the charge is based. These and all other controverted matters of law and fact are for the determination of the trial court. If the objections are sustained or if the defendant is acquitted, he will be discharged. If they are overruled and he is convicted, he has his right of review . . . . He cannot . . . anticipate the regular course of proceeding[s] by alleging a want of jurisdiction, and demanding a ruling thereon in habeas corpus proceedings. Henry v. Henkel, 235 U.S. 219, 229 (1914) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The D.C. Circuit recently reiterated this principle when it affirmed the abeyance of a Guantanamo detainee’s original and supplemental habeas petitions: “[F]ederal courts routinely decline to allow claims that can be raised in pretrial motions and addressed on direct appeal to instead be raised via pretrial 12 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 26 of 57 habeas petition, whether trial is set to take place in federal court, state court, or a court-martial.” In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 130 n.8. This well-settled principle is given effect in two lines of cases. First, federal courts require criminal defendants to exhaust all remedies available in a coordinate judicial system prior to entertaining a petition in habeas. See, e.g., Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 252 (1886) (state courts); Gusick v. Schilder, 340 U.S. 128, 151-53 (1950) (courts-martial). And second, federal courts abstain from interfering in ongoing criminal matters pending in coordinate judicial systems. See, e.g., Younger, 401 U.S. at 44 (state courts); Councilman, 420 U.S. at 758 (courts-martial). The D.C. Circuit recently applied these abstention principles to military commissions convened under the MCA. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 122-128. Those abstention principles and precedent are dispositive here. Together, they instruct the Court to respect the coordinate judicial system established by Congress to try alien unprivileged enemy belligerents – a system that the D.C. Circuit has determined adequately protects an accused’s rights and for which there exists a compelling interest to allow the system to do so, free from premature interference by the federal courts, “anxious though [they] may be to vindicate and protect [those] rights,” Younger, 401 U.S. at 44. See In re al-Nashiri, 835 F.3d at 124-28. Petitioner disregards these principles and precedent and attempts to invoke this Court’s habeas jurisdiction to challenge the jurisdiction of his military commission on grounds not previously presented to the military commission. He also seeks dismissal of his charges as a remedy for alleged government misconduct – relief that Petitioner also has not sought in that forum. By presenting these claims here and now, Petitioner is circumventing the congressionally mandated adjudicatory process, which includes presenting jurisdictional questions to the military commission in the first instance and, if convicted, post-conviction review culminating in the D.C. 13 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 27 of 57 Circuit. Petitioner offers no reason to believe that this integrated system of military commission trial and, ultimately, Article III review is anything less than fully capable of vindicating his rights. Abstention, therefore, is appropriate, and the Court should decline Petitioner’s invitation to interfere with his ongoing military commission. The legal issues Petitioner raises here may and should be raised in the first instance in the commission proceedings. Cf. Cabana v. Bullock, 474 U.S. 376, 390-92 (1986) (concluding that federal courts should “take steps to require [a] State’s own judicial system[,]” in the first instance, to protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants). To the extent Petitioner disagrees with the results in that forum, his proper path lies not today in this Court but rather in the appellate court designated for consideration of military commission issues. See Kent v. Reid, 316 F.2d 331, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (holding that even a question of personal jurisdiction over a criminal defendant is not a proper subject for preconviction habeas but rather should be left to the “ordinary processes of law administration,” namely pretrial motions, trial, and post-judgment appeal); see also In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 123 (noting ability of Guantanamo detainee to fully vindicate his rights, if not before his military commission, then before the Convening Authority, the USCMCR, and ultimately the D.C. Circuit). A. Principles of Councilman Abstention. Habeas “is, at is core, an equitable remedy.” Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995). Consequently, even if this Court were to determine that it has equitable jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims, the question of whether the Court should exercise that jurisdiction would remain. See Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (“‘prudential concerns’ . . . such as comity and the orderly administration of criminal justice, may ‘require a federal court to forgo the exercise of its habeas corpus power.’”) (citations omitted). That question is concerned “not with whether the claims falls within the limited jurisdiction conferred on the federal courts, but with whether 14 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 28 of 57 consistently with the principles governing equitable relief the court may exercise its remedial powers.” Councilman, 420 U.S. at 754. In Councilman, the Supreme Court addressed that question in the context of a suit in which a district court had enjoined a court-martial that was to try an active-duty officer, the district court having credited the officer’s then-constitutionally-based claim that the court-martial lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the charges against him. 420 U.S. at 739-42. Four years earlier, in Younger, the Supreme Court had announced the rule that federal courts generally should not interfere in state prosecutions, even to vindicate federal rights, grounding that decision implicitly (if not explicitly) on the state courts’ adequacy to consider and duty to enforce those rights. 401 U.S. at 49-54. Extending Younger to courts-martial, the Supreme Court reversed the injunction in Councilman, holding that “the balance of factors governing exercise of equitable jurisdiction by federal courts normally weighs against intervention, by injunction or otherwise, in pending courtmartial proceedings.” 420 U.S. at 740. Noting that the officer’s possible conviction and appellate affirmance of that conviction were then a matter of pure conjecture, the Supreme Court applied a two-prong analysis to determine whether federal courts should generally abstain from interfering with the military-justice system. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 121 (identifying this analysis). The first prong considered the importance of the interests served by allowing the coordinate judicial system to proceed uninterrupted by the federal courts. Id. The second considered the adequacy of that coordinate system to protect the rights of defendants. Id. In Councilman, the Supreme Court concluded that both prongs of the analysis were satisfied. As for the important interest, the Court credited the military’s need to enforce respect for duty and discipline, exigencies “without counterpart in civilian life,” as justification for 15 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 29 of 57 deferring to the military-justice system. 420 U.S. at 757. The Court also noted that the practical considerations underlying the exhaustion requirement also justified pretrial abstention. These considerations included not only allowing the coordinate judicial system to interpret and apply laws for which they have expertise, but also such matters as avoiding duplicative proceedings and informing and/or narrowing any subsequent appellate review. Id. at 755-56. As for the adequacy of the military justice system to protect Councilman’s rights, the Court observed that Congress sought to ensure fairness to service members by “creat[ing] an integrated system of military courts and review procedures, a critical element of which [was] the Court of Military Appeals consisting of civilian judges completely removed from all military influence or persuasion.” Id. at 757-58. Of particular relevance here, the Court noted that “implicit in the congressional scheme . . . is the view that the military court system generally is adequate to and responsibly will perform its assigned task.” Id. at 758. Accordingly, the Court concluded that “this congressional judgment must be respected and that it must be assumed that the military court system will vindicate servicemen’s constitutional rights.” Id. B. In re al-Nashiri II: Application of Councilman to Military Commissions Convened under the MCA. Prior to In re al-Nashiri II, every federal district court to consider the question – including four judges in this District – recognized the strong parallels between the military courts at issue in Councilman and the MCA-authorized military commissions. As a result, each of these courts declined to enjoin or declare invalid an ongoing MCA-authorized military commission under the principles articulated in Councilman. See al-Nashiri v. Obama, 76 F. Supp. 3d 218, 222-23 (D.D.C. 2014) (Roberts, Ch. J.); al-Nashiri v. MacDonald, No. 11-5907, 2012 WL 1642306, at *11 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2012) (Bryan, J.); Khadr v. Obama, 724 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64-70 (D.D.C. 2010) (“Khadr III”) (Bates, J.); al Odah v. Bush, 593 F. Supp. 2d 53, 57-60 (D.D.C. 2009) (Kollar16 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 30 of 57 Kotelly, J.); Khadr v. Bush, 587 F. Supp. 2d 225, 230-34 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Khadr I”) (Bates, J.); Hamdan v. Gates, 565 F. Supp. 2d 130, 136-37 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Hamdan III”) (Robertson, J.).7 In In re al-Nashiri II, the D.C. Circuit affirmed and expanded on the reasoning of all of those prior decisions, holding that federal courts should generally not intervene in ongoing MCAauthorized military commission proceedings. 835 F.3d at 121-35. Applying Councilman’s twoprong analysis, the D.C. Circuit first addressed the adequacy of the MCA’s trial-and-appellate process to protect a defendant’s rights. The Court explained that the MCA system mirrored that of the military-justice system found adequate in Councilman. 835 F.3d at 122. In particular, the Court emphasized that, if a defendant were convicted, his conviction and sentence, like those following a court-martial, will be subject to a multi-layered review process beginning with the Convening Authority, who may set aside a conviction or reduce the finding of guilt to a lesser included offense. Id. As for any sentence, the Convening Authority may disapprove, commute, or suspend – but not enhance – it in whole or in part. Id. Any remaining judgment of guilt and sentence is reviewed by the USCMCR. Id. The USCMCR, composed of both military and civilian judges, is authorized to conduct the same scope of review as each military service’s Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. Following USCMCR review, a defendant then has an appeal as of right to the D.C. Circuit, whose authority to review is as broad as that given to the Court of the Appeals for the Armed Forces, the final tribunal within the courts-martial system.8 Id. 7 In Hamdan II, the Supreme Court declined to abstain from exercising equitable jurisdiction over a military commission, but that commission had been convened under executive, not congressional, authority prior to passage of the MCA, and also lacked the extensive procedural protections (including review by an independent, Article III court) that Petitioner enjoys under the current MCA. See 548 U.S. at 586. 8 The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is the successor to the Court of Military Appeals, the civilian-judge composed, Article I tribunal the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed when determining the adequacy of the military justice system in Councilman. See 835 F.3d at 122. 17 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 31 of 57 These similarities between the MCA’s trial-and-appellate system and the courts-martial system found adequate in Councilman led the D.C. Circuit to conclude that the MCA was adequate to protect a military-commission defendant’s rights. 835 F.3d at 122-23. Indeed, the Court found that the MCA system was even more protective, given that MCA review was more insulated from military influence because the final appeal of right lay not to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, an Article I court, but to the D.C. Circuit itself, an Article III court. Id. at 123. Lastly, the Court noted that the proper measure of adequacy of the MCA system lay in its entire structure, including the appellate-review mechanisms. Id. Hence, the fact that two military commission decisions had already been overturned by the Court was immaterial because the underlying rights had ultimately been vindicated. See id. at 121, 123 (intervention not appropriate based merely on the “on-the-ground performance” of the military commission system). As for the important interest justifying deferral of judicial review by the federal courts, the Court noted that Congress and two Presidents had determined that the ordinary federal-court process was not fully suitable for trying certain enemy belligerents. Id. at 124. The Court reasoned that this decision was consistent with long-standing practice and precedent supporting trying enemy belligerents before military commissions. Id. It also noted that, unlike past military commissions, the MCA-authorized commissions were ultimately subject to statutory review in an Article III court. Id. Thus, the Court identified the issue to be whether comity to the political branches required federal courts to defer to the “implicit[] instruct[ion]” in the MCA that Article III review not take place before the military commission system had completed its work. Id. at 124-25. The Court noted that this instruction was entitled to deference for at least three reasons: • because it was grounded in national security concerns, the matter is an area where judicial deference to the political branches is at its apex, id. at 124, 125; 18 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 32 of 57 • because when Congress instructs that adjudication should begin in a nonArticle III forum but end with review in an Article III court, the federal courts generally enforce that choice and prevent litigants from prematurely seeking equitable relief in district court, id. at 125; • because the MCA empowered military-commission judges to entertain pretrial motions that could dismiss the charges against a defendant, such an arrangement reflects Congress’s intent that such matters were “not ordinarily to be raised pretrial in district court[.]” id. (citation omitted). Additionally, the Court noted the practical benefits of abstention that had been relied on in Councilman, namely (1) eliminating duplicative proceedings, (2) obviating the need for judicial intervention, and (3) informing and narrowing any subsequent judicial review. Id. at 127. Having thus found both prongs of the Councilman analysis satisfied by the MCA judicial process, the D.C. Circuit applied Councilman’s abstention principles to MCA-authorized military commissions. 835 F.3d at 128. The Court then concluded that the district court had properly applied those principles to al-Nashiri and affirmed the abeyance of his habeas petition during the pendency of his military commission. Id. at 128-135. In the words of Councilman, the D.C. Circuit found that it would be “[in]consistent[] with the principles governing equitable relief [for] the [district] court . . . [to] exercise its remedial powers,” 420 U.S. at 754. C. In re al-Nashiri II Requires Abstention Here. In the wake of In re al-Nashiri II, no question remains as to the adequacy of the comprehensive system Congress established to try alien unprivileged enemy belligerents for war crimes. The D.C. Circuit has made clear that the MCA’s integrated system of trial and appellate review culminating in that Court is fully adequate to protect Petitioner’s rights. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 122-23; cf. Telecomms. Research & Action Ctr., 750 F.2d at 78 (“Where statutory review is available in the Court of Appeals it will rarely be inadequate.”). Likewise, no question remains as to whether this Court should defer to that system and decline to exercise its equitable 19 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 33 of 57 jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s claims against his ongoing military commission or otherwise interfere with those proceedings. In re al-Nashiri, 835 F.3d at 128. Accordingly, this Court should abstain from considering Petitioner’s motion to permanently enjoin his military commission. Petitioner may raise his constitutional and statutory challenges to the military commission’s jurisdiction, as well as his request that the charges against him be dismissed as a remedy for alleged government misconduct, in those proceedings. See 10 U.S.C. § 948d; R.M.C. 201(b), 905(b), 907(b)(1). Indeed, Petitioner has not alleged, let alone demonstrated, that any procedural or other barriers have prevented him from raising his claims in his military commission, as Congress intended. Nor does he allege that any procedural or other barriers will “prevent the military commission and various appellate bodies from fully adjudicating” his claims. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 123. That Petitioner may not like the results he thinks he might obtain if he pressed his claims in that forum is simply insufficient to warrant federal intervention. See id. at 123 (rejecting suggestion that “on-the-ground performance” of military commissions was reason to intervene in commission proceedings); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 610 (1975) (holding Younger abstention applies even if a state-court defendant “believes that his chances of success on appeal are not auspicious”). Moreover, at this pretrial stage, Petitioner, like the active-duty officer in Councilman, merely speculates that he will be convicted and sentenced to death. As the Supreme Court found there, such speculation is simply insufficient to warrant federal interference with an Article I tribunal. See Councilman, 420 U.S. at 754. In any event, the procedures mandated under the MCA will permit Petitioner to make a record for appeal, should he be convicted. And if neither the Convening Authority nor the USCMCR grant him relief, Petitioner has an appeal of right to the D.C. Circuit. 10 U.S.C. § 950g. Petitioner will thus suffer no prejudice from abstention. 20 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 34 of 57 III. Petitioner’s Claims Do Not Constitute An “Extraordinary Circumstance” Warranting An Exception From Abstention. Petitioner cannot elude the application of In re al-Nashiri II by arguing that his cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, and outrageous government conduct claims warrant an exception from abstention. Once federal courts have determined that a coordinate judicial system is adequate to protect federal rights in the first instance, and that a compelling interest requires that the court not interfere with proceedings in that system, exceptions to the duty to abstain should be necessarily rare, constrained only to those instances where the trial itself creates the injury. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 131. As the D.C. Circuit explained, an exception to abstention may arise only when “‘extraordinary circumstances’” present both “the threat of ‘great and immediate’ injury” and also “render the alternative tribunal ‘incapable of fairly and fully adjudicating the federal issues before it.” Id. at 128 (quoting Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 123-24 (1975) (in turn quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 45). In this regard, an “extraordinary,” “great,” and “immediate” injury requires an underlying right “the legal and practical value of which would be destroyed if it were not vindicated before trial.” United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 860 (1978). Merely having to face the “cost, anxiety, and inconvenience” of defending against a prosecution is not a great-and-immediate injury sufficient to justify an exception to abstention. Id. at 128; see also Younger, 401 U.S. at 46; Councilman, 420 U.S. at 755. Given this standard, any such exceptions are understandably few. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 130. A small number are express, grounded in a statute or a constitutional provision that contain an explicit guarantee that trial will not occur. See, e.g., Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 800-02 (1989) (no trial unless on indictment under the Grand Jury Clause); Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 659 (1977) (no trial in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause); Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 506-07 (1979) (no trial for acts protected by 21 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 35 of 57 the Speech or Debate Clause). But otherwise, exceptions are constrained to only those instances where the trial itself creates a great injury in the sense of a right not to be tried at all. See In re alNashiri II, 835 F.3d at 131. But such rights must necessarily be quite narrow, lest “virtually every right that could be enforced appropriately by pretrial dismissal . . . be described as conferring a ‘right not to stand trial.’” Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 873 (1994)). The narrowness of any such non-express right-not-to-be-tried exception to abstention is demonstrated in Councilman. There, the Supreme Court noted a possible exception to abstention for certain claims alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction. 420 U.S. at 758-59. But the pertinent circumstances for those personal jurisdiction claims are very limited – constrained to only those circumstances where “substantial arguments” exist as to whether Article I granted Congress the power to subject a group of individuals to criminal prosecution before a coordinate judicial system rather than an Article III court. See id. (distinguishing prior cases permitting collateral attack of courts-martial of civilians because Article I did not grant Congress authority to authorize the military to try non-combatant civilians). None of Petitioner’s claims raise a substantial argument that Congress lacked the power to put him to a trial by military commission such that he has a right not to be tried at all; thus, the claims do not and cannot merit an exception to abstention. A. An Exception to Abstention is Not Warranted Because Petitioner Does Not Raise A Substantial Argument That He Has A Right Not To Be Tried. Petitioner’s claims that his military commission is ultra vires and should be enjoined for lack of jurisdiction merely because he might receive capital punishment if convicted, do not and cannot merit any exception to abstention because they do not raise substantial questions regarding Congress’s power to subject Petitioner to trial by military commission. 22 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 36 of 57 As an initial matter, Petitioner does not challenge his status as an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent. Nor does he challenge Congress’s power generally to subject alien unprivileged enemy belligerents to trial before military commissions for violations of the law of war. Consequently, the exception to abstention delineated in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 32-33 (1957); United States ex rel Toth v. Quarels, 350 U.S. 11, 13 (1955); McElroy v. United States ex rel. Guagliardo, 361 U.S. 281, 282-83 (1960), and discussed in Councilman, is inapplicable. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 133-34. Further, all but one of the cases Petitioner cites in support of his argument that this Court may exercise its equitable jurisdiction and permanently enjoin his military commission upon a finding that his commission is ultra vires do not address pretrial collateral review of a military court’s jurisdiction. Rather, in each of these cases the accused was, consistent with longestablished Supreme Court precedent, challenging his court-martial’s final judgment and sentence either in the system of military courts Congress designed for that purpose9 or collaterally in federal court after exhausting his available remedies in the military court system.10 Petitioner’s reliance on dicta in Hamdan II, 548 U.S. at 589 n.20, Pet’r Mem. at 10, which suggests that an exception to abstention might exist where a petitioner alleges that a military commission is irregularly constituted and thus is ultra vires, thereby lacking jurisdiction, is also misplaced. The plurality’s discussion in footnote 20 of an “ultra vires” military commission refers 9 See Pet’r Mem. at 10-11 (citing United States v. Ryan, 5 M.J. 97 (C.M.A. 1978); United States v. Dean, 43 C.M.R. 52 (C.M.A. 1970); United States v. White, 45 C.M.R. 357 (C.M.A. 1972); United States v. Robinson, 33 C.M.R. 206 (C.M.A. 1963); United States v. Harnish, 31 C.M.R. 29 (C.M.A. 1961); United States v. Sullivan, No. 201400071, 2014 WL 2434710 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 29, 2014); United States v. Gaspard, 35 M.J. 678 (A.C.M.R. 1992)). 10 Pet’r Mem. at 9 (citing Runkle v. United States, 122 U.S. 543 (1887); McClaughry v. Deming, 186 U.S. 49 (1902); Keyes v. United States, 109 U.S. 336 (1883); Dynes v. Hoover, 61 U.S. 65 (1857)). 23 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 37 of 57 to a “military tribunal [that] lacks personal jurisdiction over [the accused]” and therefore “fall[s] within the exception [from abstention]” discussed in Councilman, that is, the type of exception reflected in Reid and Quarles. See Hamdan II, 548 U.S. at 589 n.20. Because Petitioner does not challenge his status as an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent or Congress’s power to subject such persons to trial before military commissions for alleged violations of the law of war, that exception in inapposite here. In In re al-Nashiri II, the D.C. Circuit discussed the dicta in Hamdan II that an exception to abstention might apply in circumstances where a military commission is irregularly constituted and “therefore necessarily lacks personal jurisdiction over any defendant,” but the Court of Appeals did not attempt to extend the scope of any such exception beyond the confines discussed above. See 835 F.3d at 133-34. That is, the Court simply concluded that an exception to abstention was not warranted because, among other things, al-Nashiri did not “argue that the commissions created by the 2009 MCA generally lack jurisdiction over defendants because they are so procedurally deficient that they are wholly ultra vires.” 835 F.3d at 134 (emphases added). Petitioner likewise does not argue that MCA-authorized commissions are “so procedurally deficient” that they lack jurisdiction to try individuals detained at Guantanamo for alleged violations of the law of war. Instead, his “allegations are about his particular vulnerabilities to a trial by a military commission,” id. at 129, or more particularly, to possible punishment or sentencing in the commission process, assuming Petitioner is convicted. But the D.C. Circuit explained in In re al-Nashiri II that allegations of that kind “say nothing about the competence of the military commission itself.” Id. Thus, whatever the contours might be of an “ultra vires” exception to abstention, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that allegations such as Petitioner’s do not 24 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 38 of 57 rise to the level of a legitimate right not to be tried in the commission system and, therefore, cannot constitute an “extraordinary circumstance[]” justifying abstention.11 Id. Accordingly, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, none of the cases he cites demonstrate that he is entitled to have his claims heard by this Court in the first instance. Instead, they underscore the requirement that he first raise his claims before his military commission, the tribunal Congress has tasked with determining the commission’s jurisdiction in the first instance. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument that his military commission is ultra vires does not relieve him of his obligation to raise his claims in that forum. Petitioner cites no authority to support his novel theory that a tribunal is ultra vires and thus lacks jurisdiction simply because it has the power to render a sentence that might, hypothetically, at some point in the future, be deemed unlawful. Cf. City of Arlington, Tex. v. F.C.C., 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013) (noting in support of holding that courts should defer to agency determinations about the statutory scope of their jurisdiction that “a jurisdictionally proper but substantively incorrect judicial decision is not ultra vires”). Further, the constitutional and statutory questions Petitioner raises here, including his double jeopardy and outrageous government conduct claims, do not turn on or undermine Petitioner’s personal status as an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent subject to the jurisdiction of a military commission under the MCA. As such, they do not challenge Congress’s power under Article I to subject him to the jurisdiction of a MCA-authorized military commission. Councilman, 420 U.S. at 759. 11 Petitioner’s attempt to rely on Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438 (1997), to enjoin his military commission also fails. Strate applies the unrelated principles that federal courts owe limited deference to a tribal court when it is attempting to assert jurisdiction over a non-member of the tribe in a civil suit arising from conduct that did not take place on tribal land. See 520 U.S. at 446-47, 459. Here, in contrast, the principles of comity articulated in Councilman and In re alNashiri II apply, and they necessitate abstention as there is no substantial question that Petitioner is an individual properly subject to trial by military commission. 25 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 39 of 57 1. Petitioner’s cruel and unusual punishment claims do not provide a right not to be tried. Nothing about the specific claims Petitioner raises undermines that Petitioner does not legitimately claim a right not to be tried by a military commission. Of course, as an initial matter, Petitioner’s attempt to lay claim to rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments against cruel and unusual punishments is inconsistent with Circuit precedent regarding the extraterritorial applicability of constitutional provisions other than the Suspension Clause, as Petitioner himself acknowledges, see Pet’r Mem. at 15-16; thus, it is unclear that Petitioner can legitimately raise such claims in the habeas context. See Kiyemba v. Obama, 555 F.3d 1022, 1026 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (stating that “the due process clause does not apply to aliens” detained at Guantanamo Bay), vacated and remanded, 559 U.S. 131 (2010), reinstated in relevant part, 605 F.3d 1046, 1047-48 1048 (D.C. Cir. 2010); cert. denied, 563 U.S. 954 (2011); see also Rasul v. Meyers, 563 F.3d 527, 530 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (observing that prior to Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), “neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights – under the Fifth Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, or otherwise”); id. at 529 (recognizing that the Supreme Court in Boumediene “disclaimed any intention to disturb existing law governing the extraterritorial reach of any constitutional provisions, other than the Suspension Clause”); Salahi v. Obama, No. 05-0569, 2015 WL 9216557, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2015) (Lamberth, J.).12 See also United States v. Torres, 115 12 See Al-Madhwani v. Obama, 642 F.3d 1071, 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Kiyemba v. Obama,561 F.3d 509, 518 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Kiyemba II”) (noting that “[t]his Court has . . . stated that detainees [at Guantanamo Bay] possess no constitutional due process rights”); see also Bahlul v. United States, 840 F.3d 757, 796 (D.D.C. 2016) (Millet, J., concurring) (noting categorically, “Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment does not apply to aliens at Guantanamo”); al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1, 33 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Henderson, J., concurring) (“Indeed, it remains the law of this circuit that, after Boumediene, aliens detained at Guantanamo may not invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”). 26 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 40 of 57 F.3d 1033, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (district courts are obligated to apply controlling Circuit precedent unless that precedent has been overruled by the Court of Appeals en banc or by the Supreme Court). Regardless, for the reasons explained supra at 22-25, there is no reason that Petitioner’s claims in this regard cannot be raised appropriately in the first instance before the military commission, and no reason that these claims undermine the requirement from In re alNashiri II that this Court abstain from considering the claims. Indeed, Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim independently fails because the provision prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments,” by its own terms, applies only after an individual is convicted of a crime. In re Iraq & Afghanistan Detainees Litg., 479 F. Supp. 2d 85, 103 (D.D.C. 2007) (Hogan, J.), aff’d sub nom., Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762 (D.C. Cir. 2011), (citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 664 (1977); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n.16 (1979)). Given that the military commission has not yet rendered a final judgment as to Petitioner’s guilt or innocence, this all the more supports abstention by this Court in this matter.13 13 Petitioner’s argument that al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1, 18 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2014), somehow changed the landscape on these issues is incorrect. In that case, the D.C. Circuit merely assumed application of the Ex Post Facto Clause and did not “intimat[e] in any degree an opinion on the question” of application of the Clause or of the Fifth or Eighth Amendment in cases involving Guantanamo detainees. See 767 F.3d at 18; see also id. at 33 (Henderson, J., concurring) (discussing application of Kiyemba and Rasul). And “‘[c]onstitutional rights are not defined by inferences from opinions which did not address the question at issue.’” Latif v. Obama, 677 F.3d 1175, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 169 (2001)). 27 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 41 of 57 Similarly, neither Section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act (“DTA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd(d),14 nor section 949s of the MCA, 10 U.S.C. § 949s,15 expressly provide Petitioner with a right not to be tried. To be sure, Petitioner cites no authority that even suggests dismissal of, or exemption from, a prosecution is an appropriate remedy for violations of either provision. Nor does he explain why his military commission is incapable of adjudicating his statutory claims in the first instance.16 Petitioner’s claims, therefore, can and should be addressed in the integrated military commission and appellate review system Congress established for exactly that purpose. 14 Section 1003 of the DTA provides, in relevant part: [T]he term “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” means the cruel, unusual, and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as defined in the United States Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at New York, December 10, 1984. 42 U.S.C. § 2000dd(d). 15 Section 949s of the MCA provides, in relevant part: Punishment by flogging, or by branding, marking, or tattooing on the body, or any other cruel or unusual punishment, may not be adjudged by a military commission under this chapter or inflicted under this chapter upon any person subject to this chapter. The use of irons, single or double, except for the purpose of safe custody, is prohibited under this chapter. 16 Petitioner’s DTA claim is also foreclosed because it does not provide an express private right of action. See Doe v. Rumsfeld, 683 F.3d 390, 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he DTA created no private cause of action.”); Jawad v. Gates, 113 F. Supp. 3d 251, 259 (D.D.C. 2015), aff’d 832 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied, 137 S. Ct. 2115 (May 15, 2017) (same). The same would be true with respect to aspects of section 949s of the MCA that apply beyond sentencing by a military commission. See Prunte v. Universal Music Grp., 484 F. Supp. 2d 32, 42-43 (D.D.C. 2007) (Friedman, J.) (citing Cort v. Ash, 442 U.S. 66, 79-80 (1975) (“[I]n the criminal context, the Supreme Court has refused to imply a private right of action in “a bare criminal statute.” “This Court therefore will not imply a private right of action into any of the criminal statutes . . . [at issue] that do not provide an express private right of action.”)). 28 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 42 of 57 See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 128 (explaining “extraordinary circumstances” warranting an exception to abstention only arise where there is a “threat of ‘great and immediate’ injury” and the coordinate tribunal is “‘incapable of fairly and fully adjudicating’” a petitioner’s claims) (citation omitted). 2. Petitioner has not alleged a colorable double jeopardy claim. Petitioner also attempts to invoke one of the few express exceptions to abstention by arguing that executing him would amount to punishing him twice for the same offense in violation of the double jeopardy components of the Fifth Amendment, the MCA, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“UCMJ”). Pet’r Mem. at 26-29. Although the Double Jeopardy Clause contains an explicit guarantee that a prohibited prosecution will not occur, see supra at 21; Murphy v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 896 F. Supp. 577, 582 (E.D. Va. 1995), a double jeopardy claim will fall within that narrow exception to abstention only if it is colorable, see Murphy, 896 F. Supp. at 583; cf. United States v. Andrews, 146 F.3d 933, 937 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (noting that “the Supreme Court held in Richardson v. United States, [468 U.S. 317, 322 (1984)] that a claim of double jeopardy must be at least ‘colorable’ to confer interlocutory jurisdiction on an appellate court.”). Petitioner has not asserted a colorable double jeopardy claim and, therefore, has failed to justify an exception from abstention. Even assuming that Petitioner does have clear rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, Petitioner’s double jeopardy claim is not colorable because he cannot show that jeopardy previously attached and terminated with respect to any of the offenses for which he is being tried. See Richardson, 468 U.S. at 325 (“[T]he protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause by its terms applies only if there has been some event, such as an acquittal, which terminates the original jeopardy); see also Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 528 (1975) (stating that jeopardy only attaches 29 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 43 of 57 in the context of “proceedings” that are “essentially criminal”). Petitioner’s allegations that he was mistreated during prior custody are in no way relevant to the question of whether jeopardy has attached or terminated. See United States v. Warneke, 199 F.3d 906, 908 (7th Cir. 1999) (pretrial detention of criminal defendant pursuant to statute did not trigger the attachment of jeopardy); United States v. Grisanti, 4 F.3d 173, 175-76 (2d Cir. 1993) (same). Furthermore, even if Petitioner could assert a meritorious double jeopardy claim based on the possibility of being punished multiple times for the same offense, he would not be entitled to injunctive relief before completion of his trial because not all double jeopardy claims implicate a right not to be tried. Specifically, “an accused [who] is facing multiple convictions (and, therefore, multiple punishments) in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause . . . may appeal those convictions to obtain full relief.” Murphy, 896 F. Supp. at 582. The “only objective of the double jeopardy clause that cannot be adequately protected by appeal from (or collateral attack on) a judgment of conviction in the second prosecution” is the “policy of avoiding multiple trials.” United States ex rel. Stevens v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, 675 F.2d 946, 947-48 (7th Cir. 1982). In such circumstances, “the trial itself is the constitutional wrong, above and beyond any possible punishment. Murphy, 896 F. Supp. at 582 (emphasis in original). Because Petitioner alleges only that executing him would amount to punishing him twice for the same offense, however, his double jeopardy claim does not implicate a right not to be tried. Petitioner’s statutory arguments fare no better. The former jeopardy provision of the MCA only speaks to multiple prosecutions – not multiple punishments. 10 U.S.C. § 949h (“No person may, without the person’s consent, be tried by a military commission under this chapter a second time for the same offense.”). The same is true with respect to Article 44 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 844), which Petitioner asserts informs this Court’s analysis of section 949h. See Pet’r Mem. at 30 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 44 of 57 27; see also 10 U.S.C. § 844 (“No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense.”). And, as Petitioner acknowledges, the primary relief for violations of Article 13 of the UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 813), which prohibits pretrial punishment, is confinement credit – not dismissal of charges. See Pet’r Mem. at 28 (citing United States v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169, 174 (C.A.A.F. 2011)); see also United States v. Fulton, 55 M.J. 88, 89 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (“Dismissal is not necessarily appropriate even where an appellant has been denied a significant constitutional right.”). Accordingly, “where the alleged double jeopardy is far from clear, immediate, or irreparable,” as it is here, the important policy considerations embodied in Younger, Councilman, and In re al-Nashiri II, of allowing a coordinate tribunal “to pursue its prosecution free from federal court intervention outweighs [Petitioner’s] interest in having the double jeopardy issue resolved in a federal forum.” Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 162 (4th Cir. 2003), as amended (Mar. 11, 2003). 3. Petitioner’s allegations of outrageous government conduct do not provide him with a right not to be tried. Petitioner makes no attempt to demonstrate that his claim of outrageous government conduct provides him a right not to be tried. Indeed, he contends that “conscience and justice” demand that his charges be dismissed as a remedy for his alleged mistreatment. Pet’r Mem. at 25. Nor does Petitioner address or otherwise explain why his military commission is not capable of fairly and fully adjudicating this claim. Petitioner’s allegations of outrageous government conduct, therefore, do not constitute an “extraordinary circumstance[]” warranting an exception to abstention. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 128. Petitioner is free to raise this claim in his military commission where it will be subject to robust adversarial proceedings and, if he is convicted, appellate review, including review by the D.C. Circuit. See id. at 122-23. 31 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 45 of 57 Even if Petitioner had attempted to demonstrate that his claim warranted an exception from abstention, and assuming Petitioner has cognizable rights under the Due Process Clause, under which an outrageous government conduct defense arises, his claim is far from colorable. None of the cases Petitioner relies on support his request for an injunction against his ongoing military commission. Although the Supreme Court suggested in United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (1973), that the conduct of government agents may be “so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking [the] judicial process to obtain a conviction,” id. at 431-32, the Court has never accepted such a defense. See id. at 430 (finding no due process violation); Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 490 (1976) (plurality) (“If the police engage in illegal activity . . . the remedy lies, not in freeing the equally culpable defendant, but in prosecuting the police under the applicable provisions of state or federal law.”). And to the extent the defense continues to be viable, it is appropriately considered only when a defendant challenges the government’s conduct in procuring evidence supporting the defendant’s conviction. See, e.g., United States v. Boone, 437 F.3d 829, 842 (8th Cir. 2006), cert denied sub. nom., Washington v. United States, 549 U.S. 870 (2006), post-conviction relief denied sub. nom., Creighton v. United States, 2007 WL 2406992 (W.D. Mo. 2007) (noting doctrine almost exclusively applies to situations involving entrapment); Untied States v. Gutierrez, 343 F.3d 415, 421 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that “a defendant claiming outrageous government . . . must demonstrate . . . both substantial government involvement in the offense and a passive role by the defendant”); United States v. Pemberton, 853 F.2d 730, 735 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Bogart, 783 F.2d 1428, 1436 (9th Cir. 1986)) (observing that “[i]n each of the cases in which an outrageous conduct defense has succeeded, the government essentially manufactured the crime”); see also Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 172-74 (1952) (holding that police officers’ conduct 32 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 46 of 57 in procuring evidence against a defendant “shock[ed] the conscience,” violated due process, and warranted reversal of his conviction). This limited application of the defense applies with equal force to defendants alleging mistreatment while in military custody. See United States v. Padilla, No. 04-60001, 2007 WL 1079090, at *3 n.6, *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2007) (rejecting defense where alleged misconduct was “perpetrated after the commission of his alleged crimes” while defendant was in military custody). Here, Petitioner’s alleged mistreatment took place after the commission of the crimes of which he is accused and while he was being held as an enemy combatant. Because there is no connection between the alleged outrageous government conduct and the actual commission of the offenses that are the subject of Petitioner’s military commission, there is no basis for enjoining his prosecution. See id. Neither United States v. Twigg, 588 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1978), nor Greene v. United States, 454 F.2d 783 (9th Cir. 1971), are to the contrary. In both of those cases, the defendants sought reversal of their convictions based on allegations of government involvement in the criminal enterprise or objectionable government conduct in obtaining the evidence used to convict them. See Twigg, 588 F.2d at 380-81 (setting aside conviction on due process grounds where government agents supplied defendant with materials necessary to engage in drug offense for which he was convicted); Greene, 454 F.2d at 786-87 (setting aside convictions for bootlegging where government agent had provided defendants with 2,000 pounds of sugar for a bootleg whiskey still and “offered to provide a still, a still site, still equipment, and an operator.”).17 17 In addition, both of these decisions have been called into question in their own circuits. See United States v. Beverly, 723 F.2d 11, 12 (3d Cir. 1983) (questioning holding in Twigg because it relied on circuit precedent that was later undermined by Hampton); United States v. Haas, 141 F.3d 1181 (Table) (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “Green [sic] predates Russell and Hampton, so does not reflect the current law of the circuit on outrageous government conduct.”). 33 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 47 of 57 Petitioner’s reliance on United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974), a case in which the Second Circuit concluded that a defendant’s allegations that he was abducted and tortured before being brought to the United States for trial, if found, would require dismissal of the indictment, is also misplaced because its “premise . . . has been undermined by subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.” United States v. Umeh, 527 Fed. App’x. 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992); United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980)). Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that “the manner by which a defendant is brought to trial does not affect the government’s ability to try him.” United States v. MattaBallesteros, 71 F.3d 754, 762 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444 (1886); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952)).18 Further, it appears that no court has ever dismissed an indictment on the authority of the case (even in Toscanino itself).19 See, e.g., United States v. Awadallah, 202 F. Supp. 2d 17, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). Accordingly, Petitioner’s outrageous government conduct claim does not provide him with a right not to be tried and thus does not warrant an exception to abstention. 18 A number of courts of appeals, including the D.C. Circuit, have either declined to endorse Toscanino, questioned it, or rejected it outright. See, e.g., United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1092-93 (D.C. Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Best, 304 F.3d 308, 312-13 (3d Cir. 2002); Matta-Ballesteros, 71 F.3d at 763 n.3; Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d 255, 262-63 (7th Cir. 1990); United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1531 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 874 n.17 (5th Cir. 1979). Petitioner also relies on United States v. Cordero, 668 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1981), and United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, 510 F.2d 62 (2d Cir. 1975), but neither case helps Petitioner insofar as they both rejected claims under Toscanino brought by criminal defendants seeking release from custody based on allegations that they were illegally transferred to the United States prior to trial. 19 34 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 48 of 57 4. Proceedings involving capital charges are not evaluated differently under Councilman and In re al-Nashiri II. At the outset of his motion, Petitioner suggests that his capital military commission should be evaluated differently, implying that his claims constitute an extraordinary circumstance for purposes of this Court’s abstention analysis. See Pet’r Mem. at 7-9. That the charges against Petitioner carry a potential death sentence and may take a significant period of time to resolve through the MCA’s non-waivable appeal process does not change the analysis under Councilman and In re al-Nashiri II. The Supreme Court in Councilman acknowledged that the “inevitable injury . . . incident to any criminal prosecution” is “often of serious proportions.” 420 U.S. at 754. The D.C. Circuit agreed in In re al-Nashiri II, which, similar to the case before this Court, was considering collateral challenges to a capital military commission convened pursuant to the MCA. See 835 F.3d at 114; see also id. 128-129 (allegations of treatment while in detention “do not provide any reason to fear that . . . [al-Nashiri] will not be given a fair hearing in the military commission”). This controlling precedent forecloses Petitioner’s implied argument that capital cases are exempt from abstention. In addition, whether Petitioner will be convicted and, if convicted, sentenced to death, is “a matter entirely of conjecture” and “there [is] no reason to believe that his possible conviction” will “inevitably [] be affirmed.” Id. The “anxiety” and “inconvenience of having to defend against a [military] [] prosecution, [cannot] by themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in the special legal sense of that term.” In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 128 (quoting Councilman, 420 U.S. at 755). Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, a capital military commission, and the possibility of a death sentence does not implicate an extraordinary circumstance mandating federal court intervention. See id.; Hennis v. Hemlick, 666 F.3d 270, 279-80 (4th Cir. 2012) (“A petitioner pursuing habeas corpus relief in federal court in relation to a death penalty conviction must first 35 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 49 of 57 exhaust all available remedies.”); cf. Fosier v. Kassulke, 898 F.2d 1144, 1145-46 (6th Cir. 1990) (abstaining under Younger pending state appellate review of death penalty conviction). The cases Petitioner principally relies on in support of his argument that permitting his capital prosecution to proceed to trial violates the constitutional and statutory prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment, thus rendering his military commission ultra vires, are too far removed from the circumstances now before the Court to provide any guidance. Indeed, all but one of these cases involve post-conviction review of either imposed death sentences20 or of a statute authorizing extradition.21 And none of these cases concluded that an error with respect to imposition of a sentence rendered the sentencing court altogether ultra vires. Accordingly, these cases do not justify pretrial intrusion into proceedings that the D.C. Circuit has determined are adequate to vindicate Petitioner’s rights. See In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 122-23. As for the remaining case, Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989)), it is simply inapposite here. There, the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the European 20 See Pet’r Mem. at 17-24 (citing In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890); In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890); Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910); Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), abrogated by Ford v. Wain-Wright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986); Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (White, J., concurring; Brennan, J. concurring); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995) (Mem. of Stevens, J.); Foster v. Florida, 537 U.S. 990 (2002) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Smith v. Arizona, 552 U.S. 985 (2007) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008); Valle v. Florida, 132 S. Ct. 1 (2011) (Breyer, J. dissenting) McKennzie v. Day, 57 F.3d 1461 (9th Cir. 1995), adopted on reh’g en banc, 57 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) (Norris, C.J., dissenting), cert denied, 514 U.S. 1104 (1995); Ceja v. Stewart, 134 F.3d 1368 (9th Cir. 1998) (Fletcher, J., dissenting); People v. Anderson, 493 P.2d 880, 894 (Cal. 1972), superseded by constitutional amendment as stated in Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48 (2009); Sher Singh v. Punjab, 2 S.C. R. 582 (India) (Mar. 24, 1983); Catholic Comm’n for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe v. Attorney-General, 1 Zimb. L.R. 239 (1993) (S. Ct. of Zimbabwe); Pratt v. Attorney-General for Jamaica, 2 A.C. 1, 1993 WL 963003 (P.C. Nov. 2, 1993). 21 See Pet’r Mem. at 16, 22 (citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)). 36 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 50 of 57 Convention on Human Rights as prohibiting the extradition of a potential defendant to the Commonwealth of Virginia to face capital charges. See Pet’r Mem. at 20-21 (discussing the ruling); see also Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990, 996 (1999) (Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Although the accused in Soering had not yet been subjected to trial for his alleged capital offense, Petitioner correctly notes that the European Court based its decision on the possible imposition of the death penalty if the accused were extradited to Virginia and then convicted. See Pet’r Mem. at 20.22 The United States Supreme Court, however, has held that the possibility of a death sentence alone normally is not sufficient to justify disregarding exhaustion requirements in habeas proceedings. See generally Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 272, 278-79 (2005); cf. Hennis, 666 F.3d at 280 (“A petitioner pursuing habeas corpus relief in federal court in relation to a death penalty conviction must first exhaust all available remedies.”). Because Petitioner’s “allegations are about his particular vulnerabilities to a trial by a military commission” and “say nothing about the competence of the military commission itself,” his “harms do not meet the requirements of the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exception.” In re alNashiri II, 835 F.3d at 129; cf. id. at 130 (“[W]e will not expand the ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exception to include psychological harms that do not implicate the fairness of the militarycommission proceedings.”). The possibility that Petitioner may be executed does not, therefore, justify an exception to the exhaustion principles embodied in Councilman and In re al-Nashiri II when Petitioner has demonstrated “‘no harm other than that attendant to resolution of his case in the military court system.’” Id. at 128 (quoting Councilman, 420 U.S. at 754). 22 Petitioner also cites United States v. Burns, 1 S.C.R. 283 (Can. 2001), which similarly held that extradition from Canada to a state where the death penalty might be imposed violates Canada’s constitution except in exceptional circumstances. 37 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 51 of 57 **** In sum, neither Petitioner’s cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, nor outrageous government conduct claims provide him a right not to be tried in the first instance. Rather, these claims can be raised in his ongoing military commission and, if necessary, on appeal following final judgment in accordance with MCA sections 950f and 950g. Hamdan III, 565 F. Supp. 2d at 137. Thus, at best, Petitioner’s claims may entitle him to a right to obtain relief from an erroneous judgment or sentence, if a conviction were to occur, but they do not entitle him to a right not to be tried at all. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 131-32. Abstention, therefore, is warranted. Abstention also has the added benefit of realizing the practical considerations that underlie the doctrine. Should Petitioner, if convicted, receive a sentence other than death, the need to consider the claims Petitioner now urges upon the Court would be obviated. See Councilman, 420 U.S. 756; In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 127. Alternatively, if convicted and sentenced to death, the Convening Authority, the USCMCR, or the D.C. Circuit could reverse Petitioner’s conviction or strike down the death sentence. Were the Court to entertain the merits of Petitioner’s claims now, this matter would constitute the duplicative proceeding and pretrial interference Councilman sought to avoid. See 420 U.S. at 756; In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 127. Lastly, permitting Petitioner’s military commission, the USCMCR, and the D.C. Circuit to consider these claims in the first instance, should Petitioner chose to raise them, will narrow and inform any subsequent claims properly presented to this Court in habeas. Id. The practical considerations underlying Councilman, therefore, fully support abstention. IV. Because Abstention Is Warranted, It Is Unnecessary For The Court To Determine If Petitioner Has Satisfied The Permanent Injunction And Mandamus Requirements. As discussed above, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner’s motion. Even if the Court were to conclude otherwise, In re al-Nashiri II requires this Court to 38 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 52 of 57 abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. Consequently, there is no need for the Court to determine whether Petitioner has established the four factors necessary for a permanent injunction: (1) irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the parties, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006); Morgan Drexen, Inc. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 785 F.3d 684, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In any event, Petitioner has not established any of these factors, let alone all of them. See Morgan Drexen, 785 F.3d at 694 (“Failing to satisfy any factor is grounds for denying relief.”). The injury Petitioner alleges arises from the basic fact of his prosecution in a congressionally created system of military commissions with strong procedural protections and independent review in an Article III court; as such the injury is not unlawful and irreparable in the sense necessary to warrant injunctive relief. See supra Section III. And because enjoining Petitioner’s military commission would thwart congressional intent and unduly interfere with an ongoing prosecution, see supra Section II, neither the balance of equities nor the public interest favors an injunction. See Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112, 1118 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“Khadr II”) (explaining with respect to a challenge to a military commission’s jurisdiction by another Guantanamo detainee that “[t]here is no substantial public interest at stake in this case that distinguishes it from the multitude of criminal cases for which post-judgment review of procedural and jurisdictional decisions has been found effective.”). Likewise, the Court does not need to determine whether Petitioner has satisfied the three requirements warranting the “drastic remedy” of mandamus, that is, (1) he has a clear right to relief; (2) Respondents have a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available 39 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 53 of 57 to him. Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014). For the reasons explained supra Petitioner has failed to establish a clear right to relief from the military commission’s jurisdiction to try him. See supra Section III. Nor has Petitioner shown that Respondents are clearly obliged to cease the Government’s prosecution of Petitioner for offenses that carry a maximum sentence of death. See id. Finally, Petitioner is free to raise his claims before his military commission where they will be subject to robust adversarial proceedings and direct Article III review in the Court of Appeals. See supra Section II. Petitioner has thus fallen well short of establishing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. V. The Court Should Stay Or Hold In Abeyance Petitioner’s Habeas Petition Pending Completion Of Petitioner’s Military Commission Proceedings. For the same reasons that it must abstain from considering Petitioner’s motion to enjoin his military commission, this Court should hold in abeyance Petitioner’s habeas case so as to avoid interference with those proceedings. Other Judges of this District have ruled that Guantanamo detainee habeas petitions should be held in abeyance during the pendency of a military commission prosecution under the MCA. See al-Nashiri v. Obama, 76 F. Supp. 3d 218, 223 (D.D.C. 2014) (Roberts, Ch. J.), aff’d 835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert denied, 138 S. Ct. 354 (Mem.) (2017); Al Odah, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 59 (holding “the commissions are [] entitled to deference because the Court’s habeas proceedings may interfere with those proceedings”); Khadr I, 587 F. Supp. 2d at 238 (granting stay during pendency of military commission); see also Khadr III, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 70 (denying motion to lift stay during pendency of military commission). A similar stay should issue here. As noted above, habeas “is, at its core, an equitable remedy.” Schlup, 513 U.S. at 319. Thus, the Supreme Court has “recognized that ‘prudential concerns’, such as comity and the orderly administration of criminal justice, may require a federal court to forgo the exercise of its 40 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 54 of 57 habeas corpus power. Munaf, 553 U.S. at 693 (internal citations omitted). Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has determined that the principles of comity articulated by the Supreme Court in Councilman require federal courts to abstain from considering habeas petitions or other requests for equitable relief brought by individuals who are subject to ongoing proceedings before MCA-authorized military commissions in order to eliminate the possibility of undue interference. In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 118-35. Failure to adhere to these prescriptions during the pendency of Petitioner’s military commission could result in interference with those proceedings, the very outcome the Supreme Court in Councilman sought to avoid. 420 U.S. at 756; see also Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007) (noting that “[i]f a plaintiff files a . . . claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending . . . criminal trial[], it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case . . . is ended.”); In re alNashiri II, 835 F.3d at 127 (“avoiding pretrial intervention also eliminates ‘duplicative proceedings’”). First, and most immediately, a ruling on Petitioner’s pending discovery motion (ECF No. 152) could interfere with his military commission because it may “produce[] rulings on the production of discovery and/or exculpatory information that diverge from those of the military commission[],” including the disclosure of classified information Al Odah, 593 F. Supp. 2d 59. Second, a ruling by this Court as to whether Petitioner was part of al-Qaida at the time of his capture could potentially impact his military commission’s exercise of jurisdiction over Petitioner as an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent. See id. (“[T]he essential inquiry in Petitioner[’s] habeas case[] – whether [he] [is] properly characterized as [an] unlawful enemy combatant[] – is the same inquiry that the [military] commission[] may independently determine as part of [its] jurisdictional inquiry.”); Khadr II, 587 F. Supp. 2d at 231 (noting that abstention 41 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 55 of 57 was appropriate because the “question of enemy combatancy can be raised in the military commission proceeding,” and “any ruling[] by this Court on th[at] claim[] would necessarily affect, and possibly interfere with, the military commission proceeding”). To be sure, the military judge presiding over Petitioner’s military commission recently determined that one of Petitioner’s co-defendants was part of al-Qaida at the time of the alleged offenses and, therefore, denied the co-defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mohammad, AE 502BBBB (Mil. Comm’n Apr. 25, 2018).23 See United States v. Petitioner joined in his co- defendant’s motion but the military commission has not yet made a determination with respect to Petitioner’s individual arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Mohammad, AE 502AAAA, Ruling: Request to File Amicus Curiae Brief (Mil. Comm’n Apr. 5, 2018) (noting that Petitioner had joined motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but that consideration of Petitioner’s arguments would be deferred until Petitioner had provided the Court with certain information). And third, a decision by this Court on the merits of the habeas petition, including the issuance of any factual findings supporting such a decision, could interfere with Petitioner’s military commission because the Government’s evidence in this case, as presented in the Factual Return, overlaps substantially with the Government’s evidence in the military commission. Compare Notice of Public Filing of Factual Return, Ex. 1 (ECF No. 96) (Jan. 7, 2010), ¶¶ 37-39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 (alleging Petitioner purchased a video depicting cockpit operations in a Boeing 767-300 and flight simulator computer software for Boeing 747s, and transferred approximately $100,000 on six separate occasions from Dubai, UAE to three 9/11 hijackers in the United States) with Ex. A (Charge Sheet) ¶¶ 33-35, 41, 51, 56, 59, 62 (same). “It has long been the practice” of 23 The military judge’s ruling is currently undergoing a classification review and will be posted on the military commission’s website once that review is complete. 42 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 56 of 57 federal courts “to ‘freeze’ civil proceedings when a criminal prosecution involving the same facts is warming up or under way” because “deferrable civil proceedings constitute improper interference with the criminal proceedings if they churn over the same evidentiary material.” AfroLecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (citations omitted); see also Brown v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 715 F.3d 662, 668 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (same). Further, as discussed above, see supra Section III, requiring Petitioner “to fully adjudicate the charges against him [in the military commission system] in the first instance[,]” will not impose any “irreparabl[e] harm[.]” Khadr III, 724 F. Supp. 2d at 69 n.11; see also In re al-Nashiri II, 835 F.3d at 128-129 (quotations omitted) (“[T]he cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a [] criminal prosecution, [cannot] by themselves be considered ‘irreparable.’”); id. at 129130 (“Al-Nashiri’s allegations regarding his treatment during his detention, while deeply troubling,” are not irreparable because they “do not provide any reason to fear that he will not be given a fair hearing in the military commission.”); Al Odah, 593 F. Supp. 2d at 58 (“The Court is also persuaded that Petitioners are not irreparably harmed by this Court’s abstention while military commissions [established under the 2006 MCA] proceed with the charges against Petitioners.”). In light of the principles of comity underlying the Councilman decision and applied by the D.C. Circuit to MCA-authorized military commissions in In re al-Nashiri II, this Court should hold this habeas action in abeyance pending completion of Petitioner’s military commission proceedings. Permitting Petitioner to pursue his habeas case could result in interference with those proceedings by creating the potential for inconsistent rulings on substantive issues, discovery, and the disclosure of classified information – an outcome that both Councilman and In re al-Nashiri sought to avoid – and is not necessary to avoid irreparable harm to Petitioner. 43 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 57 of 57 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Respondents respectfully urge the Court to deny Petitioner’s motion for a permanent injunction or mandamus enjoining his military commission and to grant Respondents’ cross-motion to hold Petitioner’s habeas petition in abeyance pending completion of his military commission proceedings. Dated: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General /s/ Kristina A. Wolfe TERRY M. HENRY Assistant Branch Director RONALD J. WILTSIE KRISTINA A. WOLFE Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 353-4519 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Email: Kristina.Wolfe@usdoj.gov Counsel for Respondents 44 Case Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 124 EXHIBIT A Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. . DATA 1. NAME OF ACCUSED: I SH~KH KHALID MOHAMMID Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi 2. ALIASES OF ACCUSED: I 'j Khalid Sh?ikh MOhamm~d (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman 4bduUah AI Ghamdi) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bi~ Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) i Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Ali!; Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; tbderahman Mustafa) 3. ISN NUMBER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Sh~ikh Mohamm,d (10024) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) r '" II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF SECTION AND TITLE OF CRIME IN PART IV OF M.M.C. SPECIFICATION: See Attached Charges and Specifications. Sa. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) Graziano, Anthony CW3 5e. DATE (YYVYMMD) 20110531 AFFIDAVIT: ned, authorized by law to administer oath in cases of this character, personally appeared the above named a y , 2011, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications und,r oath that he/she is a person accuser the 31 st day of subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated th~ matters set forth.therein and . that the same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. Darlene S. Simmons Typed Name of officer CDR, JAGC, USN Grade MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Official CapacIty to Ad/1finlster Oath (See R.M.G. 307(b) must be co'/nmissioned officer) Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED I 31 May 6. On , 2011 ' the accused was notified of the charges against himAher ($ee R.M.C. 308). I I ! Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 Office of Military Gommissions Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges Organization Of the Perfon Wno c.;aused Accused to Be Notififd of qharges I /~~ I I I V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 7. The sworn charges were received at 1746 hours, on 1 June 2011 , at Alexandtia, Virginia I I I i I I Location For the Convening Authority: Donna L. Wilkins I I Typed Name of qfficer n GS-1~ i /U~~Gradel Signature! / (/ ) I I VI. ~FERRAL 8b. PLACE 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY Convening Authority, 10 U. S. C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 / 8e. DATE (YYYYMMDD) Alexandria, VA ! Referred for trial to the 20120404 . ~capital military commission convened by military commission convening order 1 2 - P2 dated 4 April 2012 • I I subject to the following instructions 1: I See continuation sheet i By I Direction the Convening Authority, Bruce MacDonald Command, Order, or Direction Convening Authority, Chapter 47a Donna L. Wilkins, GS-15 Title 10 U.S.C. f? 9~8h ~ J.. / of Official c.;apacity of t : J N J : d G:ade of Officer .UJ '.I..J1~ ~ \,..// "VLIL 0'" cer Signing , I /) Signature I VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES b Af r; \ 9. On , d,pla IEsed to be served a copy these charges on the labovenamed accused. - Clayton G. Trivett, Jr /::~a~:Jlud ( / , / Grade of Tria1 Counsel , , Signatur.e or raJ c.;ounseV( / v See R.M.C. 601 conceming instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 I GS-1i5 FOOTNOTES Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 124 i CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFE~L (Original Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20110531) In the case of United States of America v. (t.fl . KHALID SH1IKH MOHAMM1D ((aliases: Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; M~er Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah Al Ghamdi) ! ! I The charges against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial with! the trials of Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ramzi Binalshibh; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. These charges will be tried in conjunction with the additional charge sworn and referred on 4 April 2012. 25 January 2012 The following charges are referred to trial as capital offenses: Conspiracy, Attlacking Civilians, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking an Aircraft, and Terrorism.1 This case is referred capital. See R.M.C. 103 (a)(4) and (5). ! i By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, C~apter 47A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h ! Date: ~ ~ JOI:2. , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. PERSONAL DATA 1. NAME OF ACCUSED: Sh,~h MOhamm~ Khalid WAllO MUHAMMAD SALIH MUBARAK BIN 'ATTASH Ramzi Binalshibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi I , ! I 1 2. ALIASES OF ACCUSED: MOhamm~ I ~bdullah Khalid Shtkh (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman AI Ghamdi) Walid Mu am~ad S~lih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed ~in!Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) Ramzl Blnalshlbh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadraml) I Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Ali;! Aliosh; Hani Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; 4bderahman Mustafa) 3. ISN NUMBER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): ! '" ~ Mohamm~d (10024) Khalid Sh,lkh Walid Muhammad Salih'Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS I 4. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF SECTION AND TITLE OF CRIME IN PART IV OF M.M.C. SPECIFICATION: . ., See Attached Charges and Specifications. ! Sa. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, Graziano, Anthony /:J // FIRST, 1.81) ; III. SWEARING OF CHARGES 5c. ORGANIZATION 01 ACCUSER 5b. GRADE CW3 5d.SIG~7~. ' / ' "or.;' Criminal Investigatiqn Task Force (CITF) A A '" 5e. DATE (YYYYMMD~) 20110531 -. AFFID~VIT:~fot7' the ut.ta'~ned, authorized by law to administer oath in cases of this character, personal! appeared the above named accuser the 31 S day of a y , 2011, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications und r oath !that he/she is a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated till matters set forth therein and that the same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. Darlene S. Simmons Office of Military Co tllmissions Typed Name of Officer Organization of (?mCer ! CDR, JAGC, USN Grade DA~S. ~Z-~ Jud~e Advoctate Omcial Capacity to A~'!J!nister' Oath (See R.M.C. 307(b) must be cOmmissioned officer) I Signature ! : MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED 6. On 31 May 2011 --=..;;...;..~- the accused was notified of the charges against him/~er (See R.M.C. 308). V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 7. The sworn charges were received at 1 746 hours, on 1 June 2011 ,at ~A~l~e~x~a~n~d~l~r~i~a~,~V~l~'r~g~i~n~l~'~a Location For the Convening Authority: Donna L. Wilkins i Typed Name of Ofr;cer i I, a. ESI NA I Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 20120404 Alexandria, VA i Referred for trial to the ~pital military commission convened by military commission convening order _...:,1...:,2:,.-+0.,:2:..-_-----! dated 4 April 2012 + ________ subject to the following instructions': _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ See continuation sheet By Direction Command. Oreler, or Direction of the Convening Authority, Bruce MacDonald Convening Authority,i Chapter 47A Title 10 U.S.C. ~948h I igning 9. on_-=-t--Ltl..&..fP£L...:,;"':"'\_ __ FOOTNOTES See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 124 CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFEIjuzAL (Original Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20110531) In the case of United States of America v. WALID MUHAMMAD SALIH MUBARAK BIN 'ATTASH (aliases: Khdllad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) . The charges against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial wit~ the trials of ~ 0... Khalid Shfikh Mohamm;d; Ramzi Binalshibh; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi These charges will be tried in conjunction with the additional charge sworn OIfl25 ilanuary 2012 and referred on 4 April 2012. The following charges are referred to trial as capital offenses: Conspiracy, Attacking Civilians, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking an Aircraft, and Terrorism~ This case is referred capital. See R.M.C. 103(a)(4) and (5). i I vening Authority: Convening Authority, Cqapter 47 A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h I ! , Date: '1~ . ~()I.:J.... Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 124 CHARGE SHEET 1. NAME OF ACCUSED: '" '\ Khalid Shfikh Mohamm?d Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash RAMZI BINALSHIBH Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi 2. ALIASES OF ACCUSED: I 'i Khalid Sh~kh MOhammfcJ (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman 4bdullah AI Ghamdi) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bini Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) ! Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Alii Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; 1bderahman Mustafa) 3. ISN NUMBER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): C\ '" (10024) Khalid Sh;ikh Mohamm;d Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF SECTION AND TITLE OF CRIME IN PART IV OF M.M.C. SPECIFICATION: See Attached Charges and Specifications. III. SWEARING OF CHARGES 5a. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) Graziano, Anthony R , CW3 Criminallnvestigatiqn Task Force (CITF) 5e. DATE (VYYYMMDD 20110531 I AFFIDPi IT: Bore e. the nd . ned. authorized by law to administer oath in cases of this character, personally appeared the above named 1st day of a . 2011, and Signed the foregoing charges and specifications und~r oath that he/she is a person accuser the subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated th~ matters set forth therein and that the same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. Darlene S. Simmons Typed Name of officer CDR, JAGC, USN Grade 0, Signature MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Office of Milita!y Co~misSions Orgamzatlon of Icer Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 124 , cr- \ IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED r~\ 6. (1) Al 31 On ~ ~o" , I the accused was notified of the charges against him~her (See R.M.C. 308). ~ ! Cla~on G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges Office of Military ¢omll1issions Organization of the Per~on Who Caused Accused to Be Notifi~d of Charges ! i /~~~ I I ! I V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 7. The swom charges were received at , at Alexandlria l 1 7 4 6 hours, on 1 June 2011 Virginia I I Location i ! For the Convening Authority: Donna L. Wilkins I Typed Name of qfficer L cdk GS-15 I . Grade 'Ld?~ '/),,: I Signature! / t/) VI. RIjf=ERRAL 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY , 8b. PLACE Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 8e. DATE (YYYVMMDD) I Alexandria, VA ! Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission convened by military commission convening order 1 2 dated 4 April 2012 20120404 i P2 , I I I subject to the following instructions 1: I I See continuation sheet I: ByDirection of the Convening Authority, ,i Command, Order, or Direction Donn.a L. Wilkins, Convening Authorit~~ Chapter 47A Title 10 U.S.C. ~ 9 8h GS-15 J~t7ii-:u",cer ,/ 9. On ""/ Brucel MacDonald Official Capacity of 0"1cer Signing Signature ! VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES G Af! , 'j \ 80 j a I ~ed to"3 served a copy these charges on the ~bove named accused. - ! i Clayton G. Trivett, Jr L GS-15 Grade of Tria~ Counsel /4r;;N'~;r/:!L-ILl / ~ign~e I of lrial Counsel ( / See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 I FOOTNOTES I : . Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 124 CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFERRAL (Original Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20110531) In the case of United States of America v. RAMZI BINALSHIBH (aliases: Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; AbulUbaydah al Hadrami) i , ! The charges against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial withithe trials of !\ " Khalid Shpikh Mohamm;d; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi i These charges will be tried in conjunction with the additional charge sworn orl25 January 2012 and referred on 4 April 2012. . , The following charges are referred to trial as capital offenses: Conspiracy, Att~cking Civilians, Murder in Violation ofthe Law of War, Hijacking an Aircraft, and Terrorism.i . This case is referred capital. See R.M.C. 103(a)(4) and (5). By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, Ch~pter 47A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h Date: ~~c:f'O/.L Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 124 CHARGE SHEET 1. NAME OF ACCUSED: ~ l, Khalid Shf'kh Mohamm9d Walid Mutiammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL HAWSAWI 2. ALIASES OF ACCUSED: I Khalid Sh~kh MOhamm{cl (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Ghamdi) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Birl Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) I Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Ali~ Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; tbd~rahman Mustafa) 3. ISN NUMBER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Sh~kh MOhamm,;a (10024) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF SECTION AND TITLE OF CRIME IN PART IV OF M.M.C. SPECIFICATION: See Attached Charges and Specifications. III. SWEARING OF CHARGES Sa. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) Graziano, Anthony b. CW3 Criminallnvestigati~n Task Force (CITF) , 5e. DATE (YYYVMMDD 20110531 AFFID T: Be re m the und rs' n appeared the above named accuser the ~ day of ay 2011 . and signed the foregoing charges and specifications und ,r oath that he/she is a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated matters set forth therein and I that the same are true to the best of hislher knowledge and belief. th1 ! Darlene S. Simmons Typed Name of Officer Office of Milita!y Co~misSions OrganizatIOn of cer , I CDR, JAGC, USN Grade -'-O_~_~~--=-~S~·'-::---~~~.....y'\.---"--~_~ Signature MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Judge Advo~te Official Capacity to Admster Oath A(See R.M.C. 307(b) must be cormiSSioned officer) ! I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED I I 31 May 6. On the accused was notified of the charges against him/~er (S~e R.M.C. 308). 2011 Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, G8-15 Office of Militarv Cbmmissions Typed Name and Grade or Person Who c.;aused Accused 10 Be Notified of Charges Organization of the Pe~tn Who Caused Accused to Be Nolifi~d of Charges ?~~-?f1- i i I V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY ! I 7. The swom charges were received at 1746 hours, on 1 June 2011 , at Alexand~iaE Virginia Location I ! For the Convening Authority: Donna L. Wilkins I Typed Name of oticer i GS-15 1!, AI .,. / i Grade ,.$k£~ {/J I I Signature I I ! VI. RE!fERRAL )5b. PLACE 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 i 8e. DATE (YYYVMMDD) : I Alexandria, VA 20120404 I Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission conven~d by military commission convening order 12~02 I dated 4 April 2012 subject to the following instructions 1: I See continuation sheet i Direction the Convening Authority, Bruce racDonald Convening Authority,! Ch~pter 47A Donnignature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES {; Apr ~ \ , d.D I~ I §used to I ~ served a copy these charges on the ~bove rnamed accused. I 1 /~l..L/· Clayton G. Trivett, Jr / / G8- 1 Grade of Trial Typed Name of Trial Counsel /~y / :::>itJnature of Trial / cr/ See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 t I FOOTNOTES ounsel Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 124 I CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFE~L (Original Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20110531) , In the case of United States of America v. ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI (aliases: Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Marsar; Isam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) The charges against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial with!the trials of Khalid Sh~kh Mohamm¢d; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ramzi Binalshibh; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi These charges will be tried in conjunction with the additional charge sworn 04 25 January 2012 and referred on 4 April 2012. ' The following charges are referred to trial as capital offenses: Conspiracy, Att~cking Civilians, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking an Aircraft, and Terrorism I This case is referred capital. See R.M.C. 103 (a)(4) and (5). By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, Ch~pter 47A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h Date: ----'/f'----~-F---.--+~-'O-----'I.-J...- Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. , IA . DATA 1. NAME OF ACCUSED: ~ '?\ Khalid Sh;lkh Mohamm~d Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi ~2.-A-Ll-AS-E-S-O-F-A-C-C-US-E-D-:------------------------------------------+---------------~C~~ \~ '" 0\. l C\ Ot'r< Khalid Sh~ikh Mohamm~d (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Ghamdi) , \\\ Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bij You~af; I Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami)' Silver; Tawfiq) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; AI ; Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) I 3. ISN NUMBER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): '?\ DI. Khalid Sh?ikh MOhammfd (10024) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF SECTION AND TITLE OF CRIME IN PART IV OF M.M.C. SPECIFICATION: See Attached Charges and Specifications. 5c. Sa. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) Graziano, Anthony CW3 A Criminallnvestigati~n Task Force (CITF) 5e. DATE (VYYYMMD ) 20110531 AFFID : Be re , the LInd . ned, authorized by law to administer oath in cases of this character, personal~y appeared the above named 1st day of \ Ma ,2011, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications und~r oath that he/she is a person accuser the subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated th~ matters set forth therein and that the same are true to the best of hislher knowledge and belief. Darlene S. Simmons Typed Name of officer CDR, JAGC, USN Grade s~ Signature MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 124 Cl; \ 6. On IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED _~3~/-=!:I~t.I"'R~~t=-__ , --=..::....:..::..-~~ the accused was notified of the charges against him/~er (See R.M.C. 308). ! Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 Office of Military Cbmmi:ssions Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges urganization of the Pe~~on Whp Caused Accused to Be Notifi~d of Charges ! i I ! V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 7. The sworn charges were received at 1746 hours,on1 ! June 2011 ,at Alexandria, Virginia Location For the Convening Authority: Donna L. Wi lkins ! Typed Name of ~) / o~cer Signature ! VI. RISFERRAL 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY 8b. PLACE Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 : Alexandria, 8e. DATE (YYVYMMDD) 20120404 VA : Referred for trial to the ~capital military commission convened by military commission convening order __1_2_.... -+:_0_2--+'_ _ _ _ _ __ ~ i dated 4 April 2012 I subject to the following instructions -----------See continuation sheet By OJ Tect j 00 Command, Order, or Direction Donnq L. Wilkins, 1 : -----------~--------- of the Convening Authority, Bruce iMacDonald Convening AuthorityJ Chapter 47A Title 10 U.S.C. ~ 9 L 8h I GS-15 Official Capacity of um er Signing / V" / Signature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES I I ~sed to b~ served a copy these charges on the fbove named accused. I I Clayton G. Trivett, Jr GS-1t Grade of Tria/~ounsel I i // / Sign~ture of Trial coura;;' I FOOTNOTES See R.M.C. 601 conceming instructions. If none, so state. , I , , Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 124 i CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, (Original Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20110531) REFE~L In the case of United States of America v. MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL HAWSAWI (aliases: Zahir; Hashem Abd~llahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) . The charges against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial with ~he trials of ~ ~\ Khalid Sh¢ikh Mohamm~d; I , Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ramzi Binalshibh; and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali These charges will be tried in conjunction with the additional charge sworn 011125 January 2012 I and referred on 4 April 2012. . i The following charges are referred to trial as capital offenses: Conspiracy, Att~cking Civilians, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking an Aircraft, and Terrorism. I This case is referred capital. See R.M.C. 103(a)(4) and (5). . By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, Ch~pter47A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h i Date: /f ~ ~ 0/:2I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 124 CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF:O U.S.C. §950~29), CONSPIRACY I Specification: In that Khalid Shfikh Mohamm+d (alk/a Mukhtar al Bal~cfi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah Al Ghamdi); Walid Muhammad Salih ~~barak Bin 'Attash (alk/a Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq); Ramzi Binalshibh (a!k/a Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al H~drami); Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (alk/a Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; IsamlMansour; Ali; Abdollahi; Aliosh; Hani), and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (alk/a! Zahir; Hash~m I Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa), persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivileged enemy belligerents, did, at various locatiofs, frpm in or about 1996, to in or about May 2003, in the context of and associated with hpstilities, conspire and agree with Usama bin Laden, Mohammed Atef (alk/a Abu Haf~ al Masri), 19 individuals who hijacked four commercial airliners on September 11, 2001: (American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 aircraft, tail number N334AA, hereinafter ~A #11) Mohamed Atta (alk/a Abd aI-Rahman), Satam al Suqami (alk/a Azmi), Waleed al Shehri I (alk/a Abu Mis'ab), Wail al Shehri (alk/a Abu Salman), Abdul Aziz al Omari (alk/a Abu alAbbas al-Janubi); (United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, tail nutb.ber N612UA, hereinafter UA #175) Marwan al Shehhi (alk/a al-Qa'qa'), Hamza al Ghamd~ (alk/a Julaybib), Ahmed al Ghamdi (alk/a Ikrimah), Mohand al Shehri (alk/a Umarl al-Azdi), Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad (hereinafter Fayez Bani~ammad) (alk/a Abu Ahmad); (United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, tail nqmber N591 UA, hereinafter UA #93) Ziad Samir Jarrah (alk/a Abu Tariq), Ahmad IIbrahim A. al Haznawi (alk/a al-Jarrah al-Ghamdi), Ahmed al Nami (alk/a Abu Hashim), ~aeed al Ghamdi (alk/a Mu'tazz); (American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 aircraft, tail number N644AA, hereinafter AA #77) Hani Hanjour (alk/a Urwah al-Ta'ifi), Khalidl al Mihdhar (alk/a Sinan), Nawaf al Hazmi (alk/a Rabi'ah al-Makki), Majed Moqed (alk/r al-Ahnaf), Salem al Hazmi (alk/a Bilal al-Makki); and various other members and asso¢iates of the al Qaeda organization, known and unknown, to commit the following offenses !triable by military commission, to wit: attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; iQtentipnally causing serious bodily injury; murder in violation of the law of war; destructfon of property in violation of the law of war; hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft; anq terrorism. Each of the five accused, knowing the unlawful purpose of the agreement, ~d with the intent to further the unlawful purpose, willfully joined the conspiracy and di~ knowingly and intentionally commit at least one of the following overt acts, in order to *ccomplish some objective or purpose of the agreement, with said conspiracy resulting iJil the deaths of 2,976 persons (see Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of victims killed in th~ att..cks): I 1. In August 1996, Usama bin Laden (al Qaeda's "emir" or leader) issued a public "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans," in which he called for the mutder of U.S. military personnel serving on the Arabian Peninsula. : i 2. In 1996, Khalid Sh~kh Mohamm~'d met with Usama bin Laden i* Afghanistan and discussed the operational concept of hijacking commercial airliners and trashing them into buildings in the United States and elsewhere. This plan was ultimately dpproved by Usama bin Laden. . ~age 1 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 18 of 124 3. Between 1996 and 2001, Khalid Sh~kh MOhamm1~, Usama bin ~aden, and Mohammed Atef (a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri, the military commander of al Q~eda); proposed and discussed potential targets for attack by hijacked commercial airliners aIjld decided to target economic, political, and military buildings in the United States and W~stern Pacific. I 4. In February 1998, Usama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and othets, under the banner of "International Islamic Front for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," issued a fatwa (purported religious ruling) requiring all Muslims able to do so to kill Amerilcans - whether civilian or military - anywhere they can be found and to "plunder their mon¢y." , 5. On or about May 29, 1998, Usama bin Laden issued a statement enltitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Froqt for Fighting Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of the Muslims t prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God." 6. In early 1999, Usama bin Laden directed Walid Muhammad Salib Mubarak Bin 'Attash (alk/a Khallad, hereinafter Khallad Bin 'Attash) to obtain a pnited States visa so that he could travel to the United States and obtain pilot training in order to participate in what Khallad Bin 'Attash termed the "Planes Operation." 7. On or about April 3, 1999, Khallad Bin 'Attash traveled to San'a\ YeIhen, and applied for a visa to travel to the United States using the alias "Salah Saeed Moh! United Airlines Flight #93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, tail number N591UA); lher~ft grPrJI ~- (Allington, YiIginitl,; and the North and South Towers of the World Trade C nteri(New York, New York); in violation of the law of war, by intentionally crashing said fol!1r civilian aircraft into the World Trade Center (New York, New York), the Pentagon (!rlington, Virginia), and a field at or near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. i V I PH;lO\~\')~o,\ i CHARGE ~ VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.c. §950t (23), HUACKING O~ HAZARDING A VESSEL OR AIRCRAFT : ~ ~ I Specification: In that Khalid Shfikh MohammFd, Walid Muhammad Sa~ih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh,'AIi Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmedfdam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivile ed enemy belligerents, did, in the skies over the United States, on September 11, 200 1, hile in the context of and associated with hostilities, intentionally seize, exercise unauthprized control over, and endanger the safe navigation of aircraft that were not legitimate military objectives, to wit: American Airlines Flight # II, United Airlines Flight # 175l American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93, resulting in the deaths o~ 2,976 persons. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A fora list of victims killed in the att4cks)~ I i I I . Pa~e 19 of 88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 36 of 124 VII .J;;) ,-r;O\~ 0,,0'\ CHARGE"Wf: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.c. §950t (24), TERRORISM Specification: In that Khalid Sh~kh MOhamm¢a, Walid Muhammad Sahh Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh,Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahme~ Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivile!ted ej1emy belligerents, did, on September 11, 2001, at or near New York, New York, ~lington, Virginia, and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, while in the context of and associat~d with hostilities, intentionally kill and inflict great bodily harm on one or more pro~ected persons and engage in an act that evinced a wanton disregard for human life, in a mapnercalculated to influence and affect the conduct of the United States Government and civ~lian population by intimidation and coercion, and to retaliate against United States Govern~ent conduct, by intentionally crashing four civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airlines Flitht #11, United Airlines Flight #175, American Airlines Flight #77, and United Airlines Flight #93 into the World Trade Center (New York, New York), the Pentagon (Arlington, Virg~nia),and a field at or near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, resulting in the deaths of 2,976 p~rsons. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of victims killed in the attacks). I P~ge 20 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 37 of 124 Charge Sheet Appendix A The names of those that were killed as a result of the attacks of Septembh 11, 2001 A total of 2,976 people were killed as a result of the attacks on the ~orld Trade ! Center, the Pentagon, and the hijacking and subsequent intentional crashing of UJilited Airlines Flight 93 in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The following people were killed on September 11, 2001, in or arou~d the World Trade Center in New York City when the commercial airline flight they wer~ on, American ! Airlines Flight #11, was intentionally crashed into the North Tower of the \\1orld Trade Center. American Airlines Flight # 11 CREW 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Arestegui, Barbara Jean Collman, Jeffrey Dwayne Low, Sara Elizabeth Martin, Karen Ann McGuinness Jr., Thomas F. Nicosia, Kathleen Ann Ogonowski, John A. Ong, Betty Ann Roger, Jean Destrehan Snyder, Dianne Bullis Sweeney, Madeline Amy PASSENGERS 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Allison, Anna Angell, David Lawrence Angell, Lynn Aoyama, Seima David Aronson, Myra Joy Barbuto, Christine P~ge 21 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 38 of 124 18. 19. 20. 2l. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3l. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 4l. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 5l. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 6l. 62. 63. Beug, Carolyn Booms, Kelly Ann Bouchard, Carol Marie Coombs, Jeffery W. Creamer, Tara Kathleen Cuccinello, Thelma Currivan, Patrick Joseph Curry Green, Andrew Peter Charles Dale, Brian Paul DiMeglio, David DiTullio, Donald Americo Dominguez, Alberto Farley-Hackel, Paige Marie Filipov, Alexander Milan Flyzik, Carol Ann Friedman, Paul J. Fyfe, Karleton D.B. Gay, Peter Alan George, Linda M. Glazer, Edmund Gordenstein, Lisa Reinhart Hashem, Peter Paul Hayes, Robert Jay Heffernan Casey, Neilie Anne Hennessy Jr., Edward R. Hofer, John A. Holland, Cora Hidalgo Humber Jr., John Nicholas Iskandar, Waleed Joseph Jenkins, John Charles Jones, Charles Edward Kaplan, Robin Lynne Keating, Barbara A. Kova1cin, David P. Larocque, Judith Camilla Lasden, Natalie Janis Lee, Daniel John Lewin, Daniel M. MacKay, Susan A. Mello, Christopher D. Mladenik, Jeffrey Peter Montoya Valdes, Antonio Jesus Montoya, Carlos Alberto Morabito, Laura Lee Naiman, Mildred Rose Neira, Laurie Ann i P~ge 22 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 39 of 124 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 7l. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 8l. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. Newell, Renee Lucille Norton, Jacqueline June Norton, Robert Grant Orth, Jane M. Pecorelli, Thomas Nicholas Perkins, Berinthia B. Puopolo, Sonia M. Retik, David E. Rosenzweig, Philip Martin Ross, Richard Barry Sachs, Jessica Leigh Salie, Rahma Smith, Heather Lee Stone, Douglas Joel Suarez, Xavier Theodoridis, Michael Trentini, James Anthony Trentini, Mary Barbara Vamsikrishna, Pendyala Wahlstrom, Mary Alice Waldie, Kenneth E. Wenckus, John Joseph Williams, Candace Lee Zarba Jr., Christopher Rudolph The following people were killed on September 11, 2001, in or arou~d the World Trade Center in New York City when the commercial airline flight they wert on, United I Airlines Flight #175, was intentionally crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. United Airlines Flight #175 CREW 88. 89. 90. 9l. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. Fangman, Robert John Horrocks, Michael Robert Jarret, Amy N. King, AmyR. LaBorie, Kathryn L. Marchand, Alfred Gilles Saracini, Victor J. Tarrou, Michael C. Titus, Alicia Nicole I Page 23 of88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 40 of 124 PASSENGERS 97. 98. 99. 100. 10 I. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 11 I. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 12l. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 13 I. 132. 133. 134. Abraham, Alona Bailey, Garnet Edward Bavis, Mark Lawrence Berkeley, Graham Andrew Bolourchi, Touran Hamzavi Bothe, Klaus Brandhorst, Daniel Raymond Brandhorst, David Reed Gamboa. Cahill, John Brett Carstanjen, Christoffer Mikael Corcoran III, John B. de Araujo, Dorothy Alma Frost, Lisa Anne Gamboa, Ronald Goodchild, Lynn Catherine Goodrich, Peter M. Gowell, Douglas Alan Grogan, Francis Edward Hammond Jr., Carl Max Hanson, Christine Lee Hanson, Peter Burton Hanson, Sue Ju Hardacre, Gerald Francis Hartono, Eric Hayden, James Edward Homer, Herbert Wilson J albert, Robert Adrien Kershaw, Ralph Francis Kimmig, Heinrich Kinney, Brian K. LeBlanc, Robert G. Lopez Jr., Maclovio Macfarlane, Marianne Mariani, Louis Neil McCourt, Juliana Valentine McCourt, Ruth Magdaline Medwig, Deborah Louise Menzel, Wolfgang Peter I P~ge 24 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 41 of 124 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 14I. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 147. Nassaney, Shawn M. . Pappalardo, Marie Pocasangre DeBarrera, Ana Glo~a Quigley IV, Patrick J. Rimmele III, Frederick Charles Roux, James Sanchez, Jesus Shearer, Mary Kathleen Shearer, Robert M. Simpkin, Jane Louise Sweeney, Brian David Ward, Timothy Ray Weems, William Michael The following people were killed on September 11,2001, in or arou~d the World Trade Center in New York City as a result of two commercial airliners crashiing into the i two main towers or as the result of the buildings collapsing: WORLD TRADE CENTER 148. 149. 150. 15I. 152. 153. 154. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 160. 16I. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. Aamoth Jr., Gordon M. Abad, Edelrniro Abad, Maria Rose Abate, Andrew Anthony Abate, Vincent Abel, Laurence Christopher Abrahamson, William F. Aceto, Richard Anthony Ackermann, Heinrich Bernhard Acquaviva, Paul Adams, Donald LaRoy Adams, Patrick Adams, Shannon Lewis Adams, Stephen George Adanga, Ignatius Udo Addamo, Christy A. Adderley Jr., Terence E. Addo, Sophia B. Adler, Lee Afflitto, Daniel Thomas Afuakwah, Emmanuel Akwasi P~ge 25 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 42 of 124 169. 170. 171. 172. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. Agarwal, Alok Agarwala, Mukul Kumar Agnello, Joseph Agnes, David Scott Ahearn, Brian G. Ahem, Jeremiah Joseph Ahladiotis, Joanne Marie Ahmed, Shabbir Aiken, Terrance Andre Ajala, Godwin Alagero, Gertrude M. Alameno, Andrew Alario, Margaret Ann Albero, Gary M. Albert, Jon Leslie Alderman, Peter Craig Aldridge, Jacquelyn Delaine Alger, David D. Alikakos, Ernest Allegretto, Edward L. Allen, Eric Allen, Joseph Ryan Allen, Richard Dennis Allen, Richard L. Allingham, Christophe E. Alonso, Janet M. Alvarado, Anthony Alvarez, Antonio Javier Alvarez-Brito Victoria Alvear, Telmo E. Alviar, Cesar Amoranto Amanullah, Tariq Amaranto, Angelo Amato, James M. Amatuccio, Joseph Amoroso, Christopher Charles Anai, Kazuhiro Anaya Jr., Calixto Anchundia, Joseph Anderson, Kermit Charles Anderson, Yvette Constance Andreacchio, John Andrews, Michael Rourke Andrucki, Jean Ann Ang, Siew-Nya Angelini Jr., Joseph John I i P~ge I 26 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 43 of 124 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 22 I. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 23 I. 232. 233. 234. 235. 236. 237. 238. 239. 240. 24 I. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 250. 25 I. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258. 259. 260. Angelini Sr., Joseph Angilletta, Laura Angrisani, Doreen J. Antigua, Lorraine Apollo, Peter Paul Apostol Jr., Faustino Aquilino, Frank: Thomas Aranyos, Patrick Michael Arce, David Gregory Arczynski, Michael George Arena, Louis Arias, Adam P. Armstrong, Michael Aron, Jack Charles Aron,Joshua Aronow, Richard A very Aryee, Japhet Jesse Asaro, Carl Francis Asciak, Michael Asher, Michael Edward Ashley, Janice Marie Ashton, Thomas J. Asitimbay, Manuel O. Atlas, Gregg Arthur Atwood, Gerald Thomas Audiffred, James Aversano Jr., Louis Frank Aviles, Ezra Ayala, Sandy Babakitis, Arlene T. Bacchus, Eustace P. Badagliacca, John J. Baeszler, Jane Ellen Baierwalter, Robert J. Bailey, Andrew J. Bailey, Brett T. Bakalinskaya, Tatyana Baksh, Michael S. Balkcom, Sharon M. Bane, Michael Andrew Bantis, Katherine Baptiste, Gerard Baran, Walter Barbara, Gerard A. Barbaro, Paul Vincent Barbella, James William P~ge 27 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 44 of 124 261. 262. 263. 264. 265. 266. 267. 268. 269. 270. 271. 272. 273. 274. 275. 276. 277. 278. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. Barbosa, Ivan Kyrillos F. Barbosa, Victor Daniel Barkow, Colleen Ann Barkway, David Michael Barnes, Matthew Barnes, Sheila Patricia Baron, Evan J. Barrett-Arjune, Renee Barry, Arthur Thadeus Barry, Diane G. Barry, Maurice Vincent Bart, Scott D. Bartels, Carlton W. Barzvi, Guy Basina, Inna B. Basmajian, Alysia Basnicki, Kenneth William Bates, Steven Joseph Battaglia, Paul James Bauer Jr., Walter David Bautista, Marlyn Capito Baxter, Jasper Beale, Michele Beatini, Paul Frederick Beatty, Jane S. Beck, Lawrence Ira Beckles, Manette Marie Bedigian, Carl John Beekman, Michael Earnest Behr, Maria A. Belilovsky, Yelena Bell, Nina Patrice Bellows, Debbie Belson, Stephen Elliot Benedetti, Paul M. Benedetto, Denise Lenore Bennett, Bryan Craig Bennett, Eric L. Bennett, Oliver Duncan Benson, Margaret L. Berardi, Dominick J. Berger, James Patrick Berger, Steven Howard Bergin, John P. Bergsohn, Alvin Bergstein, Daniel Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 45 of 124 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351. 352. Berkeley, Michael J. Bernaerts, Donna M. Bernard, David W. Bernstein, William Berray, David M. Berry, David S. Berry, Joseph J. Bethke, William Reed Betterly, Timothy Beyea, Edward Frank Beyer, Paul Michael Bharvaney, Anil Tahilram Bhukhan, Bella J. Biegeleisen, Shimmy D. Bielfeld, Peter Alexander Biggart, William G. Bilcher, Brian Eugene Bini, Carl Vincent Bird, Gary Eugene Birnbaum, Joshua David Bishop, George John Bittner, Jeffrey Donald Blackman Jr., Albert Balewa Blackwell, Christopher Joseph Blair, Susan Leigh Blanding Jr., Harry Blaney, Janice Lee Blass, Craig Michael Blau, Rita Blood Jr., Richard Middleton Boccardi, Michael Andrew Bocchi, John P. Bocchino, Michael Leopoldo Bochino, Susan M. Boehm, Bruce D. Boffa, Mary Catherine Bogdan, Nicholas Andrew Bohan, Darren Christopher Boisseau, Lawrence Francis Boland Jr., Vincent M. Bondarenko, Alan Bonheur Jr., Andre Bonnett, Colin Arthur Bonomo, Frank Bonomo, Yvonne Lucia Booker, Seaon Pa~e 29 of 88 ! I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 46 of 124 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 36l. 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 37l. 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 38l. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 39l. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. Bordeaux, Sherry Ann Bordenabe, Krystine Boryczewski, Martin Bosco, Richard Edward Boulton, John H. Bourdier, Francisco Eligio Bowden Jr., Thomas Harold Bowers, Kimberly S. Bowers, Veronique Nicole Bowman Jr., Shawn Edward Bowman, Larry Bowser, Kevin L. Box, Gary R. Boyarsky, Gennady Boyce, Pamela Boyle, Michael Braca, Alfred Bracken, Kevin Hugh Brady, David Brian Braginsky, Alexander Brandemarti, Nicholas W. Bratton, Michelle Renee Braut, Patrice Bravo, Lydia E. Breitweiser, Ronald Michael Brennan III, Edward A. Brennan, Francis Henry Brennan, Michael E. Brennan, Peter Brennan, Thomas M. Brethel, Daniel J. Bright, Gary Lee Briley, Johathan Brisman, Mark A. Bristow, Paul Gary Broderick, Mark Francis Broghammer, Herman Charles Broomfield, Keith A. Brown, Janice Juloise Brown, Lloyd Stanford Brown, Patrick J. Browne, Bettina Bruce, Mark Bruehert, Richard George Brunn Andrew Brunton, Vincent Edward Pa~e 30 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 47 of 124 399. 400. 40l. 402. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 41l. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 42l. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. 43l. 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 44l. 442. 443. 444. Bucca, Ronald Paul Buchanan, Brandon J. Buck, Gregory Joseph Buckley, Dennis Bueche, Nancy Clare Buhse, Patrick Joseph Bulaga Jr., John Edwards Bunin, Stephen Burke Jr., William Francis Burke, Matthew J. Burke, Thomas Daniel Bums, Donald J. Bums, Kathleen Anne Bums, Keith James Burnside, John Patrick Buslo, Irina Bustillo, Milton G. Butler, Thomas M. Byrne, Patrick Dennis Byrne, Timothy G. Cabezas, Jesus Neptali Caceres, Lillian Cachia, Brian Joseph Cafiero Jr., Steven Dennis Caggiano, Richard M. Caguicla, Cecile Marella Cahill, Michael John Cahill, Scott Walter Cahill, Thomas Joseph Cain, George Calabro, Salvatore B. Calandrillo, Joseph Calcagno, Philip V. Calderon, Edward Caldwell, Kenneth Marcus Calia, Dominick Enrico Calixte, Felix Callahan, Francis Joseph Callahan, Liam Calvi, Luigi Camaj, Roko Cammarata, Michael F. Campbell, David Otey Campbell, Geoffrey Thomas Campbell, Jill Marie Campbell, Robert Arthur Pafge 31 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 48 of 124 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 45l. 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 46l. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 47l. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. 48l. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. Campbell, Sandra Patricia Canavan, Sean Thomas Candela, John A. Cangelosi, Vincent Cangialosi, Stephen J. Cannava, Lisa Bella Cannizzaro, Brian Canty, Michael Caporicci, Louis Anthony Cappello, Jonathan Neff Cappers, James Christopher Caproni, Richard Michael Cardona, Jose Manuel Carey, Dennis M. Carlino, Edward Carlo, Michael Scott Carlone, David G. Carlson, Rosemarie C. Carney, Mark Stephen Carpeneto, Joyce Ann Carpio Bautista, Ivhan Luis Carrington, Jeremy M. Carroll, Michael Carroll, Peter Carson Jr., James Joseph Carter, Marcia Cecil Cartier, James Marcel Casalduc, Vivian Casazza, John Francis Cascio, Paul R. Casoria, Thomas Anthony Caspar, William Otto Castano, Alejandro Castillo, Arcelia Castrianno, Leonard M. Castro, Jose Ramon Catarelli, Richard G. Caton, Christopher Sean Caufield, Robert John Caulfield, Mary Teresa Cavalier, Judson Cawley, Michael Joseph Cayne, Jason David Ceballos, Juan Armando Cefalu, Jason Michael Celie, Thomas Joseph Pa~e 32 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 49 of 124 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. Centeno, Ana Mercedes Cesta, Joni Chairnoff, Jeffrey Marc Chalasani, Swama Chalcoff, William Chalouh, Eli Chan, Charles Lawrence Chang, Mandy Charette, Mark Lawrence Chavez, Gregorio Manuel Cheatham, Delrose E. Checo, Pedro Francisco Cherry, Douglas MacMillan Cherry, Stephen Patrick Cherry, Vernon Paul Chevalier, Nestor Chevalier, Swede Chiang, Alexander H. Chiarchiaro, Dorothy J. Chimbo, Luis Alfonso Chin, Robert Ching, Wing Wai Chiofalo, Nicholas Paul Chipura, John Gerard Chirchirillo, Peter A. Chirls, Catherine Cho, Kyung Hee Chowdhury, Abul K. Chowdhury, Mohammad Salahuddin Christophe, Kristen L. Chu, Pamela Chucknick, Steven Paul Chung, Wai Ciafardini, Christopher Ciccone, Alex F. Cilente, Frances Ann Cillo, Elaine Cintron III, Nestor Andre Cintron, Edna Cirri, Robert Dominick Cisneros, Juan Pablo Clark, Benjamin Keefe Clark, Eugene Clark, Gregory Alan Clark, Mannie Leroy Clark, Thomas R. P-re 33 of88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 50 of 124 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 550. 551. 552. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 575. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. 581. 582. Clarke, Christopher Robert Clarke, Donna Maria Clarke, Michael J. Clarke, Suria Rachel Emma Cleary, Kevin Francis Cleere, James D. Cloud, Geoffrey W. Clyne, Susan Marie Coakley, Steven Coale, Jeffrey Alan Cody, Patricia A. Coffey, Daniel Michael Coffey, Jason M. Cohen, Florence G. Cohen, Kevin Sanford Coladonato, Anthony Joseph Colaio, Mark Joseph Colaio, Stephen Colasanti, Christophe M. Colbert, Kevin Nathaniel Colbert, Michel P. Coleman, Keith E. Coleman, Scott Thomas Coleman, Tarel Colhoun, Liam Joseph Colin, Robert D. ColI, Robert J. Collin, Jean Marie Collins, John Michael Collins, Michael L. Collins, Thomas J. Collison, Joseph K. Colodner, Patricia Malia Colon, Linda M. Colon, Sol E. Comer, Ronald Edward Conaty Brace, Sandra Jolane Concepcion, Jaime Conde, Albert Conley, Denease Conlon, Susan Conner, Margaret Mary Connolly Jr., John E. Connolly, Cynthia Marie Lise Connor, James Lee Connors, Jonathan M. P~e 34 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 51 of 124 583. 584. 585. 586. 587. 588. 589. 590. 591. 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. 605. 606. 607. 608. 609. 610. 611. 612. 613. 614. 615. 616. 617. 618. 619. 620. 621. 622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627. 628. Connors, Kevin Patrick Conroy, Kevin F. Conway, Brenda E. Cook, Dennis Michael Cook, Helen D. Cooper, John A. Coppo Jr., Joseph John Coppola, Gerard J. Corbett, Joseph Albert Cordero, Alejandro Cordice, Robert Joseph Correa, Ruben D. Correa-Gutierrez, Danny Corrigan, James J. Cortes, Carlos Cosgrove, Kevin Costa, Dolores Marie Costanza, Digna Alexandra Costello Jr., Charles Gregory Costello, Michael S. Cottoy, Conrod K. Coughlan, Martin Coughlin, John Gerard Coughlin, Timothy J. Cove, James E. Cox, Andre Cox, Frederick John Coyle, James Raymond Coyle-Eulau, Michele Cramer, Anne Marie Cramer, Christopher Seton Crant, Denise Elizabeth Crawford Jr., James Leslie Crawford, Robert James Cregan, Joanne Mary Crifasi, Lucy Crisci, John A. Crisman, Daniel Hal Cross, Dennis Crotty, Kevin Raymond Crotty, Thomas G. Crowe, John Crowther, Welles Remy Cruikshank, Robert L. Cruz, John Robert Cua, Grace Yu Alegre i Pa~e 35 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 52 of 124 629. 630. 631. 632. 633. 634. 635. 636. 637. 638. 639. 640. 641. 642. 643. 644. 645. 646. 647. 648. 649. 650. 651. 652. 653. 654. 655. 656. 657. 658. 659. 660. 661. 662. 663. 664. 665. 666. 667. 668. 669. 670. 671. 672. 673. 674. Cubas, Kenneth John Cubero, Francisco Cruz Cudina, Richard J. Cudmore, Neil James Cullen III, Thomas Patrick Cummings, Joyce Cummins, Brian Thomas Cunningham, Michael Joseph Curatolo, Robert Curia, Laurence Damian Curioli, Paul Dario Curry, Beverly Curtin, Michael Sean Cushny, Gavin Da Mota, Manuel John Dack, Caleb Arron DaCosta, Carlos S. DaFonseca Aguiar Jr., Joao Alberto D'Allara, John D'Amadeo, Vincent Gerard Damaskinos, Thomas A. D'Ambrosi, Jack Damiani-Jones, Jeannine Marie Danahy, Patrick W. D'Antonio, Mary Danz, Vincent Darcy, Dwight Donald Darling, Elizabeth Ann Dataram, Annette Andrea D'Atri, Edward A. D'Auria, Michael D. Davidson, Michael Allen Davidson, Scott Matthew Davidson, Titus Davila Niurka Davis, Clinton Davis, Wayne Terrial Davison, Lawrence Dawson, Anthony Richard Dawson, Calvin Day, Edward James de Chavez, Jayceryll De Jesus Nereida De Jesus, Jennifer De La Pena, Emerita de la Torre, Azucena Maria ! Page 36 of88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T- Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 53 of 124 67S. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680. 681. 682. 683. 684. 68S. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691. 692. 693. 694. 69S. 696. 697. 698. 699. 700. 701. 702. 703. 704. 70S. 706. 707. 708. 709. 710. 711. 712. 713. 714. 71S. 716. 717. 718. 719. 720. De Santis, Jemal Legesse De Vere, Melanie Louise Dean, William Thomas DeAngelis Jr., Robert J. DeAngelis, Thomas Patrick Debek, Tara E. DeBin, Anna Marjia DeBIase, James V. DeCola, Paul Dedvukaj, Simon Marash Defazio, Jason Christopher DeFeo, David A. DeJ esus, Monique E. Del Valle Jr., Manuel Delapenha, Donald Arthur DeLeo, Vito Joseph Delie, Danielle Anne Della Pietra, Joseph A. DellaBella, Andrea DelliGatti, Palmina Deloughery, Colleen Ann DeMartini, Francis Albert Demas, Anthony DeMeo, Martin N. Deming, Francis Demitz, Carol K. Dennis, Kevin Dennis, Thomas F. DePalma, Jean DePena, Jose Nicolas Deraney, Robert John DeRienzo, Michael DeRubbio, David Paul DeSimone III, Edward DeSimone, Christian Desperito, Andrew D'Esposito, Michael Jude Deuel, Cindy Ann DeVito, Jerry Devitt Jr., Robert P. Devlin, Dennis Lawrence Dewan, Gerard Dhanani, Sulemanali Kassamali Di Chiaro, Patricia Florence Di Martino, Debra Ann DiAgostino, Michael Louis Pa~e 37 of88 , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 54 of 124 721. 722. 723. 724. 725. 726. 727. 728. 729. 730. 731. 732. 733. 734. 735. 736. 737. 738. 739. 740. 741. 742. 743. 744. 745. 746. 747. 748. 749. 750. 751. 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. 757. 758. 759. 760. 761. 762. 763. 764. 765. 766. Diaz, Matthew Diaz, Nancy Diaz-Piedra III, Michael A. Diaz-Sierra, Judith Berquis Dickey Jr., Joseph Dermot Dickinson, Lawrence Patrick Diehl, Michael D. Difato, John Difazio, Vincent DiFranco, Carl Anthony DiFranco, Donald Dimino, Stephen Patrick Dimmling, William John Dincuff, Christopher M. Dingle, Jeffrey Mark Dionisio, Anthony DiPasquale, George Dipilato, Joseph DiStefano, Douglas Frank Doany, Ramzi A. Doherty, John Joseph Doi, Melissa C. Dolan, Brendan Dollard, Neil Matthew Domanico, James Joseph Domingo, Benilda Pascua Dominguez, Carlos Dominguez, Jerome Mark Patrick Donnelly, Kevin W. Donovan, Jacqueline Dorf, Stephen Scott Dowd, Thomas Dowdell, Kevin Christopher Dowling, Mary Yolanda Downey, Raymond Mathew Doyle, Frank Joseph Doyle, Joseph Michael Drake, Randy Driscoll, Stephen Patrick Duarte, Mirna A. Dudek, Luke A. Duffy, Christopher Michael Duffy, Gerard Duffy, Michael Joseph Duffy, Thomas W. Duger, Antoinette Pa~e 38 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 55 of 124 767. 768. 769. 770. 77l. 772. 773. 774. 775. 776. 777. 778. 779. 780. 78l. 782. 783. 784. 785. 786. 787. 788. 789. 790. 79l. 792. 793. 794. 795. 796. 797. 798. 799. 800. 80l. 802. 803. 804. 805. 806. 807. 808. 809. 810. 81l. 812. Dukat, Sareve Dunne, Christopher Joseph Dunn-Jones, Felicia Dunstan, Richard Anthony Dwyer, Patrick Thomas Eacobacci, Joseph Anthony Eagleson, John Bruce Eaton, Robert Douglas Eberling, Dean Phillip Echtermann, Margaret Ruth Eckna, Paul Robert Economos, Constantine Edwards, Dennis Michael Edwards, Michael Hardy Egan Jr., Martin J. Egan, Christine Egan, Lisa Egan, Michael Egan, Samantha Martin Eggert, Carole Ehrlich, Lisa Caren Eichler, John Ernst Eisenberg, Eric Adam Elder, Daphne Ferlinda Elferis, Michael J. Ellis, Mark Joseph Ellis, Valerie Silver EIMarry, Albert Alfy William Emery Jr., Edgar Hendricks Eng, Doris Suk-Yuen Epps, Christopher Ericson, Vlf Ramm Erker, Erwin L. Erwin, William John Escarcega, Sarah Ali Espinal, Jose Espinoza, Fanny Esposito, Bridget Ann Esposito, Francis Esposito, Michael Esposito, William Esquilin Jr., Ruben Ette, Sadie Etzold, Barbara G. Evans, Eric Brian Evans, Robert Edward Page 39 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 56 of 124 813. 814. 815. 816. 817. 818. 819. 820. 821. 822. 823. 824. 825. 826. 827. 828. 829. 830. 831. 832. 833. 834. 835. 836. 837. 838. 839. 840. 841. 842. 843. 844. 845. 846. 847. 848. 849. 850. 851. 852. 853. 854. 855. 856. 857. 858. Ewart, Meredith Emily June Fagan, Catherine K. Fagan, Patricia Mary Fairben, Keith George Fajardo-Smith, Sandra Fallon Jr., William Lawrence Fallon, William F. Fallone Jr., Anthony J. Fanelli, Dolores Brigitte Fanning, John Joseph Faragher, Kathleen Anne Farino, Thomas James Farley, Nancy Carole Farmer, Elizabeth Ann Farnum, Douglas Jon Farrell, John Farrell, John W. Farrell, Terrence Patrick Farrelly, Joseph D. Farrelly, Thomas Patrick Fatha, Syed Abdul Faughnan, Christopher Edward Faulkner, WendyR. Fava, Shannon Marie Favuzza, Bernard D. Fazio Jr., Robert Fazio, Ronald Carl Feehan, William Feely, Francis Jude Feeney, Garth Erin Fegan, Sean B. Fehling, Lee S. Feidelberg, Peter Adam Feinberg, Alan D. Feliciano, Rosa Maria Fergus Jr., Edward Thomas Ferguson, George Fernandez, Henry Fernandez, Judy Hazel Fernandez, Julio Ferraina, Elisa Giselle Ferreira, Ann Marie Sallerin Ferris, Robert John Ferrugio, David Francis Fersini, Louis V. Ferugio, Michael David Page 40 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 57 of 124 859. 860. 86l. 862. 863. 864. 865. 866. 867. 868. 869. 870. 87l. 872. 873. 874. 875. 876. 877. 878. 879. 880. 88l. 882. 883. 884. 885. 886. 887. 888. 889. 890. 89l. 892. 893. 894. 895. 896. 897. 898. 899. 900. 90l. 902. 903. 904. Fetchet, Bradley James Fialko, Jennifer Louise Fiedel, Kristen Nicole Fields, Samuel Finnegan, Michael Bradley Finnerty, Timothy J. Fiore, Michael Curtis Fiorelli Sr., Stephen Fiori, Paul M. Fiorito, John B. Fischer, John R. Fisher, Andrew Fisher, Bennett Lawson Fisher, John Roger Fisher, Thomas J. Fishman, Lucy A. Fitzgerald, Ryan D. Fitzpatrick, Thomas James Fitzsimons, Richard P. Fiumefreddo, Salvatore Flannery, Christina Donovan Flecha, Eileen Fletcher, Andre G. Flickinger, Carl M. Florio, John Joseph Flounders, Joseph Walken Fodor, David Fodor, Michael N. Fogel, Stephen Mark Foley, Thomas Fontana, David J. Foo, Chih Min Forde, Godwin Foreman, Donald A. Forsythe, Christopher Hugh Foster, Claudia Alicia Foster, Noel John Fosteris, Ana Foti, Robert Joseph Fox, Jeffrey Fox, Virginia Francis, Pauline Francis, Virgin Frank, Gary Jay Frank, Morton H. Frank, Peter Christopher P*e41of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 58 of 124 905. 906. 907. 908. 909. 910. 911. 912. 913. 914. 915. 916. 917. 918. 919. 920. 921. 922. 923. 924. 925. 926. 927. 928. 929. 930. 931. 932. 933. 934. 935. 936. 937. 938. 939. 940. 941. 942. 943. 944. 945. 946. 947. 948. 949. 950. Fraser, Richard K. Frawley, Kevin J. Frazier Jr., Clyde Frederick, Lillian Inez Fredricks, Andrew Freeman, Tamitha Freiman, Brett Owen Freund, Peter L. Fried, Arlene Eva Friedlander, Alan Wayne Friedman, Andrew Keith Froehner, Gregg J. Fry, Peter Christian Fumando, Clement A. Furman, Steven Elliot Furmato, Paul Gabler, Fredric Neal Gabrielle, Richard Samuel Federick Gadiel, James Andrew Gaff, Pamela Lee Gailliard, Ervin Vincent Galante, Deanna Lynn Galante, Grace Catherine Gallagher, Anthony Edward Gallagher, Daniel James Gallagher, John Patrick Galletti, Lourdes Gallo, Cono E. Gallucci, Vincenzo Galvin, Thomas E. Gambale, Giovanna Galletta Gambino Jr., Thomas Gamboa, Giann Franco Ganci, Peter Gann, Claude Michael Garbarini, Charles William Garcia, Cesar R. Garcia, David Garcia, Juan Garcia, Marlyn Del Carmen Gardner III, Harvey J. Gardner, Christopher S. Gardner, Douglas Benjamin Gardner, Jeffrey Brian Gardner, Thomas A. Gardner, William Arthur pJpe 42 of88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 59 of 124 951. 952. 953. 954. 955. 956. 957. 958. 959. 960. 961. 962. 963. 964. 965. 966. 967. 968. 969. 970. 971. 972. 973. 974. 975. 976. 977. 978. 979. 980. 981. 982. 983. 984. 985. 986. 987. 988. 989. 990. 991. 992. 993. 994. 995. 996. Garfi, Francesco Gargano, Rocco Nino Gartenberg, James M. Garvey, Matthew David Gary, Bruce Gatton, Boyd Alan Gavagan Jr., Donald Richard Gazzani, Terence D. Geidel, Gary Paul Geier, Paul Hamilton Geis, Julie M. Gelinas, Peter G. Geller Steven Paul Gelling, Howard G. Genco Jr., Peter Victor Genovese, Steven Gregory Gentul, Alayne Geraghty, Edward F. Geraty, Suzanne Gerhardt, Ralph Gerlich, Robert Germain, Denis P. Gertsberg, Marina Romanovna Getzendanner, Susan M. Geyer, James G. Giaccone, Joseph M. Giammona, Vincent Francis Gibbon, Debra Lynn Giberson, James Andrew Gibson, Craig Neil Gies, Ronnie E. Giglio, Laura A. Gilbert, Andrew Clive Gilbert, Timothy Paul Gilbey, Paul Stuart Gill, Paul John Gilles, Mark Y. Gillette, Evan Gilligan, Ronald Lawrence Gillis, Rodney C. Gilly, Laura Ginley, John F. Giordano, Donna Marie Giordano, Jeffery John Giordano, John Giorgetti, Steven A. i Pa~e 43 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 60 of 124 997. 998. 999. 1000. 1001. 1002. 1003. 1004. 1005. 1006. 1007. 1008. 1009. 1010. 1011. 1012. 1013. 1014. 1015. 1016. 1017. 1018. 1019. 1020. 1021. 1022. 1023. 1024. 1025. 1026. 1027. 1028. 1029. 1030. 1031. 1032. 1033. 1034. 1035. 1036. 1037. 1038. 1039. 1040. 1041. 1042. Giovinazzo, Martin Girolamo, Kum-Kum Gitto, Salvatore Giugliano, Cynthia Gjonbalaj, Mon Gladstone, Dianne Glascoe, Keith Alexander Glasser, Thomas Irwin Glenn, Harry Glick, Barry H. Glick, Steven Gnazzo, John T. Godshalk, William Robert Gogliormella, Michael Goldberg, Brian Fredric Goldflam, Jefferey Grant Goldstein, Michelle Goldstein, Monica Goldstein, Steven Golkin Andrew H. Gomes, Dennis James Gomez Jr., Manuel Gomez, Enrique Antonio Gomez, Jose Bienvenido Gomez, Wilder Alfrado Gonzalez, Jenine Nicole Gonzalez, Mauricio Gonzalez, Rosa Gooding, Calvin J. Goody, Harry Gopu, Kiran Reddy Gorayeb, Catherine C. Gordon, Kerene Gorki, Sebastian Gorman, Kieran Joseph Gorman, Thomas Edward Gould, Michael Edward Goya, Yuji Grabowski, Jon Richard Grady, Christopher M.ichael Graf III, Edwin J. Graifman, David Martin Granados, Gilbert Franco Granitto, Elvira Grant, Winston Arthur Gray, Christopher S. I P~e440f88 ____________-----L_----'---_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-------" Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 61 of 124 1043. 1044. 1045. 1046. 1047. 1048. 1049. 1050. 1051. 1052. 1053. 1054. 1055. 1056. 1057. 1058. 1059. 1060. 1061. 1062. 1063. 1064. 1065. 1066. 1067. 1068. 1069. 1070. 1071. 1072. 1073. 1074. 1075. 1076. 1077. 1078. 1079. 1080. 1081. 1082. 1083. 1084. 1085. 1086. 1087. 1088. Gray, James Michael Gray, Tara McCloud Grayling, Linda Catherine Grazioso, John M Grazioso, Timothy George Green, Derrick Auther Green, Wade B. Greenberg, Elaine Myra Greene, Gayle R. Greenleaf Jr., James Arthur Greenstein, Eileen Marsha Gregg, Elizabeth Martin Gregory, Denise Gregory, Donald H. Gregory, Florence Moran Grehan, Pedro Griffin, John Michael Griffin, Tawanna Sherry Griffith, Joan Donna Grifka, Warren Grijalvo, Ramon Grillo, Joseph F. Grimner, David Joseph Grouzalis, Kenneth George Grzelak, Joseph Grzymalski, Matthew James Gschaar, Robert Joseph Gu, Liming Guadalupe, Jose A. Guan, Cindy Yan Zhu Guja, Geoffrey E. Gullickson, Joseph Peter Guman, Babita Girjamatie Gurian, Douglas Brian Gustafson, Janet Ruth Guza, Philip T. Guzzardo, Barbara Gyulavary, Peter M. Haag, Gary Robert Haberman, Andrea Lyn Habib, Barbara Mary Haentzler, Philip Hafiz, Nezam A. Hagerty, Karen Elizabeth Hagis, Steven M. Hague, Mary Lou i P~ge 45 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 62 of 124 1089. 1090. 1091. 1092. 1093. 1094. 1095. 1096. 1097. 1098. 1099. 1100. 1101. 1102. 1103. 1104. 1105. 1106. 1107. 1108. 1109. 1110. 1111. 1112. 1113. 1114. 1115. 1116. 1117. 1118. 1119. 1120. 1121. 1122. 1123. 1124. 1125. 1126. 1127. 1128. 1129. 1130. 1131. 1132. 1133. 1134. Haldennan, David Hale, Maile Rachel Hall, Richard B. Hall, Vaswald George Halligan, Robert J. Halloran, Vincent Gerard Halvorson, James Douglas Hamdani, Mohammad Salman Hamilton, Felicia Hamilton, Robert William Han, Frederic K. Hanley, Christopher J. Hanley, Sean S. Hanna, Valerie Joan Hannafin, Thomas Hannaford, Kevin James Hannan, Michael Lawrence Hannon, Dana R. Haramis, Vassilios G. Haran, James A. Hardy, Jeffrey Pike Hargrave, Timothy John Harlin, Daniel Edward Haros, Frances Harrell, Harvey L. Harrell, Stephen G. Harrington, Melissa Harris, Aisha Anne Harris, Stewart Dennis Hart, John Patrick Hartz, John Clinton Harvey, Emeric Haskell Jr., Thomas Theodore Haskell, Timothy Hasson III, Joseph John Hatton Terence S. Hatton, Leonard W. Haub, Michael Helmut Haviland, Timothy Aaron Havlish Jr., Donald G. Hawkins, Anthony Hayatsu, Nobuhiro Hayes, Philip Haynes, William Ward Hazelcorn, Scott Jordan Healey, Michael K. Pa~e 46 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 63 of 124 1135. 1136. 1137. 1138. 1139. 1140. 114l. 1142. 1143. 1144. 1145. 1146. 1147. 1148. 1149. 1150. 115l. 1152. 1153. 1154. 1155. 1156. 1157. 1158. 1159. 1160. 116l. 1162. 1163. 1164. 1165. 1166. 1167. 1168. 1169. 1170. 117l. 1172. 1173. 1174. 1175. 1176. 1177. 1178. 1179. 1180. Heber, Roberta B. Heeran, Charles Francis Xavier Heffernan, John F. Heller Jr., H. Joseph Heltibridle, JoAnn L. Hemschoot, Mark F. Henderson, Ronnie Lee Hennessey, Brian Henrique, Michelle Marie Henry, Joseph Patrick Henry, William Henwood, John Christopher Hepburn, Robert Allan Herencia, Mary Herkness III, Lindsay C. Hermer, Harvey Robert Hernandez, Claribel Hernandez, Nuberto Hernandez, Raul Herold, Gary Hersch, Jeffrey A. Hetzel, Thomas Heyward, Leon Hickey, Brian Christopher Hidalgo Cedeno, Enemencio Higgins, Timothy Higley II, Robert D. W. Hill, Todd Russell Hinds, Clara Victorine Hinds, Neal O. Hindy, Mark D. Hirai, Katsuyuki Ho, Heather Malia Hobbs, Tara Yvette Hobbs, Thomas Anderson Hobin, James J. Hobson, Robert Wayne Hodges, DaJuan Hoerner, Ronald George Hoey, Patrick A. Hoffman, Marcia Hoffman, Stephen G. Hoffmann, Frederick Joseph Hoffmann, Michele L. Hofrniller, Judith Florence Hohlweck Jr., Thomas Warren , i P~ge 47 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 64 of 124 118l. 1182. 1183. 1184. 1185. 1186. 1187. 1188. 1189. 1190. 119l. 1192. 1193. 1194. 1195. 1196. 1197. 1198. 1199. 1200. 120l. 1202. 1203. 1204. 1205. 1206. 1207. 1208. 1209. 1210. 121l. 1212. 1213. 1214. 1215. 1216. 1217. 1218. 1219. 1220. 122l. 1222. 1223. 1224. 1225. 1226. Hohmann, Jonathan R. Holland, John Holland, Joseph F. Holmes, Elizabeth Holohan, Thomas Hoom, Bradley Hopper, James P. Hord, Montgomery McCullough Hom, Michael Joseph Horning, Matthew Douglas Horohoe Jr., Robert L. Horwitz, Aaron Houston, Charles Houston, Uhuru G. Howard, George Howell, Michael C. Howell, Steven Leon Howley, Jennifer L. Hromada, Milagros Hrycak:, Marian R. Huczko Jr., Stephen Hughes Jr., Robert T. Hughes, Kris Robert Hughes, Paul Rexford Hughes, Thomas Hughes, Timothy Robert Huie, Susan Hulse, Lamar Hunt, William Christopher Hunt-Casey, Kathleen Anne Hunter, Joseph Gerard Hussa, Robert R. Hynes, Thomas Hynes, Walter G. Ianelli, Joseph Anthony Ibis, Zuhtu Ielpi, Jonathan Lee Iken, Michael Ilkanayev, Daniel III Jr., Frederick Ilowitz, Abraham Nethanel Infante Jr., Anthony P. Inghilterra Jr., Louis S. Ingrassia, Christophe Noble Innella, Paul Irby, Stephanie V. i P~ge 48 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 65 of 124 1227. 1228. 1229. 1230. 1231. 1232. 1233. 1234. 1235. 1236. 1237. 1238. 1239. 1240. 1241. 1242. 1243. 1244. 1245. 1246. 1247. 1248. 1249. 1250. 1251. 1252. 1253. 1254. 1255. 1256. 1257. 1258. 1259. 1260. 1261. 1262. 1263. 1264. 1265. 1266. 1267. 1268. 1269. 1270. 1271. 1272. Irgang, Douglas Irvine Ryan, Kristin A. Isaac, Todd Antione Isbrandtsen, Erik Ishikawa, Taizo Iskenderian Jr., Aram Iskyan, John F. Ito, Kazushige Ivantsov, Aleksandr Valeryevich Jablonski, Virginia May J ackman, Brooke Alexandra Jacobs, Aaron Jacobs Jacobs, Ariel Louis Jacobs, Jason Kyle Jacobs, Michael Grady Jacobson, StevenA. J aggernauth, Ricknauth Jagoda, Jake Denis Jain, Yudh Vir Singh Jakubiak, Maria James, Ernest James, Gricelda E. Jardim, Mark Steven J awara, Muhammadou Jean-Pierre, Francois Jean-Pierre, Maxima Jeffers, Paul Edward Jeffries Sanchez, Alva Cynthia Jenkins Jr., Joseph Jensen, Alan Keith J erath, Prem N. Jeudy, Farah Jian, Hweidar Jimenez Jr., Eliezer Jimenez Jr., Luis John, Charles Gregory John, Nicholas Johnson, LaShawna Johnson, Scott Michael Johnston, William R. J ones III, Arthur Joseph Jones, Allison Horstmann J ones, Brian Leander Jones, Christopher D. Jones, Donald T. Jones, Donald W. P~ge 49 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 66 of 124 1273. 1274. 1275. 1276. 1277. 1278. 1279. 1280. 1281. 1282. 1283. 1284. 1285. 1286. 1287. 1288. 1289. 1290. 1291. 1292. 1293. 1294. 1295. 1296. 1297. 1298. 1299. 1300. 1301. 1302. 1303. 1304. 1305. 1306. 1307. 1308. 1309. 1310. 1311. 1312. 1313. 1314. 1315. 1316. 1317. 1318. J ones, Linda Jones, Mary S. Jordan, Andrew B. Jordan, Robert Thomas Joseph, Albert Joseph, Ingeborg Joseph, Karl Henry Joseph, Stephen Josiah, Jane Eileen Jovic, Anthony J uarbe Jr., Angel L. Juday, Karen Sue Judge, Mychal F. Jurgens, Paul William Jurgens, Thomas Edward Kadaba, Shashikiran Lakshmikantha Kamardinova, Gavkharoy Kandell, Shari Kane, Howard Lee Kane, Jennifer Lynn Kane, Vincent D. Kang, J oon Koo Kanter, Sheldon Robert Kaplan, Deborah H. Kappelmann Jr., Alvin Peter Karczewski, Charles Karnes, William A. Karpiloff, Douglas Gene Kaspar, Charles L. Kates, Andrew Katsimatides, John Kaulfers, Robert Michael Kauth Jr., Don Jerome Kawauchi, Hideya Keane, Edward T. Keane, Richard M. Kearney-Griffin, Lisa Yvonne Keasler, Karol Ann Keating, Paul Hanlon Keene III, Leo Russell Keller, Joseph John Kellerman, Peter R. Kellett, Joseph P. Kelley Jr., Frederick H. Kelly Jr., Richard John Kelly Jr., William Hill pJge 50 of 88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 67 of 124 1319. 1320. 1321. 1322. 1323. 1324. 1325. 1326. 1327. 1328. 1329. 1330. 1331. 1332. 1333. 1334. 1335. 1336. 1337. 1338. 1339. 1340. 1341. 1342. 1343. 1344. 1345. 1346. 1347. 1348. 1349. 1350. 1351. 1352. 1353. 1354. 1355. 1356. 1357. 1358. 1359. 1360. 1361. 1362. 1363. 1364. Kelly, James Joseph Kelly, Joseph A. Kelly, Maurice P. Kelly, Thomas Michael Kelly, Thomas Richard Kelly, Thomas W. Kelly, Timothy Colin Kennedy, Robert Clinton Kennedy, Thomas J. Keohane, John R. Kerwin, Ronald T. Kestenbaum, Howard L. Ketcham, Douglas D. Ketler, Ruth Ellen Khalif, Boris Khan, Sarah Khan, Taimour Firaz Khandelwal, Rajesh Khoo, SeiLai Kiefer, Michael Vemon Kikuchihara, Satoshi Kim, Andrew Jay-Hoon Kim, Lawrence D. Kimelman, Mary Jo King Jr., Robert King, Andrew W. King, Lucille Teresa King-Johnson, Lisa Kinoshita, Takashi Kirby, Chris Michael Kirschbaum, Howard Barry Kirwin, Glenn Davis Kittle, Helen Crossin Klares, Richard Joseph Klein, Peter Anton Kleinberg, Alan David Klitzman, Karen Joyce Kloepfer, Ronald Philip Kniazev, Eugueni Knox, Andrew Knox, Thomas Patrick Koborie, Rebecca Lee Kobus, Deborah A. Koecheler, Gary Edward Koestner, Frank J. Kohart, Ryan i Page 51 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 68 of 124 1365. 1366. 1367. 1368. 1369. 1370. 1371. 1372. 1373. 1374. 1375. 1376. 1377. 1378. 1379. 1380. 1381. 1382. 1383. 1384. 1385. 1386. 1387. 1388. 1389. 1390. 1391. 1392. 1393. 1394. 1395. 1396. 1397. 1398. 1399. 1400. 1401. 1402. 1403. 1404. 1405. 1406. 1407. 1408. 1409. 1410. Kolpak, Vanessa Lynn Kolpakova, Irina Kondratenko, Suzanne Kone, Abdoulaye Koo, Bon Seok Kopiczko, Dorota Kopytko, Scott Kostic, Bojan Kousoulis, Danielle Kren, John J. Krukowski, William E. Ksido, Lyudmila Kumar, Shekhar Kumpel, Kenneth Bruce Kuo Jr., Frederick Kuras, Patricia Kushitani, Nauka Kuveikis, Thomas Joseph K warkye, Victor Kwok, Kui Fai Kyte, Angela Reed La Corte, Andrew La Verde, Jeannine Mary Lachhman, Amarnauth Ladkat, Ganesh K. Ladley, James Patrick LaFalce, Joseph A. Lafond-Menichino, Jeanette Louise Laforge, David LaForte, Michael LaFrance, Alan Charles Lafuente, Juan Mendez Lai, Neil Kwong-Wah Laieta, Vincent Anthony Lake, William David Lalama, Franco Lam, Chow Kwan LaMantia, Stephen Lamonsoff, Amy Hope Lane, Robert Lang, Brendan Mark Lang, Rosanne P. Langer, Vanessa Langley, Mary Louise Langone, Peter J. Langone, Thomas Michael Ptge 52 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 69 of 124 1411. 1412. 1413. 1414. 1415. 1416. 1417. 1418. 1419. 1420. 1421. 1422. 1423. 1424. 1425. 1426. 1427. 1428. 1429. 1430. 1431. 1432. 1433. 1434. 1435. 1436. 1437. 1438. 1439. 1440. 1441. 1442. 1443. 1444. 1445. 1446. 1447. 1448. 1449. 1450. 1451. 1452. 1453. 1454. 1455. 1456. Lanza, Michele Bernadette Lapin, Ruth Sheila LaPlante, Carol Ann Lariby, Ingeborg Larkey, Robin Blair Larrabee, Christopher Randall Larry, Hamidou S. Larsen, Scott Larson, John Adam Lasko, Gary Edward Lassman, Nicholas Craig Laszczynski, Paul LaTouche, Jeffrey G. Laurencin, Charles A. Lauria, Stephen James LaVache, Maria Lavelle, Denis Francis Laverty, Anna A. Lawn, Steven Lawrence, Robert Lawson, Nathaniel Lazar, Eugen Gabriel Leahy, James Patrick Leavey, Joseph Gerard Leavy, Neil Lebor, Leon Ledee, Kenneth Charles Lederman, Alan J. Ledesma, Elena F. Leduc, Alexis Lee, David S. Lee, GaryH. Lee, Hyun Joon Lee, Juanita Lee, Kathryn Blair Lee, Linda C. Lee, Lorraine Mary Lee, Myoung Woo Lee, Richard Y. Lee, Stuart Soo-Jin Lee, Yang Der Lefkowitz, Stephen Paul Legro, Adriana Lehman, Edward Joseph Lehrfeld, Eric Andrew Leistman, David Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 70 of 124 1457. 1458. 1459. 1460. 1461. 1462. 1463. 1464. 1465. 1466. 1467. 1468. 1469. 1470. 1471. 1472. 1473. 1474. 1475. 1476. 1477. 1478. 1479. 1480. 1481. 1482. 1483. 1484. 1485. 1486. 1487. 1488. 1489. 1490. 1491. 1492. 1493. 1494. 1495. 1496. 1497. 1498. 1499. 1500. 1501. 1502. Lemagne, David Prudencio Lenihan, Joseph Anthony Lennon Jr., John Joseph Lenoir, John Robinson Leon, Jorge Luis Leonard, Matthew Gerard Lepore, Michael Lesperance, Charles A. Leveen, Jeff Levi, John Dennis Levin, Alisha Caren Levin, Neil David Levine, Robert Levine, Robert Michael Levinhar, Shai Lewis, Adam Jay Lewis, Margaret Susan Liang, Ye Wei Liangthanasarn, Orasri Libretti, Daniel F. Licciardi, Ralph Lichtschein, Edward Lillianthal, Steven Barry Lillo, Carlos R. Lilore, Craig Damian Lim, Arnold A. Lin, Darya Lin, Wei Rong Lindo, Nickie L. Linehan Jr., Thomas V. Linnane, Robert Thomas Linton Jr., Alan P. Lipari, Diane Theresa Lira, Kenneth P. Liriano, Francisco Alberto Lisi, Lorraine Lisson, Paul Litto, Vincent M. Liu, Ming-Hao Liz, Nancy Lizcano, Harold Lizzul, Martin Llanes, George A. LogIer, Elizabeth C. LoGuidice, Catherine Lisa Lohez, Jerome Robert P4ge 54 of 88 ! Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 71 of 124 1503. 1504. 1505. 1506. 1507. 1508. 1509. 1510. 1511. 1512. 1513. 1514. 1515. 1516. 1517. 1518. 1519. 1520. 1521. 1522. 1523. 1524. 1525. 1526. 1527. 1528. 1529. 1530. 1531. 1532. 1533. 1534. 1535. 1536. 1537. 1538. 1539. 1540. 1541. 1542. 1543. 1544. 1545. 1546. 1547. 1548. Lomax, Michael William Longing, Laura Maria Lopez, Daniel Lopez, George Lopez, Luis Manuel Lopez, Manuel L. Lopez, Salvatore P. Lostrangio, Joseph Louie, Chet Dek Louis, Stuart Seid Lovero, Joseph Low Wong, Jenny Seu Kueng Lowe, Michael W. Lozier, Garry W. Lozowsky, John Peter Lucania, Charles Peter Luckett, Edward Hobbs Ludvigsen, Mark Gavin Ludwig, Lee Charles Lugano, Sean Thomas Lugo, Daniel Lukas, Marie Lum Jr., William Lunden, Michael P. Lunder, Christopher Edmund Luparello, Anthony Lutnick, Gary Frederick Luzzicone, Linda Anne Lygin, Alexander Lynch Jr., Richard D. Lynch Jr., Robert Henry Lynch, Farrell Peter Lynch, James Francis Lynch, Louise A. Lynch, Michael Lynch, Michael Francis Lynch, Michael Francis Lynch, Sean P. Lynch, Sean Patrick Lyons, Michael J. Lyons, Monica Anne Lyons, Patrick J. Mace, Robert Francis Maciejewski, Jan MacRae, Cathrine Fairfax Madden, Richard Blaine P~ge 55 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 72 of 124 1549. 1550. 1551. 1552. 1553. 1554. 1555. 1556. 1557. 1558. 1559. 1560. 1561. 1562. 1563. 1564. 1565. 1566. 1567. 1568. 1569. 1570. 1571. 1572. 1573. 1574. 1575. 1576. 1577. 1578. 1579. 1580. 1581. 1582. 1583. 1584. 1585. 1586. 1587. 1588. 1589. 1590. 1591. 1592. 1593. 1594. Maddison, Simon Maerz, Noell Maffeo, Jennieann Maffeo, Joseph Magazine, Jay Robert Magee, Brian Magee, Charles Wilson Maggitti, Joseph V. Magnuson, Ronald Maher, Daniel L. Mahon, Thomas Anthony Mahoney, William J. Maio, Joseph Daniel Makimoto, Takashi Malahi, Abdu Ali Maldonado, Debora I. Maldonado-Agosto, Myrna T. Maler, Alfred Russell Malone, Gregory James Maloney III, Edward Francis Maloney, Joseph Maloy, Gene Edward Maltby, Christian Mancini, Francisco M. Mangano, Joseph Manley, Sara Elizabeth Mannetta, Debra Manning, Marion Victoria Manning, Terence John Maounis, James Marchbanks Jr., Joseph Ross Mardikian, Peter Edward Mardovich, Edward Joseph Margiotta, Charles Joseph Marino, Kenneth Joseph Marino, Lester V. Marino, Vita Marlo, Kevin D. Marrero, Jose Marshall, John Martello, James Marti, Michael A. Martin Jr., William J. Martin, Peter C. Martineau, Brian E. Martinez Jr., Jose Angel Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 73 of 124 1595. 1596. 1597. 1598. 1599. 1600. 1601. 1602. 1603. 1604. 1605. 1606. 1607. 1608. 1609. 1610. 1611. 1612. 1613. 1614. 1615. 1616. 1617. 1618. 1619. 1620. 1621. 1622. 1623. 1624. 1625. 1626. 1627. 1628. 1629. 1630. 1631. 1632. 1633. 1634. 1635. 1636. 1637. 1638. 1639. 1640. Martinez, Betsy Martinez, Edward Martinez, Robert Gabriel Martinez-Calderon, Lizie D. Martini, Paul Richard Mascali, Joseph A. Mascarenhas, Bernard Masi, Stephen Frank Massa, Nicholas George Massari, Patricia Ann Massaroli, Michael Mastrandrea Jr., Philip William Mastrocinque, Rudolph Mathai, Joseph Mathers, Charles Mathesen, William A. Matricciano, Marcello Mattie, Margaret Elaine Mattson, Robert D. Matuza, Walter Mauro Jr., Charles A. Mauro, Charles J. Mauro, Dorothy Mauro, Nancy T. May, Tyrone Maynard, Keithroy Marcellus Mayo, Robert J. Mazza, Kathy Nancy Mazzella Jr., Edward Mazzotta, Jennifer Lynn Mbaya, Kaaria McAlary, James Joseph McAleese, Brian McAneney, Patricia Ann McArthur, Colin R. McAvoy, John Kevin McBrayer, Kenneth M. McCabe, Brendan McCabe, Michael McCann, Thomas J. McCarthy, Justin McCarthy, Kevin M. McCarthy, Michael McCarthy, Robert McCaskill, Stanley McCloskey, Katie Marie Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 74 of 124 1641. 1642. 1643. 1644. 1645. 1646. 1647. 1648. 1649. 1650. 1651. 1652. 1653. 1654. 1655. 1656. 1657. 1658. 1659. 1660. 1661. 1662. 1663. 1664. 1665. 1666. 1667. 1668. 1669. 1670. 1671. 1672. 1673. 1674. 1675. 1676. 1677. 1678. 1679. 1680. 1681. 1682. 1683. 1684. 1685. 1686. McConnell-Cullinan, Joan McCrann, Charles Austin McDay, Tonyell F. McDermott, Matthew T. McDonald, Joseph P. McDonnell, Brian Grady McDonnell, Michael P. McDowell Jr., John McEneaney, Eamon J. McErlean Jr., John Thomas McGinley, Daniel Francis McGinly, Mark Ryan McGinn, William E. McGinnis, Thomas H. McGinty, Michael Gregory McGovern, Ann McGovern, Scott Martin McGovern, William McGuinn, Francis Noel McGuire, Patrick McHale Thomas M. McHeffey, Keith McHugh III, Denis J. McHugh, Ann M. McHugh, Dennis McHugh, Michael E. McIlvaine Robert G. McIntyre, Donald James McKenna, Stephanie Marie McKeon, Barry J. McKinnedy, Evelyn C. McKinney Jr., Darryl Leron McLaughlin Jr., George Patrick McLaughlin Jr., Robert C. McMahon, Gavin McMahon, Robert D. McNally, Edmund McNeal, Daniel W. McNeIl, Walter Arthur McNulty, Christine Sheila McNulty, Sean Peter McPadden, Robert William McShane, Terence A. McSweeney, Timothy Patrick McWilliams, Martin E. Medaglia, Rocco A. ! phe 58 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 75 of 124 1687. 1688. 1689. 1690. 1691. 1692. 1693. 1694. 1695. 1696. 1697. 1698. 1699. 1700. 1701. 1702. 1703. 1704. 1705. 1706. 1707. 1708. 1709. 1710. 1711. 1712. 1713. 1714. 1715. 1716. 1717. 1718. 1719. 1720. 1721. 1722. 1723. 1724. 1725. 1726. 1727. 1728. 1729. 1730. 1731. 1732. Medina, Abigail Cales Medina, Ana Iris Meehan, Damian Meehan, William J. Mehta, Alok Kumar Meisenheimer, Raymond Mejia, Manuel Emillo Melaku, Eskedar Melendez, Antonio Melendez, Mary Melnichenko, Yelena Meltzer, Stuart Todd Mena, Diarelia J ovanah Mendez, Charles Mendoza, Lizette Mentis, Shevonne Olicia Mercado, Steve Mercer, Wesley Mercurio, Ralph Joseph Merdinger, Alan Harvey Merino, George L. Merino, Yamil Merkouris, George Merrick, Deborah Metz III, Raymond Joseph Metzler, Jill Ann Meyer, David Robert Miah, Nurul H. Micciulli, William Edward Michelstein, Martin Paul Milano, Peter Teague Milanowycz, Gregory Milewski, Lukasz Tomasz Millan, Sharon Christina Miller Jr., Henry Alfred Miller Jr., Robert Cromwell Miller, Corey Peter Miller, Craig James Miller, Douglas Charles Miller, Joel Miller, Michael Matthew Miller, Phillip D. Miller, Robert Alan Millman, Benjamin Mills, Charles Morris Milstein, Ronald Keith P~ge 59 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 76 of 124 1733. 1734. 1735. 1736. 1737. 1738. 1739. 1740. 1741. 1742. 1743. 1744. 1745. 1746. 1747. 1748. 1749. 1750. 1751. 1752. 1753. 1754. 1755. 1756. 1757. 1758. 1759. 1760. 1761. 1762. 1763. 1764. 1765. 1766. 1767. 1768. 1769. 1770. 1771. 1772. 1773. 1774. 1775. 1776. 1777. 1778. Minara, Robert Minardi, William George Minervino, Louis Joseph Mingione, Thomas Miraille, Wilbert Mircovich, Dominick N. Mirpuri, Rajesh Arjan Mistrulli, Joseph Miszkowicz, , Susan J. Mitchell, Paul Thomas Miuccio, Richard P. Moccia Sr., Frank V. Modafferi, Louis Joseph Mohammed, Boyie Mojica, Dennis Mojica, Manuel Molina, Kleber Rolando Molina, Manuel De Jesus Molinaro, Carl Molisani, Justin Monaghan, Brian Monahan, Franklin Monahan, John Gerard Montanaro, Kristen Montano, Craig Montesi, Michael Monyak, Cheryl Ann Moody, Thomas C. Moore, Sharon Moorthy, Krishna V. Morales, Abner Morales, Carlos Manuel Morales, Paula E. Moran, John Moran, John Chrisopher Moran, Kathleen Morehouse, Lindsay Stapleton Morell, George Morello, Steven P. Morello, Vincent S. Moreno, Yvette Nicole Morgan, Dorothy Morgan, Richard Morgenstern, Nancy Mori, Sanae Morocho, Blanca Robertina i P~ge _J 60 of 88 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 77 of 124 1779. 1780. 1781. 1782. 1783. 1784. 1785. 1786. 1787. 1788. 1789. 1790. 1791. 1792. 1793. 1794. 1795. 1796. 1797. 1798. 1799. 1800. 1801. 1802. 1803. 1804. 1805. 1806. 1807. 1808. 1809. 1810. 1811. 1812. 1813. 1814. 1815. 1816. 1817. 1818. 1819. 1820. 1821. 1822. 1823. 1824. Morocho-Morocho, Leonel Geronimo Moroney, Dennis Gerard Morris, Lynne Irene Morris, Seth Allan Morris, Stephen Philip Morrison, Christopher Martel Morron Garcia, Jorge Luis Morrone, Ferdinand V. Moskal, William David Motroni, Marco Motus-Wilson, Cynthia Mouchinski, louri A. Moussa, Jude Joseph Moutos, Peter Mowatt, Damion O'Neil Mozzillo, Christopher Michael Mulderry, Stephen Vincent Muldowney Jr., Richard T. Mullan, Michael D. Mulligan, Dennis Michael Mulligan, Peter James Mullin, Michael Joseph Munhall, James Donald Muniz, Nancy Munoz, Carlos Munoz, Francisco Munson, Theresa Murach, Robert M. Murillo, Cesar Augusto Murolo, Marc A. Murphy N, James F. Murphy Jr., Robert Eddie Murphy, Brian Joseph Murphy, Charles A. Murphy, Christopher W. Murphy, Edward Charles Murphy, James Thomas Murphy, Kevin James Murphy, Patrick Sean Murphy, Raymond E. Murray Jr., John Joseph Murray, John Joseph Murray, Susan D. Murray, Valerie Victoria Myhre, Richard Todd Nagel, Robert B. P~ge 61 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 78 of 124 1825. 1826. 1827. 1828. 1829. 1830. 1831. 1832. 1833. 1834. 1835. 1836. 1837. 1838. 1839. 1840. 1841. 1842. 1843. 1844. 1845. 1846. 1847. 1848. 1849. 1850. 1851. 1852. 1853. 1854. 1855. 1856. 1857. 1858. 1859. 1860. 1861. 1862. 1863. 1864. 1865. 1866. 1867. 1868. 1869. 1870. Nakamura, Takuya Napier, Alexander John Robert Naples III, Frank Joseph Napolitano, John Phillip Nardella, Catherine Ann Nardone Jr., Mario Narula, Manika K. N ath, Narender Navarro, Karen Susan Navas, Joseph Micheal Nazario, Francis Joseph Neblett, Glenroy I. Neblett, Rayman Marcus Nedd, Jerome O. Nedell, Laurence Nee, Luke G. Negron, Pete Nelson, Ann N. Nelson, David William Nelson, James Nelson, Michele Ann Nelson, Peter Allen Nesbitt, Oscar Francis Nevins, Gerard Terence Newton-Carter, Christopher Ngo, Nancy Yuen Nichilo, Jody Niederer, Martin S. Niedermeyer, Alfonse Joseph Niestadt Jr., Frank John Nieves Jr., Juan Nieves, Gloria Nilsen, Troy Edward Nimbley, Paul Niven, John B. Noack, Katherine Marie Noel, Curtis Terrance Nolan, Daniel R. Noonan, Robert Walter Notaro, Daniela R. Novotny, Brian Christopher Numata, Soichi Nunez, Brian Felix Nunez, Jose Nussbaum, Jeffrey Roger Oakley, James A. P*ge 62 of 88 - , , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 79 of 124 187l. 1872. 1873. 1874. 1875. 1876. 1877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 188l. 1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 189l. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. 1903. 1904. 1905. 1906. 1907. 1908. 1909. 1910. 1911. 1912. 1913. 1914. 1915. 1916. O'Berg, Dennis Patrick O'Brien Jr., James P. O'Brien, Michael P. O'Brien, Scott J. O'Brien, Timothy Michael O'Callaghan, Daniel O'Connor Jr., Dennis James O'Connor, Diana J. O'Connor, Keith Kevin O'Connor, Richard J. O'Doherty, Amy O'Doherty, Mami Point Oelschlager, Douglas E. Ogawa, Takashi Ogletree, Albert Ognibene, Phillip Paul O'Grady, James Andrew Ogren, Joseph J. O'Hagan, Thomas G. Oitice, Samuel O'Keefe, Patrick J. O'Keefe, William Olcott, Gerald Michael O'Leary Gerald Olender, Christine Anne Oliva, Linda Mary Oliver, Edward Kraft Oliver, Leah E. Olsen, Eric T. Olsen, Jeffrey James Olson, Maureen Lyons Olson, Steven John O'Mahony, Matthew Timothy Onda, Toshihiro Oneal, Seamus L. O'Neill Jr., Peter J. ONeill, John ONeill, Sean Gordon Opperman, Michael C. Orgielewicz, Christophe Orloske, Margaret Ormiston, Virginia Anne O'Rourke, Kevin Orsini, Ronald Ortale, Peter Keith Ortega-Campos, Juan i pdge 63 of 88 I I I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 80 of 124 1917. 1918. 1919. 1920. 1921. 1922. 1923. 1924. 1925. 1926. 1927. 1928. 1929. 1930. 1931. 1932. 1933. 1934. 1935. 1936. 1937. 1938. 1939. 1940. 1941. 1942. 1943. 1944. 1945. 1946. 1947. 1948. 1949. 1950. 1951. 1952. 1953. 1954. 1955. 1956. 1957. 1958. 1959. 1960. 1961. 1962. Ortiz Jr., Emilio Ortiz Jr., Paul Ortiz, Alexander Ortiz, David Ortiz, Pablo Ortiz, Sonia Ose, Masaru O'Shea, Patrick J. O'Shea, Robert William Osorio, Elsy C. Ostrowski, James R. O'Sullivan, Timothy F. Oswald, Jason Douglas Otten, Michael John Ottenwalder, Isidro D. Ou, Michael Chung Ouida, Todd Joseph Ovalles, Jesus Owens Jr., Peter J. Oyola, Adianes Pabon Jr., Israel Pabon, Angel M. Pacheco, Roland Packer, Michael Benjamin Pakkala, Deepa Palazzo, Jeffery Matthew Palazzo, Thomas Palazzolo, Richard Palmer, Orio J. Palombo, Frank Anthony Palumbo, Alan N. Panatier, Christopher Matthew Pandolfo, Dominque Lisa Pansini, Paul J. Paolillo, John M. Papa, Edward Joseph Papasso, Salvatore T. Pappageorge, James Nicholas Parakat, Vinod Kumar Paramsothy, Vijayashanker Parandkar, Nitin Ramesh Parbhu, Hardai Parham, James Wendell Paris, Debra Marie Paris, George Park, Gye Hyong Page 64 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 81 of 124 1963. 1964. 1965. 1966. 1967. 1968. 1969. 1970. 1971. 1972. 1973. 1974. 1975. 1976. 1977. 1978. 1979. 1980. 1981. 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. 1986. 1987. 1988. 1989. 1990. 1991. 1992. 1993. 1994. 1995. 1996. 1997. 1998. 1999. 2000. 2001. 2002. 2003. 2004. 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. Parker, Philip Lacey Parkes, Michael Alaine Parks Jr., Robert E. Parmar, Hashmukhrai C. Parro, Robert Parsons, Diane Marie Pascual, Leobardo Lopez Pascuma, Michael Paskins, Jerrold Passananti, Horace Robert Passaro, Suzanne H. Patel, A vnish Ramanbhai Patel, Dipti Patel, Manish Paterson, Steven Bennett Patrick, James Matthew Patrocino, Manuel Patterson, Bernard E. Patti, Cira Marie Pattison, Robert E. Paul, James Robert Paz,Patrice Paz-Gutierrez, Victor Peak, Stacey Lynn Pearlman, Richard Allen Pearsall, Durrell V. Pedicini, Thomas Pelino, Todd Douglas Pelletier, Michel Adrian Peluso, Anthony G. Pena, Angel Romon Penny, Richard Al Pepe, Salvatore F. Peralta, Carl Peraza, Robert David Perconti, Jon A. Perez Jr., Angel Perez, Alejo Perez, Angela Susan Perez, Anthony Perez, Ivan Perez, Nancy E. Perroncino, Joseph John Perrotta, Edward J. Perry, Emelda H. Perry, Glenn C. Phe 65 of88 i ! Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 82 of 124 2009. 2010. 201 I. 2012. 2013. 2014. 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018. 2019. 2020. 202 I. 2022. 2023. 2024. 2025. 2026. 2027. 2028. 2029. 2030. 2031. 2032. 2033. 2034. 2035. 2036. 2037. 2038. 2039. 2040. 2041. 2042. 2043. 2044. 2045. 2046. 2047. 2048. 2049. 2050. 2051. 2052. 2053. 2054. Perry, John William Pershep, Franklin Allan Pesce, Danny Pescherine, Michael John Peterson, Davin Peterson, William Russell Petrocelli, Mark Petti, Philip Scott Pettit, Glen Kerrin Pezzulo, Dominick Pezzuti, Kaleen Elizabeth Pfeifer, Kevin Pham, Tu-Anh Phelan, Kenneth John Philip, Sneha Anne Piantieri, Suzette Eugenia Picarro, Ludwig John Picerno, Matthew Pick, Joseph Oswald Pickford, Christopher Pierce, Dennis J. Pietronico, Bernard Pietrunti, Nicholas P. Pigis, Theodoros Pinto, Susan Elizabeth Piskadlo, Joseph Pitman, Christopher Todd Piver, Joshua Michael Plumitallo, Joseph Pocher, John Pohlmann, William Howard Polatsch, Laurence Polhemus, Thomas H. Pollicino, Steve Pollio, Susan M. Poptean, Joshua Iousa Porras, Giovanna Portillo, Anthony Potorti, James Edward Pouletsos, Daphne Poulos, Richard N. Poulos, Stephen Emanual Powell, Brandon Jerome Powell, Shawn Edward Pratt, Antonio Dorsey Preziose, Gregory M. Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 83 of 124 2055. 2056. 2057. 2058. 2059. 2060. 206l. 2062. 2063. 2064. 2065. 2066. 2067. 2068. 2069. 2070. 2071. 2072. 2073. 2074. 2075. 2076. 2077. 2078. 2079. 2080. 2081. 2082. 2083. 2084. 2085. 2086. 2087. 2088. 2089. 2090. 2091. 2092. 2093. 2094. 2095. 2096. 2097. 2098. 2099. 2100. Prince, Wanda Ivelisse Princiotta, Vincent Prior, Kevin Proctor III, Everett Martin Progen, Carrie Beth Pruim, David Lee Prunty, Richard Puckett,John Pugliese, Robert David Pullis, Edward F. Puma, Patricia Ann Puttur, Hemanth Kumar Pykon, Edward R. Quackenbush, Christopher Qualben, Lars Peter Quappe, Lincoln Quigley, Beth Ann Quilty, Michael Quinn, James Francis Quinn, Ricardo J. Rabalais, Carol Millicent RacanieIlo, Christopher Peter A. Ragaglia, Leonard J. Raggio, Eugene Ragonese-Snik, Laura Marie Ragusa, Michael Paul Raimondi, Peter Frank Raines, Harry A. Raja, Ehtesham Raju, Valsa RaIl, Edward Joseph Rambousek, Lukas Ramirez, Maria Ramos, Harry Ramsaroop, Vishnoo Ramzey, Lorenzo E. Rancke, Alfred Todd Rand, Adam David Randall, Jonathan C. Ranganath, Srinivasa Shreyas Ransom, Anne T. Rapoport, Faina Aronovna Rasmussen, Robert A. Rasool, Amenia Rasweiler, Roger Mark Rathkey, David Alan i P4ge 67 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 84 of 124 2101. 2102. 2103. 2104. 2105. 2106. 2107. 2108. 2109. 2110. 2111. 2112. 2113. 2114. 2115. 2116. 2117. 2118. 2119. 2120. 2121. 2122. 2123. 2124. 2125. 2126. 2127. 2128. 2129. 2130. 2131. 2132. 2133. 2134. 2135. 2136. 2137. 2138. 2139. 2140. 2141. 2142. 2143. 2144. 2145. 2146. Raub, William Ralph Rauzi, Gerard P. Razuvaev, Alexey Reda, Gregory Redheffer, Sarah Anne Reed, Michele Marie Reese, Judith Ann Regan, Donald J. Regan, Robert M. Regan, Thomas Michael Regenhard, Christian Michael Otto Reich, Howard Reidy, Gregg Reilly, James Brian Reilly, Kevin O. Reilly, Timothy E. Reina Jr., Joseph Reinig, Thomas Barnes Reisman, Frank Bennett Reiss, Joshua Scott Renda, Karen Reo, John Armand Rescorla, Richard Cyril Resta, John Thomas Revilla, Luis Clodoaldo Reyes Jr., Eduvigis Reynolds, Bruce Albert Rhodes, John Frederick Riccardelli, Francis Saverio Riccio, Rudolph N. Riccoboni, Ann Marie Rice III, Kenneth Frederick Rice, David H. Rice, Eileen Mary Richard, Vernon Allan Richards, Claude Daniel Richards, Gregory David Richards, Michael Richards, Venesha Orintia Riches, James C Richman, Alan Jay Rigo, John M. Risco, Theresa Riso, Rose Mary Rivas, Moises N. Rivelli, Joseph Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 85 of 124 2147. 2148. 2149. 2150. 215l. 2152. 2153. 2154. 2155. 2156. 2157. 2158. 2159. 2160. 216l. 2162. 2163. 2164. 2165. 2166. 2167. 2168. 2169. 2170. 217l. 2172. 2173. 2174. 2175. 2176. 2177. 2178. 2179. 2180. 218l. 2182. 2183. 2184. 2185. 2186. 2187. 2188. 2189. 2190. 219l. 2192. Rivera, Carmen Alicia Rivera, Isaias Rivera, Juan William Rivera, Linda Ivelisse Rivers, David E. Riverso, Joseph R. Rizza, Paul V. Rizzo, John Frank Roach, Stephen Louis Roberto, Joseph Roberts, Leo Arthur Roberts, Michael Edward Roberts, Michael Edward Robertson Jr., Donald Walter Robinson, Catherina Robinson, Jeffery Robotham, Michell Lee Jean Robson, Donald A. Rocha, Antonio A. Rocha, Raymond James Rockefeller, Laura Rodak, John Rodrigues, Antonio J. Rodriguez, Anthony Rodriguez, Carmen Milagros Rodriguez, Gregory Ernesto Rodriguez, Marsha A. Rodriguez, Mayra Valdes Rodriguez, Richard Rodriguez-Vargas, David Bartolo Rogan, Matthew Rogers, Karlie Barbara Rohner, Scott William Roma, Keith Romagnolo, Joseph M. Romero Sr., Efrain Romero, Elvin Romito, James A. Rooney, Sean Paul Ropiteau, Eric Thomas Rosario Wakeford, Wendy Alice Rosario, Angela Rosasrio, Aida Rosen, Mark Rosenbaum, Brooke David Rosenbaum, Linda I P~ge I 69 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 86 of 124 2193. 2194. 2195. 2196. 2197. 2198. 2199. 2200. 220l. 2202. 2203. 2204. 2205. 2206. 2207. 2208. 2209. 2210. 2211. 2212. 2213. 2214. 2215. 2216. 2217. 2218. 2219. 2220. 222l. 2222. 2223. 2224. 2225. 2226. 2227. 2228. 2229. 2230. 2231. 2232. 2233. 2234. 2235. 2236. 2237. 2238. Rosenbaum, Sheryl Lynn Rosenberg, Lloyd Daniel Rosenberg, Mark Louis Rosenblum, Andrew Ira Rosenblum, Joshua M. Rosenthal, Joshua Alan Rosenthal, Richard David Rossetti, Daniel Rossinow, Norman S. Rossomando, Nicholas P. Rothberg, Michael Craig Rothenberg, Donna Marie Rowe, Nicholas Roy Sr., Timothy Alan Ruback, Paul G. Ruben, Ronald J. Rubino, Joanne Ruddle, James Ruggiere, Bart Joseph Ruggiero, Susan A. Ruhalter, Adam Keith Ruiz Diaz, Obdulio Ruiz, Gilbert Russell, Stephen P. Russin, Steven Harris Russo Sr., Michael Thomas Russo, Wayne Alan Ryan Jr., John Joseph Ryan, Edward Ryan, Jonathan Stephan Ryan, Matthew Lancelot Ryjova, Tatiana Ryook, Christina Sunga Saada, Thierry Sabbag, Jason Elazar Sabella, Thomas E. Saber, Scott Sacerdote, Joseph Francis Sadocha, Francis John Safi, Jude Safronoff, Brock Joel Saiya, Edward Salamone, John Patrick Salas, Hernando Salas, Juan G. Salcedo, Esmerlin Antonio , ~age 70 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 87 of 124 2239. 2240. 2241. 2242. 2243. 2244. 2245. 2246. 2247. 2248. 2249. 2250. 2251. 2252. 2253. 2254. 2255. 2256. 2257. 2258. 2259. 2260. 2261. 2262. 2263. 2264. 2265. 2266. 2267. 2268. 2269. 2270. 2271. 2272. 2273. 2274. 2275. 2276. 2277. 2278. 2279. 2280. 2281. 2282. 2283. 2284. Salerno Jr., John Salvatore Salinardi Jr., Richard L. Saloman, Wayne John Salomon, Nolbert Salter, Catherine Patricia Salvaterra, Frank Salvio, Paul Richard Salvo Jr., Samuel Robert Samaniego, Carlos Alberto Sam-Dinnoo, Rena Samuel Jr., James Kenneth San Phillip, Michael San Pio, Sylvia Sanay, Hugo M. Sanchez, Jacquelyn Patrice Sanchez, Raymond Sand, Eric M. Sanders, Stacey Leigh Sandler, Herman Sands Jr., James Santiago, Ayleen J. Santiago, Kirsten Santillan, Maria Theresa Santo, Susan Gayle Santora, Christopher Santore, John A. Santoro, Mario L. Santos III, Rufino Conrado Flores Santos, Rafael Humberto Sarkar, Kalyan Sarker, Chapelle R. Sarle, Paul F. Sattaluri, Deepika Kumar Saucedo, Gregory Thomas Sauer, Susan M. Savas, Anthony Savinkin, Vladimir Sayegh, Jackie Sbarbaro, John Michael Scandole Jr., Robert L. Scarpitta, Michelle Scauso, Dennis Schardt, John Albert Scharf, John G. Scheffold Jr., Frederick Claude Scheinberg, Angela Susan P~ge 71 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 88 of 124 2285. 2286. 2287. 2288. 2289. 2290. 229l. 2292. 2293. 2294. 2295. 2296. 2297. 2298. 2299. 2300. 230l. 2302. 2303. 2304. 2305. 2306. 2307. 2308. 2309. 2310. 2311. 2312. 2313. 2314. 2315. 2316. 2317. 2318. 2319. 2320. 232l. 2322. 2323. 2324. 2325. 2326. 2327. 2328. 2329. 2330. Schertzer, Scott Mitchell Schielke, Sean Schlag, Steven Francis Schlissel, Jon Schmidt, Karen Helene Schneider, Ian Schoales, Thomas G. Schorpp, Marisa Schott Jr., Frank G. Schrang, Gerard Patrick Schreier, Jeffrey H. Schroeder, John T. Schuler, Susan Lee Schunk, Edward William Schurmeier, Mark E. Schwartz, Clarin Shellie Schwartz, John Burkhart Schwartz, Mark Scibetta, Adriane Victoria Scorca, Raphael Scott, Randolph Scudder, Christopher Jay Scullin, Arthur Warren Seaman, Michael Herman Seeliger, Margaret M. Segarra, Anthony Segarra, Carlos Sekzer, Jason Sellitto, Matthew Selwyn, Howard Senko, Larry John Sennas-McGowan, Stacey Sereno, Arturo Angelo Serrano, Frankie Sesinova, Alena Sessa, Adele Christine Sewnarine, Sita Nermalla Seymour, Karen Lynn Sezna Jr., Davis Grier Sgroi, Thomas Joseph Shah, Jayesh S. Shahid, Khalid M. Shajahan, Mohammed Shamay, Gary Shanahan, Earl Richard Shastri, Neil P~ge 72 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 89 of 124 233l. 2332. 2333. 2334. 2335. 2336. 2337. 2338. 2339. 2340. 2341. 2342. 2343. 2344. 2345. 2346. 2347. 2348. 2349. 2350. 2351. 2352. 2353. 2354. 2355. 2356. 2357. 2358. 2359. 2360. 2361. 2362. 2363. 2364. 2365. 2366. 2367. 2368. 2369. 2370. 237l. 2372. 2373. 2374. 2375. 2376. Shatzoff, Kathryn Ann Shaw, Barbara A. Shaw, Jeffrey James Shay Jr., Robert John Shea, Daniel James Shea, Joseph Patrick Sheehan,Linda Shefi, Hagay Sherry, John. Anthony Shiratori, Atsushi Shubert, Thomas Joseph Shulman, Mark Shum, See Wong Shwartzstein, Allan Abraham Sigmund,Johanna Signer, Dianne T. Sikorsky, Gregory Siller, Stephen Gerard Silver, David Silverstein, Graig A. Simjee, Nasima Hameed Simmons, Bruce Edward Simon, Arthur Simon, Kenneth Alan Simon, Michael J. Simon, Paul Joseph Simone, Marianne Teresa Simowitz, Barry Simpson, Jeff Lyal Singh, Khamladai, K. Singh, Roshan Ramesh Sinton III, Thomas E. Siracuse, Peter A. Siskopoulos, Muriel Fay Sisolak, Joseph Michael Skala, John P. Skidmore Jr., Francis Joseph Skinner, Toyena Corliss Skrzypek, Paul A. Slattery, Christopher Paul Slavin, Vincent Robert Sliwak, Robert F. Sloan, Paul A. Smagala Jr., Stanley S. Small, Wendy L. Smith Jr., Leon i P~ge 73 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 90 of 124 2377. 2378. 2379. 2380. 2381. 2382. 2383. 2384. 2385. 2386. 2387. 2388. 2389. 2390. 2391. 2392. 2393. 2394. 2395. 2396. 2397. 2398. 2399. 2400. 2401. 2402. 2403. 2404. 2405. 2406. 2407. 2408. 2409. 2410. 2411. 2412. 2413. 2414. 2415. 2416. 2417. 2418. 2419. 2420. 2421. 2422. Smith, Catherine Smith, Daniel Laurence Smith, George Eric Smith, James Gregory Smith, Jeffrey R. Smith, Joyce Patricia Smith, Karl T. Smith, Kevin Joseph Smith, Moira Ann Smith, Rosemary A. Smithwick, Bonnie Jeanne Snell, Rochelle Monique Snyder Jr., Leonard J. Sohan, Astrid Elizabeth Solanki, Sushil Solares, Ruben Solomon, Naomi Leah Song, Daniel W. Sorresse, Michael Charles Soto, Fabian Soulas, Timothy Patrick Spagnoletti, Gregory Spampinato Jr., Donald F. Sparacio, Thomas Spataro, John Anthony Spear Jr., Robert W. Spence Jr., Maynard S. Spencer III, George Edward Spencer, Robert Andrew Sperando, Mary Rubina Spinelli, Frank Spitz, William E. Spor, Joseph Patrick Sprockamp, Klaus Johannes Srinuan, Saranya St. Rose, Fitzroy Stabile, Michael F. Stack, Lawrence T. Stackpole, Timothy M. Stadelberger, Richard James Stahlman, Eric Stajk, Gregory Stan, Alexandru Liviu Stan, Corina Stanley, Mary Domenica Starita, Anthony Page 74 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 91 of 124 2423. 2424. 2425. 2426. 2427. 2428. 2429. 2430. 243l. 2432. 2433. 2434. 2435. 2436. 2437. 2438. 2439. 2440. 2441. 2442. 2443. 2444. 2445. 2446. 2447. 2448. 2449. 2450. 2451. 2452. 2453. 2454. 2455. 2456. 2457. 2458. 2459. 2460. 2461. 2462. 2463. 2464. 2465. 2466. 2467. 2468. Stark, Jeffrey Statkevicus, Derek James Staub, Craig William Steckman, William V. Steen, Eric Thomas Steiner, William R. Steinman, Alexander Stergiopoulos, Andrew Stem, Andrew Stevens, Martha Jane Stewart Jr., Richard H. Stewart, Michael James Stoller, Sanford M. Stone, Lonny Jay Storey, Jimmy Nevill Stout, Timothy Strada, Thomas Straine Jr., James J. Straub, Edward W. Strauch Jr., George J. Strauss, Edward T. Strauss, Steven R. Strombert, Steven F. Stuart Jr., Walwyn Wellington Suarez, Benjamin Suarez, David Scott Suarez, Ramon Sugiyama, Yoichi Sugra, William Christopher Suhr, Daniel Sullins, Davis Marc Sullivan, Christopher P. Sullivan, Patrick Sullivan, Thomas G. Sumaya Jr., Hilario Soriano Suozzo, James Joseph Supinski, Colleen Sutcliffe, Robert Sutter, Seline Sutton, Claudia Suzette Swaine, John Francis Swearson, Kristine M. Sweeney, Brian Edward Swenson, Kenneth J. Swift, Thomas Sword, Derek Ogilvie I . Page 75 of 88 i Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 92 of 124 2469. 2470. 2471. 2472. 2473. 2474. 2475. 2476. 2477. 2478. 2479. 2480. 2481. 2482. 2483. 2484. 2485. 2486. 2487. 2488. 2489. 2490. 2491. 2492. 2493. 2494. 2495. 2496. 2497. 2498. 2499. 2500. 2501. 2502. 2503. 2504. 2505. 2506. 2507. 2508. 2509. 2510. 2511. 2512. 2513. 2514. Szocik, Kevin Thomas Sztejnberg, Gina Szurkowski, Norbert P. Taback, Harry Tabeek, Joann Taddei, Norma C. Taddonio, Michael Takahashi, Keiichiro Takahashi, Keiji Talbot, Phyllis Gail Talhami, Robert Tallon, Sean Patrick Talty, Paul Tam, Maurita Tamares, Rachel Tamayo, Hector Tamuccio, Michael Andrew Tanaka, Kenichiro Tankard, Rhondelle Cheri Tanner, Michael Anthony Taormina Jr., Dennis Gerard Tarantino, Kenneth Joseph Tarasiewicz, Allan Tartaro, Ronald Taylor, Darryl Anthony Taylor, Donnie Brooks Taylor, Lorisa Ceylon Taylor, Michael Morgan Tegtmeier, Paul A. Tembe, Yeshavant Moreshwar Tempesta, Anthony Temple, Dorothy Pearl Temple, Stanley L. Tengelin, David Terrenzi, Brian John Terry, Lisa M. Thackurdeen, Goumatie T. Thatte, Harshad Sham Theurkauf Jr., Thomas F. Thomas, Lesley Anne Thompson, Brian Thomas Thompson, Clive Thompson, Glenn Thompson, Nigel Bruce Thompson, Perry A. Thompson, Vanavah Alexei ! Itage 76 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 93 of 124 2515. 2516. 2517. 2518. 2519. 2520. 252l. 2522. 2523. 2524. 2525. 2526. 2527. 2528. 2529. 2530. 253l. 2532. 2533. 2534. 2535. 2536. 2537. 2538. 2539. 2540. 254l. 2542. 2543. 2544. 2545. 2546. 2547. 2548. 2549. 2550. 255l. 2552. 2553. 2554. 2555. 2556. 2557. 2558. 2559. 2560. Thompson, William H. Thorpe, Eric Raymond Thorpe, Nichola Angela Tieri Jr., Sal Edward Tierney, John P. Tiesi, Mary Ellen Tieste, William R. Tietjen, Kenneth Francis Tighe, Stephen Edward Timmes, Scott Charles Tinley, Michael E. Tino, Jennnifer M. Tipaldi, Robert Frank Tipping II, John James Tirado Jr., Hector Luis Tirado, David Titolo, Michelle Lee Tobin, John J. Todisco, Richard Tomasevic, Vladimir Tompsett, Stephen Kevin Tong, Thomas Torres, Doris Torres, Luis Toyen, Amy Elizabeth Traina, Christopher Michael Trant, Daniel Patrick Traore, Abdoul Karim Travers, Glenn J. Travers, Walter Phillp Traylor-Bass, Felicia Yvette Trerotola, Lisa L. Trerra, Karamo Trinidad, Michael Angel Trombino, Francis Joseph Trost, Gregory James Tselepis, William P. Tsoy, Zhanetta Valentinevna Tucker, Michael Patrick Tumulty, Lance Richard Tung, Ching Ping Turner, Simon James Tuzio, Donald Joseph Twomey, Robert T. Tzemis, Jennifer Ueltzhoeffer, John G. Page 77 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 94 of 124 256l. 2562. 2563. 2564. 2565. 2566. 2567. 2568. 2569. 2570. 257l. 2572. 2573. 2574. 2575. 2576. 2577. 2578. 2579. 2580. 258l. 2582. 2583. 2584. 2585. 2586. 2587. 2588. 2589. 2590. 259l. 2592. 2593. 2594. 2595. 2596. 2597. 2598. 2599. 2600. 260l. 2602. 2603. 2604. 2605. 2606. Ugolyn, Tyler V. Uliano, Michael A. U man, Jonathan J. Umarkar, Anil Shivhari Upton, Allen V. Urban, Diane Marie Vaccacio, John Damien Vadas, Bradley Hodges Valcarcel, William Vale, Felix Antonio Vale, Ivan Valentin Jr., Santos Valentin, Benito Valvo II, Carlton Francis Van Acker, Erica H. Van Auken, Kenneth W. Van Hine, Richard B. Van Laere, Daniel M. Vanacore, Edward Raymond Vandevander, Jon Varacchi, Frederick Thomas Varadhan, Gopalakrishna Vargas, David Vasel, Scott C. Vasquez, Azael Vazquez, Arcangel Vazquez, Santos Vega, Peter Anthony Velamuri, Sankara Sastry Velazquez, Jorge Veling, Lawrence G. Ventura, Anthony Mark Vera, David Vero, Loretta Ann Vialonga, Christopher James Vi anna, Matthew Gilbert Vicario, Robert Anthony Victoria, Celeste Torres Vidal, Joanna Vigiano II, John T. Vigiano, Joseph Vincent Vignola Jr., Frank J. Vilardo, Joseph Barry Villanueva, Sergio G. Vincelli, Chantal Vincent, Melissa P~ge 78 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 95 of 124 2607. 2608. 2609. 2610. 2611. 2612. 2613. 2614. 2615. 2616. 2617. 2618. 2619. 2620. 2621. 2622. 2623. 2624. 2625. 2626. 2627. 2628. 2629. 2630. 2631. 2632. 2633. 2634. 2635. 2636. 2637. 2638. 2639. 2640. 2641. 2642. 2643. 2644. 2645. 2646. 2647. 2648. 2649. 2650. 2651. 2652. Virgilio, Francine Ann Virgilio, Lawrence Visciano, Joseph Gerard Vitale, Joshua S. Vola, Maria Percoco Vosges, Lynette D. Voskerijian, Garo H. Vukosa, Alfred Wachtler, Gregory Kamal Bruno Waisman, Gabriela Walcott, Courtney Wainsworth Wald, Victor Walker, Benjamin James Wall, Glen Wallace, Mitchel Scott Wallace, Peter Guyder Wallace, Robert Francis Wallace, Roy Michael Wallendorf, J eanmarie Wallens, Matthew Blake Wallice Jr., John Walsh, Barbara P. Walsh, James Henry Walz, Jeffrey P. Wang, Ching Huei Wang, Wei bin Warchola, Michael Ward, Stephen Gordon Waring, James Arthur Warner, Brian G. Washington, Derrick Waters Jr., James Thomas Waters, Charles Waters, Patrick J. Watson, Kenneth Thomas Waye, Michael Henry Weaver, Todd Christopher Weaver, Walter Edward Webb, Nathaniel Webster, Dinah Wei!, Joanne Flora Weinberg, Michael T. Weinberg, Steven Weingard, Scott Jeffrey Weinstein, Steven George Weiser, Simon i P~ge 79 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 96 of 124 2653. 2654. 2655. 2656. 2657. 2658. 2659. 2660. 2661. 2662. 2663. 2664. 2665. 2666. 2667. 2668. 2669. 2670. 2671. 2672. 2673. 2674. 2675. 2676. 2677. 2678. 2679. 2680. 2681. 2682. 2683. 2684. 2685. 2686. 2687. 2688. 2689. 2690. 2691. 2692. 2693. 2694. 2695. 2696. 2697. 2698. Weiss, David M. Weiss, David Thomas Wells, Vincent Michael Welty, Timothy Matthew Wemmers, Christian Hans Rudolf Wen, Ssu-Hui Wengerchuk, Oleh D. West Jr., Whitfield West, Peter M. Whalen, Meredith Lynn Whelan, Eugene White III, Edward James White Jr., Kenneth Wilburn White, Adam S. White, James Patrick White, John Sylvester White, Leonard Anthony White, Malissa Y. White, Wayne Whiteside, Leanne Marie Whitford, Mark P. Wholey, Michael T. Wieman, Mary Catherine Wiener, Jeffrey David Wik, Wilham J. Wildman, Alison Marie Wilkenson, Glen E. Willett, John C. Williams III, Louis Calvin Williams Jr., Crossley Richard Williams, Brian Patrick Williams, David J. Williams, Deborah Lynn Williams, Kevin Michael Williams, Louie Anthony Williamson, John P. Wilson, Donna Ann Wilson, William Winton, David Harold Winuk, Glenn J. Wise, Thomas Francis Wisniewski, Alan L. Wisniewski, Frank Thomas Wiswall, David Wiswe, Sigrid Charlotte Wittenstein, Michael Page 80 of 88 , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 97 of 124 2699. 2700. 270l. 2702. 2703. 2704. 2705. 2706. 2707. 2708. 2709. 2710. 2711. 2712. 2713. 2714. 2715. 2716. 2717. 2718. 2719. 2720. 272l. 2722. 2723. 2724. 2725. 2726. 2727. 2728. 2729. 2730. 2731. 2732. 2733. 2734. 2735. 2736. 2737. 2738. 2739. 2740. 2741. 2742. 2743. 2744. Wodenshek, Christopher W. Wohlforth, Martin P. Wolf, Katherine Susan Wong, Jennifer Yen Wong, Siu Cheung Wong, Yin Ping Wong, Yuk Ping Woodall, Brent James Woods, James John Woods, Patrick Woodwell, Richard Herron Wooley, David Terence Works, John Bentley Wortley, Martin Michael Wotton, Rodney James Wren, Williams Wright, John W. Wright, Neil Robin Wright, Sandra Lee Yambem, Jupiter Yanamadala, S uresh Yarnell, Matthew David Yaskulka, Myrna Yasrnin, Shakila Yee, Olabisi Shadie Layeni York, Edward P. York, Kevin Patrick York, Raymond R. Youmans, Suzanne Young Jr., Barrington Leroy Young, Jacqueline Yuen, Elkin Zaccoli, Joseph Zakhary, Adel Agayby Zaltsman, Arkady Zambrana Jr., Edwin J. Zampieri, Robert Alan Zangrilli, Mark Zaslow, Ira Zelman, Kenneth Albert Zelmanowitz, Abraham J. Zempoaltecatl, Martin Morales Zeng,Zhe Zeplin, Marc Scott Zhao, Jie Yao Justn Zirninski, Ivelin P~ge 81 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 98 of 124 2745. 2746. 2747. 2748. 2749. 2750. 275l. 2752. Zinzi, Michael Joseph Zion, Charles A. Zipper, Julie Lynne Zisa, Salvatore Zois, Prokopios Paul Zuccala, Joseph J. Zucker, Andrew S. Zukelman, Igor The following people were killed on September 11, 2001 in or around the Pentagon, , in Arlington, Virginia, when the commercial airline flight they were on, Am~rican Airlines I Flight #77, was intentionally crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagoq: American Airlines Flight #77 CREW 2753. 2754. 2755. 2756. 2757. 2758. Burlingame, III, Charles Frank Charlebois, David Michael Heidenberger, Michelle Lewis, Jennifer Pennock Lewis, Kenneth Eugene May, Renee Ann PASSENGERS 2759. 2760. 276l. 2762. 2763. 2764. 2765. 2766. 2767. 2768. 2769. 2770. 277l. 2772. 2773. Ambrose, Paul Wesley Betru, Yeneneh Booth, Mary Jane Brown, II, Bernard Curtis Calley, Suzanne Marie Caswell, William E. Clark, Sarah Miller Cottom, Asia Sivon Debeuneure, James Daniel Dickens, Rodney Alonzo Dillard, Eddie Augustus Droz, III, Charles Albert Edwards, Barbara G. Falkenberg, Charles Stevens Falkenberg, Dana I Pdge 82 of 88 I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 99 of 124 2774. 2775. 2776. 2777. 2778. 2779. 2780. 2781. 2782. 2783. 2784. 2785. 2786. 2787. 2788. 2789. 2790. 2791. 2792. 2793. 2794. 2795. 2796. 2797. 2798. 2799. 2800. 2801. 2802. 2803. 2804. 2805. 2806. 2807. 2808. 2809. 2810. 2811. Falkenberg, Zoe Elizabeth Ferguson, Jr., James Joseph Flagg, Darlene Ellen Flagg, Wilson Falor Gabriel, Sr. , Richard Peter Gray, Ian John Hall, Stanley Rylon Jack, Bryan Creed Jacoby, Steven Donald Judge, Ann Marie Keller, Chandler Raymond Kennedy, Yvonne Estelle Khan, Norma Kincaid, Karen Ann Lee, Dong Chul Menchaca, Dora Marie Newton, Christopher Cairo Olson, Barbara B. Omedo, Ruben Salang Penninger, Robert Bruce Ploger, III, Robert Riis Ploger, Zandra Flores Raines, Lisa Joy Reuben, Todd Hayes Sammartino, John Paul Simmons, Diane Marie Simmons, Jr., George Washington Sopper, Mari-Rae Speisman, Robert Scott Steuerle, Ph.D., Norma Lang Taylor, Hilda Elizabeth Taylor, Leonard Edward Teague, Sandra Dawn Whittington, Leslie Ann Yamnicky, Sr., John David Yancey, Vicki Linn Yang, Shuyin Zheng, Yuguang The following people were killed on September 11, 2001 in or arouqd the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight #77 crashing fnto the southwest side of the Pentagon: PENTAGON Phge 83 of 88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 100 of 124 2812. 2813. 2814. 2815. 2816. 2817. 2818. 2819. 2820. 282l. 2822. 2823. 2824. 2825. 2826. 2827. 2828. 2829. 2830. 2831. 2832. 2833. 2834. 2835. 2836. 2837. 2838. 2839. 2840. 284l. 2842. 2843. 2844. 2845. 2846. 2847. 2848. 2849. 2850. 2851. 2852. 2853. 2854. 2855. 2856. SPC, USA YN3, USN IT2, USN COL, USA ET3, USN ET3, USN SFC,USA LCDR,USN CAPT,USN LTC,USA ITl, USN CAPT,USN CDR, USN CDR, USN AGl, USN LCDR,USNR SK3, USN AG2, USN CAPT,USN ETl, USN MAJ, USA LTC,USA Allen, Samantha L. Amundson, Craig Scott Barnes, Melissa Rose Beilke, Max J. Bishundat, Kris R. Blagburn, Carrie Rosette Boone, Canfield Demotte Bowen, Donna Marie Boyle, Allen P. Burford, Christopher Lee Caballero, Daniel Martin Calderon-Olmedo, Jose Orlando Carter, Angelene C. Carver, Sharon Ann Chada, John Joseph Chapa, Rosa M. Cooper, Julian T. Cranford, Eric Allen Davis, Ada Marie DeConto, Gerald Francis Dickerson, Jr., Jerry D. Doctor, Jr., Johnnie Dolan, Robert E. Donovan, Jr., William Howard Dunn, Patrick Earhart, Edward Thomas Elseth, Robert Randolph Fallon, Jamie Lynn Fields, Amelia V. Fisher, Gerald P. Flocco, Matthew Michael Foster, Sandra Nadine Getzfred, Lawrence Daniel Ghee, Cortez Gibson, Brenda Colbert Golinski, Ron Hale-Mckinzy, Diane Halmon, Carolyn B. Hemenway, Ronald J. Hogan, Jr., Wallace Cole Holley, Jimmie Ira Houtz, Angela Marie Howell, Brady Kay Hurt, Peggie Maxine Hyland, Jr., Stephen Neil P~ge 84 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 101 of 124 2857. 2858. 2859. 2860. 286l. 2862. 2863. 2864. 2865. 2866. 2867. 2868. 2869. 2870. 287l. 2872. 2873. 2874. 2875. 2876. 2877. 2878. 2879. 2880. 288l. 2882. 2883. 2884. 2885. 2886. 2887. 2888. 2889. 2890. 289l. 2892. 2893. 2894. 2895. 2896. 2897. 2898. 2899. 2900. 290l. 2902. SGM, USA LTC,USA LT,USN MAJ, USA OS2, USN LTC,USA LTG,USA MAJ, USA ETl, USN LCDR, USNR DM2, USN SPC,USA LT, USNR MAJ, USA LT, USNR AWl, USN ITl, USN CW4, USAR Hymel, Robert J. Ivory, Lacey Bernard Johnson, Dennis Michael Jones, Judith Kegler, Brenda Lamana, Michael Scott Laychak, David William Long, Stephen Vernon Lynch, James T. Lynch, Terence Michael Lyons IV, Nehamon Marshall, Shelley A. Martin, Teresa Marie Mason, Ada Lee Mattson, Dean Elroy Maude, Timothy Joseph Maxwell, Robert James Mckenzie, Molly L. Mickley, Patricia Elizabeth Milam, Ronald Dutrell Moran, Jr., Gerard Patrick Morris, Odessa V. Moss, Brian Anthony Moy, Teddington Harnrn Murphy, Patrick J. Nguyen, Khang Ngoc Noeth, Michael Allen Padro, Diana Beatriz Pak Wells, Chin Sun Panik, Jonas M. Patterson, Jr., Clifford Leon Pontell, Darin Howard Powell, Scott A. Punches, Jr., Jack Duane Pycior, Jr., Joseph John Ramsaur, Deborah Ann Rasmussen, Rhonda Ratchford, Marsha Dianah Reszke, Martha Magdalene Richard, Cecelia Elizabeth Rowenhorst, Edward Veld Rowlett, Judy Russell, Robert Errol Ruth, William Roderick Sabin, Charles E. Salamone, Marjorie C. , P~ge 85 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 102 of 124 2903. 2904. 2905. 2906. 2907. 2908. 2909. 2910. 2911. 2912. 2913. 2914. 2915. 2916. 2917. 2918. 2919. 2920. 2921. 2922. 2923. 2924. 2925. 2926. 2927. 2928. 2929. 2930. 2931. 2932. 2933. 2934. 2935. 2936. COL, USA CDR, USN CDR, USN lTC, USN SGM, USA LTC,USA SGT,USA LCDR, USN LCDR, USNR LTC, USA SSG, USA LCDR, USN MAJ, USA IT2, USN lTC, USN Scales, David Martin Schlegel, Robert Allan Scott, Janice M. Selves, Michael Lee Serva, Marian Teresa Shan ower, Dan Frederic Shennan, Antionette Maria Simmons, Donald Dean Sincock, Cheryle D. Smallwood, Greg Harold Smith, Gary Francis Statz, Patricia J. Stearns Hein, Sheila Mae Stephens, Edna Lee Strickland, Larry Lee Taylor, Kip Paul Taylor, Sandra Carol Teepe, Karl W. Thunnan, Tamara Ciara Tolbert, Otis Vincent Troy, Willie Quincy Vauk, Ronald J. Wagner, Karen Jay Waller, Meta Louise White, Maudlyn Alberta White, Sandra L. Willcher, Ernest Mark Williams, David Lucian Williams, Dwayne Woods, Marvin Roger Yokum, Kevin Wayne Young, Donald McArthur Young, Jr., Edmond Young, Lisa Lashawne The following people were killed on September 11, 2001 in a field n~ar Shanksville, Pennsylvania when the hijacked commercial airline flight they ~ere on, United Airlines Flight #93, was intentionally crashed: United Airlines Flight #93 2937. 2938. CREW Bay, Lorraine Grace Bradshaw, Sandra W. Pfge 86 of 88 ! Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 103 of 124 2939. 2940. 294l. 2942. 2943. Dahl, Jason Matthew Green, Wanda A. Homer Jr., LeRoy Wilton Lyles, Ceecee Louise Welsh, Deborah Anne PASSENGERS 2944. 2945. 2946. 2947. 2948. 2949. 2950. 295l. 2952. 2953. 2954. 2955. 2956. 2957. 2958. 2959. 2960. 296l. 2962. 2963. 2964. 2965. 2966. 2967. 2968. 2969. 2970. 297l. 2972. 2973. 2974. 2975. 2976. Adams, Christian Beamer, Todd M. Beaven, Alan Anthony Bingham, Gerald Kendall Bodley, Deora Frances Britton, Marion Ruth Burnett Jr, Thomas Edward Cashman, William Joseph Corrigan, Georgine Rose Cushing, Patricia Deluca, Joseph Driscoll, Patrick Joseph Felt, Edward Porter Folger, Jane Claire Fraser, Colleen Laura Garcia, Andrew Glick, Jeremy Logan Gould, Olga Kristin Grandcolas, Lauren Ann Greene, Donald F. Gronlund, Linda Kristine Guadagno, Richard Jerry Kuge, Toshiya Marcin, Hilda Martinez, Waleska Miller, Nicole Carol Nacke II, Louis Joseph Peterson, Donald Arthur Peterson, Jean Hoadley Rothenberg, Mark Snyder, Christine Anne Talignani, John Wainio, Honor Elizabeth P~ge 87 of88 I I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 104 of 124 l\arnes of some of those that suffered serious bodily injury as a result o~ the attacks of September 11, 200 1 . H'P"'I·"~V~""', and others not named below, evidence about ,hom will be bodily injury on September 11,2001, in o~ around the World Trade Center in New York as a result of two commercial airlinets crashing into the two main towers or as the result collapsing: serious bodily injurie~ serious bodily injuilies bodily injuries 1. 2. 3. The following people, and others not named below, ~ ...",u~~v'''... wihom will be presented at trial, suffered serious bodily injury on September 11,2001, in Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight #77 the southwest side of the Pentagon: 1. 2. severe bums and other serious bo~ily ~njuries severe bums and other serious bodily injuries: , Pa~e ! 88 of88 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 105 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. PERSONAL DATA '" 1. NAME OF ~~USED: ry KHALID SH IKH MOHAMM;D Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi --~ -----~-----------+- MOham~~:(atiases -~ 2. ALiASE F ACCUS : i Khalid Sh ikh Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Ghamdi) Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Tawfif) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) , I Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; lsam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) '! 3. ISN NU~BER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Shtkh Mohammtct (10024) Walid Mu ammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (100 11 ) I , I I II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS I 4. ADDITIONAL CHARGE: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.c. §9501 (13), INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS SPECIFICATION: !\ BODl~ Y INJURY !\ In that Khalid Sh~kh Mohamm;d, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, All Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivilege~ ene!T1y belligerents, did, on September 11, 2001, at or near New Yor1c:, New Yor1c: and Arlington, Virginia, while in the cont~xt of and associated with hostilities, intentionally cause and inflict serious injury to the body and health of one or more persons, with unlawful force and violence, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing civilian aircraft, to wit American Airline, Flight #11, United Air1ines Flight #175, and American Airlines Flight #77, into the World Trade Center (New Yor1c:, New Y~r1c:) ar)d the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia). (See Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) for a list of the victims that suffered s+rious !bodily injury in the attacks). III. SWEARING OF CHARGES I &C. ORGANIZATION OF] ACCOSER 6b. GRADE 58. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) 0-4 Grimmer, Jared L. / A ScI. SIGNATU ~A7:d-- AFFI~ efo ~IT: Before/me, the r,(de;srQned, auth~d by law to administer oath in cases of this character, persona Iy appeared the above named ace se the ~ day of January , 2012, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications uncer oath that he/she is a person su je to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated the nalters set forth therein and t t e same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. Kenneth Sachs Office of the Chief Prose utor, Office of Military Commi sions Typed Name of Officer Organization of pfficer Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force Judge Advo ate I Grade Official Capacity to Ad rinister Oath (See R.M. C. 307(b) must be cpmmis$ioned officer) Signature MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 110 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED 11 6. On J~{)J'\q ~ol J the accused was notified of the charges against him/h~r (See R.M.C. 308). Office of the Chief Prose utor, Office of Military Commi sions Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 Organization of the Pers n Who Caused Accused to Be Notifie ~ofCharges Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges 7 / . ¥d/~ nat e . I V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY Februar~ 7. The sworn charges were received at 1 5 2 5 hours, on 2 Virqinia 2012at Alexandr ia , Location For the Convening Authority: I ppt.prson Isaac R I , Typed Name of O~ leer SFC/E7 ~ Grade ~ I Signature , VI. REFERRAL 8b. PLACE 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 8q. DATE (YYYYMMDD) ! Alexandria, I VA 20120404 ! Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission convened by military commission convening order 12- P2 dated 4 AEril 2012 I subject to the following instructions1 : See continuation sheet By Direction of the Convening Authority, Command, Order, or Direction DonnaAL. Wilkins, 9. On '"'" ". ~acDonald Convening Authority, I Chapter 47A Title 10 U.S.C. §948~ GS-15 J~~:Offlcer ,/ Bruce Offlcial Capacity of Offlc terSigning Signature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES b It ~ ('\ \ , a 0 I'd.. IEused to ~ served a copy these charges on the ~bove named accused. GS-1t Clayton G. Trivett, Jr Grade of Trial Typed Name of Trial Counsel //-7~-~~~~ i I i FOOTNOTES See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 ouns(ll I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 111 of 124 CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFEI}RAL (Additional Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20120125) I In the case of United States of America v. I W ALID MUHAMMAD SALIH MUBARAK BIN' ATTASH (aliases: Khtlad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Tawfiq) I The charge against the above named accused will be tried at ajoint trial with ¢e trials of I t\,~ I Khalid Shlikh Mohamm1d; I Rarnzi Binalshibh; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi This charge will be tried in conjunction with the original charges sworn on 31 May 2011 and referred on 4 April 2012. I By Direction of the Convening Authority: t Convening Authority, Ch~Pter 47A of Title 10 V.S.C § 948h Date: 1'~ fl..1.. Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 112 of 124 Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, 001, in or around the World Trade Center in New York City, as a result of two commercial airli ers crashing into the two main towers or as the result of the buildings collapsing: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries bones and other serious bodily injuries fractured bones and other serious bodily injurie bones and other serious bodily injuries nearly severed arm with protracted impairme t fractured bones and other serious bodily inj ies bones, severe bums and other serious b~dily .injuries . fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries I I The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight ~OOI,in or around #7t cra~hing into the I . southwest side of the Pentagon: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. bums and other serious bodi y injuries and other serious bodily injuries bums and other serious bodily'injuries fingers, severe bums, and other serio s bodily injuries loss of lung function and other serious odily injuries Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 113 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. PERSONAL DATA .'l. 1. NAME OF/ICCUSED: '" Khalid Sh ikh Mohamm~ Walid Muhammad Salih' Mubarak Bin 'Attash RAMZI BINALSHIBH Ali Abdul Aziz Ali Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi ---"-"-----.-----------.--.-- --. 2. ALIASE F ACCUS : (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Ghamdi) Khalid Sh ikh Walid Mu ammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Altash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Tawi Iq) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; lsam Mansur; lsam Mansar; lsam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) ----.-~-----~-------.. MOhamm~ - 3. ISN N~t:ER OF AC~SED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Sh ikh Mohamm (10024) Walid Mu ammad Salih'Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) I II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. ADDITIONAL CHARGE: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.C. §,95ot (13). INTENTIONALLY CAlJSING SERIOUS BOD LY INJURY : SPECIFICATION: '" ~ In that Khalid Sh1ikh Mohamm;d, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, A Ii Abd~1 Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivileg !d enemy belligerents, did, on September 11, 2001, at or near New York, New York and Arlington, Virginia, while in the cont xt of and associated with hostilities, intentionally cause and inflict serious injury to the body and health of one or more persons , with li'nlawful force and violence, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing civilian aircraft, to wit: American AirlinE s Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, and American Airlines Flight #77, into the World Trade Center (New York, New 'I ork) and the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), (See Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) for a list of the victims that suffered ~ erious bodily injury in the attacks). I III. SWEARING OF CHARGES 5c:. ORGANIZATION 0 FACC~SER 5b.GRADE 58. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, NIl) Grimmer, Jared =' 5d. SIG~ L. 0-4 A/ /l .. :l°;V%Z "',o"'effi;,""':'" .~' Office of the Chief P oseclfltor, Office of Military Co tnmis~ions ! 58. DATE (YYVYMMD p) 20120125 . ~.,""'., IT, odmh'_ ,"", ;" "'... of ..;, _ _, """"'" ..".........boW """"'" a user he 25 day of! January , 2012, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications unc!er oath that he/she is a person ubj 0 the Unffi rm Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated the Talters set forth therein and .that t same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. ! Office of the Chief Prose< utor, Kenneth Sachs Office of Military Commi sions ~ Typed Name of Officer Organization of 'Jfficer Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force Judge Advo( :ate Official Capacity to Ad ninister Oath (See R.M.C. 307(b) must be Cl mmissioned officer) ! Grade %'t~-IJ U.} )oxl>Signature MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 114 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED ~l Jql\\/5:.l~ 6. On ~ol~ the accused was notified of the charges against him/h ~r (See R.M.C. 308). Office of the Chief Prose utor, Office of Military Commi sions Organization of the Pers n W7Jo Caused Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-1S Typed Name and Grade of Person W7Jo Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges Accused to Be Notifie< ~ofCharges ~d~~ / Si nat V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 7. The sworn charges were received at 1 5 2 5 hours, on2 Februgr~ 2Q12,atAlexandri la Virainia Location For the Convening Authority: Isaac R. Peterson ~ Typed Name of 0 cer I SEClE"l • Grade ~ ~ I Signature VI. REFERRAL 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY 8b. PLACE Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 I Alexandria, 80. DATE (YYYYMMDD) 20120404 VA Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission convened by military commission convening order 12-( 2 dated 4 April 2012 subject to the following instructions1: See continuation sheet By Direction of the Convening Authority, Command, Order, or Direction Donrw L. Wilkins, Convening Authority, I Chapter 47A Title 10 U.S.C. §9481 GS-15 Official Capacity of Offie ~rSigriing #~Zd Grade of Officer -, / ~(g Bruce MaCDonald ;, Signature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES 9. On b ~ t (.') \ , ~b I'd. I~rved a copy these charges on the cbove named accused. GS-1~ Clayton G. Trivett, Jr / Grade of Trial founsel /;:;;m7iZ~A / I I Signattffe of ]ifial Counsel ( ; / I FOOTNOTES See R.M.C. 601 conceming instructions. If none, so state. ! Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 115 of 124 I CONTINUATION SHEET -MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFEI}RAL (Additional Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20120125) II In the case of United States of America v. RAMZI BINALSHIBH (aliases: Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; AbulUbaydah al Hadrami) I I I The charge against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial with t~e trials of , c~ Khalid Shfikh Mohamm;a; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi This charge will be tried in conjunction with the original charges sworn on 311May 2011 and referred on 4 April 2012. I By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, Ch~pter 47A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h I Date: ~~~OI.2.. Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 116 of 124 Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, the World Trade Center in New York City, as a result of two commercial too l,i in or around airli~ers crashing into the two main towers or as the result of the buildings collapsing: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. I bones and other serious bodily injuries bones and other serious bodily injuries bones and other serious bodily injuri bones and other serious bodily injuries severed arm with protracted impairme fractured bones and other serious bodily inj bones, severe bums and other serious b bones and other serious bodily injuries s t ries dilyinjuries I The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, {OOI, in or around the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight #7t cra$hing into the southwest side of the Pentagon: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bums and other serious bodily injuries and other serious bodily injuries I bums and other serious bodilyl injuries fingers, severe bums, and other seriots bodily injuries of lung function and other serious rOdilY injuries I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 117 of 124 CHARGE SHEET I. PERSONAL DATA , .-(' ~1.-N-A-M-E-O~F~~CC-U-S-E-D-:--'~----------------~~~~~~--------------~--~------------~t~,\\~ Khalid Sh,ikh Mohamm~ I Walid Muhammad Salili Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI II '\ f\f I ~'.A" C b-' Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi r---~------S'bFJ--~-----~---------~----------------:-~'-'--~------------- --,-~------------I 2k~~~~~JlkhFJo~~M~~:(aliaSeS Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Ghamdi) t\ Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; Ta q) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sabet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; lsam Mansur; lsam Mansar; lsam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) I Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) "3l'i.~ '\ -\ 3., ISN NU';SER OF ACCUSED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Shfikh Mohamm~ (10024) Walld Muhammad Sallh Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. ADDITIONAL CHARGE: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.c. §95o. (IJ).INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BOD LY IN>JURY SPECIFICATION: Sh~kh MOhamm~, ~ Abd~1 In that Khalid Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ii Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unprivileg ~d enemy belligerents, did, on September 11. 2001. at or near New York. New York and Arlington. Virginia. while in the cont~xt of and associated with hostilities. intentionally cause and inflict serious injury to the body and health of one or more persons, with IlInlawful force and violence, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing civilian aircraft, to wit: American AirlinE s Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, and American Airlines Flight #77. into the World Trade Center (New York, New 't ork) and the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia). (See Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) for a list of the victims that suffered ~erious bodily injury in the attacks). 5a. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) / Grimmer, Jared L / J ~,. III. SWEARING OF CHARGES &C. ORGANIZATION OF ACCUSER 5b.GRADE 0-4 Office ofthe Chief P osecutor, Office of Military Commissions , AyflD~ VIT: aefgfe m,e. ttufund~ned. authollzed by law to administer oath in cases of this character. personal y appeared the above named 25th day of January . 2012. and signed the foregoing charges and specifications under oath that helshe is a person subj to the Uniforrry Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has investigated the rnatters set forth therein and tha he same are trf to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. ccu r the ~ Kenneth Sachs Office of the Chief Prose< utor, Office of Military Commi sions Typed Name of Officer Organization of ';Yfficar Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force Judge Adv04ate rm-"" " I Grade Official Capacity to A~T~nister Oath (s.. R.... C. 307(., =" be Signature II Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~_ _ _ _ _ _ _L_____'._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____' Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 118 of 124 IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED ~l J~~v~r:j \ 6. On ~o\l the accused was notified of the charges against himlh r (See R.M.C. 308). Office ofthe Chief Prose( utor, , Office of Military Commi sions' Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 n Organization of the Perse Who Caused Accused to Be Notifiec ofChfjrges Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges 74L&.h4f/ I I I V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY 525 7. The sworn charges were received atl hours, on 2 Eel;;2J:::m,u:::~ 2 QJ 2at Al~xannr ia ' Virainia Location I I For the Convening Authority: I s a a c R. Peterson I Typed Name of 01cer I SFcLE7 Grade ~ ~ I Signature I VI. REFERRAL 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 8e. DATE (YYYYMMDD) 8b. PLACE 20120404 Alexandria, VA Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission convened by military commission convening order 12-( 2 dated 4 Aprll 2012 I subject to the following instructions1: I I I See continuation sheet i : the Convening Authority, Bruce MacDonald Convening Authority Cqapter 47A Donna.t L. Wilkins, GS-15 Title 10 U.S.C. § 9 8hi Offlcial Capacity of Offlc ~rSigr)ing ~ Z 7 / , & ; r a d e ofOfflcer By Direction of Command, Order, or Direction A.. ~ /,\g/(f.lt- ~ '-"""/ / Signature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES 9. On b , &~{; \ , '~O i 4- A Clayton G. Trivett, Jr Typed Name of Trial Counsel A~~ L / / lesed to ~served a copy these charges on the lbove named accused. GS-H Grade of Trial A ;!Jt£ Signature of T'1" Counsel f/ ~ See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 FOOTNOTES ounsel , , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 119 of 124 CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, REFE~L (Additional Charge Sheet, Sworn on 20120125) I In the case of United States of America v. ALI ABDUL AZIZ ALI (aliases: Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mtsar! Isam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) I The charge against the above named accused will be tried at a joint trial with ~he trials of ~ I t\ ! Khalid Sh¢ikh Mohammfd; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; Ramzi Binalshibh; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam aI Hawsawi This charge will be tried in conjunction with the original charges sworn on 31 May 2011 and referred on 4 April 2012. I By Direction of the Convening Authority: Convening Authority, clpter 47 A of Title 10 U.S.C § 948h Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 120 of 124 Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, 001, in or around the W orId Trade Center in New York City, as a result 0 f two commercial airIi ers crashing into the two main towers or as the result of the buildings collapsing: l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. bones and other serious bodily injuries bones and other serious bodily injuries fractured bones and other serious bodily injuri bones and other serious bodily injuries ly severed arm with protracted impairme fractured bones and other serious bodily inj fractured bones, severe bums and other serious b fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries s t ries dily injuries I The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight ~OO 1, in or around #7f craihing into the southwest side of the Pentagon: I l. 2. 3. 4. 5. bums and other serious bodi[y injuries bums and other serious bodily injuries I severe bums and other serious bodilyl injuries fingers, severe bums, and other seriots bodily injuries loss oflung function and other serious I odill' injuries I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 121 of 124 , CHARGE SHEET I. PERSONAL DATA n 1. NAME OF/riCCUSED: "\ Khalid Sh Ikh MOhammld Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash Ramzi Binalshibh Ali Abdul Aziz Ali MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL HAWSAWI 2. ALiASErF ACC~~ I Khalid Sh ikh Mohamm (aliases Mukhtar al Baluchi; Hafiz; Meer Akram; Abdul Rahman Abdullah AI Gham, Walid Muliammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (aliases Khallad; Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf; Silver; T Iq) Ramzi Binalshibh (aliases Abu Ubaydah; Ahad Abdollahi Sa bet; Abu Ubaydah al Hadrami) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (aliases Ammar al Baluchi; Isam Mansur; Isam Mansar; Isam Mansour; Ali; Aliosh; Hani) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (aliases Zahir; Hashem Abdollahi; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) 'I , , d 3. ISN NU.,j~ER OF ACf/SED (LAST FOUR): Khalid Sht,ikh Mohamm (10024) Walid Mu ammad Salih Mubarek Bin 'Attash (10014) Ramzi Binalshibh (10013) Ali Abdul Aziz Ali (10018) Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi (10011) I II. CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS 4. ADDITIONAL CHARGE: VIOLATION OF 10 U.S.c. §95Ot (IJ), INTENTIONALLY CAUSING SERIOUS BOD LYINJURY ~ SPECIFICATION: In that Khalid Shfoh MOhamm!d, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ii Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. pe"ons subjecilO lrial by mUII",y oommiss"n as alien unpnv;legr en.."y bemg"","". did, on September 11, 2001, at or near New York, New York and Arlington, Virginia, while in the cont xt of ~nd associated with hostilities, intentionally cause and inflict serious injury to the body and health of one or more persons, with 4nlawful force and violence, in violation of the law of war by intentionally crashing civilian aircraft, to wit: American Airline s Flight #11, United Airlines Flight #175, and American Airlines Flight #77, into the World Trade Center (New York, New'( ork) and the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia). (See Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) for a list of the victims that suffered ~ erious bodily injury in the attacks). I Sa. NAME OF ACCUSER (LAST, FIRST, MI) 0-4 Grimmer, Jared L. /I 5d. SIC /J r;rRE7~ ~-- III. SWEARING OF CHARGES &C. ORGANIZATION 0 5b. GRADE ACCUSER Office of the Chief P osecutor, Office of Military Co tnmissions &e. DATE (YYYYMMDI ) 20120125 a.J""""'" " 0".' '''''''''''. AFFI 'VITAme,!he ~. 1_10 "'minisle' _ In ""'" ",,",onal y .p"""",, ... abo"" ...... accu r the 5th day of anuary , 2012, and signed the foregoing charges and specifications und r oath that he/she is a person sub' to th niform Code of Military Justice and that he/she has personal knowledge of or has Investigated the ttters set forth therein and that the same are true to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. !" Kenneth Sachs Typed Name of Officer prosec~tor, Office of the Chief Office of Military Commls~ions Organization of (Dfficar Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force Judge Advoc ate Grade Official Capacity to Adn inisten Oath (See R.M.C. 307(b) must be cc !"'miss;oned officer) ,~JtJ LILli ~C/A"V Signature I I, I MC FORM 458 JAN 2007 - I Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 122 of 124 I I I IV. NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED 1"~1'\ \/,\( 'i\ '~l 6. On ~O\~ the accused was notified of the charges against him/t er (See R.M.C. 308). Office of the Chief Prose utor,i Office of Military Comm 'ssion$ Clayton G. Trivett, Jr, GS-15 Organization of the Pers pn Wh~ Caused Accused to Be Notifie dofC/tIarges Typed Name and Grade of Person Who Caused Accused to Be Notified of Charges /' Lr"~P-r Sign re V. RECEIPT OF CHARGES BY CONVENING AUTHORITY I February 2012at Alexand!lia L Vir9: inia 7. The sworn charges were received at 1525 hours, on 2 I I I I I Location For the Convening Authority: Isaac R. Peterson Typed Name of 0 Icer I SFcLE7 Grade ~~ I I Signature VI. REFERRAL 8b. PLACE 8a. DESIGNATION OF CONVENING AUTHORITY Convening Authority, 10 U.S.C. § 948h, designated on 25 Mar 10 I 8c. DATE (YYYYMMDD) I ! Alexandria, 2;0120404 VA Referred for trial to the ~caPital military commission convened by military commission convening order dated 4 April 2012 12- 02 I I subject to the following instructions 1: I See continuation sheet i I By Direction oftheConvening Authority, Command, Order, or Direction Don¢V L. I VI / acDonald f.i Convening Authority, Chapter Title 10 U.S.C. § 94 8h Wq..~.ins, GS-15 r;q;;C;~ofofflcer & __ ... Bruce 47A Offlcial Capacity of om Fer Sig/(ling I Signature VII. SERVICE OF CHARGES 9. On t l\~ r', \ , l 0 id, I §used to~served a copy these charges on the +bove named accused. GS-1 p Clayton G. Trivett, Jr ~~eof:iun/~g / / Signature ~.t;t'rial C(Junsel I (/ FOOTNOTES See R.M.C. 601 concerning instructions. If none, so state. Me FORM 458 JAN 2007 Grade of Trial Counsel , Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 123 of 124 CONTINUATION SHEET - MC FORM 458 JAN 2007, BLOCK VI, (Additional Charge Shee~, Sworn on 20120125) REFE~L I I In the case of United States of America v. I I MUSTAFA AHMED ADAM AL HAWSA WI (aliases: Zahir; Hashem Abtllalii; Muhammad Ahanad; Abderahman Mustafa) i I The charge against the above named accused will be tried at ajoint trial with ~he trials of C\ 0... I Khalid Shlikh Mohammrd; I Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash; I Ramzi Binalshibh; and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali This charge will be tried in conjunction with the original charges sworn on 31 May 2011 and referred on 4 April 2012. I I By Direction of the Convening Authority: C~Pter 47A of Convening Authority, Title 10 U.S.C § 948h Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-2 Filed 04/30/18 Page 124 of 124 Charge Sheet Appendix B (Change 1) The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September I I, I too I ,: in or around I the World Trade Center in New York City, as a result of two commercial airliiers crashing into the two main towers or as the result of the buildings collapsing: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. i I I fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries fractured bones and other serious bodily injuri s bones and other serious bodily injuries severed arm with protracted impairme fractured bones and other serious bodily inj IeS bones, severe bums and other serious bdily iinjuries fractured bones and other serious bodily injuries The following people suffered serious bodily injury on September 11, 001, in or around the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, as a result of American Airlines Flight #7 cra$hing into the southwest side of the Pentagon: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. bums and other serious bodily injuries and other serious bodily injuries . severe bums and other serious bodily injuties fingers, severe bums, and other serio s bodily injuries ss of lung function and other serious odily injuries Case 1:08-cv-02083-PLF Document 204-3 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _____________________________________ ) AMMAR AL-BALUCHI ) a/k/a Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-cv-2083 (PLF) ) JIM MATTIS, ) Secretary of Defense, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) [PROPOSED] ORDER Upon consideration of Respondents’ Updated Cross-Motion to Hold Petitioner’s Habeas Petition in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings, Petitioner’s Opposition Memorandum, and Respondents’ Reply, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondents’ Updated Cross-Motion to Hold Petitioner’s Habeas Petition in Abeyance Pending Completion of Military Commission Proceedings is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this _________ day of _____________, 2018. ___________________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge