## Facts

- The United States charged Adham Amin Hassoun and co-defendants with terrorism-related offenses arising from an alleged support network that facilitated money, assets, and recruits for overseas armed conflicts.
- A superseding indictment in the Southern District of Florida included three relevant counts:
  - Count 1: conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, and maiming outside the United States, with at least one overt act within the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1).
  - Count 2: conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, to provide material support and resources in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.
  - Count 3: substantive provision (and concealment/disguise) of material support and resources, knowing or intending it be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of § 956, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(a).
- The district court dismissed Count 1 before trial as multiplicitous of Counts 2 and 3, reasoning that all three counts described the same offense and created a Double Jeopardy problem.
- The United States took an interlocutory appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731 challenging the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 956(a)(1) conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, or maiming abroad is the same offense, for Double Jeopardy/multiplicity purposes, as (a) a § 371 conspiracy to violate § 2339A and (b) a substantive § 2339A material-support offense.
2. Whether, under the Blockburger same-elements test, Counts 1–3 each require proof of an element the others do not, permitting all three counts to be charged in a single indictment.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the pretrial dismissal of Count 1.
- The court held that Count 1 was not multiplicitous of Counts 2 and 3 because each offense contains at least one statutory element not contained in the others under Blockburger.
- The case was remanded with instructions to reinstate Count 1.

## Legal Principles

- Multiplicity and Double Jeopardy analysis turns on the statutory elements of the charged offenses; overlapping evidence or conduct does not control.
- Under Blockburger, offenses are distinct if each requires proof of a fact (element) that the other does not.
- A § 956(a)(1) offense requires an agreement with the object of committing murder, kidnapping, or maiming outside the United States and at least one overt act within the United States; it does not require proof of providing “material support or resources.”
- A § 2339A(a) offense requires providing (or concealing/disguising) “material support or resources” with the requisite knowledge or intent regarding use in preparation for, or in carrying out, a listed predicate offense; it does not require proof that the defendant agreed to commit the violent acts abroad.
- A § 371 conspiracy to violate § 2339A requires an agreement to commit the federal material-support offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement, which is distinct from both the § 956(a)(1) agreement and the substantive act of providing material support.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that charging a § 956(a)(1) conspiracy alongside a § 371 conspiracy to violate § 2339A and a substantive § 2339A material-support count does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because each offense includes at least one element the others do not under Blockburger.


United States v. Hassoun, 476 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2007)