Mikhel

Before us is defendant-appellant Iouri Mikhel’s Motion to Allow Attorney-Client Access Without “SAM” Restrictions. We have jurisdiction ancillary to our jurisdiction over Mikhel’s direct appeal and pursuant to our authority to “regulate practice in a particular case [before us] in any manner consistent with federal law.” Fed. R.App. P. 47(b); see Daccarett-Ghia v. Comm’r, 70 F.3d 621, 623 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“[A] court’s authority to control its own proceedings ... is both an inherent power and, in the federal circuit courts, embodied in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 47”).

Mikhel asks us to lift all restrictions imposed pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 501.3 on his communications with his appellate counsel, the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California. He contends that these restrictions, known as Special Administrative Measures or “SAMs,” violate the Due Process Clause and his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. After reviewing the pleadings and the declarations filed by the parties, we order as follows:

1. Special Administrative Measure 2(b)(i). The SAM order currently in effect prohibits the Federal Public Defender from utilizing…