UNITED STATES V. MOHAMUD 23 matter, the district court first held that § 702 did not “interfere[] with the prerogatives of another branch of government beyond requiring the executive branch to conform to the statute.” It also reasoned that because the FISC either approves or denies the requested acquisition (and electronic communication service providers must follow the directives or challenge them), its opinions are not advisory. The court then explained that Mohamud had not raised an independent First Amendment claim, because motions to suppress based on First Amendment violations are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the district court held that § 702 does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that § 702 surveillance does not trigger the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement because U.S. persons’ data is collected only incidentally, but even if it did, no warrant would be required because the foreign intelligence exception would apply.14 The court then balanced the government’s interests in the search against the intrusions on Mohamud’s privacy, and held that the § 702 collection here was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. C. Sentencing The Sentencing Guidelines called for a life sentence. The government recommended a sentence of forty years’ imprisonment, whereas Mohamud urged a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. 14 The district court further held that subsequent querying of § 702acquired data, without obtaining an additional search warrant, would also be constitutional, though it was “a very close question.”