%PDF-1.3 % 1 0 obj<> endobj 2 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 3 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]@JjIA0Qޛ jzш1Ӓt QXCgUESXOSb6naN~s{,(UiṄŝC;T|l endstream endobj 4 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 5 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]@JQkIA0=d7AMo1&-K'5$*rzZTKp6뷏ϱnjq4sʼshӁ.NG~| endstream endobj 6 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 7 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSj֐la{ѓ`DɠS KIf&[Ud>u:_,&Mv9W_@cA8x4uʼ_\ YۃNF5}` endstream endobj 8 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 9 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjRUKEO_ɠS5KAv'3HX"9>~R .V>r6uC !>stream x+| endstream endobj 11 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjRUKEO_ɠS5K! @$Ub?+ L9oppj6Nթwʼ9A*~T endstream endobj 12 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 13 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjqRUKE_ɠS KCV@įUQb?UoC a!m)vv،~i*~ endstream endobj 14 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 15 0 obj <>stream x%@D)])E%Fd{o2M{#Ծ!wi=Da5ɟ DZXG2~RWfcuv9QN#Ʃ:͜2fwxvQE?H endstream endobj 16 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 17 0 obj <>stream x%0-6)yD' " ? fV^5b}7m(&3_"hK\X#쟗o} a >u)fr qn7:U endstream endobj 18 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 19 0 obj <>stream x%=@DSjqPG-= F$*Af&^T1r6@v#3_"9.~R l /.=3C±}8USbv،t0< endstream endobj 20 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 21 0 obj <>stream x%@ %]B|Ru.hz2u7ZzRɝ ɟ Dt=ʢDio~7i3}!\`Fq2]~:͝2W;R+ endstream endobj 22 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 23 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]NJjIA0Qޛ *ш1ې$(ѭ ~1M{9oC_} }D>})aqL"k{PaT endstream endobj 24 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 25 0 obj <>stream x%@})]NJjIA0Q=do&^7bL~7䮭Da5$E^zZ'`6[Ia,!cFa8]:͜2t *o endstream endobj 26 0 obj <>stream x+| endstream endobj 27 0 obj <>stream x%@D)]NJkII0Q9df7ACo1&ZrN)v#CGYدl1*Q"#^TNsw m:liw endstream endobj 28 0 obj[/PDF/Text] endobj 29 0 obj<> endobj 31 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 33 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 115.326 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (PUBLISHED) Tj /F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz -114.766 -40.6 Td 1.9 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td 1.2 Tw (FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -66.696 -18 Td () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (U) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TATES OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (MERICA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 80.988 -13.2 Td (Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 1.512 -18 Td (v.) Tj 135.57 0 Td (No. 08-4358) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -36.45 -1.3 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -11.9 Td 1.2 Tw (S) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (TEVEN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( J. R) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (; K) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EITH) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( W) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (EISSMAN) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 65.688 -18 Td (Defendants-Appellees.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 115.932 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -142.878 -26.6 Td 1.2 Tw (Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj -12.75 -13.4 Td (for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.) Tj 32.244 -13.4 Td (T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge.) Tj 35.778 -13.4 Td (\(1:05-cr-00225-TSE-1\)) Tj -8.802 -26.5 Td (Argued: October 29, 2008) Tj -4.332 -26.7 Td (Decided: February 24, 2009) Tj -71.46 -26.5 Td (Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -9.42 -51.8 Td 1.7 Tw (Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opin-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (ion, in which Judge Gregory and Judge Shedd joined.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -44.7 Td (COUNSEL) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.5 Td 1.1 Tw (ARGUED) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (: Thomas P. Reilly, UNITED STATES DEPART-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.33 Tw (MENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.6 Tw (Baruch Weiss, ARENT FOX, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.;) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.26 Tw (Abbe David Lowell, MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .57 Tw (L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz (ON BRIEF:) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Chuck) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -84.55 m 183.8 -84.55 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -122.3 m 186.6 -92.4 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -169.2 m 186.6 -139.3 l s .9 w 0 -176.15 m 183.3 -176.15 l s .5 w 0 -348.15 m 300 -348.15 l s .5 w 0 -413.35 m 300 -413.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g ET Q endstream endobj 34 0 obj<> endobj 35 0 obj<> endobj 36 0 obj<> endobj 37 0 obj<> endobj 32 0 obj<> endobj 46 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 51 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .53 Tw 0 Tc (Rosenberg, United States Attorney, James L. Trump, W. Neil) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.16 Tw (Hammerstrom, Jr., David B. Goodhand, Assistant United) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.71 Tw (States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 6.34 Tw (ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Michael C. Martin,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .8 Tw (UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washing-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .5 Tw (ton, D.C., for Appellant. Erica E. Paulson, Roy L. Austin, Jr.,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.32 Tw (MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY, L.L.P., Washington,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.63 Tw (D.C.; John N. Nassikas III, Kate B. Briscoe, ARENT FOX,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.9 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.6 Td (KING, Circuit Judge:) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 1.3 Tw (The grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia charged) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 2.11 Tw (the defendants Steven J. Rosen, the Director of Foreign) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .91 Tw (Policy Issues at the American Israeli Public Affairs Commit-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .86 Tw (tee \("AIPAC"\), and Keith Weissman, the Senior Middle East) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.08 Tw (Analyst in AIPAC's Foreign Policy Issues Department ) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.81 Tw (with violations of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.81 Tw (793. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .57 Tw (operative indictment, returned as a superseding indictment on) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.25 Tw (August 4, 2005, asserts that between 1999 and 2004, the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.78 Tw (defendants obtained national defense information from vari-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .66 Tw (ous sources within the United States government) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and unlaw-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .46 Tw (fully passed that information to other AIPAC staffers, foreign) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.14 Tw (officials, and members of the news media.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( In this interlocu-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 5.48 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Lawrence Anthony Franklin, a former Department of Defense) Tj -10 -11.4 Td 2.86 Tw (employee, was also indicted as a coconspirator in these proceedings.) Tj 0 -11.4 Td 1.46 Tw (Franklin pleaded guilty to two counts of the indictment and, in January) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (2006, was sentenced to 151 months' imprisonment. ) Tj 10 -14.1 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.26 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Count One of the indictment charged the defendants with conspiracy) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 3.08 Tw (to communicate national defense information, in contravention of 18) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 2.22 Tw (U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.22 Tw (793\(g\). Count Three charged Rosen with aiding and abetting) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1.23 Tw (Franklin's disclosure of national defense information to Rosen, in viola-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .41 Tw (tion of 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (793\(d\), 2. The remaining counts in the indictment do) Tj 0 -11.3 Td 1 Tw (not name either Rosen or Weissman. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -140.75 m 300 -140.75 l s .5 w 0 -372.95 m 300 -372.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (2) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 52 0 obj<> endobj 47 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 55 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.04 Tw 0 Tc (tory appeal, the government challenges the district court's) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.52 Tw (pretrial evidentiary rulings on the handling at trial of classi-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.46 Tw (fied information. The defendants have moved to dismiss the) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.14 Tw (appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As explained below, we deny) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.75 Tw (the motion to dismiss and affirm the challenged evidentiary) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (rulings.) Tj 146.502 -25.4 Td (I.) Tj -134.502 -25.4 Td .52 Tw (The district court's evidentiary rulings were made pursuant) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 1.03 Tw (to the Classified Information Procedures Act, 18 U.S.C. app.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 5.06 Tw (3 ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 5.06 Tw (1-16 \("CIPA"\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( As we have recognized, CIPA is) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.12 Tw ("merely a procedural tool requiring a pretrial court ruling on) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.81 Tw (the admissibility of classified information." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v.) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.06 Tw (Smith) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 780 F.2d 1102, 1106 \(4th Cir. 1985\). CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.06 Tw (1\(a\)) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.22 Tw (defines "[c]lassified information," in pertinent part, as "any) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 4.08 Tw (information or material that has been determined by the) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.75 Tw (United States Government pursuant to an Executive order,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.04 Tw (statute, or regulation, to require protection against unautho-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (rized disclosure for reasons of national security.") Tj 12 -25.4 Td .17 Tw (As relevant here, if a defendant expects to disclose or cause) Tj -12 -12.8 Td .73 Tw (the disclosure of classified information at trial or in a pretrial) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .77 Tw (proceeding, he is required, pursuant to CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .77 Tw (5\(a\), to notify) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.3 Tw (the district court and the government of the potential disclo-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.42 Tw (sure. Under CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.42 Tw (6\(a\), the government may then "request) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .2 Tw (the court to conduct a hearing to make all determinations con-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .33 Tw (cerning the use, relevance, or admissibility of classified infor-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.37 Tw (mation" a request that the court must fulfill.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( If the court) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.3 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 2.76 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The various subsections of CIPA are referred to herein as "CIPA) Tj -10 -10.8 Td 1 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (___." ) Tj 10 -13.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.8 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In assessing admissibility, the court must consider not just the rele-) Tj -10 -10.8 Td .6 Tw (vance of the evidence, but also the applicability of any government privi-) Tj 0 -10.8 Td .7 Tw (lege, such as military or state secrets. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Smith) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 780 F.2d at 1107, 1110.) Tj 0 -10.9 Td 2.03 Tw (Here, the government asserts a classified information privilege; such a) Tj 0 -10.9 Td 1.11 Tw (privilege "must . . . give way when the information . . . `is relevant and) Tj 0 -10.9 Td .43 Tw (helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination) Tj 0 -10.9 Td .96 Tw (of a cause.'" ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz ( at 1107 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Roviaro v. United States) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 353 U.S. 53,) Tj 0 -10.9 Td 1 Tw (60-61 \(1957\)\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -377.65 m 300 -377.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (3) Tj -199.1094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 48 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 56 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.83 Tw 0 Tc (authorizes disclosure of classified information, the govern-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.3 Tw (ment may then move, under CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.3 Tw (6\(c\)\(1\), that the court) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .8 Tw (order, inter alia, "the substitution for such classified informa-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .42 Tw (tion of a summary of the specific classified information." The) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.07 Tw (court must conduct a hearing on any CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.07 Tw (6\(c\)\(1\) motion,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.33 Tw (and it "shall grant such a motion . . . if it finds that the . . .) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.9 Tw (summary will provide the defendant with substantially the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (same ability to make his defense as would disclosure of the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.4 Tw (specific classified information.") Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The government is entitled,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .85 Tw (pursuant to CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .85 Tw (7, to pursue an interlocutory appeal from) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.56 Tw (any ruling of the court "authorizing the disclosure of classi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.55 Tw (fied information." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v. Fernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 887 F.2d) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (465, 469-70 \(4th Cir. 1989\) \(recognizing that CIPA ) Tj ( ) Tj (7 allows) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (appeals from adverse CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .3 Tw (6\(a\) and \(c\)\(1\) rulings\). Finally,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.52 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.52 Tw (5\(a\) prohibits a defendant from disclosing classified) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.03 Tw (information until proper notice has been given, the govern-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.24 Tw (ment has been afforded "a reasonable opportunity to seek" a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (6 determination from the court, and the government's) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.23 Tw (time to initiate a CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.23 Tw (7 appeal from any such determina-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (tion has expired.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .36 Tw (Here, Rosen and Weissman gave notice to the district court) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 4.46 Tw (and the government, pursuant to CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.46 Tw (5\(a\), that they) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (expected to disclose at trial a large volume of classified infor-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.28 Tw (mation. The government promptly moved, pursuant to CIPA) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.36 Tw (6\(a\), for a hearing on the use, relevance, and admissibility) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (of the classified information at trial. The court, after conduct-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.77 Tw (ing such a CIPA hearing, determined that a substantial vol-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.76 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Under CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.76 Tw (6\(c\)\(2\), the government may "submit to the court an) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.7 Tw (affidavit of the Attorney General certifying that disclosure of classified) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.57 Tw (information would cause identifiable damage to the national security of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.53 Tw (the United States and explaining the basis for the classification of such) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .28 Tw (information." If the court denies the government's CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .28 Tw (6\(c\)\(1\) motion,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.69 Tw (and the government submits a CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.69 Tw (6\(c\)\(2\) affidavit of the Attorney) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.5 Tw (General, the court must, under CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.5 Tw (6\(e\)\(1\), order that the defendant) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.56 Tw (not disclose the classified information. In such circumstances, however,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .44 Tw (the court must also order, pursuant to CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .44 Tw (6\(e\)\(2\), the dismissal of the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (indictment or some other appropriate action. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -376.95 m 300 -376.95 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (4) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 49 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 57 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.75 Tw 0 Tc (ume of the classified information was indeed relevant and) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.2 Tw (admissible.) Tj 12 -24 Td 1.77 Tw (As a result of the district court's rulings, the government) Tj -12 -12.1 Td 2.7 Tw (sought permission, pursuant to a motion filed under CIPA) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .58 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .58 Tw (6\(c\)\(1\), to introduce substitutions for many of the classified) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 3.04 Tw (documents that had been deemed relevant and admissible.) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 4.8 Tw (The government proposed to create the substitutions by) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 2.34 Tw (redacting and otherwise summarizing classified information) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .96 Tw (in the original documents. During a CIPA hearing conducted) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 2.27 Tw (over the course of twenty-two days in 2007 to address the) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .95 Tw (government's ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .95 Tw (6\(c\)\(1\) motion, the court ruled that, although) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.67 Tw (some of the government's proposed redactions were accept-) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.96 Tw (able, other such redactions would not afford the defendants) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 3.82 Tw (the same opportunity to defend themselves as would the) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.33 Tw (admission of the unredacted documents containing classified) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.16 Tw (information. In some instances, the court concluded that less) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .55 Tw (extensive redactions, or the use of replacements for particular) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.12 Tw (names, places, or terms, would adequately protect the defen-) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.78 Tw (dants' rights while simultaneously offering adequate protec-) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 2.71 Tw (tion for classified information. The court thus directed the) Tj 0 -12.1 Td .41 Tw (parties to fashion substitutions for the classified documents in) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.47 Tw (accordance with the oral rulings it made during the hearing.) Tj 0 -12.1 Td 2.37 Tw (Thereafter, the court entered an order adopting the parties') Tj 0 -12.1 Td 1.11 Tw (agreed-to substitutions, over the government's objection. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -12.2 Td 1.44 Tw (United States v. Rosen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. 05-cr-00225 \(E.D. Va. Mar. 20,) Tj 0 -12.2 Td 1.2 Tw (2007\) \(under seal\) \(the "CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (6 Order"\).) Tj 12 -24.1 Td .57 Tw (The government has timely noted this interlocutory appeal,) Tj -12 -12.2 Td 1.91 Tw (pursuant to CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.91 Tw (7, challenging the district court's CIPA) Tj 0 -12.2 Td 2.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.2 Tw (6 Order with regard to two specific documents: the "FBI) Tj 0 -12.2 Td .38 Tw (Report" and the "Israeli Briefing Document.") Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The defendants) Tj 0 -12.2 Td 1.2 Tw (have moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .25 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In its reply brief in this appeal, the government also challenges the dis-) Tj -10 -10.3 Td .35 Tw (trict court's CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .35 Tw (6 Order with regard to several draft National Security) Tj 0 -10.3 Td .67 Tw (Presidential Directives \("NSPDs"\). The government did not challenge the) Tj 0 -10.3 Td 1.05 Tw (court's NSPD rulings in its opening brief, however, only mentioning the) Tj 0 -10.3 Td .51 Tw (NSPDs briefly in a footnote. We are unable to consider a claim raised for) Tj 0 -10.3 Td 1.11 Tw (the first time by way of a reply brief. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Yousefi v. INS) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 260 F.3d 318,) Tj 0 -10.3 Td 1.3 Tw (325 \(4th Cir. 2001\). Thus, the government has forfeited its challenge to) Tj 0 -10.3 Td 1 Tw (the court's NSPD rulings. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -406.75 m 300 -406.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (5) Tj -199.1094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 50 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 58 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 144.504 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (II.) Tj -132.504 -26.7 Td .9 Tw (In disposing of this appeal, we must first assess the defen-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .36 Tw (dants' motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.46 Tw (this regard, Rosen and Weissman contend that the govern-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.85 Tw (ment lacks authorization under CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.85 Tw (7 to pursue such an) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.28 Tw (interlocutory appeal for two reasons. First, the defendants) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .37 Tw (assert that the government has failed to establish, as an essen-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .46 Tw (tial predicate for this appeal, that the court-approved substitu-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.96 Tw (tions for the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing Document) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.45 Tw (contain classified information. Second, the defendants main-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.73 Tw (tain that the government was required but failed to) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (obtain the imprimatur of the heads of the agencies charged) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .42 Tw (with responsibility for the classified information before notic-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.77 Tw (ing the appeal. We address these aspects of the defendants') Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (7 jurisdictional contention in turn.) Tj 144.168 -26.7 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -26.6 Td .61 Tw (The first aspect of the defendants' jurisdictional contention) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.22 Tw (is premised on their assertion that the government has failed) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.32 Tw (to establish that the court-approved substitutions for the FBI) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.95 Tw (Report and the Israeli Briefing Document contain classified) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3 Tw (information. As background, both the FBI Report and the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1 Tw (Israeli Briefing Document were produced by the government) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (during discovery. With respect to the FBI Report, the govern-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.95 Tw (ment contended that Weissman disclosed the Report's exis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .3 Tw (tence and disclosed that the report is ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and that) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.18 Tw (the information disclosed by Weissman was classified. The) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .58 Tw (government provided notice to the defendants that it intended) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.23 Tw (to use the Report at trial to establish these contentions, even) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .58 Tw (though there is no allegation that Weissman actually received) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.07 Tw (the Report, or that he ever disclosed the Report itself. In) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.04 Tw (response, the defendants provided notice that they, too,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.63 Tw (intended to use the Report at trial, seeking to show that the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.22 Tw (Report was not classified on the basis of the information) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .78 Tw (Weissman disclosed; rather, the Report was classified to pro-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (6) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 59 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 61 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2 Tw 0 Tc (tect sensitive details regarding sources and methods, details) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (that were neither known to nor disclosed by Weissman.) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 1.4 Tw (After the district court deemed the FBI Report to be rele-) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 3.28 Tw (vant and admissible, the government sought to redact the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .73 Tw (information in the Report relating to sources and methods. In) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 5.28 Tw (response, the defendants contended that such redactions) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.9 Tw (would deprive them of their ability to put on their defense.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.03 Tw (Now that the district court, by its CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.03 Tw (6 Order, has) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .28 Tw (adopted the parties' agreed-to substitutions for the Report, the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .25 Tw (defendants argue that the substitutions may not contain classi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.28 Tw (fied information. As such, according to the defendants, the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .55 Tw (government should be required to go back through the appro-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .33 Tw (priate classification procedures before pursuing this interlocu-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (tory appeal.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td .28 Tw (With respect to the Israeli Briefing Document, although the) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .78 Tw (government produced the Document in discovery, it does not) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.33 Tw (plan to introduce it at trial. The defendants, however, intend) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 7.25 Tw (to use the Document to support their assertion that) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.4 Td 1.42 Tw ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and that their disclosure of that information) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.03 Tw (was accordingly not a violation of 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.03 Tw (793. The dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .41 Tw (trict court initially concluded that the Document was not rele-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5 Tw (vant and, thus, was not admissible. On reconsideration,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .36 Tw (however, the court ruled that the Document was both relevant) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.62 Tw (and admissible. The court then permitted the government to) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.71 Tw (offer a redacted Document for use in evidence, but rejected) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.08 Tw (the substantial redactions to the Document that the govern-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.66 Tw (ment proposed. Instead, the court adopted in its CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.66 Tw (6) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.57 Tw (Order the parties' agreed-to substitution, which reveals the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .71 Tw (general nature of the information contained in the Document,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 4.71 Tw (while seeking to protect the sensitive information about) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.03 Tw (sources and methods contained therein. As with the substitu-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td (tion for the FBI Report, the defendants now contend that the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 0 Tw (substitution for the Israeli Briefing Document may not contain) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.25 Tw (classified information and, thus, cannot be the subject of a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (7 appeal.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (7) Tj -199.1094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 60 0 obj<> endobj 62 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 67 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td .18 Tw 0 Tc (Contrary to the defendants' assertion, the record establishes) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.73 Tw (that both the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing Document) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.6 Tw (remain classified. Moreover, although the court-approved) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .03 Tw (substitutions for the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing Docu-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.17 Tw (ment do not contain some of the classified information the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.2 Tw (government sought to protect, CIPA does not mandate that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.21 Tw (court-approved substitutions go back through the statutory) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .71 Tw (classification procedures to determine whether they would be) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .7 Tw (classified in their new form. We are simply unwilling to read) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.2 Tw (into CIPA a requirement that is not present under its plain) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.62 Tw (terms, and thus undermine the government's right to pursue) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .85 Tw (this interlocutory appeal. Because the court's evidentiary rul-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.07 Tw (ings with regard to the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.84 Tw (Document fall within the ambit of CIPA, we possess CIPA) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (7 jurisdiction to review those rulings on appeal.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 144.498 -26.4 Td 1.2 Tw (B.) Tj -132.498 -26.4 Td .71 Tw (The second aspect of the defendants' jurisdictional conten-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 1.66 Tw (tion is based on their position that the government failed to) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.33 Tw (satisfy the requirement that it obtain the imprimatur of the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (heads of the agencies charged with responsibility for the clas-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.93 Tw (sified information the Director of the FBI for the FBI) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .34 Tw (Report and the Secretary of State for the Israeli Briefing Doc-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.75 Tw (ument. That is, the defendants maintain that the relevant) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .63 Tw (agency heads must assert the classification privilege as a pre-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .2 Tw (requisite to a CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .2 Tw (7 interlocutory appeal. In support of this) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.36 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (For the first time on appeal, the defendants contend that the original) Tj -10 -11.3 Td 1.2 Tw (classification authority would now testify that the Israeli Briefing Docu-) Tj 0 -11.3 Td .8 Tw (ment should not be considered classified in its unredacted form, notwith-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .32 Tw (standing the classification marks readily apparent at the top and bottom of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .47 Tw (each page thereof. The defendants support this contention with the affida-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .42 Tw (vit of their counsel \(first filed on appeal\) regarding what the classification) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .44 Tw (authority would say if he were to testify. The defendants failed to provide) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 0 Tw (to the district court either counsel's affidavit or any affidavit from the clas-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .36 Tw (sification authority himself. Because the defendants could have raised this) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .92 Tw (claim in the district court and did not, it is not properly before us in this) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (proceeding. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -365.55 m 300 -365.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (8) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 63 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 68 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.21 Tw 0 Tc (proposition, the defendants rely on a recent Second Circuit) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .32 Tw (decision, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Aref) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 533 F.3d 72 \(2d Cir. 2008\). In) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -12.7 Td 2.12 Tw (Aref) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the court held that the government's privilege against) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.75 Tw (disclosure of classified information may only be asserted) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.12 Tw ("through the `head of the department which has control over) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.55 Tw (the matter, after actual personal consideration by that offi-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.31 Tw (cer.'" ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 80 \(quoting ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United States v. Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 345 U.S.) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.41 Tw (1, 8 \(1953\)\). Although the defendants readily concede that) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .7 Tw (there is no similar requirement in our precedent, they urge us) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.72 Tw (to adopt and apply such a legal principle in this case. As) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.55 Tw (explained below, we decline their invitation to adopt such a) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (rule.) Tj 12 -25.3 Td .96 Tw (As the defendants recognize, in the criminal context \(as in) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -12.7 Td .46 Tw (Aref) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\), a court must weigh the government's asserted privilege) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .41 Tw (against a defendant's right to present evidence that is relevant) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .3 Tw (to his defense or essential to a fair determination of the cause.) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .7 Tw (In the civil context \(as in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (\), where a defendant's lib-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.35 Tw (erty is not at stake, a court is entitled to require the govern-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.58 Tw (ment to meet a higher standard for determining whether the) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .83 Tw (information has properly been deemed to be classified. Thus,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.81 Tw (although the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Court held the government to a high) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.63 Tw (standard on the stakes at issue in that civil proceeding, it is) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.73 Tw (not clear to us that the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Aref) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( court properly adopted and) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.46 Tw (applied ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Reynolds) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( in the criminal context. Our trepidation on) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1 Tw (adopting the rule in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Aref) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is further reinforced by the absence) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.03 Tw (in CIPA of any equivalent agency head requirement. In such) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.96 Tw (circumstances, we conclude that the absence of a statement) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.18 Tw (from the relevant agency heads invoking CIPA protection) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .39 Tw (does not present a barrier to the exercise of our jurisdiction in) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .77 Tw (this appeal. Thus, we deny the defendants' motion to dismiss) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.) Tj 142.506 -25.3 Td (III.) Tj 1.662 -25.3 Td (A.) Tj -132.168 -25.4 Td 1.7 Tw (Turning to the merits of this appeal, the government first) Tj -12 -12.8 Td 1.06 Tw (argues that the district court's evidentiary rulings on the FBI) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 450.5 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (9) Tj -199.1094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 69 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .44 Tw 0 Tc (Report and the Israeli Briefing Document, as embodied in the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.16 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.16 Tw (6 Order, were predicated on a misunderstanding and) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.65 Tw (misapplication of 18 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.65 Tw (793. Specifically, the govern-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .18 Tw (ment contends that, by a prior order of August 9, 2006, reject-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 4.03 Tw (ing the defendants' motion to dismiss the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.03 Tw (793 charges) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.75 Tw (against them on constitutional grounds, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj (United States v.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.25 Tw (Rosen) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602 \(the ") Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.25 Tw (793 Order"\), the court) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1 Tw (interposed additional elements on the alleged ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (793 offenses,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.11 Tw (in an effort to ensure that ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.11 Tw (793 passed constitutional muster) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.08 Tw (as applied to the defendants. According to the government,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 0 Tw (these additional elements were the reason the court later ruled,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.47 Tw (in the CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.47 Tw (6 Order, that the documents in question were) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (relevant and, thus, admissible.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 3.85 Tw (Although we possess jurisdiction to review the district) Tj -12 -13.5 Td 1.62 Tw (court's evidentiary rulings under CIPA, as articulated in the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.66 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.66 Tw (6 Order, the government's attempt to piggyback a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 5.12 Tw (pretrial review of the court's interpretation of ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 5.12 Tw (793 is) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.07 Tw (improper at this juncture. Indeed, by order of June 20, 2008,) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (we dismissed as interlocutory the government's appeal of the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.91 Tw (court's ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.91 Tw (793 Order, in which the court's interpretation of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .33 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .33 Tw (793 was articulated. Our dismissal of that appeal constitutes) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.44 Tw (the law of the case, and we will not revisit it. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .7 Tw (States v. Aramony) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 166 F.3d 655, 661 \(4th Cir. 1999\) \(recog-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .13 Tw (nizing general rule that legal ruling is binding through all sub-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.32 Tw (sequent stages of proceeding\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Christianson v. Colt) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .55 Tw (Indus. Operating Corp.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 486 U.S. 800 \(1988\)\). Even if appel-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.3 Tw (late review of the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.3 Tw (793 Order was not barred by the law of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (the case doctrine, moreover, the reasoning for our dismissal) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.37 Tw (of the appeal of the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.37 Tw (793 Order continues to be persuasive:) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .77 Tw (specifically, such an appeal is interlocutory, and must be dis-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.77 Tw (missed as such, unless authorized by some exception to the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.46 Tw (finality rule. The only exception that could arguably apply) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .18 Tw (and authorize such an interlocutory appeal is CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .18 Tw (7, which) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (relates only to classified information-related evidentiary rul-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.85 Tw (ings, not to interpretations of statutory offenses. Because) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .97 Tw (CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .97 Tw (7 does not, on its face, authorize a pretrial review of) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (10) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 65 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 70 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.13 Tw 0 Tc (the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.13 Tw (793 Order, this appeal is limited to the evidentiary rul-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (ings made in the district court's CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (6 Order.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 144.498 -26.1 Td 1.2 Tw (B.) Tj -132.498 -26.1 Td 2.1 Tw (Finally, we review the district court's evidentiary rulings) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (with regard to the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing Docu-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (ment for abuse of discretion. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v. Fernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .63 Tw (913 F.2d 148, 154-55 \(4th Cir. 1990\). The court's determina-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.42 Tw (tions regarding relevance and admissibility of evidence are) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .6 Tw (accorded great deference, even in the context of CIPA ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .6 Tw (6\(a\),) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.48 Tw (and such decisions may only be overturned "under the most) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.63 Tw (extraordinary circumstances." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 155 \(internal quotation) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .1 Tw (marks omitted\). "The abuse of discretion standard also applies) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.66 Tw (to the trial court's decision to reject a proposed substitution) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (under [CIPA] ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (6\(c\)." ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td .81 Tw (The defendants contend that the Israeli Briefing Document) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (is relevant because ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, and the Document is the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .16 Tw (best evidence of ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( about the events described in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.53 Tw (the Document. The district court initially concluded that the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .05 Tw (Document was not relevant, but later reconsidered and revised) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (that ruling. It is far from certain that the Document is relevant) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .21 Tw (to show that the defendants ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. The Document is) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.03 Tw (a ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, a matter that could be proven by other) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.95 Tw (means, including the ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .92 Tw (Smith) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 780 F.2d 1102, 1108, 1110 \(4th Cir. 1985\). Neverthe-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.14 Tw (less, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the trial) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.37 Tw (court, which has been immersed in these proceedings for) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Although we do not possess jurisdiction to review the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1 Tw (793 Order at) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .71 Tw (this juncture, it is apparent that the district court worked tirelessly to bal-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.38 Tw (ance the competing forces inherent in a prosecution involving classified) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .46 Tw (information, and that its efforts to protect the fair trial rights of the defen-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .14 Tw (dants were not inappropriate. We are nevertheless concerned by the poten-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .7 Tw (tial that the ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .7 Tw (793 Order imposes an additional burden on the prosecution) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.86 Tw (not mandated by the governing statute. Section 793 must be applied) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .96 Tw (according to its provisions, as any other course could result in erroneous) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (11) Tj -193.6094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 66 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 71 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.47 Tw 0 Tc (many months and has far more familiarity with the matter) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .6 Tw (than we do. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v. Mason) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.14 Tw (90 \(4th Cir. 1995\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Fernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d at 154-55; ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (United) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .36 Tw (States v. Tindle) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 808 F.2d 319, 327 n.6 \(4th Cir. 1986\). More-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2.94 Tw (over, at this stage of these proceedings, we are unable to) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (definitively say that the Document will not prove to be rele-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .3 Tw (vant to the defense, although its relevance is not entirely clear) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 2 Tw (at this point. Thus, we are constrained to conclude that the) Tj 0 -14.3 Td .47 Tw (court did not abuse its discretion in deeming the Israeli Brief-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1 Tw (ing Document in the form of the court-approved substitu-) Tj 0 -14.3 Td 1.2 Tw (tion to be relevant and admissible.) Tj 12 -28.2 Td .06 Tw (Furthermore, the district court did not err in concluding that) Tj -12 -14.2 Td 1.96 Tw (the FBI Report is relevant to the defense, as the 18 U.S.C.) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .83 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .83 Tw (793 offenses in the indictment are predicated in part on the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .96 Tw (disclosure of the Report's existence, and on Weissman's dis-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 3.14 Tw (closure that the Report is ) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz ([REDACTED]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. The defendants) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .5 Tw (sought to use in their defense the entire unredacted Report, in) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .87 Tw (an effort to show that the information they disclosed was not) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.25 Tw (the basis for the Report's classification. The government, on) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1 Tw (the other hand, sought to redact large portions of the Report,) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .74 Tw (asserting that those portions were not relevant to the defense.) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.7 Tw (In the face of these competing contentions, the court exam-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.25 Tw (ined the Report and the proposed redactions in painstaking) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .37 Tw (detail, and then determined that certain of the redactions were) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .16 Tw (necessary while others would impair the defendants' ability to) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .77 Tw (mount a proper defense. In making this assessment, the court) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.33 Tw (enlisted the participation of the government and the defen-) Tj 0 -14.2 Td .88 Tw (dants, and sought to fashion a substitution that would protect) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 2.6 Tw (the defendants' rights, while simultaneously preventing the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 3.46 Tw (unnecessary disclosure of classified information. Although) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.96 Tw (there may be other procedures by which this conflict could) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.77 Tw (have been resolved, there was no abuse of discretion in the) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.62 Tw (court's rulings on the FBI Report. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (Fernandez) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 913 F.2d) Tj 0 -14.2 Td 1.2 Tw (at 154-55.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (12) Tj 95.3906 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 72 0 obj<>>>/MediaBox[0 0 612 792]>> endobj 74 0 obj <>stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 142.17 -8.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (IV.) Tj -130.17 -26.2 Td .78 Tw (Pursuant to the foregoing, we deny the defendants' motion) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .18 Tw (to dismiss the appeal. However, we affirm the evidentiary rul-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td -.77 Tw (ings of the district court that are challenged by the government.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (9) Tj 0 Ts /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 240.684 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (AFFIRMED) Tj 1 0 0 1 156 200.9 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 297 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -287 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .42 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Finally, we also deny two remaining motions in this appeal, the defen-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .02 Tw (dants' request to file a surreply brief, and the motion of several non-parties) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (to file an amicus brief. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 200.9 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 445 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (13) Tj -193.6094 0 Td (U) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NITED) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( S) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (TATES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. R) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OSEN) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 73 0 obj<> endobj 38 0 obj<> endobj 39 0 obj<> endobj 40 0 obj<> endobj 41 0 obj<> endobj 42 0 obj<> endobj 43 0 obj<> endobj 44 0 obj<> endobj 45 0 obj<> endobj 53 0 obj<> endobj 54 0 obj<> endobj 30 0 obj<> endobj 75 0 obj<> endobj xref 0 76 0000000000 65535 f 0000000015 00000 n 0000000102 00000 n 0000000178 00000 n 0000000364 00000 n 0000000440 00000 n 0000000626 00000 n 0000000702 00000 n 0000000889 00000 n 0000000965 00000 n 0000001152 00000 n 0000001229 00000 n 0000001417 00000 n 0000001494 00000 n 0000001682 00000 n 0000001759 00000 n 0000001946 00000 n 0000002023 00000 n 0000002211 00000 n 0000002288 00000 n 0000002476 00000 n 0000002553 00000 n 0000002740 00000 n 0000002817 00000 n 0000003005 00000 n 0000003082 00000 n 0000003271 00000 n 0000003348 00000 n 0000003537 00000 n 0000003564 00000 n 0000066400 00000 n 0000003610 00000 n 0000011383 00000 n 0000003823 00000 n 0000006700 00000 n 0000007875 00000 n 0000009046 00000 n 0000010213 00000 n 0000061015 00000 n 0000062050 00000 n 0000062289 00000 n 0000063324 00000 n 0000063563 00000 n 0000063620 00000 n 0000063845 00000 n 0000064880 00000 n 0000011484 00000 n 0000016602 00000 n 0000021084 00000 n 0000025834 00000 n 0000030459 00000 n 0000011687 00000 n 0000015425 00000 n 0000065122 00000 n 0000066157 00000 n 0000016815 00000 n 0000021297 00000 n 0000026049 00000 n 0000030654 00000 n 0000034119 00000 n 0000037922 00000 n 0000034324 00000 n 0000038023 00000 n 0000042219 00000 n 0000046315 00000 n 0000050759 00000 n 0000055382 00000 n 0000038238 00000 n 0000042424 00000 n 0000046530 00000 n 0000050975 00000 n 0000055598 00000 n 0000059298 00000 n 0000060949 00000 n 0000059514 00000 n 0000066489 00000 n trailer <> startxref 66598 %%EOF