United States v. Naser Abdo, 733 F.3d 562

On July 26–27, 2011, Abdo purchased six one-pound containers of different smokeless gunpowders, shotgun shells, and an extended handgun magazine; he also bought an Army uniform and Fort Hood–style patches. He paid cash and acted suspiciously in the gun store.
Store employee reported the suspicious purchases to police; officers linked the customer to a hotel where Abdo arrived with a large, overstuffed backpack on a hot day.
Officers in plain clothes and two uniformed officers confronted Abdo, drew weapons, handcuffed him, and placed him in a police car pending investigation; Abdo was Mirandized and admitted he was AWOL and planned to attack soldiers at Fort Hood.
Officers found in his backpack a .40 caliber pistol, magazine, clocks, wiring, batteries, and an article on bomb-making; hotel-room search (warrant) yielded smokeless powder, pressure cookers, and the purchased uniform.
Abdo was indicted and convicted of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction (Count 1), attempted murder of federal officers/employees (Count 2), and four counts of possession of a weapon in furtherance of a federal crime of violence (Counts 3–6); he appealed suppression, double §924(c) convictions, and denial of additional expert funds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of detention / suppression of evidence and statements	Abdo: being detained at gunpoint, handcuffed, and placed in police car amounted to an arrest unsupported by probable cause; suppression required	Government: officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop and took precautions for safety given purchases, conduct, and backpack	Stop was an investigatory detention supported by reasonable suspicion; denial of suppression affirmed
Multiple §924(c) convictions for single firearm possession	Abdo: §924(c) does not allow multiple convictions for a single use/possession of one gun on one occasion; one conviction must be vacated	Government: Abdo had distinct possessions/purposes (recon/protection while assembling bomb and later to shoot survivors), supporting separate §924(c) convictions	No plain error; convictions for Counts 3 and 5 can stand because evidence permitted inference of separate possessions/purposes
Denial of additional funds for expert witness	Abdo: denial prevented him from presenting a defense via expert testimony (on bomb capability)	Government/District Court: Abdo received some funds ($3,500); requested additional fee for travel/testimony was excessive; expert would only testify lack of destructive capacity, but attempt charges make actual capability irrelevant	Issue waived for inadequate briefing; on merits, expert would not materially assist—denial did not render trial unfair

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative stops)
United States v. Phipps, 319 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2003) (§924(c) does not unambiguously permit multiple convictions for a single use of one firearm for simultaneous dual purposes)
United States v. Sanders, 994 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1993) (force and handcuffing do not automatically convert Terry stop into arrest)
United States v. Campbell, 178 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 1999) (detention for officer safety, including prone positioning and handcuffing, can be reasonable)
United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (officers may take steps reasonably necessary to protect safety and maintain status quo during stop)
United States v. Crow, 164 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 1999) (factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt; focus on defendant's belief and capability)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (indigent defendant must show reasonable probability expert assistance would aid defense to obtain funding)
United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d 873 (5th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes §924(c) conduct types: use/carry vs. possession in furtherance)