Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number Criminal No. 04-29 (JRT). Motions Motion for bill of particulars : Granted Attorney(S) Thomas M. Hollenhorst and William H. Koch, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Minneapolis, MN; Joseph N. Kaster, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington DC; for plaintiff. David C. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. THOMAS, Chicago, IL; Andrea K. George, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Minneapolis, MN; for defendant. Judges John R. Tunheim Acts Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Terrorism — Crimes — Providing Material Support Or Resources To Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Terrorism — Crimes — Providing Material Support To Terrorists Crimes And Criminal Procedure — Terrorism — Crimes — Harboring Or Concealing Terrorists See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MOHAMED ABDULLAH WARSAME, Defendant. ORDER JOHN TUNHEIM, District Judge On February 16, 2007, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Warsame's motions for a bill of particulars. The Court determined that the charges of material support contained in the Superseding Indictment were not sufficiently detailed to allow Warsame to effectively challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The Court therefore ordered the prosecution to file a bill of particulars specifying the activities it contends constitute material support and resources, as enumerated in the statutory definition contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1). On March 16, 2007, the prosecution filed a bill of particulars specifying the two counts of material support contained in the Superseding Indictment. The prosecution alleges that Warsame conspired to provide and provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization in the form of "currency," "personnel," and "training." See 18 U.S.C. § 2339(A)(b)(1). The Court requests counsel for the defendant to submit additional briefing on this matter. Specifically, counsel shall address whether the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment, as specified in the bill of particulars, are sufficient for the defense to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B on grounds that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the defendant. Counsel's submission is due April 9, 2007. If the prosecution believes that it is necessary to reply to the defendant's submission, it should ask the Court for permission to do so.