” It should be noted that in its reply the government does not challenge the defendant’s argument that given the drop of count 4, the surviving counts are, for purpose of resentence, but one inchoate offense. See Dkt. # 300, p.66, at IV. Nor does it take issue with the defendant’s application that the court in its inherent discretion should reject an automatic, horizontal criminal history leap under 3 A1.4 from level I to level VI. Id. p.32, at D. Finally, the government does not rebut defendant’s argument that empirical research indicates he is less likely to recidivate than those charged with traditional crimes. Id. p.36, at E.
 But for a description infra of the conduct and sentences meted out in matters where the Government’s own expert Dr. Lorenzo Vidino testified, as well as other relevant terrorism cases that have come down since defendant’s initial sentence memorandum, Mr. Kaziu will not repeat here the litany of like prosecutions where those accused of conduct equal to or significantly worse than his, received sentences throughout the country far less than that originally imposed on him.
 Although the adjusted guidelines called for a sentence of life imprisonment, the maximum statutorily authorized sentence was 85 years.
 In its decision the court noted verbatim evidence of the exchange: “Selah: Akhi [brother] help us out, i have an akh [brother] who is planning on hitting a black car cop with a pressure cooker, the black car keeps following him, and he wants to avenge our akhs [brothers] who have been raided and blocked from hijrah [migration] . . . Is it permissible for him to do the attack and die purposely in the process? Hussain: Yes akhi [brother] he can do an isthishadi [martyrdom] operation on the police akhi [brother] . . . If he has no other way to fight them he can do it.” Id.
 In order to escape their attack, the agent was forced to reverse off of the highway and drive directly into oncoming traffic. Not long thereafter the coconspirators were arrested and the knives recovered including one that had been equipped with a built in window breaker that would have permitted them to enter the agent’s vehicle. Id.
 A subsequent search of a vehicle owned by Mumuni’s mother, uncovered another large kitchen knife in a duffle bag.
 On the basis of the “exceptionally serious nature of Mumuni’s conduct” when he attempted to kill the agent (“an act of terrorism for which he had received advance authorization from a Syria-based ISIS operative”) the government, in seeking a maximum sentence, noted a similarity to other terrorism defendants who had been recruited by the same foreign ISIS operative to commit like domestic terror attacks in the United States. No such comparison may be drawn with the facts at hand.
. In remanding for re-sentence the Second Circuit instructed the sentencing court to pay particular attention to: (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (b) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (c) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; and (d) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. (As of this submission, Mumuni’s resentence has been continued due to COVID related scheduling problems and his request for an in-person appearance).
 Although Your Honor has not as yet ruled on defendant’s constitutional challenge to count one of his original conviction, it is respectfully submitted that even should the Court uphold it, under the attendant circumstances, the proposed resentence cap of 180 months would nevertheless be just and reasonable.
 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/10/us/covid-prison-outbreak.html? campaign_id=9& emc=edit_nn_20210411&instance_id=29113&nl=the-morning®i_id=13612801 8&segment_ id=55362&te=1&user_id=cf06250f1047cba6655e00507f67e960
 The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services declared COVID-19 a public health emergency on January 31, 2020. The President of the United States declared a National Emergency on March 13, 2020.
 On April 1, 2020, The Bureau of Prisons implemented a modified-lockdown order. The 122 federal prisons were ordered to confine federal detainees to their cells for two-weeks in order to control transmission of the coronavirus. By May 27, 2020, over 5000 federal prisoners and over 600 BOP staff had tested positive for COVID-19. See Federal Prison System Goes Into “Modified Lockdown,” Government Executive, April 1, 2020, https://www.govexec.com/management /2020/04/federal-prison-system-goes-modified-lockdown/164286/. According to the BOP as of 4/9/2021 there are currently 208 federal inmates and 1,254 staff with confirmed positive test results for COVID-19 nationwide. Since the on-set of the pandemic there have been 230 federal inmates and 4 BOP staff deaths attributed to COVID-19 disease, with 46,792 inmates and 5,541 staff having recovered. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/.
 The Marshall Project, A State-by-State Look at Coronavirus in Prisons, The Marshall Project, June 4, 2020.
 Like Sundays for Christians and Saturdays for Jews, juma’ah is the weekly Friday prayer meeting for observant Muslims. For prisoners of all faith, these congregational prayers are especially important providing great personal relief, strength and direction in dealing with the systemic difficulties of prison life and a play an important, helpful role in a prisoner’s on-going personal rehabilitation.
 Roni Caryn Rabin, “Vulnerable Inmates Left in Prison as COVID Rages,” The New York Times, 27 Feb. 2021.
 Id. The scenario at FCI Danbury is amply detailed in reporting by the Times, including disturbing scenes of chaotic non-response: “When inmates felt sick, they often had to chase down medics and plead to be tested, and later beg for the results. Inmates weren’t removed from the general population until the results came back, which could take five days. When prisoners were secluded in groups after testing positive, they were left largely to fend for themselves, without basic supplies like acetaminophen or extra fluids. To call for help, they banged on the windows.”
 But for one fighting incident in 2011—when Mr. Kaziu was attacked by a prisoner spouting anti-Muslim hate—at FCI Allenwood at the very start of his sentence over a decade ago, Betim has had a flawless record while incarcerated. Mr. Kaziu describes the fight as a kind of “initiation” into prison life, after which he was mostly left alone, if still subjected to frequent verbal abuse by staff and other prisoners for his religious beliefs, and his status as a “terrorism” convict.
 Indeed, for Betim Kaziu, and other inmate survivors, it may yet grow worse, with recent empirical data showing COVID recuperation does not render one immune from its potential deadly repeat. With growing numbers, there have been dozens of documentedreinfections around the world, which is almost certainly an undercount with the most recent being here in the United States at the Greater Richmond Transit Company in Richmond, VA which reported a COVID-19 reinfection within the company in April 2021. https://www.wric.com/health/coronavirus/how-common-is-covid-19-reinfection-doctors-weigh-in-following-first-known-reinfection-within-grtc/. For this reason the CDC states that even if you test positive for antibodies “You should continue to protect yourself and others since you could get infected with the virus again.” https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/testing/serology-overview.html #:~:text=Having% 20antibodies% 20to%20the%20 virus,this%20protection% 20may%20last.The steps to protect yourself continue to be staying at least six feet apart from others, masking and hand washing, getting vaccinated, as well as avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. https://www.cdc.gov/ coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html. Of course, none of these essential safeguards are present or possible within an FCI setting.
20] Unable to accomplish a face to face visit with Mr. Kaziu because of COVID restrictions, the information presented herein has been obtained through a series of discussions with Mr. Kaziu and his family by telephone.
 See, appended hereto, as Exhibit A, supplemental affidavit of Dr. Yasir Qadhi.
 See, https://bridge.georgetown.edu/research/factsheet-lorenzo-vidino/. Authored by the Georgetown University affiliated Bridge Initiative, this report takes specific issue with the independence and objectivity of Dr. Vidino. The project self-describes as a “multi-year research project on Islamophobia which aims to disseminate original and accessible research, offers engaging analysis and commentary on contemporary issues, and hosts a wide repository of educational resources to inform the general public about Islamophobia.”
 Notwithstanding Dr. Vidino’s marginalization of contemporary Egypt’s role in Islamic tradition and study at the time of the defendant’s journey, Dr. Qadhi reaffirms its age-old role as a cornerstone of immersion in both Islamic scholarship and Arabic teaching.
 As noted in defendant’s opposition to the government’s request to proceed to sentence on the papers alone, while, courts in the Second Circuit were, at one point, unable to consider post-conviction rehabilitation in prison as the basis for departure where a defendant was being resentenced for the “same offense” (see Quesada-Mosquera v. United States, 243 F.3d 685,686 (2d. Cir. 2001), it could not, in any event, apply to the facts of this case where Mr. Kaziu’s resentence is for a different course of conduct and offenses than those for which he was originally sentenced. Under these circumstances the reasoning of United States v. Core, 125 F.3d 74, 75 (2d Cir. 1997)(post-conviction rehabilitation in prison may be considered in resentence pursuant to successful §2255 motion) remained undisturbed. See, also, United States v. Bartz, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46395(D.Vt. 2006)(Murtha, J.)(“post-offense rehabilitation has only been considered when a defendant is being re-sentenced for a reason that is independent of the rehabilitation.”); United States v. Lillard, 2006 U.S.LEXIS 5944(N.D.N.Y. 2006(McAvoy,J.) (“under 3582(c) … ‘post-sentence rehabilitation is not by itself a ground for modifying a sentence that has been lawfully imposed.”)(emphasis provided)(internal citations omitted). However, any question about the need for a nuanced application of post-incarceration rehabilitation in the resentence calculus was ultimately put to rest in Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011)(categorical bar on consideration of post-sentencing rehabilitation evidence contravenes 18 U.S.C.S. § 3661 and the Sixth Amendment. Such evidence is relevant to several of the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) factors).
 In contrast stands the declaration of Dr. Qadhi as well as the updated pre-sentence report detailing Mr. Kaziu’ adjustment and activity during his years of imprisonment which establish that he satisfies these considerations by a preponderance of the evidence. Although the defendant is not seeking a downward departure in the classic statutory sense, where there is a dispute as to a relevant consideration bearing on sentence it has been held the burden of proof is the preponderance of the evidence. See, generally, United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 1996)(adjustments favoring the defendant met by preponderance of the evidence); United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, 223 F.3d 704(2d Cir. 2000)(“Moreover, on multiple occasions, this Court has instructed that proof by a preponderance of the evidence is the applicable burden of proof when a sentencing judge is asked to assess disputed facts relevant to sentencing.”).See, also U.S.S.G § 6 A1.3 (favoring preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for resolving all disputed facts issues at sentencing).
 The Hadith is the record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad a major source of religious law and moral guidance in Islam. http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t236/e0286.
 Dr. Vidino is not, however, a certified threat assessment professional or a credentialed forensic psychologist. See generally https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/02/cover-threat American Psychological Association, Threat assessment in action, “Psychologists are leaders in the growing field of threat assessment, working with law enforcement and security professionals to prevent violence before an attacker strikes.”
 Caesar (referred to as Jane Doe by Dr. Vidino) and the cases to follow are cited in his CV as those in which he has appeared as an expert witness on behalf of the government.
 According to the Government’ proof for almost a year before her arrest the defendant provided material support to ISIS as a “committed” recruiter and self described “assistant” connecting ISIS supporters in the United States to ISIS facilitators and operatives abroad. Specifically, she repeatedly used numerous social media accounts and other electronic communication platforms to proclaim her support for ISIS and violent jihad, to recruit for ISIS and to attempt to help others join and fight for the group. She also expressed her own desire to travel to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan to join the group and die as a martyr; obtained and renewed a visa and began saving money to do so, and created and disseminated on social media her own ISIS propaganda, including the ISIS logo next to a photo of then President Obama with an exploding gun next to his temple.
 In considering the concept of reintegration Dr. Vidino described two concepts: disengagement and deradicalization with the former a behavioral process marked by a change in role or function that is usually associated with a reduction in violent participation; deradicalization is an attitudinal or cognitive process that is completed when the commitment to and involvement in violent radicalization I reduced to the extent that the individual is no longer at risk of involvement and engagement in violent activity.
 In contrast stands the post-arrest conduct of Mr. Kaziu. Thus, there is no evidence before the Court that during the course of his 12 years in prison Mr. Kaziu has in any way shape or form expressed or communicated in prison, or to those outside, support for ISIS or any other designated terrorist organization, activity or individual, or conveyed he was prosecuted on the basis of his faith, or engaged in any activity that can be characterized in any way as extremist.
 Trial was suspended when a question arose as to Goldberg’s competence based upon a history of mental health issues. In rejecting a Rule 11(c) (1) (B) plea agreement calling for 96 months, the court imposed the higher 10 year sentence.
 In contrast to Dr. Vidino, Moustafa Ayad the Head of International Communication Programmes for the Institute for Strategic Dialogues, a non-profit global counter-terrorism organization, will not render an opinion of an “individualized assessment of a defendant’s risk of recidivism” at sentencing in the absence of meeting with the defendant beforehand. A qualified expert in Islamic extremism and strategies to counter violent extremism and manager of the Programmes Against Extremism Network, a group of former extremists and survivors of extremist events that conduct interventions, public peaking events and programming to stop the tide of violence, polarization and extremism globally, Mr. Ayad notes personal interaction with an individual is essential because “every individual case is different.” Like factors to be considered in a reviewing an individual’s decision to join an extremist organization Ayad notes risk assessment must weigh and balance “grievances around status regarding feelings of persecution, socio-economic status, mental health issues and the need for a purpose sort of driven life and a sense of community and identity.” See United States v. John Doe, 14-cr-00612-001(EDNY 2018)(Weinstein,J.)
In that same case, Dr. Vidino’s colleague, Seamus Hughes, Deputy Director of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, agreed with Mr. Ayad that there is no generic marker system as to whether one will join an extremist organization or recidivate if released from prison. A former intelligence policy officer for the National Counter Terrorism Center and Senior Counterterrorism Advisor to the US Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affair Committee, Mr. Hughes is a qualified expert on terrorism, homegrown violent extremism and strategies for countering violent extremism. Though not a “threat assessment professional” having spent some four hours interviewing John Doe and reviewing public filing on the case he was comfortable in submitting a risk assessment a to Doe and recommendation a to the term and conditions of supervised release were he discharged from prison. Testifying about the lack of de-radicalization programs in US prisons, Mr. Hughes opined that supervised release rather than prison can often be the best pathway to rehabilitation.“ I would share many of my colleagues view on this . . . on the narrow question of rehabilitation I think a lot of those issues could be achieved primarily through supervised release.” Id.
 See, also, United States v. Rakhmatov E.D.N.Y 2019 (32 years old convicted of conspiracy to provide material support to ISIS in a prosecution where Dr. Vidino testified for the government as an expert. Overt acts included providing money to fund travel of co-conspirator to travel and to join ISIS to fight and to purchase a firearm sentenced to twelve and a half years(the co-defendant was sentenced to but fifteen years, despite his more serious conduct including attempting to fly to Turkey to travel to Syria); United States v. Hendricks No.:1:16-cr-265 (N.D. Ohio)(defendant convicted, inter alia, of conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization with overt acts that included trying to recruit people on social media to train and conduct terrorist attacks in the United States on behalf of ISIS, assisting a codefendant to purchase an AK-47 assault rifle and ammunition from an undercover law enforcement officer, with Dr. Vidino testifying about ISIS recruitment, means and methods, views and language used in communications. With a guideline range of up to 480 months, defendant sentenced to 180 months).
 Other charges in the indictment included multiple counts of Killing a Person in the Course of an Attack on a Federal Facility Involving; the Use of a Firearm or a Dangerous Weapon; Maliciously Damaging and Destroying U.S. Property by Means of Fire and an Explosive Causing Death; and Willfully and Maliciously Destroying Property within the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States and Placing Lives in Jeopardy.
 In observing that §3A1.4 was enacted by a congressional directive lacking in any supporting “empirical evidence ” the court rejected its significant mechanical upward adjustment, finding it often fails to account for the range of conduct covered by a given conviction.
 Along the way, Siddiqui became friends with Samir Khan a U.S. citizen who was a prominent Al Qaeda figure in the Arabian Peninsula and published a blog and magazine which promoted terrorism. He published one of her poems which promoted bombs, fists and slit-throats with “skies that rain martyrdom.” She also wrote letters of support to those convicted of terrorism related offenses or awaiting trial on such charges. Among others were one arrested for plotting to blow up a Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony and another doing an 86 year sentence for a variety of terrorism charge including taking an M-4 rifle from a U.S. serviceman in Afghanistan and attempting to fire it at soldiers. Often heard espousing support for the “Boston Marathon Bombers” Siddiqui called Osama Bin laden and his mentor her heroes and Velentzas praised the 9-11 attacks.
 See, also, United States v. Hasanoff, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199816 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (Wood, J.) and United States v. El-Hanafi, 460 F. Supp. 3d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)(Wood,J.) where respective defendants granted compassionate release following convictions for attempting and conspiring to provide material support to Al-Qaeda including “video cameras, computers, encryption technology, and even remote cars that could be converted into bombs,” as well as cash donations to it totaling $67,000. Hasanoff’s original 216 month reduced to time served approximately 120 months sentence due to rehabilitation and family circumstances. El-Hanafi’s sentence of 180 months reduced to time served (120 months) due to health conditions and in recognition that prolonging his incarceration would not achieve any deterrent value. Id. at 510.).
 Although discussed at length in the defendant’s initial sentence memorandum it bears repeating that recent studies indicate that recidivism rates are significantly lower for those convicted of extremist crimes than “traditional” crimes. See, generally, https://ctc.usma.edu/overblown-exploring-the-gap-between-the-fear-of-terrorist-recidivism-and-the-evidence/ (“A number of academic studies have recently looked into the issue of terrorist recidivism in a more systematic manner. Omi Hodwitz compiled a dataset of 561 individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses in the United States between 2001 and 2018.Only nine of them recidivated (1.6%), five of whom did so in prison. However, only three cases were linked to terrorism (radicalization of other inmates), thus bringing the actual rate of terrorist recidivism (in the narrow sense) down to 0.5%.”); https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/20/entrepreneurship -terrorism-reintegration-recidivism/ (“A recent study released by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center, which examined nearly 30 years of U.S. data, demonstrates that recidivism rates among the most dangerous category of jihadi offenders, namely people directly involved in violent terrorist plots, are far below traditional criminal recidivism rates.”); https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/binaries/content/ assets/ customsites/perspectives-on-terrorism/2019/issue-2/hodwitz.pdf (The “Terrorism Recidivism Study (TRS), a database collected with the sole purpose of filling in some of the blanks regarding recidivism rates and characteristics of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorist-related offenses in the United States following 9/11[found] . . . out of the 561 offenders included in the TRS, only nine recidivated over the entire period of analysis. In other words, only 1.6% of the TRS sample recidivated between 2001 and 2018. . . All had been incarcerated for their original convictions, with an average sentence of 16.3 years and all who had been released had been granted supervised release, with an average of 5.2 years of supervision. All had a history of organizational affiliation, including Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and Al-Fuqra. In addition to the low rates of recidivism, it is also noteworthy that five of the recidivists reoffended while still incarcerated, dropping the total number of released recidivists to four.”).
 “Currently, [the] BOP utilizes the Extremism Risk Guidance 22+ (ERG22+), an assessment tool for determining inmate extremism. First developed in the United Kingdom, this psychological, interview-based assessment tools is used for evaluating radicalization within prison populations. Drawing from these metrics, and from other BOP classification and designation tools, case officers determine which security and custody conditions are acceptable for incoming extremist prisoners.” See, for example, https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Prisons%20Policy%20Paper.pdf at p.4.
 Under a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) a directive can be authorized by the Attorney General for any inmate who is deemed to pose a current threat to national security or public safety. A SAM directive requires 100-percent live monitoring by the sponsoring law enforcement agency of an inmate’s communications and can impose other restrictions on an inmate, such as limiting communications to immediate family. See https://oig.justice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/a20042.pdf. In addition pursuant to administrative measures, the BOP may impose special conditions of confinement including “housing the inmate in administrative detention [a communications management unit -CMU] and/or limiting certain privileges, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representative of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of act of violence or terrorism.”DOJ Manual 9-24.000, Requests for Special Confinement Conditions.). See, https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5214_002.pdf .CMU designations are coordinated by the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) which reviews Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR); the judgment in a criminal case (J&C); Statement of Reasons (SOR); DHO reports relevant to referral, such as communication-related misconduct; and Relevant SIS reports, PC investigations; Memos, letters. . . from courts, United States Attorneys’ Offices, law enforcement officials . . . relating to the referral; any other information or intelligence related to the referral. Inmates may be designated to a CMU if evidence of the following criteria exists: (a) The inmate’s current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism; (b) The inmate’s current offense(s) of conviction, offense conduct, or activity while incarcerated, indicates a substantial likelihood that the inmate will encourage, coordinate, facilitate, or otherwise act in furtherance of illegal activity through communication with persons in the community; See, i.e., United States v. Abu Ali, 396 F.Supp 2d 703 (E.D. Va. 2005)(Lee,J.)(defendant accused of conspiring to provide and providing material support and resources to terrorists and a foreign terrorist organization, al-Qaeda, and receiving funds and services from the foreign terrorist organization challenges pre-trial imposition of a SAM;. United States v. Al-Owhali v. Holder, F.3d 1236(10thCir. 2012)(Prisoner challenges SAM’s which, inter alia, prohibited him from corresponding with his nieces and nephews through letters, receiving two Arabic-language newspapers and a copy of former President Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.).
 Cf.United States v. John Walker Lindh, 212 Supp.2d 541 (E.D. Va.2002)(Ellis,J)(Charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to kill US nationals including a CIA officer who lost his life and joining al Qaeda where he received training with weapons and explosives and met Osama bin Laden, Lindh was released after 17 years of a 20 year sentence having pleaded guilty to supplying services to the Taliban and brandishing a rifle and hand grenades while fighting against the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance. Although Lindh initially expressed remorse, while in prison, his position publicly changed. Among other such statements Lindh said “he was proud to take part in the Afghan jihad.” Identifying himself as Yahy, on another occasion he commented ISIS “was doing a spectacular job and later that “[t]he Islamic State is clearly very sincere and serious about fulfilling the long-neglected religious obligation to establish a caliphate through armed struggle, which is the only correct method.”Seehttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/letter-american-taliban-john-walker-lindh-said-isis-doing-spectacular-n1008871.).
 Cf. Royer v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 933 F.Supp 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2013)(Lamberth,J.)(Originally charged with conspiracy to levy war against the United States and conspiracy to provide military support to Al Qaeda, the defendant, who ultimately pleaded guilty to Aiding and Abetting the Use and Discharge of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence and Aiding and Abetting the Carrying of an Explosive and sentenced to 20 years brought action challenging BOP designation as a “terrorist inmate” at Terre Haute, a high security prison. Once there he was transferred to a Communication Management Unit under which he was not permitted to have any contact with the general inmate population, could only exercise in “steel cages,” was denied access to college credit courses, jobs, or vocational training, had no access to the chapel, was not permitted to study religious topics one-on-one with other inmates in the CMU, was permitted only one 15-minute phone call per week, was allowed only two visits per month limited to two-hours each and were required to be noncontact separated by a concrete and glass wall.)(Royer was ultimately resentenced to time served, approximately thirteen years, after one of the counts he was convicted of was, like here, vacated pursuant to Johnson v. United States 576 U.S. 591 (2015); Awan v. Lapin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24974 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)(Defendant found guilty of conspiring to provide personnel to a terrorist conspiracy and sentenced to 168 months of imprisonment transferred to Special Housing Unit pending outcome of an investigation into allegations he had recruited inmates at another institution and used institution telephones to communicate with known terrorists and because of concerns [his] continued presence in general population posed safety and security risks based on his past attempts to recruit other inmates into a terrorist organization, and his use of institution telephones to communicate with known terrorists.”); Chesser v. Walton 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151942 (S.D.Ill.2016)(Prisoner challenge to CMU limits placed on free exercise clause of religious beliefs at a Communication Management Unit at USP Marion where designated following conviction for communicating threats, soliciting others to threaten violence, and providing material support to terrorists and where some 23 other Muslims are also housed for mostly terrorism offenses.). See, alsohttps://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/220957.pdf at pp.34-35 (Mohammed Salameh, Mahmud Abouhalima, and Nidal Ayyad—incarcerated at the BOPs’ “super max” ADMAX in Florence, Colorado, for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, wrote over 90 letters to Islamic extremists outside the prison between 2002 and 2004. Fourteen sent to prisoners in Spain who had connections to the terrorist cell responsible for the Madrid train bombings. Salameh also wrote several letters to Arabic newspapers, praising bin Laden as a hero.).
 Not at all novice in assessing the conduct and growth of those in prison for extremist crimes, the BOP has not and cannot take exception to this characterization of the defendant’s life in prison. Seehttps://www.counterextremism.com/sites/default/files/CEP%20Report_When%20Terrorists%20Come%20Home_120618.pdf (pp. 14-15)(“For its part, the BOP has put together a robust and competent counterterrorism infrastructure that includes an administrator and assistant administrator to oversee collaboration and communication between BOP Liaisons such as the National Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI57 and the BOP’s Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU). Their mission is to “identify and validate terrorist offenders in custody, provide translation and transcription services, monitor and analyze the terrorist offenders communications, produce intelligence products which enable staff to make informed decisions, develop and provide relevant counter terrorism training, and to coordinate and liaise with intelligence communities.”58 In addition, the CTU has access to the complete communication and behavioral record of violent extremist offenders, understands the inner workings of the federal prison system.”).
 As of November 1, 2018, the 101 Americans sentenced to prison for ISIS-related activities received an average sentence of 13.2 years in prison—with 27 serving sentences of five years or less. See, https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Prisons%20Policy%20Paper.pdf at p. 13.