## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Kifah Wael Jayyousi, Adham Amin Hassoun, and Jose Padilla with offenses tied to support for violent Islamist activity abroad from 1993 to 2001.
- Count 1 alleged a U.S.-based conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons overseas, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1).
- Count 2 alleged a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to provide material support knowing or intending it would be used to further the § 956(a)(1) conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A.
- Count 3 alleged a substantive § 2339A material-support offense based on the same underlying § 956(a)(1) conspiracy.
- The government’s proof included intercepted communications, financial records, and evidence of efforts to send recruits and equipment to jihad-related conflicts and training camps associated with al-Qaeda.
- FBI Agent John Kavanaugh testified about the meaning of coded terms used in intercepted communications based on extensive review of case materials.
- Dr. Rohan Gunaratna testified as an expert on terrorism and terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda’s structure and methods.
- Defendants argued their conduct reflected humanitarian or charitable assistance rather than intent to support violence.
- After a lengthy trial, the jury convicted all three defendants on all counts via special verdict findings, including findings as to the objects of the § 956 conspiracy.
- The district court imposed concurrent sentences, including 208 months for Padilla, 188 months for Hassoun, and 152 months for Jayyousi on Count 1, plus statutory-maximum concurrent terms on Counts 2 and 3.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for a § 956(a)(1) conspiracy and related § 2339A material-support conspiracy and substantive offenses.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by admitting (a) Agent Kavanaugh’s interpretations of coded communications and (b) Dr. Gunaratna’s terrorism expert testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert principles.
3. Whether the material-support prosecution, as applied, violated constitutional protections (including First Amendment and vagueness challenges) by criminalizing protected speech or association rather than conduct.
4. Whether the sentences were procedurally and substantively reasonable, including whether Padilla’s below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Jayyousi, Hassoun, and Padilla on all counts.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find defendants knowingly joined a conspiracy to commit violent acts overseas and knowingly provided support intended to further that conspiracy.
- The court upheld admission of Agent Kavanaugh’s testimony interpreting code words, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion under the Rules of Evidence.
- The court upheld admission of Dr. Gunaratna’s testimony, concluding his qualifications and methodology were sufficiently reliable and his testimony assisted the jury.
- The court rejected constitutional challenges, reasoning the convictions rested on conspiratorial conduct and coordinated material support tied to violent offenses, not mere advocacy or association.
- The court affirmed Hassoun’s and Jayyousi’s sentences.
- On the government’s cross-appeal, the court vacated Padilla’s sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Sufficiency in terrorism-support cases may be established through combined proof of intercepted communications, financial/logistical support, recruitment efforts, and contextual evidence showing intent to further violent conduct proscribed by § 956(a)(1) and § 2339A.
- A case agent’s interpretation of coded language, grounded in extensive case-specific review and investigative knowledge, may be admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence as expert or specialized opinion when it assists the factfinder.
- Terrorism experts may testify about terrorist organizations and practices when the district court reasonably finds the testimony reliable and helpful under Rule 702 and Daubert.
- Material-support and conspiracy convictions do not violate the First Amendment when predicated on coordinated conduct and support directed to violent criminal objectives rather than independent advocacy.
- A sentence may be vacated as substantively unreasonable when the district court’s variance rests on considerations that improperly discount the seriousness of terrorism-related offenses and fails to reflect § 3553(a) sentencing purposes.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld broad terrorism-related conspiracy and material-support convictions and approved the use of code-language and terrorism-context expert testimony, but required resentencing where a substantial downward variance for a key defendant was deemed substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a).


United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085 (11th Cir. 2011)