Whether 18 U.S.C. 844(f) and (n) apply extraterritorially to offenses committed abroad by non-U.S. persons, despite the statute's lack of any affirmative indication of extraterritorial application

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Ahmed a Syrian national, was convicted for allegedly conspiring, while in Iraq and China, to undertake actions in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. The government alleged that petitioner conspired with members of an insurgent group to employ improvised explosive devices against the American military in Iraq. The court of appeals upheld petitioner’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 844(f) and (n) for conspiring to destroy United States property, notwithstanding the presumption against on the ground that all criminal statutes that protect the government apply extraterritorially. The court of appeals also rejected petitioner’s claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), on the ground that the prosecution had no obligation to produce evidence held by the Department of Defense’s Central Command, even though the district court had held that the evidence was directly relevant to the defense case, and Central Command had previously assisted the government with its investigation and affirmative case. The questions presented are: 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. 844(f) and (n) apply extraterritorially to offenses committed abroad by non-U.S. persons, despite the statute’s lack of any affirmative indication of extraterritorial application. 2. Whether the government’s Brady obligations extend to a federal-agency component that assisted the prosecution. ii RELATED CASES The proceedings directly related to this petition are: United States v. Ahmed No. 2:12-cr-01263 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2018) United States v. Ahmed No. 18-10435 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024)