Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit the government from denying defense counsel access to classified information used in the investigation and prosecution of a terrorism case, thereby violating the defendant's right to due process and effective assistance of counsel

No question identified. : Good, and Services to the Taliban in violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705(a) and 31 C.F.R. §§ 594.201, 594.204, 594,205, and 594.310. 2. Following a jury verdict, Applicant was sentenced to a term of 96 months’ imprisonment on both counts to run concurrently with each other by the Sidney H. Stein, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York. 3. The prosecution of Applicant’s offenses was extensive and included significant litigation regarding defense access to classified information pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, access which was ultimately denied by the District Court and as well as on appeal, requiring Appellant’s counsel to litigate against hidden evidence notwithstanding counsel possessing the requisite level of national security clearance needed to gain access to the information in question. The Government took the position that counsel lacked a “need to know” the information in question, which is a prerequisite to access even for those with the necessary level of national security clearance, however without access to the classified information in question counsel was required to litigate notice and suppression issues entirely in the dark uncertain of whether Appellant was even raising the relevant legal claims. 4, It is the intent of counsel to raise in Applicant’s petition for certiorari a question framed around whether Applicant was denied the right to Due Process by denying defense counsel access to classified information that had been relied upon by the Government in the investigation of Applicant’s case. See Tiktok Inc. v. Garland, 145 S.Ct. 57, 74 (2025) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (“Efforts to inject secret evidence into judicial proceedings present obvious constitution concerns.”). 5. Answering this question requires counsel to address the complex interplay of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments with the Classified Information Procedures Act. 6. Additional time is also necessary because counsel is currently involved in preparing briefs, both in District Court and the Court of Appeals, with proximate due dates, as well as scheduled to submit arguments to the Capital Review Committee of the Department of Justice in two separate cases, likewise with proximate due dates, to explain why the Attorney General should not seek death against the defendants in either of those cases. Additional time is therefore needed to prepare and print the petition in this case. 7. Accordingly, counsel for Applicant respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time, to and including June 12, 2025, within which to file a petition for writ of certiorari. Dated: April 2, 2025 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL K. BACHRACH Counsel of Record 224 West 30" Street, Suite 302 New York, New York 10001 (212) 929-0592 Case 22-618, Document ie Po 7/2024, 3634113, Page1 of 13 a 22-618-cr United States v. Hossain UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL