right to counsel. Again, this Court has previously addressed an identical challenge to FISA and rejected it. See Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. at 592. Third, Defendant contends that FISA fails “to provide adequate guidance to the government, the judiciary and the general public as to the meaning of its terms,” (Def.’s Mot. to Suppress at 2), and that consequently, FISA violates the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment. Because Defendant does not specify which sections or terms within FISA he finds ambiguous, the Court will interpret his due process challenge to be one challenging the statute on its face for vagueness and over-breadth. As before, this argument is foreclosed by the substantial case law to the contrary. See, e.g., United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 71 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. at 592 (rejecting a
holding that the penalty is applicable holding that the defendant who is the same defendant as in this case clearly is entitled to headofstate immunity holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable holding that the fisa sections applicable to the defendant were explicit unequivocal and clearly defined holding rule applicable to witness