4 Commentary, Application Note 2: Harboring, Concealing, and Obstruction Offense”-For purposes of this guideline, an offense that involved (A) Case 1:09-cr-10017-GAO Document 380 Filed 12/14/11 Page 3 of 6 4    underlying charge is not one of those explicitly set forth in 18 U.S.C. §2332(b)(g)(5), the analysis for 3A1.4 enhancement focuses on whether the defendant “obstructed a federal terrorist investigation.” A false statement is not one of the charges enumerated under 18 U.S.C. §2332(b)(g)(5), and thus, the inquiry of whether the enhancement applies is resolved by answering the question of whether or not the defendant’s false statement obstructed an investigation of a federal crime of terrorism. Two federal cases in the Eastern District of Virginia are the predominant cases that have most thoroughly discussed and examined the relationship between the 3A1.4 terrorism enhancement and a false statement charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

45 Section 2332(a)-(c) makes it a crime to kill, attempt to kill, or conspire to kill a United States national while such national is outside the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2332(a)-(c). Case 1:10-cv-05795-AKH Document 22 Filed 02/16/11 Page 31 of 58 23 A. The ATA Does Not Recognize A Civil Cause Of Action For Aiding And Abetting The Seventh Circuit’s en banc opinion in Boim v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief & Dev., 549 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir. 2008) (“Boim III”), cogently explains why there is no civil aiding and abetting cause of action under the ATA (thus abrogating Boim v. Quranic Literacy Institute, 291 F.3d 1000, 1010 (7th Cir. 2002) (“Boim I”) on this point).

B. Plaintiff s’ Claims Under the Anti-Terrorism Act Fail to State a Claim Plaintiffs also allege claims under the ATA, 18 U.S.C. § 2332 et seq.