Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- David Patterson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : : v. : Crim. No : : DMITRIJ HARDER : : O R D E R Trial in this Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecution is scheduled to begin on May 3, On March 1, 2016, Defendant moved to take ten Rule 15 depositions in at least four foreign countries. (Doc. Nos. 81.) Two weeks later, Defendant filed a Supplemental Rule 15 Motion, seeking to conduct two additional foreign depositions. (Doc. No. 94.) Defendant has also filed a related Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory, seeking international judicial assistance in obtaining testimony from the proposed deponents in the United Kingdom, Spain, Russia, and the Czech Republic. (Doc. No. 82.) To date, Defendant has filed ten substantive pretrial motions (not including his myriad filings before Judge Prater) including two suppression motions, filed some five months apart. I have to this date denied all but one of his Motions as meritless (at best). Before I can rule on the remaining Motion the Second Motion to Suppress I must conduct a second evidentiary hearing. In many instances, Defendant offers supporting authority that belies his arguments. Most recently, Defendant who has been represented by the same counsel since 2010 has moved for yet another continuance of trial arguing, in part, that delay is warranted so that he can depose the dozen foreign witnesses discussed here. (Doc. No. 103; Doc. No. 79 at ) It thus appears that Defendant s Rule 15 Motion is of a piece with his other efforts to prevent trial in this matter from ever beginning.
2 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 10 I. Background On January 6, 2015, the grand jury charged Defendant Dmitrij Harder with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices and Travel Acts, substantive violations of the FCPA and Travel Act, conspiracy to commit international money laundering, substantive violations of the international money laundering statute, and aiding and abetting. (Doc. No. 1.) The grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment on December 15, 2015 with identical counts and several wording changes. (Doc. No. 62.) As alleged, the charges are based on a bribery scheme at the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development involving Defendant, Andrej Ryjenko (a senior banker at the EBRD), and Tatjana Sanderson (Ryjenko s sister). Defendant, acting through his company Chestnut Consulting Group, paid approximately $3.5 million in bribes to Sanderson. In return, Defendant would receive favorable EBRD treatment and success fees on EBRD energy projects Ryjenko supervised two multimillion-dollar EBRD loan transactions involving Defendant s clients: Irkutsk Oil Company and Vostok Energy. (Doc. No. 99 at 5; Doc. No. 62.) The Government further alleges that Defendant and Sanderson engaged in concerted efforts to conceal the $3.5 million bribe (made in various installments) and to pass it off as payment for Sanderson s consulting services. After several continuances, trial is scheduled to begin on May 3, II. Discussion A. Rule 15 Standard The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorize the taking and preserving of trial testimony by deposition. See United States v. Ismaili, 828 F.2d 153, 161 (3d Cir. 1987) (noting the strong preference for live testimony in criminal proceedings). A Rule 15 deposition is not a discovery device and is warranted only where there are exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a); United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 809 ( Rule 2
3 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 3 of does not authorize their use as means of discovery. ). The proposed deponent must be unavailable for live trial testimony, and the proposed testimony must be material. See, e.g., Ismaili, 828 F.3d at ( [I]it is difficult to conceive of a district court abusing its discretion by denying a Rule 15(a) motion where the movant has not established both the materiality of the testimony and the unavailability of the witness. ); United States v. Karoly, 2009 WL , at *2 (E.D. Pa.) (Rule 15 emphasizes the use of discretion. ). The burden of proof rests with the movant to demonstrate the necessity for preserving prospective witness testimony by a deposition. Ismaili, 828 F.3d at 159. Testimony is material if it is highly relevant to a central issue in the case. United States v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1556 (11th Cir. 1993); see Ismaili, 828 F.2d at 161 (testimony that negate[s] the crux of the government s case is material); United States v. Al Fawwaz, 2014 WL , at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ( It need not be definitive proof of guilt or innocence, but should be more than merely relevant. ). A witness is unavailable whenever a substantial likelihood exists that the proposed deponent will not testify at trial. Drogoul, 1 F.3d at 1553; see also Karoly, 2009 WL , at *3 ( [T]he introducing party will need to make a new and different showing of unavailability during trial. ). Moreover, a witness is unavailable where: (1) she is beyond U.S. subpoena power; and (2) her counsel states that the witness is unwilling to testify at trial. See, e.g., United States v. Fleet Mgmt. Ltd, 2007 WL , at * 1 (E.D. Pa. 2007); United States v. Vilar, 568 F. Supp. 2d 429, 439 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). [V]ague assertions that the witness may not be willing or able to travel at the time of the trial are insufficient to find unavailability. Al Fawwaz, 2014 WL , at *2. B. Defendant s Rule 15 Motions Defendant seeks to conduct twelve foreign depositions before trial, but provides no details about where or when these depositions will take place, their logistics, or who will pay the 3
4 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 4 of 10 deposition costs. The Government opposes all the depositions in part because it believes Defendant is making this request at this late stage in order to delay the proceedings... possible conviction, and consequent removal from the country. (Doc. No. 99 at 9-10.) The Government states that it produced most of the three hundred thousand pages of discovery in February and May 2015 including the statements of most of the witnesses Defendant belatedly seeks to depose and that all the deponents were known to Defendant by September 2015 at the latest (if not earlier). Defendant does not attempt to justify the considerable delay in seeking these depositions. Once again, I agree that Defendant s needless, cumbersome, and belated discovery requests strongly suggest a bad faith effort to delay trial. Because Defendant has failed to establish the unavailability of any deponent, I will deny his Rule 15 Motion in its entirety. Although I will not address the question of materiality, it appears that Defendant has not (even in his ex parte submission) met Rule 15 s materiality requirement for at least ten of these witnesses. i. Anticipated Government Trial Witnesses Defendant seeks to depose Kevin Bortz, a U.S. citizen residing in Spain, and Kseniya Mayushis, a Russian citizen residing in the United Kingdom. Bortz was Director of EBRD s Natural Resources Group and Ryjenko s direct Supervisor; Manyushis was an EBRD employee involved in the Irkutsk transaction who reported directly to Ryjenko. Defendant concedes, however, that they might not be deemed unavailable because they are anticipated Government trial witnesses. (Doc. No. 94 at 4-5.) He nevertheless seeks to depose them in the event the government changes its mind at some future date and decided not to call them. (Id.) Because the proposed Rule 15 deponents are willing to testify at trial and there is a strong preference for live testimony in criminal matters, Defendant has failed to show that Bortz and Mayushis are unavailable. See Ismaili, 828 F.2d at 161. Accordingly, I will deny Defendant s request to depose these witnesses. 4
5 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 5 of 10 ii. EBRD Witnesses Who Have Not Demonstrated an Unwillingness to Testify Defendant seeks to depose Bruce Leighton, Christopher James Hyslop, Jeroen Onderdelinden, Riccardo Puliti, and Andrea Leon, each worked at EBRD and had some involvement in the transactions underlying the alleged bribery scheme. Even assuming, arguendo, that their testimony would be material (which is dubious), Defendant has not shown that these witnesses are unwilling to testify at trial. As to each, Mr. Harder s counsel has asked EBRD s U.S. counsel to confirm whether [he or she] would be willing to travel to the U.S. to testify at Mr. Harder s trial, but EBRD s counsel has not yet responded to that request. (Doc. No. 94 at 5-7.) Defendant has thus not made a sufficient showing of unavailability. See, e.g., Al Fawwaz, 2014 WL , at *2 ( [V]ague assertions that the witness may not be willing or able to travel at the time of the trial are insufficient to find unavailability. ); Fleet Mgmt. Ltd, 2007 WL , at *1 (unavailability satisfied where proposed deponent is overseas and counsel for the deponent expressly represents that the client is unwilling to testify); Vilar, 568 F. Supp. 2d at (same). Further, the Government notes that Mr. Leighton resides in the Washington D.C. area. (Doc. No. 99 at 5.) He is thus not unavailable because he is not beyond the subpoena power of the United States. See, e.g., Fleet Mgmt. Ltd, 2007 WL , at *1. The Government also submits that Mr. Hyslop, who lives in Romania, was excused from testifying in the U.K. trial after the court declared him medically unable to testify. (Id. at 6.) In these circumstances, and without a contrary showing by Defendant, ordering his Rule 15 deposition would be pointless. Finally, as I have discussed, in February and May 2015 the Government provided Defendant with some three hundred thousand pages of EBRD-related discovery that included statements from many of these witnesses. (Doc. No. 99 at 9-10.) Given that Defendant alleges that each deponent was involved in one of the underlying loan transactions, Defendant obviously 5
6 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 6 of 10 knew of them and the purported need for their testimony well before March 2016, when he filed his Rule 15 Motion. This delay and the cumulative nature of the proposed testimony suggest not only that Defendant is moving to depose these witness to delay trial, but also that authorizing these depositions would not further the interest of justice. Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a) ( The court may grant the motion because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. ). Accordingly, I will not allow Defendant to depose these witnesses. iii. Vostok and Irkutsk Witnesses Defendant next seeks to depose Aric Cunningham, Irina Smetleva, and Daria Katkova. Mr. Cunningham previously represented Vostok in seeking project financing from EBRD; Ms. Smetleva represented Vostok in its transaction with EBRD in her capacity as Vostok s Vice President for Performance Management and Russian Affairs; and Ms. Katkova was a producing agent for the Irkutsk transaction. Defendant has contacted the proposed deponents, inquired as to whether they are willing to testify at trial, and offered to pay their travel expenses. None has responded. Again, this is insufficient to satisfy the unavailability requirement. Al Fawwaz, 2014 WL , at *2; Fleet Mgmt. Ltd, 2007 WL , at *1; Vilar, 568 F. Supp. 2d at Furthermore, although Mr. Cunningham resides in Czech Republic, the Government notes that he is a U.S. citizen who routinely travels to the United States and thus could be subject to a federal subpoena. See 28 U.S.C I will thus deny the Rule 15 Motion as to these witnesses. iv. Ryjenko and Sanderson Defendant seeks to depose Andrey Ryjenko and Tatjana Sanderson, U.K. residents who are currently awaiting trial in London on criminal charges related to the same bribery scheme. Sanderson is Defendant s alleged coconspirator who received the corrupt payments from 6
7 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 7 of 10 Defendant and allegedly transmitted the bribes to her brother Ryjenko. (Doc. No. 99 at 3-4.) I will assume that their testimony could be material. Ordering their Rule 15 depositions would be pointless, however. Ryjenko s attorney has stated that Ryjenko is unwilling to travel to the United States to testify at trial, and his bail conditions do not permit him to travel to the United States. (Doc. No. 94 at 2.) Sanderson s attorney has not indicated whether she is willing to testify at trial. (Doc. No. 94 at 3); see Vilar, 568 F. Supp. 2d at ; Fleet Mgmt. Ltd, 2007 WL , at *1. Defendant does not acknowledge (let alone adequately address) the legal and practical problems that make it impossible to compel the sworn testimony of Ryjenko and Sanderson in the instant proceeding. Both deponents are being prosecuted in the United Kingdom for the same actions alleged here: i.e., the corrupt payments Defendant made to Sanderson for Ryjenko s benefit. Although they have a right to silence under British law, their compelled deposition testimony here could likely be used against them in Britain. See Mark Berger, Of Policy, Politics, and Parliament: The Legislative Rewriting of the British Right to Silence, 22 Am. J. Crim. L. 391, 391 (1995); Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Gr. Brit.); cf. Araneta v. United States, 478 U.S. 1301, 1304 (1986) (C.J. Burger as Circuit Justice) (noting with approval several English cases holding that the privilege protects a witness from disclosures which could be used against him in a foreign prosecution ); (Doc. No. 99 at 3-4.) Moreover, the Government has refused to grant them immunity if they testify. Accordingly, Sanderson and Rykenko would certainly refuse to testify at any deposition on Fifth Amendment grounds. If they waive their Fifth Amendment rights, Sanderson and Ryjenko would be subject to extradition to the United States where they could be prosecuted for perjury or for their alleged underlying criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1621; Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United Kingdom and the 7
8 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 8 of 10 Government of the United States of America, Apr. 26, 2007, Art. 2, Par. 1, available at: In these circumstances, Defendant essentially seeks my assistance in compelling Ryjenko and Sanderson to provide testimony that what would likely be self-incriminating or perjurious, hinder their defense in their pending U.K. prosecution, and expose them to a potential criminal prosecution in both Britain and the United States. Like many of Defendant s requests, it is difficult to believe this one was made in good faith. In any event, I will deny Defendant s request to depose these witnesses. C. Defendant s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory Defendant has moved for issuance of letters rogatory in connection with his Rule 15 Motion and request to compel EBRD to produce a mass of its documents. (Doc. No. 82.) A letter rogatory is a request for international judicial assistance in matters relating to the administration of justice in the United States. Federal courts have statutory and inherent authority to issue letters rogatory in criminal cases, and broad discretion when determining whether to issue (or honor) one. 28 U.S.C. 1781; see, e.g., United States v. Strong, 608 F. Supp. 188, 193 (E.D. Pa. 1985); cf. In re Premises Located at th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2011). For each proposed Rule 15 deponent, Defendant has submitted a proposed letter rogatory that seeks foreign judicial assistance in compelling their testimony at an overseas deposition including requests to courts in the United Kingdom, Spain, the Czech Republic, and Russia. Because I am denying all of Defendant s Rule 15 requests, I will deny his Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory respecting each proposed deponent. Defendant also asks me to issue a letter rogatory to a court in the United Kingdom requesting that court to compel EBRD to produce the following documents: 8
9 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 9 of 10 All documents relating to the transactions between EBRD and Vostok Energy in the period between February 2007 and November 2009; All documents relating to the transactions between EBRD and Irkutsk Oil Company in the period between February 2007 and November 2009; and All s to or from Andrey Ryjenko at the EBRD that relate to Mr. Harder, Ms. Sanderson, Vostok Energy, or Irkutsk Oil in the period between February 2007 and November 2009, including any s that Mr. Ryjenko was copied during that period that relate to Mr. Harder, Ms. Sanderson, Vostok Energy, or Irkutsk Oil Company. (Doc. No. 82, Ex. A.) The Government opposes the EBRD document request, which calls for the production of over one million pages of material. The Government submits that it has sought to assist Defendant by asking the EBRD to produce the documents, but the EBRD does not understand how they are relevant to this proceeding. (Doc. No. 100 at 2 n.1.) The Government further contends that this voluminous discovery request like Defendant s last-minute request to conduct twelve overseas depositions is another attempt by Defendant to delay trial. Defendant argues only that files related to the loan transactions will bear significantly on the allegation in the Superseding Indictment and are therefore material to his defense. (Doc. No. 94 at 4 n.5.) In these circumstances, I will deny as both overbroad and unnecessary Defendant s request for the EBRD documents related to the underlying loan transactions. The Government maintains (and Defendant does not dispute) that it has already provided Defendant with many thousands of pages of documents respecting the transactions. Defendant has not explained why this is insufficient. Insofar as Ryjenko and Defendant exchanged s, they were produced to Defendant with the Government s discovery disclosures. (Indeed, the search of Defendant s s is the subject of Defendant s second suppression motion.) Accordingly, I will deny the request for a letter rogatory. 9
10 Case 2:15-cr PD Document 106 Filed 03/21/16 Page 10 of 10 AND NOW, this 21st day of March, 2016, upon consideration of Defendant s Rule 15 Motion and the Government s opposition (Doc. No. 81, 94, 99), and Defendant s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory and the Government s opposition (Doc. No. 82, 100), it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant s Rule 15 Motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant s Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED /s/ Paul S. Diamond Paul S. Diamond, J. 10
Case 1:15-cr RMB Document 335 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:15-cr-00867-RMB Document 335 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, S4 15-cr-00867 (RMB) v. REZA ZARRAB, et al. Defendants.
More informationCase 2:15-cr JHS Document 168 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cr-00398-JHS Document 168 Filed 07/27/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. : CRIM. NO. 15-398 WAYDE MCKELVY
More informationCase 8:18-cr TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:18-cr-00012-TDC Document 35 Filed 10/23/18 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal No. TDC-18-0012 MARK T. LAMBERT, Defendant.
More informationCase 3:16-cr TJC-JRK Document 31 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 102
Case 3:16-cr-00093-TJC-JRK Document 31 Filed 07/18/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 3:16-cr-93-TJC-JRK
More informationCase 3:18-cr MMH-JRK Document 59 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID 149
Case 3:18-cr-00089-MMH-JRK Document 59 Filed 10/17/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID 149 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. CASE NO.: 3:18-cr-89-J-34JRK
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 384 Filed 08/24/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR., Crim. No. 17-cr-201-1 (ABJ) Defendant.
More informationCase 1:08-cr EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:08-cr-00231-EGS Document 126 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 08-231 (EGS) THEODORE
More informationCase 1:04-cr KBF Document 238 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of v. - : 04 Cr. 356 (KBF)
Case 1:04-cr-00356-KBF Document 238 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x UNITED STATES
More informationPending before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Severance of Misjoined
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, V. THOMAS WISHER Criminal Action No. 17-45-1-LPS TRACEY DANIELS, 17-45-2-LPS Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 2:15-mj CMR Document 52 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 215-mj-00850-CMR Document 52 Filed 09/06/17 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MATTER NO. 15-mj-850 APPLE MACPRO COMPUTER,
More informationCase 1:07-cr BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10. PAUL C. BARNABA, : 07 Cr. 220 (BSJ)
Case 1:07-cr-00220-BSJ Document 45 Filed 05/21/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al Doc. 133 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION RED BARN MOTORS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. COX ENTERPRISES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, 3:02-CR-164-D v. XXXX, Defendants. DEFENDANT XXXX, S MOTION FOR A BILL OF
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION
Case 2:03-cv-03983-PD Document 139 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,!:! rei. JOHN UNDERWOOD, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:05-cr EWN Document 295 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:05-cr-00545-EWN Document 295 Filed 03/22/2007 Page 1 of 12 Criminal Case No. 05 cr 00545 EWN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Edward W. Nottingham UNITED STATES
More informationCase 2:12-cr TJS Document 11 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 212-cr-00656-TJS Document 11 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CAROLINE WINSOR CRIMINAL NO. 12-656
More informationCase 2:15-cr MMB Document 40 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 215-cr-00171-MMB Document 40 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. CRIMINAL NUMBER 15-171-1 KEONNA THOMAS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEROY BOLDEN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO
Case 2:06-cv-04171-HGB-JCW Document 53 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEROY BOLDEN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 06-4171 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:17-cr-00229-AT-CMS Document 42 Filed 11/06/17 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JARED WHEAT, JOHN
More informationPRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE University of Wroclaw Law School Wroclaw, Poland March 27-28, 2010 Edward Carter Supervisor Financial Crimes Prosecution Illinois Attorney General s Office
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Grand Jury Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, THOMAS J. KIRSCHNER, MISC NO. 09-MC-50872 Judge Paul D. Borman Defendant.
More informationCase 1:11-cr JSR Document 43 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of x x. Pending before the Court are defendant Rajat Gupta's
Case 1:11-cr-00907-JSR Document 43 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAJAT K. GUPTA, v - --x 11 Cr. 907 (JSR) MEMORANDUM ORDER
More informationCase 1:07-cr EGS Document 176 Filed 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:07-cr-00181-EGS Document 176 Filed 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Crim. No. 07-181 (EGS ZHENLI YE GON, defendant. MOTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Seventy-Seventh Report to the Court recommending
More informationinvolved in the transaction, full restitution, a special
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO. 1-08 CR 428 ) V- ) Count 1: 18 U.S.C. 1956(h) VIJAY K. TANEJA, j
More informationCase 2:10-cr MHT -WC Document 608 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 608 Filed 02/14/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR.
More informationMINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST
MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST Unless You Came From The Criminal Division Of A County Attorneys Office, Most Judges Have Little Or
More informationCase: 2:17-cr EAS Doc #: 57 Filed: 10/01/18 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 413 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:17-cr-00233-EAS Doc #: 57 Filed: 10/01/18 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 413 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:17-CR-233(3)
More informationCase 6:09-cv GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714
Case 6:09-cv-01002-GAP-TBS Document 149 Filed 08/14/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID 3714 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex. rel. and ELIN BAKLID-KUNZ,
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Constitutional Law Commons
Washington University Law Review Volume 65 Issue 1 1987 The Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self- Incrimination: A New Risk to Witnesses Facing Foreign Prosecution. United States v. (Under Seal) (Areneta),
More informationCase: 2:17-cr EAS Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 242 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:17-cr-00233-EAS Doc #: 41 Filed: 07/02/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 242 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:17-CR-233(3)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2005) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationCase: 1:10-cr SL Doc #: 898 Filed: 06/04/12 1 of 5. PageID #: 18606
Case: 1:10-cr-00387-SL Doc #: 898 Filed: 06/04/12 1 of 5. PageID #: 18606 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 1:10CR387
More informationCase 1:12-cr ALC Document 57 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of v. - : 12 Cr. 876 (ALC)
Case 1:12-cr-00876-ALC Document 57 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : - v. - : 12 Cr. 876
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION. v. : NO
Case 1:06-cr-00125-SLR Document 67 Filed 03/03/2008 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION v. : NO. 06-125 TERESA FLOOD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH PLAINTIFFS V. NO. 1:06cv1080-LTS-RHW STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, FORENSIC
More informationSecond Circuit Reverses Rabobank Libor Convictions Over Foreign Compelled Testimony
Second Circuit Reverses Rabobank Libor Convictions Over Foreign Compelled Testimony July 21,2017 On July 19, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. Allen, No. 19-CR-898 (JAC),
More informationCase 2:10-cr MHT-WC Document 1814 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 13
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT-WC Document 1814 Filed 09/16/11 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * PLAINTIFF, * V.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-1-2009 USA v. Gordon Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-3934 Follow this and additional
More informationCase 1:18-cr DLF Document 71 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:18-cr-00032-DLF Document 71 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CRIMINAL NUMBER: 1:18-cr-00032-2 (DLF) CONCORD
More informationCase 1:05-cr MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:05-cr-20770-MGC Document 192 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2008 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, GLORIA FLOREZ VELEZ, BENEDICT P. KUEHNE, and OSCAR SALDARRIAGA OCHOA, Defendants.
More informationBrian D'Alfonso v. Eugene Carpino
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2009 Brian D'Alfonso v. Eugene Carpino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3461 Follow
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STEVEN LAUX. Argued: March 31, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 22, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Rigas et al v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP Doc. 35 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JAMES RIGAS, ZITO I, L.P., and : Case No. 4:14-mc-0097 ZITO MEDIA, L.P. : : Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 1:98-cr LAK Document 1549 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:98-cr-01023-LAK Document 1549 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x UNITED STATES
More information31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands
CLICK HERE to return to the home page 31 U.S.C. Section 3733 Civil investigative demands (a) In General. (1)Issuance and service. Whenever the Attorney General, or a designee (for purposes of this section),
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE COUNTY. CASE No. 07-CR-0043
Terri Wood, OSB # Law Office of Terri Wood, P.C. 0 Van Buren Street Eugene, Oregon 0 1--1 Fax: 1-- Email: twood@callatg.com Attorney for Benjamin Jones IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR JOSEPHINE
More informationORDER ON ARRAIGNMENT
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 132 Filed 10/18/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR NO. 2:10cr186-MHT
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationCase 1:13-cr DPW Document 240 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cr-10238-DPW Document 240 Filed 06/09/14 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) Crim. No. 13-10238-DPW AZAMAT TAZHAYAKOV ) ) Defendant
More informationCase 3:15-cv WHA Document 150 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 7
Case :-cv-0-wha Document 0 Filed 0// Page of Henrik Mosesi, Esq. (SBN: ) Anthony Lupu, Esq. (SBN ) Pillar Law Group APLC 0 S. Rodeo Drive, Suite 0 Beverly Hills, CA 0 Tel.: 0--0000 Fax: -- Henrik@Pillar.law
More informationCase 1:17-cr ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 19 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PAUL J. MANAFORT, Jr., and RICHARD W. GATES III, Crim.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Koning et al v. Baisden Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA MICHAEL KONING, Dr. and Husband, and SUSAN KONING, Wife, v. Plaintiffs, LOWELL BAISDEN, C.P.A., Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 09-00143-01-CR-W-ODS ) ABRORKHODJA ASKARKHODJAEV, )
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT JAMES R. BUTLER, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-544 [September 20, 2018] Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO MC-UNGARO/SIMONTON
Flatt v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 10-60073-MC-UNGARO/SIMONTON DWIGHT FLATT, v. Movant, UNITED STATES SECURITIES
More informationCase 1:19-cr ABJ Document 27 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:19-cr-00018-ABJ Document 27 Filed 02/08/19 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case No.: 1:19-CR-00018-ABJ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, ROGER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationTHE GOVERNMENT S MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO THE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PROCEDURES ACT
Case 1:17-cr-00544-NGG Document 29 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 84 JMK:DCP/JPM/JPL/GMM F. # 2017R01739 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationObstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws
Obstruction of Justice: An Abridged Overview of Related Federal Criminal Laws Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 17, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22783
More informationCase 1:10-cr RDB Document 71 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:10-cr-00181-RDB Document 71 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA * v. * Criminal No. 1:10-cr-0181-RDB THOMAS ANDREWS
More information2:12-cr SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cr-20218-SFC-MKM Doc # 227 Filed 12/06/13 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1213 United States of America, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Criminal Case No.
More informationCase 3:14-cv AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Case 314-cv-05655-AET-DEA Document 9 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID 117 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re Application of OWL SHIPPING, LLC & ORIOLE Civil Action No. 14-5655 (AET)(DEA)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RULING ON DEFENDANT S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAWRENCE HOSKINS Criminal No. 3:12cr238 (JBA) August 13, 2015 RULING ON DEFENDANT S SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT
More informationUSA v. Frederick Banks
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-29-2010 USA v. Frederick Banks Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2452 Follow this and
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-6-2012 USA v. James Murphy Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2896 Follow this and additional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cr-00272-EMK Document 158 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : NO. 3:CR-09-000272 vs. : : MARK A. CIAVARELLA,
More informationCase 2:10-cr MHT -WC Document 372 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT -WC Document 372 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR. NO. 2:10cr186-MHT
More informationCase 6:05-cv CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:05-cv-06344-CJS-MWP Document 77 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SCOTT E. WOODWORTH and LYNN M. WOODWORTH, v. Plaintiffs, REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
More informationCase 4:15-cr Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
Case 4:15-cr-00654 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. ROBERTO ENRIQUE RINCON-
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION. Case No. 13-cv CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
TAMMY GARCIA, an individual, v. Plaintiff, MAKO SURGICAL CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION Case No. 13-cv-61361-CIV-BLOOM/VALLE
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Martha Tovar, Petitioner v. No. 1441 C.D. 2017 Workers Compensation Appeal Board (Oasis Outsourcing/Capital Asset Research Ltd.), Respondent Oasis Outsourcing/Capital
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case 0:08-cr-00364-RHK-AJB Document 105 Filed 01/28/2009 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA United States of America, v. Thomas Joseph Petters (1), Plaintiff, Defendant. Crim.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationMISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-SECOND CIRCUIT (City of St. Louis STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff, v. No. 1822-CR00642 Div. 16 ERIC GREITENS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR
More informationCase 1:08-cr SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:08-cr-00040-SLR Document 24 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal Action No. 08-40-SLR
More informationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT APPELLANT S MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL
USCA Case #18-3037 Document #1738356 Filed: 06/28/2018 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. Case No. 18-3037 PAUL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER
Remington v. Newbridge Securities Corp. Doc. 143 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 13-60384-CIV-COHN/SELTZER URSULA FINKEL, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
More informationCase 1:11-cv AWI-BAM Document 201 Filed 12/12/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-awi-bam Document 0 Filed // Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUGENE E. FORTE, Plaintiff v. TOMMY JONES, Defendant. CASE NO. :-CV- 0 AWI BAM ORDER ON PLAINTIFF
More informationCase 6:10-cv LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992
Case 6:10-cv-00417-LED Document 450 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 13992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION VIRNETX INC., Plaintiff, vs. CISCO SYSTEMS,
More informationWilliam Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005
HEADNOTES: William Thomas Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 2130, September Term, 2005 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEARCH AND SEIZURE WARRANT - LACK OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE Where search and seizure warrant for
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NOS. 10-S STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PETER PRITCHARD
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS. SOUTHERN DISTRICT SUPERIOR COURT NOS. 10-S-745-760 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE V. PETER PRITCHARD ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A BILL OF
More informationHuman Rights Defense Center
Human Rights Defense Center DEDICATED TO PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS February 23, 2017 The Honorable Ajit Pai, Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Ex Parte
More informationColorado Medicaid False Claims Act
Colorado Medicaid False Claims Act (C.R.S. 25.5-4-303.5 to 310) i 25.5-4-303.5. Short title This section and sections 25.5-4-304 to 25.5-4-310 shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Medicaid
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. Plaintiff, 3:93-CR-330-T v. XXXX XXXX, Defendant. MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT Defendant
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cr-00-srb Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 AnnaLou Tirol Acting Chief Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice JOHN D. KELLER Illinois State Bar No. 0 Deputy Chief VICTOR
More informationCase 1:15-cr KMW Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Case 1:15-cr-00317-KMW Document 23 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, - V. - Dean Skelos and Adam Skelos, S1 15 Cr 317 (KMW)
More informationCase 1:09-cr WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10. -against- : 09 Cr. 581 (WHP) PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, et. al., : OPINION & ORDER
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 900 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------- X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : -against- : 09
More informationNAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1
NAPD Formal Ethics Opinion 16-1 Question: The Ethics Counselors of the National Association for Public Defense (NAPD) have been asked to address the following scenario: An investigator working for Defense
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER
Case: - Document: - Page: /0/0 0 --cv In re Grand Jury Proceedings UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 309-cr-00272-EMK Document 57 Filed 03/01/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. 3CR-09-272 (Kosik, J.) (Electronically
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD. et al Doc. 447 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, v. Plaintiff, MARVELL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC ORDER AND REASONS
Parson v. Chet Morrison Contractors, LLC Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CHARLES H. PARSON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 12-0037 CHET MORRISON CONTRACTORS, LLC SECTION: R ORDER
More informationCase 6:15-cv AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 6:15-cv-01517-AA Document 440 Filed 11/20/18 Page 1 of 10 JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK Assistant Attorney General JEFFREY H. WOOD Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Environment & Natural Resources
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-14-2002 USA v. Stewart Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 1-2037 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT PADUCAH (Filed Electronically) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:06CR-19-R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF, vs. STEVEN DALE GREEN, DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Criminal No. 99-233 v. ) ) Filed: 5/20/99 TOKAI CARBON CO., LTD., ) ) Judge Clarence C. Newcomer
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEONARD UNZICKER ) MDL-875 ) v. ) PA-ED Case No. 11-cv-66288 ) A.W. CHESTERSTON COMPANY, et al., ) MEMORANDUM DAVID R. STRAWBRIDGE,
More informationCase 8:12-cv JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:12-cv-00557-JDW-EAJ Document 112 Filed 10/25/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2875 BURTON W. WIAND, as Court-Appointed Receiver for Scoop Real Estate, L.P., et al. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE
More information