United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

August Term 2022 Argued: November 23, 2022 Decided: January 30, 2023

No. 21-0707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, Defendant-Appellant.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Before: KEARSE, PARK, and MENASHI, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Khawaja Muhammad Farooq pled guilty to one count of extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) for threatening to disseminate nude photographs of Jane Doe if she did not return to a relationship with him. Farooq now appeals, arguing that the plea proceedings were defective because the district court did not explain the “wrongfulness” element of extortion under United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999). He also challenges two special conditions of supervised release on First Amendment grounds: (1) a requirement that Farooq seek retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and her brother-in-law, John Doe, and (2) a requirement that he seek approval from the district court before publishing any further information about them. We conclude as follows: First, the plea proceedings were not defective because the district court correctly determined that Farooq understood the “nature of each charge” to which he pled. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). Jackson does not require a separate explanation of “wrongfulness” under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) when, as here, the defendant stipulates that he has no plausible claim of right to the thing of value. See 180 F.3d at 70–71. Second, the special condition that Farooq seek retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and John Doe has expired, so Farooq’s challenge to that condition is moot. Finally, the special condition that Farooq seek approval from the district court before publishing further information about Jane Doe and John Doe does not violate the First Amendment under the circumstances here. Farooq pled guilty to extortion by threatening to publish nude images of Jane Doe, and he is a journalist who had published or threatened to publish information about her and John Doe in the past. So the district court acted within its broad discretion by imposing the narrowly tailored special condition requiring Farooq to obtain approval from the court before publishing any further information about them. We thus AFFIRM.

JOSHUA PHILIP BUSSEN (Brian A. Jacobs, on the brief), Morvillo Abramowitz Grand Iason & Anello P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

KAYLA C. BENSING (Amy Busa, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Breon Peace, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

2 PARK, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Khawaja Muhammad Farooq pled guilty to one count of extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) for threatening to disseminate nude photographs of Jane Doe if she did not return to a relationship with him. Farooq now appeals, arguing that the plea proceedings were defective because the district court did not explain the “wrongfulness” element of extortion under United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1999). He also challenges two special conditions of supervised release on First Amendment grounds: (1) a requirement that Farooq seek retraction of articles he published about Jane Doe and her brother-in-law, John Doe, and (2) a requirement that he seek approval from the district court before publishing any further information about them.

We conclude as follows: Fi