United States v. Mustafa, 406 F. App'x 526

Kassir was convicted after a jury trial on four counts: providing material support, conspiracy to provide material support, conspiracy to kill/maim/injure abroad, and distributing information relating to weapons.
He received a principal sentence of life imprisonment.
Kassir challenges the conviction on four grounds: evidentiary relevance/prejudice, expert testimony on al-Qaeda, sufficiency of conspiracy evidence, and vagueness/First Amendment concerns with 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.
The panel assumes familiarity with underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
The court affirms the district court’s rulings and judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused evidentiary rulings	Kassir contends evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.	Kassir asserts district court erred in admitting 404(b) evidence.	No abuse; evidence properly probative and not unduly prejudicial.
Whether terrorism expert testimony was admissible	Kassir argues expert testimony on al-Qaeda’s operations was improper.	Kassir argues the testimony aided understanding of complex matters.	Expert testimony admissible; helpful for lay understanding of organized terrorism.
Sufficiency of conspiracy and materiality evidence	Kassir challenges sufficiency of accomplice testimony and materiality.	Kassir contends evidence shows knowledge and material support.	Sufficient evidence supporting knowing participation and material support.
Whether § 2339B is vague or overbroad and infringes First Amendment rights	Kassir claims § 2339B lacks clarity and chills speech/association.	Kassir’s challenge fails as statute clearly applies to his conduct.	Statute applied clearly; not unconstitutional as applied.

United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2007) (evidentiary ruling reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Teague, 93 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1996) (evidence of state of mind admissibility)
United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) (balance probative value against prejudice for 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (further 404(b) prejudice/probative evaluation)
United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for sufficiency is exceedingly deferential)
United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2004) (sufficiency: rational factfinder could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2008) (cooperator testimony can sustain conviction if credible)
Linares-Huarcaya v. Mukasey, 550 F.3d 224 (2d Cir. 2008) (ordinary intelligence standard for applying statutes)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705 (S. Ct. 2010) (due process and vagueness analysis for statutes restricting speech)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (precise guidance not required; historical standard for vagueness)