Mohamed Mohamed Mohamud, Issa Doreh, and Ahmed Nasir Taalil Mohamud v. United States

................................................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ............................................................................. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................LLL JURISDICTION............................................................................................................. 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .................................................................... 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED......................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................................................................... 2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT .................................................................... 4 THE NINTH CIRCUIT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW CONCERNING THE GOVERNMENT’S COLLECTION, RETENTION, AND USE OF TELEPHONE METADATA .................................................................................... 4 A. The Errors Below Relating to FISA ................................................................... 7 B. The Brady and Constitutional Trial Evidentiary Errors Below ..................... 13 C. The FISA and Brady Issues Could Not Adequately Be Decided Ex Parte ..... 16

1. Ex Parte proceedings are inadequate .................................................... 16

2. The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion is directly contradicted by the public record ..................................................................................................... 17

3. With the clear contradiction between the statements of a high government official before Congress, security-cleared counsel should have been allowed to review the evidence ............................................. 19 D. The Evidence Was Insufficient to Support the Convictions of Petitioner Doreh ........................................................................................................................... 20 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIX................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX A: Published decision of the Ninth Circuit, filed September 20, 2020 .. ........................................................................................................................... 34 SUHIL[