The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictment charging them with violating export control laws. They argue that the language of the US Munitions List regulating the export of military equipment is unconstitutionally vague and did not provide fair notice of what required an export license. Specifically, the list does not enumerate the exact parts charged but uses broad language about components designed for military use. This violates due process by failing to clearly define the prohibited conduct. The defendants also claim the discovery does not show they knew the parts would end up in Iran. They request dismissal of all counts.

1. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No: 08-20612-CR-SEITZ/O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
Plaintiff, )
vs. )
)
TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU, )
And )
ORION AVIATION CORP. )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________ )
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMES NOW the defendant, TRAIAN BUJDUVEANU and ORION AVIATION
CORPORATION, by and through Undersigned Counsel, respectfully files this Motion to
Dismiss the Indictment in this matter.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The Defendants are charged in various counts with violation of the Iran Trade
Embargo and the Arms Export Control Act. The Arms Export Control Act, 22 U.S.C. sec.
2778 (1988), authorizes the President to control the export of defense articles. The
Department of the State, exercising the President's authority to control the export of defense
articles, promulgated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which includes the
United States Munitions List. The United States Munitions List consists of categories of
defense articles that cannot be imported or exported without a license.

2. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 2 of 4
The Defendants are charged with exporting five (5) Harness Assemblies for the F-14
Fighter Jet (Count 8) and ten (10) Accumulators for the F-14 Fighter Jet (Count 9) which the
Government contends are items designated as defense article in Category VIII(h) of the
United States Munitions List without first obtaining a license to do so.
Category VIII(h) of the United States Munitions List, however, does not list these
items specifically. Rather it states:
(h) Components, parts, accessories, attachments, and associated equipment (including
ground support equipment) specifically designed or modified for the articles in paragraph (a)
through (e) of this category, excluding aircraft tires and propellers used with reciprocating
engines. 22 CFR, section 121.1 Category VIII(h).
Subsections (a) through (e) referred to above also does not enumerated the specific
parts which the Defendant is charged with exporting. Section 121.1(a) of the United States
Munitions List states, in part, that "information and clarification on whether specific items are
defense articles and services under this subchapter may appear periodically in the Defense
Trade News published by the Center for Defense Trade." 22 CFR, section 121.1(a).
The language of The International Traffic in Arms Regulations is ambiguous and fails
to give a citizen fair warning of what parts need a license to be exported. The United States
Munitions List does not enumerate specific military parts; rather, it only says items designed
for a military application are subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The
language of the United States Munitions list is vague and, therefore, violates Due Process.
MEMORANDUM OF THE LAW
The Due Process clause of he United States Constitution requires that citizens receive
fair warning, "in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to
do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be
clear. McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S.25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340 (1931). The conduct that a

3. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 3 of 4
statute prohibits must be clear at the time of the defendant's conduct. If the terms of a statute
are so vague that "that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application", it violates Due Process. The United States Munitions List does not enumerate
the specific military parts that may not be exported; additionally, the list is subject to change
at the whim of the government with notice periodically in the Defense Trade News published
by the Center for Defense Trade.
The placement of an item on the United States Munitions List is a political decision
made by the Executive Branch of the Government, and, therefore, is non-justiciable. United
States v. Martinez, 904 F.2d 601, (11th Cir. 1990). While the courts must accept the
determination as to articles on the list as a matter of law (Unites States v. Spaw Optical
Research, Inc., 864 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1988), the List must still give citizens fair warning so
as not to violate Due Process.
It is clear that the Defendants did not have fair warning of what was on the United
States Munitions List. Thus people of common intelligence in the Defendant's field would not
have common knowledge that the parts sold to Keshari would violate the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations and the United States Munitions List. For the forgoing reason, the counts
as charged violate the Defendant's rights to substantive Due Process. The counts, therefore,
must be dismissed.
Moreover, because a review of the discovery with respect to charged conduct does not
reveal that the Defendant would have known that any of the parts sold would go to Iran,
undersigned counsel moves to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment as well.
In view of the forgoing your undersigned respectfully requests that this instant motion
be granted.

4. Case 1:08-cr-20612-PAS Document 168 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/02/2009 Page 4 of 4
Respectfully submitted,
s/ *Michael B. Cohen, Esq.*
_________________________
Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
Florida Bar No: 210196
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
furnished via CMECF this March 2, 2009 to all applicable parties.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ *Michael B. Cohen, Esq.*
_________________________
Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
Florida Bar No: 210196
6400 North Andrews Ave Ste 460
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
Ph (954) 928-0059
Fax (954) 928-0829