21 usa libous memo

8/10/2019 21 USA Libous Memo

1/37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

- v. - :: 14 Cr. 440 (VB)

THOMAS W. LIBOUS, :

:

Defendant. :

:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

GOVERNMENTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION

TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS

PREET BHARARAUni t ed St at es At t or ney f or t heSout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor kAt t or ney f or t he Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca

PERRY A. CARBONEJ AMES MCMAHONAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys- Of Counsel -

Case 7:14-cr-00440-VB Document 21 Filed 11/24/14 Page 1 of 37


2/37

1

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTSOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF NEW YORK- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

:UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA :

:

- v. - :: 14 Cr . 440 ( VB)

THOMAS W. LI BOUS, ::

Def endant . ::

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

GOVERNMENTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION

TO THE DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS

The Government r espect f ul l y submi t s t hi s Memor andumof Law

i n opposi t i on t o t he def endant ' s pr et r i al mot i ons. For t he r easons

set f or t h bel ow, t hese mot i ons l ack mer i t and shoul d be deni ed except

as ot herwi se not ed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On J une 30, 2014, a gr and j ur y si t t i ng i n Whi t e Pl ai ns

r etur ned an I ndi ct ment chargi ng t he def endant wi t h one count of maki ng

f al se st at ement s t o t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on ( "FBI ") , i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1001. The I ndi ct ment al l eges that , begi nni ng

i n or about Mar ch 2010, t he FBI and t he I nt er nal Revenue Servi ce -

Cr i mi nal I nvest i gat i on ( "I RS") wer e assi st i ng t he gr and j ur y i n i t s

i nvest i gat i on i nt o al l egat i ons t hat : 1) t he def endant had obt ai ned a

j ob f or hi s son at a West chest er l aw f i r mi n exchange f or t he def endant ' s

pr omi se t o st eer f ut ur e busi ness t o the l aw f i r m; and 2) t he def endant

had caused an Al bany l obbyi ng f i r mt o pay $50, 000 annual l y to t he l aw



3/37

2

f i r mt o def r ay t he cost of : a) an i nf l at ed sal ar y t hat t he def endant

asked t he l aw f i r mt o pay hi s son; and b) a l ease of a Range Rover f or

t he def endant ' s son. The def endant guarant eed t he payment s f or t he

Range Rover l ease. The I ndi ct ment al l eges that t he l obbyi ng f i r mhel d

i t sel f out as havi ng exper t i se i n t r anspor t at i on i ssues and t hat i t

l obbi ed t he def endant and hi s Senat e st af f on behal f of i t s cl i ent s.

At t hat t i me, t he def endant ser ved as t he New Yor k St ate Senate' s Deput y

Maj or i t y Leader and had served as chai r of t he Senat e' s Tr anspor t at i on

Commi t t ee.

The I ndi ct ment al l eges t hat t he FBI and t he I RS, wi t h t he

gr and j ur y, wer e i nvest i gat i ng, among ot her t hi ngs, whet her t he

def endant t ol d a par t ner of t he l aw f i r mt hat t he f i r mwoul d have t o

"bui l d a new wi ng" t o accommodat e the busi ness i t woul d r ecei ve i f i t

hi r ed hi s son.

The FBI i nter vi ewed t he def endant i n Al bany as par t of t hi s

i nvest i gat i on on J une 24, 2010. Dur i ng t hat i nt er vi ew, t he def endant

made the f ol l owi ng st at ement s t o t he agent s i n subst ance and i n par t :

1. He coul d not r ecal l how hi s son began t o work at t hel aw f i r m;

2. No deal s were made t o get hi s son t he j ob at t he l awf i rm;

3. He was not awar e t hat t he l obbyi ng f i r m had pai d anypar t of hi s son' s sal ar y at t he l aw f i r m;

4. He never promi sed t o r ef er any wor k t o t he l aw f i r m;

5. He was not i nvol ved i n hi s son' s deci si on t o wor k att he l aw f i r m;



4/37

3

6. He had no busi ness or per sonal r el at i onshi p wi t h t hel aw f i r m; and

7. He di d not know of any r el at i onshi p between t hel obbyi ng f i r m and t he l aw f i r m.

The I ndi ct ment char ges t hat each of t hese st at ement s i s knowi ngl y f al se.

ARGUMENT

I.

VENUE IS PROPER IN

THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Venue f or t he f al se st at ement s char ge cont ai ned i n t he

I ndi ct ment i s proper i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k because t he

st at ement s wer e t r ansmi t t ed t o, and wer e mat er i al i n, t hi s Di st r i ct .

A. The Venue Mot i on Shoul dBe Deni ed as Pr emat ure

As an i ni t i al mat t er , t hi s mot i on shoul d be deni ed as

pr emat ur e. The I ndi ct ment pr oper l y al l eges venue " i n t he Sout her n

Di st r i ct of New Yor k and el sewher e . . . . " That al l egat i on i s

suf f i ci ent "t o sust ai n [ t he f al se st at ement s count ] agai nst . . .

pr et r i al at t ack on venue. " Uni t ed St ates v. Mahaf f y, 2006 WL 2224518

at *7 (E. D. N. Y. 2006) , quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Bel l omo, 263 F. Supp. 2d

561, 579 ( E. D. N. Y. 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. St ei n, 429 F. Supp. 2d 633,

643 ( S. D. N. Y. 2006) ( " [ A] s l ong as t he i ndi ct ment al l eges venue, a

pr et r i al mot i on t o di smi ss based on cont r ar y al l egat i ons by t he

def endant must be deni ed. " ) The pr oper t i me f or t he def endant t o r ai se

hi s venue ar gument i s at t he end of t he Gover nment ' s case i n chi ef .



5/37

4

Bel l omo, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 579. Hi s mot i on t o di smi ss on venue gr ounds

shoul d be deni ed f or now.

B. Venue i s Proper Here BecauseThe Stat ement s Wer e Tr ansmi t t ed

Here and Were Mat er i al Here

Al t hough t he def endant made hi s f al se st atement s t o t he FBI

i n Al bany, t he st atement s were mater i al here because t hey had both a

t endency t o i nf l uence, and capaci t y t o di st r act , t he Whi t e Pl ai ns

of f i ces of t he FBI and I RS, bot h of whi ch wer e assi st i ng t he gr and j ur y.

As such, venue l i es f or t he f al se st at ement s count her e.

I n Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l son, 512 Fed. Appx. 75 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) ,

t he def endant deni ed her t r ue i dent i t y when agent s f r omWhi t e Pl ai ns

ar r i ved at her home i n New J er sey wi t h a war r ant f or her ar r est . I d.

at 78. She f al sel y t ol d t he agent s t hat t he woman named i n t he warr ant

was 150 mi l es away. The agent s l ef t and r etur ned t o Whi t e Pl ai ns. They

went back t o New J ersey l ater t hat day and arr est ed t he def endant . The

Cour t of Appeal s af f i r med t he def endant ' s convi ct i on f or a Sect i on 1001

vi ol at i on ar i si ng f r om her st at ement s t o t he agent s because t he

st atement s, al t hough made i n New J ersey, were rel i ed upon i n Whi t e

Pl ai ns, "wher e [ t he agent s] under t ook t o deci de what st eps t o t ake t o

execut e t he ar r est war r ant . " I d. The def endant ' s st at ement t her eby

was mat er i al t o that under t aki ng i n Whi t e Pl ai ns as t he Cour t of Appeal s

had def i ned mat er i al i t y wi t h r espect t o Sect i on 1001 t he year bef or e:

Under [ 18 U. S. C. ] 1001 [ ( a) ] , a st at ement i smat er i al i f i t has a nat ur al t endency t oi nf l uence, or [ be] capabl e of i nf l uenci ng, t he



6/37

5

deci si on of t he deci si onmaki ng body t o whi ch i twas addr essed, or i f i t i s capabl e of di st r act i nggover nment i nvest i gat or s' at t ent i on away f r omacr i t i cal mat t er .

I d. , quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Adekanbi , 675 F. 3d 178, 182 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) .

Si nce Sect i on 1001 i s a cont i nui ng of f ense whi ch may be

br ought i n any di st r i ct i n whi ch i t was "begun, cont i nued or compl et ed, "

18 U. S. C. 3237( a) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Candel l a, 487 F. 2d 1223, 1227- 28

( 2d Ci r . 1974) , i t can be br ought i n a di st r i ct i n whi ch i t i s mat er i al .

" [ T] he mat er i al i t y r equi r ement [ of Sect i on 1001] pr oves di sposi t i ve

wi t h r espect t o venue" when a st at ement i s made i n one j ur i sdi ct i on

and r el i ed upon i n anot her , Wi l son, 512 Fed. Appx. at 78, quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Copl an, 703 F. 3d 46, 79 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) . Venue was t her ef or e

pr oper i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k f or t he Sect i on 1001 char ge

i n Wi l son.

Her e, Li bous' f al se st at ement s wer e mat er i al i n Whi t e Pl ai ns

because t hey were both capabl e of i nf l uenci ng and capabl e of

di st r act i ng t he FBI and t he I RS i n t hei r anal ysi s of t he case. 1 Hi s

f i r st f al se st at ement - - t hat he coul d not r ecal l how hi s son began

t o wor k at t he l aw f i r m - - coul d have l ed t he i nvest i gat or s t o a

concl usi on t hat he had f or got t en a f ew phone cal l s or meet i ngs f our

1 Thi s anal ysi s t ook pl ace i n Whi t e Pl ai ns i n consul t at i on wi t h t he Assi st ant U. S.

At t or neys assi gned t o t he mat t er , as wel l as wi t h t he agent s' super vi sor s. Thus,t he def endant ' s oral st at ement s wer e tr ansf er r ed back to t hi s Di st r i ct , j ust asWi l son' s or al f al se deni al of her i dent i t y was br ought her e f r om New J er sey f orf ur t her consi der at i on. The def endant ' s ar gument t hat t he agent s di d not physi cal l ycar r y any wr i t t en f al se st at ement s by hi m f r om Al bany back t o Whi t e Pl ai ns i si r r el evant . Def endant ' s Br i ef at 4- 5.



7/37

6

year s ear l i er because he was pr eoccupi ed wi t h ot her mat t er s. Hi s ot her

f al se st at ement s wer e i nconsi st ent wi t h st at ement s by ot her wi t nesses,

whi ch, i n t he absence of evi dence cor r obor at i ng t hose ot her wi t nesses'

st at ement s, coul d have l ed t he i nvest i gat or s t o concl ude t hat a t r i al

woul d have t ur ned on wi t ness cr edi bi l i t y al one. Such a concl usi on

coul d have been a si gni f i cant f act or i n t he i nvest i gat or s' eval uat i on

of t he qual i t y of t he evi dence. Fi nal l y, t he def endant ' s f al se deni al

of knowl edge t hat t he l obbyi ng f i r mhad pai d par t of hi s son' s sal ar y

at t he l aw f i r mcoul d have been vi ewed as cr edi bl e by t he i nvest i gat or s

because i t was somewhat consi st ent wi t h a st atement by a part ner at

t he l obbyi ng f i r m- - bel i ed by ot her evi dence - - t hat t he l obbyi ng f i r m' s

payment s t o t he l aw f i r m wer e r et ai ner payment s t o t he l aw f i r m and

not di r ect cont r i but i ons t o t he def endant ' s son' s sal ar y. 2

The f act t hat t he def endant was ul t i mat el y unsuccessf ul i n

hi s ef f or t s t o mi sl ead and di st r act t he i nvest i gat or s does not r ender

hi s f al se st at ement s i mmater i al . To be mat er i al under Copl an and

Adekanbi , a st at ement need onl y have a "nat ur al t endency" t o i nf l uence

a deci si onmaki ng body or be "capabl e" of i nf l uenci ng or di st r act i ng

i nvest i gat or s. Copl an, 703 F. 3d at 79; Adekanbi , 675 F. 3d at 182. I t

i s i r r el evant whet her t he l i st ener act ual l y bel i eved t he stat ement or

r el i ed upon i t . Uni t ed St at es v. Kest enbaum, 908 F. Supp. 2d 364, 384- 85

( E. D. N. Y. 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Saf avi an, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1, 10- 11

2 Thi s st at ement by the l obbyi ng f i r mpar t ner was di scl osed t o the def ense pur suant

t o Br ady.



8/37

7

( D. D. C. 2009) ; Uni t ed St at es v. St er n, 2003 WL 22743897 at *2 ( S. D. N. Y.

2003) , quot i ng Br ogan v. Uni t ed St at es, 522 U. S. 398, 402 (1998) ( "maki ng

t he exi st ence of [ Sect i on 1001] t ur n upon t he cr edul ousness of t he

f eder al i nvest i gat or ( or t he per suasi veness of t he l i ar ) woul d be

exceedi ngl y st r ange") .

C. The Def endant ' s Fal se St atement s BearSubst ant i al Cont act s wi t h t hi s Di st r i ct

When a def endant ar gues t hat hi s pr osecut i on i n a par t i cul ar

di st r i ct wi l l r esul t i n a har dshi p t o hi m, pr ej udi ce hi mor under mi ne

t he f ai r ness of t hi s t r i al , a cour t may consi der whet her t he cr i mi nal

act s i n quest i on bear subst ant i al cont act wi t h t he char gi ng di st r i ct .

Copl an, 703 F. 3d at 80. Thi s test r equi r es consi der at i on of t he si t e

of t he cr i me; i t s el ement s and nat ur e; t he pl ace wher e t he ef f ect of

t he cr i mi nal conduct occur s; and sui t abi l i t y of t he venue chosen f or

accur at e f act - f i ndi ng. Uni t ed St at es v. Saavedr a, 223 F. 3d 85, 92- 93

( 2d Ci r . 2000) . Thi s test i s not a f or mal const i t ut i onal t est , but

r at her i s empl oyed pr i mar i l y t o det er mi ne whet her a gi ven venue i s

unf ai r or pr ej udi ci al t o t he def endant . Rami r ez, 420 F. 3d at 143;

Saavedr a, 223 F. 3d at 92.

Her e, t he def endant has ar gued as par t of hi s mot i on f or a

Rul e 21( b) t r ansf er t hat pr osecut i on her e wi l l r esul t i n a har dshi p

t o hi m. He has made no argument t hat pr osecut i on here wi l l otherwi se

pr ej udi ce hi m or under mi ne t he f ai r ness of hi s t r i al .

The subst ant i al cont act s anal ysi s wei ghs i n f avor of venue



9/37

8

her e. The ef f ect of t he def endant ' s cr i mi nal conduct i s f ound al most

excl usi vel y i n t hi s Di st r i ct . As ar gued above, t he def endant ' s f al se

st at ement s wer e desi gned t o t hwar t an i nvest i gat i on by i nvest i gat or s

and a gr and j ur y i n t hi s Di st r i ct i nt o hi s conduct wi t h r espect t o hi s

son' s empl oyment at a West chest er l aw f i r m. For t hat r eason, t hi s

Di st r i ct i s one of t he si t es of t he cri me, as mat er i al i t y - - a r equi si t e

el ement of a Sect i on 1001 vi ol at i on - - at t ached t o the st at ement her e.

Fi nal l y, t hi s di st r i ct i s t he most sui t abl e venue f or accur at e

f act - f i ndi ng. As ar gued i n mor e det ai l bel ow i n r esponse t o t he

def endant ' s Rul e 21( b) mot i on, t he pr i mar y wi t nesses are here, t he

evi dence i s here and thi s case has now been pendi ng here f or mont hs

and i s on t r ack f or a t i mel y t r i al .

D. The Def endant ' s Rel i ance on t heBi n Laden Opi ni on i s Mi spl aced

The def endant ' s r el i ance on Uni t ed St at es v. Bi n Laden, 146

F. Supp. 2d 373, 376- 80 ( S. D. N. Y. 2001) i s mi spl aced. I n Bi n Laden, t he

def endant made f al se st atement s t o agent s - - pr esumabl y t he case agent s

f r omNew Yor k - - i n Texas. The Di st r i ct Cour t hel d t hat venue f or t he

f al se st at ement s di d not l i e i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k because

t here was no geogr aphi c or t emporal di scont i nui t y between t he

def endant ' s maki ng of t he st atement and t he r ecei pt of t he st atement

by t he "r el evant f eder al aut hor i t y. " I d. at 376- 77. Thus, t he cour t

hel d, t he vi ol at i on of Sect i on 1001 began, cont i nued and was compl eted

i n Texas.



10/37

9

I n l i ght of Wi l son, Copl an and ot her cases, i t i s unl i kel y

t hat Bi n Laden woul d survi ve r evi ew by t he Cour t of Appeal s t oday. I n

Wi l son, t he def endant made her f al se st at ement s t o t he case agent s - -

t her e, t he "r el evant f eder al aut hor i t y" - - i n New J er sey. Her

st atement arguabl y became mater i al i n one way i n New J ersey i n t hat

i t caused t he agent s t o l eave her house wi t hout ar r est i ng her on t hei r

f i r st t r i p. The Cour t of Appeal s, however , r ecogni zed t hat t he

st at ement was al so mat er i al l at er i n Whi t e Pl ai ns t o the agent s'

"under t [ aki ng] t o deci de what st eps t o t ake t o execut e t he ar r est

war r ant . " Wi l son, 512 Fed. Appx. at 78. Her e, t he f or ce of t he

def endant ' s f al se stat ement s was pr opel l ed i nt o t he Sout her n Di st r i ct ,

wher e the agent s, t hei r super vi sor s, t he Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys and

t he gr and j ur y al l sat .

That hol di ng i s ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h Second Ci r cui t

pr ecedent f r omf or t y year s ago t hat hel d t hat venue f or a cont i nui ng

of f ense i s l i mi t ed not j ust t o t he j udi ci al di st r i ct i n whi ch t he cri me

became compl et e but i nst ead i s " pr oper l y l ai d i n ' t he whol e ar ea t hr ough

whi ch f or ce pr opel l ed by an of f ender oper at es. ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Candel l a, 487 F. 2d 1223, 1227- 28 (2d Ci r . 1974) ( "Al t hough enough was

done i n t he East er n Di st r i ct t o const i t ut e a cri me t her e, . . . i t does

not f ol l ow t hat t he cr i me t hen t er mi nat ed, and t hat what t r anspi r ed

i n Manhat t an was i r r el evant f or venue pur poses") , quot i ng Uni t ed St at es

v. J ohnson, 323 U. S. 273, 275 ( 1944) . Venue f or a Sect i on 1001 of f ense

cont i nues t hr ough " t he whol e area t hr ough whi ch f orce pr opel l ed by an



11/37

10

of f ender oper at es, " even i f t he f al se st at ement i s mat er i al t o a r evi ew

by rel evant f eder al aut hor i t i es at i nt er medi at e st ops al ong t he way.

Uni t ed St at es v. Rami r ez, 420 F. 3d 134, 142- 43 (2d Ci r . 2005) ( venue

pr oper i n New Yor k f or f al se st at ement s r evi ewed by f eder al aut hor i t i es

i n New J er sey and Manhat t an that " ' cont i nued t o be f al se and cont i nued

t o be wi t hi n t he j ur i sdi ct i on of t he Uni t ed St at es' when t hey f i nal l y

r eached Manhat t an") , quot i ng Candel l a, 487 F. 2d at 1228.

Ot her cour t s have f ound Bi n Laden' s anal ysi s quest i onabl e

i n l i ght of Rami r ez and Candel l a. Uni t ed St at es v. Rubi n/ Chamber s,

Dunhi l l I ns. Ser vi ces, 798 F. Supp. 2d 517, 531 ( S. D. N. Y. 2011) ( " [ T] he

Cour t st r ai ns t o i dent i f y t he usef ul ness of Bi n Laden' s l i mi t i ng

pr i nci pl e - geogr aphi c di scont i nui t y bet ween sender and r eci pi ent -

i n l i ght of Rami r ez and Candel l a" ) ; Mahaf f y, 2006 WL 2224518 at *9 ( " I n

l i ght of t he expansi ve i nt er pr et at i on of Candel l a of f er ed i n Rami r ez,

t he di st r i ct cour t i n Bi n Laden mi ght have r ul ed di f f er ent l y") .

II.

THE DEFENDANT'S SEVEN FALSE

STATEMENTS ARE PROPERLY

CHARGED IN ONE COUNT

The one count charged i n t he I ndi ct ment i s not dupl i ci t ous.

The def endant ' s seven f al se st at ement s t o t he FBI , al l made i n one

i nt er vi ew sessi on, wer e pr oper l y char ged t oget her i n t hat count . Any

concer n t he def endant has about unani mi t y of t he ver di ct can easi l y

be r esol ved wi t h a j ur y i nst r uct i on.

The Cour t of Appeal s has af f i r med convi ct i ons when mul t i pl e



12/37

11

f al se st at ement s wer e speci f i ed i n one count . For exampl e, i t r ej ect ed

a chal l enge t o t he unani mi t y j ur y i nst r uct i on when seven f al se

st atement s were speci f i ed i n one count char gi ng Sect i on 1001 because

t he cour t had i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t had t o unani mousl y agr ee on

"any st at ement t hat t he def endant made i n vi ol at i on of t he f al se

st at ement st at ut e. " Uni t ed St at es v. Cr i sci , 273 F. 2d 235, 239 ( 2d

Ci r . 2001) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. St ern, 2003 WL 22743897 at *2 ( S. D. N. Y.

2003) ( Mukasey, J . ) ( "An i ndi ct ment may charge more than one f al se

st at ement i n t he same count , so l ong as t he j ur y i s i nst r uct ed t hat

i t must agr ee unani mousl y both t hat t he def endant made at l east one

of t he char ged f al se st at ement s and whi ch st at ement t hat was" ) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Sul l i van, 2004 WL 253316 at *5 ( S. D. N. Y. 2004) ( not

dupl i ci t ous t o char ge mul t i pl e f al se stat ement s i n r epor t s and l oan

and cr edi t appl i cat i ons t oget her ) . I n Uni t ed St at es v. Kapl an, 490

F. 3d 110, 128- 31 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) , t he Government charged one count of

Sect i on 1001 i n connect i on wi t h t he def endant ' s f al se st at ement s about

" t he ci r cumst ances sur r oundi ng hi s pur chase of a l aw pr act i ce . . . . "

The Government speci f i ed whi ch of t he def endant ' s st at ement s r egar di ng

t hat subj ect wer e f al se by r ef er r i ng t o par agr aphs i n an FBI 302 i n

a bi l l of par t i cul ar s. The def endant ar gued t hat t he Gover nment ei t her

amended t he i ndi ct ment or engaged i n a var i ance by pr ovi ng addi t i onal

f al se st at ement s r egar di ng hi s pur chase of t he l aw pr act i ce t hat wer e

not i ncl uded i n t he par agr aphs of t he 302 r ef er enced i n t he bi l l of

par t i cul ar s. The Cour t hel d t hat t her e had been no const r uct i ve



13/37

12

amendment because t he Government had proved t he essent i al el ement s of

Sect i on 1001. I t hel d al so t hat even i f t her e had been a var i ance,

t he def endant suf f er ed no pr ej udi ce because t he i ndi ct ment had gi ven

hi mnot i ce of t he "cor e of cr i mi nal i t y" t o be pr oven at t r i al and t he

302 had put hi mon not i ce of al l t he f al se st at ement s t he Gover nment

al l eged he had made.

The aut hor i t y f r om ot her Ci r cui t s ci t ed by t he def endant

woul d not f ur t her hi s posi t i on even i f i t wer e bi ndi ng pr ecedent her e.

For exampl e, i n Bi ns v. Uni t ed St at es, 331 F. 3d 390 ( 5t h Ci r . 1964) ,

t he r el evant count charged Sect i on 1010 - not Sect i on 1001 - and

speci f i ed f al se st at ement s i n two di f f er ent document s t hat had been

execut ed on di f f er ent days. Uni t ed St at es v. Hol l ey, 942 F. 2d 916,

928- 29 ( 5t h Ci r . 1991) was a per j ur y case t hat was r eversed because

t her e had been no speci f i c unani mi t y i nst r uct i on. Si mi l ar l y, t he cour t

i n Uni t ed St at es v. Duncan, 850 F. 2d 1104 ( 6t h Ci r . 1988) r ever sed based

on t he l ack of a speci f i c unani mi t y i nst r uct i on under ci r cumst ances

i ndi cat i ng t hat t he j ur y was conf used on t hi s i ssue. Fi nal l y, Uni t ed

St at es v. Dedman, 527 F. 2d 577, 600 n. 10 ( 6t h Ci r . 2008) ci t es wi t h

appr oval aut hor i t y hol di ng t hat pr obl ems ar i si ng f r omwhat t he Si xt h

Ci r cui t woul d consi der a dupl i ci t ous i ndi ct ment can be cur ed wi t h a

speci f i c unani mi t y i nst r uct i on.



14/37

13

III.

THE FOUR PARAGRAPH INDICTMENT

CONTAINS NO SURPLUSAGE

Par agr aph 2 of t he I ndi ct ment , whi ch t he def endant cl ai ms

shoul d be st r i cken as surpl usage, descr i bes t he gr and j ur y' s

i nvest i gat i on t hat t he def endant ef f ect i vel y at t empt ed t o obst r uct by

maki ng t he seven f al se st atement s t o t he FBI descr i bed i n paragr aph

3. Par agr aph 2, t her ef or e, i s r el evant t o t he mat er i al i t y el ement of

Sect i on 1001 f or t he reasons descr i bed i n mor e det ai l i n connect i on

wi t h venue i n Sect i on I above. Par agr aph 2 al so put s t he def endant ' s

f al se st at ement s i nt o cont ext . Not hi ng i n Par agr aph 2 i s i nf l ammat or y

or prej udi ci al . Accor di ngl y, Par agr aph 2 i s not sur pl usage and shoul d

not be st r i cken.

"Mot i ons t o st r i ke sur pl usage . . . wi l l be gr ant ed onl y wher e

t he chal l enged al l egat i ons ar e not r el evant t o t he cr i me char ged and

ar e i nf l ammat or y and pr ej udi ci al . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mul der , 273 F. 3d

91, 99- 100 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) , quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Scar pa, 913 F. 2d

993, 1013 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) . Evi dence, i ncl udi ng "backgr ound evi dence, "

t hat i s proper l y admi ssi bl e and r el evant i s not sur pl usage and need

not be st r i cken. Mul der , 273 F. 3d at 100 ( par agr aphs descr i bi ng

t act i cs and pur poses of l abor coal i t i ons not sur pl usage) . Si mi l ar l y,

evi dence admi ssi bl e under Rul e 404( b) - - such as a def endant ' s pr i or

convi ct i on t hat he f ai l ed t o di scl ose as r equi r ed under t he secur i t i es

l aws - - i s not sur pl usage. Uni t ed St at es v. St i t sky, 536 Fed. Appx.



15/37

14

98, 106 n. 5 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) .

Not hi ng i n par agr aph 2 i s ei t her i nf l ammat or y or

pr ej udi ci al . I nst ead, par agr aph 2 i s a r el at i vel y gener i c descri pt i on

of t he i nvest i gat i on t hat i s wr i t t en i n a manner desi gned t o demonst r at e

t he mat er i al i t y of t he seven speci f i ed f al se st at ement s. Ther e i s

not hi ng i r r el evant , i nf l ammat or y or pr ej udi ci al about t he st at ement

t hat t he def endant "guar ant eed" payment s f or hi s son' s car l ease. As

t he di scover y shows, and t he evi dence wi l l show, t he son l eased a Range

Rover i n hi s own name and t he def endant guarant eed t he l ease payment s.

I n negot i at i ng hi s son' s sal ar y at t he l aw f i r m, t he def endant convi nced

t he f i r mt o compensat e t he son f or t he l ease payment s. The def endant ' s

guarant ee shows he was aware hi s son had l eased a car and al so shows

hi s mot i ve f or i ncl udi ng the l ease payment s i n the compensat i on package,

al l of whi ch cor r obor at es t he t est i mony of ot her s t hat he sought

compensat i on f or t he l ease payment s on hi s son' s behal f . I t t her ef or e

i s r el evant t o show t hat he di d negot i at e hi s son' s compensat i on package

wi t h t he l aw f i r m, whi ch woul d be i nconsi st ent wi t h one of hi s f al se

st at ement s. The def endant ' s al l egat i on t hat j ur or s wi l l i gnor e t he

Cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons by i nf er r i ng somet hi ng nef ar i ous f r om t he

r ef er ence t o t he guar ant ee i s not hi ng but unf ounded specul at i on t hat

does not war r ant st r i ki ng any par t of Par agr aph 2.

Si mi l ar l y, t her e i s not hi ng i nf l ammat or y or pr ej udi ci al

about t he phr ase "[ a] mong ot her t hi ngs" i n t he l ast sent ence of

Par agr aph 2. An obj ect i ve r eader of Par agr aph 2 mi ght concl ude t hat



16/37

15

t he "ot her t hi ngs" ar e t hose mat t er s t hat ar e descr i bed i n t he par t

of Par agr aph 2 above t he phr ase " [ a]mong other t hi ngs" or are t he "other

t hi ngs" t hat t he Government may of f er pur suant t o Rul e 404( b) . The

def endant , however , engages i n wi l d specul at i on t hat j ur or s mi ght

i gnor e t he Cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons and assume f r om t he phr ase "[ a] mong

ot her t hi ngs" t hat t he def endant was gui l t y of some " l i mi t l ess,

boundl ess , unf ounded and unwar r ant ed wr ongdoi ng" f or whi ch he was never

char ged and, t her ef or e, convi ct hi mof t he one count i n t he i ndi ct ment

r egar dl ess of whet her t hey bel i eve he i s gui l t y of t hat count . Such

specul at i on does not war r ant st r i ki ng any l anguage.

Cour t s t hat have consi der ed mot i ons t o st r i ke phr ases l i ke

"among ot her t hi ngs" as sur pl usage f r omi ndi ct ment s have di st i ngui shed

such l anguage t hat appear s i n char gi ng par agr aphs f r omsi mi l ar phr ases

t hat appear i n means par agr aphs. For exampl e, i n Uni t ed St at es v.

Washi ngt on, 947 F. Supp. 87, 90- 91 ( S. D. N. Y. 1996) , t he cour t

di st i ngui shed between a means par agr aph, whi ch i t def i ned as

"r ef er [ r i ng] t o t he mat t er of pr oof t o sust ai n t he char ges, " and a

chargi ng paragr aph, "whi ch pr esent s t he mat t er upon whi ch t he gr and

j ury based i t s accusat i on agai nst t he def endant , " i n consi der i ng a

mot i on t o st r i ke "among other t hi ngs" f r om an i ndi ct ment . When a

char gi ng par agr aph "cont ai ns surpl usage t hat ' adds not hi ng t o t he

char ges, gi ves t he def endant no f ur t her i nf or mat i on wi t h r espect t o

t hem, and cr eat es t he danger t hat t he pr osecut or at t r i al may

i mper mi ssi bl y enl ar ge t he char ges cont ai ned i n t he I ndi ct ment . . . , "



17/37

16

t he l anguage shoul d be st r i cken. Washi ngt on, 947 F. Supp. at 90,

quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. DePal ma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 798- 99 ( S. D. N. Y.

1978) . For exampl e, a use of t he phr ase "among other t hi ngs" i n

Par agr aph 3, t he char gi ng par agr aph i dent i f yi ng t he seven f al se

st atement s, coul d have gi ven r i se t o a concern that t he Government woul d

t r y t o obt ai n a convi ct i on on ot her f al se st at ement s not i dent i f i ed

i n t he I ndi ct ment .

"Among other t hi ngs, " however , i s i n Par agr aph 2, whi ch i s

a means par agr aph. A cour t shoul d not st r i ke l anguage such as "among

other t hi ngs" when i t appear s i n a means par agr aph. Washi ngt on, 947

F. Supp. at 90; DePal ma, 461 F. Supp. at 799 ( l anguage such as "among

ot her t hi ngs" can be equat ed t o al l egat i ons of over t act s i n a

conspi r acy char ge, i n whi ch t he Gover nment i s not r equi r ed t o al l ege

al l act s t hat car r i ed out t he conspi r acy) . The phr ase "among ot her

t hi ngs" does not i mpl y t hat t he def endant i s suspect ed of ot her cr i mes;

r at her i t coul d easi l y be r ead t o r ef er t o al l egat i ons cont ai ned

el sewher e i n Par agr aph 2. I t i s nei t her i nf l ammat or y nor pr ej udi ci al .

To t he ext ent t hat t he Cour t i ntends t o r ead Par agr aph 2 t o

t he j ur y, t he def endant ' s mot i on t o st r i ke sur pl usage shoul d be deni ed.

I f t he Cour t does not i nt end t o r ead Par agr aph 2 t o t he j ur y, t he

def endant ' s mot i on shoul d be deni ed as moot .



18/37

17

IV.

NO BILL OF PARTICULARS

IS WARRANTED HERE

The I ndi ct ment speci f i es seven f al se st at ement s t he

def endant made t o t he FBI . Despi t e t hat speci f i ci t y, t he def endant

cl ai ms r epeat edl y that he i s unabl e t o pr epar e f or t r i al unl ess and

unt i l he r ecei ves a bi l l of par t i cul ar s descri bi ng t hr ee pi eces of

i nf or mat i on t hat bor der on mi nut i ae. A bi l l of par t i cul ar s i s not t he

appr opr i at e vehi cl e t o obt ai n t hi s i nf or mat i on. The def endant ' s

mot i on shoul d be deni ed.

The sol e l egi t i mat e pur pose of a bi l l of par t i cul ar s i s t o

f ur ni sh t hose f act s t hat ar e necessary ( i ) t o appr i se t he def endant

of t he char ges agai nst hi mwi t h suf f i ci ent pr eci si on t o enabl e hi mt o

pr epar e hi s def ense; ( i i ) t o avoi d unf ai r sur pr i se at t r i al ; and ( i i i )

t o pr ecl ude a second pr osecut i on f or t he same of f ense. See, e. g. , Wong

Tai v. Uni t ed Stat es, 273 U. S. 77, 80- 82 ( 1927) . Ther ef or e, a bi l l

of par t i cul ar s i s onl y r equi r ed A>where t he charges of t he i ndi ct ment

ar e so gener al t hat t hey do not advi se t he def endant of t he speci f i c

act s of whi ch he i s accused. =@ Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es, 901 F. 2d 205,

234 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Leonel l i , 428 F. Supp. 880,

882 ( S. D. N. Y. 1977) . The ul t i mat e t est f or whet her a bi l l of

par t i cul ar s shoul d be gr ant ed i s not whet her t he i nf or mat i on sought

i s mer el y hel pf ul i n pr epar i ng f or t r i al , but whet her i t i s necessar y

f or t he l i mi t ed not i f i cat i on pur poses of a bi l l of par t i cul ar s. See



19/37

18

Uni t ed St at es v. Rami r ez, 602 F. Supp. 783, 793 ( S. D. N. Y. 1985) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Lei ght on, 265 F. Supp. 27, 35 ( S. D. N. Y. 1968) .

For t hi s reason, a bi l l of par t i cul ar s gener al l y i s not

r equi r ed wher e the i nf or mat i on sought by t he def ense i s r eadi l y

accessi bl e i n some accept abl e, al t er nat i ve f or m. Uni t ed St at es v.

Bor t novksy, 820 F. 2d 572, 574 ( 2d Ci r . 1987) . A bi l l of par t i cul ar s

i s not t o be used t o l ear n evi dent i ar y det ai l , Tor r es, 901 F. 2d at 234;

t he pr eci se manner i n whi ch the charged cr i mes were commi t t ed, Uni t ed

St ates v. Andr ews, 381 F. 2d 377, 378 ( 2d Ci r . 1967) ; t he manner i n whi ch

t he Gover nment wi l l pr ove t he char ges, Uni t ed St at es v. Leonel l i , 428

F. Supp. at 882; or i nf or mat i on unr el at ed t o t he el ement s of t he char ged

of f enses, Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 2d at 684; Uni t ed St at es v. Rucker , 32

F. Supp. 2d 545, 561 ( E. D. N. Y. 1999) ( wei ght of cont r ol l ed subst ance not

an el ement of char ge and t her ef or e not pr oper subj ect of bi l l of

part i cul ars) .

The r at i onal e f or t hi s hi ghl y r est r i ct ed use of a bi l l of

par t i cul ar s i s si mpl e. Fi r st , t he Gover nment i s not r equi r ed t o

pr ovi de i nf or mat i on t ant amount t o an i t emi zed pr evi ew of i t s proof

because of t he ver y r eal danger i n cr i mi nal cases t hat t he def endant

wi l l t ai l or hi s t est i mony t o expl ai n away t he Gover nment =s pr e- di scl osed

case. Uni t ed St at es v. Ci mi no, 31 F. R. D. 277, 279 ( S. D. N. Y. 1962) .

Second, detai l ed i nqui r i es i nt o t he Gover nment =s case r epeat edl y have

been r ej ected because t hey woul d undul y rest r i ct t he Government i n

pr esent i ng i t s pr oof at t r i al . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. J i menez,



20/37

19

824 F. Supp. at 363; Uni t ed St at es v. Gol dman, 439 F. Supp. 352 ( S. D. N. Y.

1977) .

A. Par t i cul ar Subsect i on of Sect i on 1001

The def endant cl ai ms t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o par t i cul ar s

speci f yi ng whi ch of t he t hr ee subsect i ons t he I ndi ct ment char ges. The

def endant al r eady knows t he answer . As he wr ot e i n hi s br i ef , t he

I ndi ct ment char ges t he f i r st t wo subsect i ons of Sect i on 1001. The

def endant i s t her ef or e on not i ce that he shoul d be pr epar ed t o def end

agai nst t hose two subsect i ons.

B. "Ot her Thi ngs"

The def endant i s al so cur i ous t o l earn what "ot her t hi ngs"

t he gr and j ur y, t he FBI and t he I RS wer e i nvest i gat i ng. Thi s r equest

i s l i t t l e mor e t han a t hi nl y vei l ed at t empt t o gai n an ear l y vi ew of

evi dence that t he Government may of f er pur suant t o Rul e 404( b) . The

Gover nment wi l l pr ovi de not i ce of i t s i nt ent i on t o of f er evi dence

pur suant t o Rul e 404( b) i n a manner consi st ent wi t h t he Cour t ' s

schedul i ng orders. The Government has al r eady pr oduced i n di scover y

document s t hat i t may of f er pur suant t o Rul e 404( b) .

C. Quest i ons

Bot h t he I ndi ct ment and t he FBI 302 of t he i nt er vi ew of t he

def endant descr i be t he speci f i c f al se st at ement s t he def endant made

t o t he FBI . Each f al se st atement i s unambi guous. Whether t he

def endant ' s s t at ement s wer e responsi ve t o a par t i cul ar quest i on or not

i s i r r el evant . The def endant i s not char ged wi t h bei ng unr esponsi ve.



21/37

20

Rat her , he i s char ged wi t h maki ng t he seven f al se st at ement s speci f i ed

i n t he I ndi ct ment . The def endant does not need t hi s i r r el evant

i nf or mat i on t o pr epar e f or t r i al .

Fur t her , t hi s r equest f or par t i cul ar s i s essent i al l y seeki ng

t est i mony. Such a r equest f or t hi s evi dent i ar y det ai l i s not an

appr opr i at e use of a bi l l of par t i cul ar s. Washi ngt on, 947 F. Supp. at

90- 91. I t al so i mpr oper l y seeks t he pr eci se manner i n whi ch t he char ged

cr i me was commi t t ed. Andr ews, 381 F. 2d at 378. Par t i cul ars det ai l i ng

t he exact wor ds used i n each quest i on woul d al so undul y rest r i ct t he

Gover nment i n pr esent i ng i t s pr oof at t r i al . J i menez, 824 F. Supp. at

363.

V.

THERE IS NO REASON TO TRANSFER

THIS CASE TO ANOTHER DISTRICT

I n movi ng t o t r ansf er t he t r i al t o t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct of

New Yor k, t he def endant woul d have Gover nment counsel , agent s and

suppor t st af f - - and per haps even t he Cour t and i t s st af f - - move

t hemsel ves and t hei r document s, exhi bi t s and equi pment up t o Al bany3

and send t he r esul t i ng bi l l t o t he t axpayer s, al l so t hat he can avoi d

3 The def endant never speci f i es whi ch of t he f i ve vi ci nages i n t he Nort her n Di st r i ctof New Yor k t o whi ch he pr oposes t r ansf er r i ng t hi s case. Gi ven t hat Al bany and

Bi nghamt on - - t he two vi ci nages t he def endant ment i ons i n hi s bri ef - - ar e eachr oughl y equi di st ant f r omeach ot her and f r omWhi t e Pl ai ns, any di scussi on of vi ci nageonl y hi ghl i ght s t he f act t hat t he def endant r out i nel y t r avel s bet ween Bi nghamt onand Al bany and, t heref ore, appar ent l y woul d not f i nd a weekl ong st ay i n Whi t e Pl ai nst o be so cumbersome or i nconveni ent t o war r ant t r ansf er of t he case t o anot herDi st r i ct. The Nor t her n Di st r i ct' s l ocal r ul es, however , pr ovi de t hat t hi s casewoul d be hear d i n Al bany. The onl y r el evant act i vi t y i n t hi s case t hat occur r edi n t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct occur r ed i n Al bany. The Case Assi gnment Pl an f or t heNor t her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k ( General Or der #12) pr ovi des that cr i mi nal cases f orwhi ch venue l i es i n Al bany Count y shoul d be hear d i n Al bany.



22/37

21

a weekl ong t r i p t o Whi t e Pl ai ns. The def endant has not met hi s bur den

of showi ng t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a t r ansf er . A t r ansf er woul d r esul t

i n a wast e of r esour ces and woul d pr obabl y cause an unnecessary del ay

i n t he t r i al . Thi s mot i on shoul d be deni ed.

Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 21( b) pr ovi des f or t he

t r ansf er of cr i mi nal cases t o ot her di st r i ct s "f or t he conveni ence of

t he par t i es and wi t nesses, and i n t he i nt er est of j ust i ce. " The

deci si on t o t r ansf er a case under t hi s Rul e i s wel l wi t hi n a t r i al

cour t ' s di scr et i on. Pl at t v. Mi nnesot a Mi ni ng & Manuf act ur i ng Co. ,

376 U. S. 240, 244- 45 ( 1964) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Keuyl i an, 602 F. 2d 1033,

1038 ( 2d Ci r . 1979) .

As a gener al r ul e, cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons shoul d be ret ai ned

i n t he di st r i ct i n whi ch t hey wer e br ought . Uni t ed St at es v. Par r i l l a,

2014 WL 2200403 at *1 ( S. D. N. Y. 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ri l ey, 296 F. R. D.

272, 275 ( S. D. N. Y. 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Spy Fact or y, I nc. , 951

F. Supp. 450, 455 ( S. D. N. Y. 1997) . The def endant bear s t he bur den of

pr ovi ng t hat a t r i al i n t he di st r i ct f r omwhi ch t r ansf er i s sought ei t her

undul y bur dens t he def ense or cr eat es undue pr ej udi ce agai nst t he

def endant . Ri l ey, 296 F. R. D. at 275; Uni t ed St at es v. Val des, 2006

WL 738403 at *3 ( S. D. N. Y. 2006) ; Spy Fact ory, 951 F. Supp. at 464. " [ T] o

war r ant a t r ansf er f r omt he di st r i ct wher e an i ndi ct ment was pr oper l y

r et ur ned i t shoul d appear t hat a t r i al t her e woul d be so undul y

bur densome t hat f ai r ness r equi r es t he t r ansf er t o anot her di st r i ct .

. . . " Uni t ed St at es v. Uni t ed St at es St eel Cor p. , 233 F. Supp. 154,



23/37

22

157 ( S. D. N. Y. 1982) . Mer e i nconveni ence wi l l not r equi r e a t r ansf er ,

as some i nconveni ence i s i nher ent i n any t r i al . Uni t ed St at es v.

Lar sen, 2014 WL 177411 at * 3 ( S. D. N. Y. 2014) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l son,

2001 WL 798018 at *3 (S. D. N. Y. 2001) .

The Supr eme Cour t has set f or t h t en f act or s f or consi derat i on

i n a Rul e 21( b) mot i on i n Pl at t , 376 U. S. at 243- 44. A r evi ew of t hese

f actor s, i n t he or der t hey ar e i dent i f i ed i n Pl at t , shows t hat t he

def endant has not met hi s bur den of showi ng t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o a

change of venue.

A. Locat i on of t he Def endant

As t he def endant acknowl edges i n hi s br i ef , he l i ves i n

Bi nghamt on but spends a si gni f i cant amount of t i me i n Al bany. Tr avel

and t i me away f r omhome, t her ef or e, ar e not har dshi ps f or hi m. Whi t e

Pl ai ns i s about t wo hour s f r omboth Al bany and Bi nghamt on. Such a

r el at i vel y shor t t r i p r educes t he si gni f i cance of t hi s f actor . Uni t ed

St ates v. Beeman, 2003 WL 22047871 at * 4 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) . Fur t her ,

t hi s t r i al i s expect ed t o l ast about one week, whi ch al so reduces t he

si gni f i cance of t hi s f act or . Lar sen, 2014 WL 177411 at *3.

Whi l e cour t s i n t hi s Ci r cui t have r ecogni zed a pol i cy of

t r yi ng def endant s wher e they resi de wher e possi bl e, Spy Fact or y, 951

F. Supp. at 456, t he Supr eme Cour t made cl ear i n Pl at t t hat a def endant ' s

r esi dence "has no i ndependent si gni f i cance. " Pl at t , 376 U. S. at 245.

Thi s pol i cy ar i ses f r oma concer n t hat a t r i al " f ar away f r omhome"

can be a har dshi p f or a def endant . Uni t ed St at es v. Ar onof f , 463



24/37

23

F. Supp. 454, 457 ( S. D. N. Y. 1978) . Her e, t he def endant woul d be t r i ed

i n hi s home di st r i ct i f t he case wer e t r ansf er r ed but an Al bany t r i al

woul d st i l l put hi mt wo hour s away f r omhi s Bi nghamt on home. 4 As not ed

above, t he def endant ' s home i n Bi nghamt on i s onl y sl i ght l y cl oser t o

Al bany, wher e t he case woul d be t r i ed i f i t i s t r ansf er r ed, t han i t

i s t o Whi t e Pl ai ns. An appl i cat i on of t hi s pol i cy woul d not put t he

def endant any cl oser t o hi s home t han a t r i al i n Whi t e Pl ai ns woul d.

The def endant ' s t r i al woul d not t ake pl ace any cl oser t o hi s

home i f t he case wer e t r ansf er r ed. Accor di ngl y, he cannot meet hi s

bur den on t hi s f act or .

B. Locat i on of Wi t nesses

Whi l e t he def endant r epr esent s t o t hi s Cour t t hat "most , i f

not al l [ of hi s wi t nesses] , r esi de i n t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct " and,

i ndeed, t hat t her e ar e "numer ous wi t nesses" i n the Nor t her n Di st r i ct ,

he al so argues "[ a] t t hi s ear l y s tage of l i t i gat i on, i t i s di f f i cul t

t o det er mi ne speci f i c def ense wi t nesses and t hei r l i kel y t est i mony. "

Def endant ' s Br i ef at 18. The def endant cannot have i t bot h ways. Si nce

he has t he bur den of pr oof on t hi s mot i on, "a def endant i s r equi r ed

t o gi ve ' speci f i c exampl es of wi t nesses' t est i mony and t hei r i nabi l i t y

t o t est i f y because of t he l ocat i on of t he t r i al . ' " Uni t ed St at es v.

Br ooks, 2008 WL 2944626 at *2 ( S. D. N. Y. 2008) , quot i ng Spy Fact ory,

951 F. Supp. at 456. " [ T] he cour t must r el y on concr et e demonst r at i ons

4 Si nce t her e i s no t r i al date, t he def endant cannot know now whet her he wi l l otherwi sebe i n Al bany f or a Senat e sessi on at t he ti me of hi s t r i al .



25/37

24

of t he pr oposed t est i mony. " Spy Fact or y, 951 F. Supp. at 456.

Ot her t han not i ng he i nt ends t o cal l char act er wi t nesses,

t he def endant has gi ven no exampl es of wi t ness t est i mony and has not

- - and i ndeed most l i kel y cannot - - al l ege or pr ove t hat any wi t ness

he woul d cal l coul d not t r avel t o Whi t e Pl ai ns. Any wi t ness he woul d

cal l f r om Bi nghamt on woul d have t o t r avel t o Al bany and, t her ef or e,

coul d j ust as easi l y t r avel t o Whi t e Pl ai ns. Pot ent i al def ense

wi t nesses who l i ve or wor k i n Al bany coul d easi l y make t he t r i p t o Whi t e

Pl ai ns. See Beeman, 2003 WL 22047871 at *4 ( t r i p of "a f ew hour s' dr i ve

. . . cannot be sai d t o const i t ut e such a bur den . . . t hat t he t r i al

shoul d not pr oceed her e") . As expl ai ned i n mor e det ai l i n t he Expense

t o t he Par t i es subsect i on bel ow, expenses f or t r avel and hot el s woul d

not be a pr obl embecause t he def endant ' s campai gn commi t t ee appear s

t o be payi ng t he def endant ' s expenses ar i si ng f r omt hi s pr osecut i on. 5

Accor di ngl y, t he def endant cannot meet hi s bur den of pr ovi ng that he

woul d be unabl e t o pr oduce hi s wi t nesses at a Whi t e Pl ai ns t r i al .

Keuyl i an, 602 F. 2d at 1028; Spy Fact or y, 951 F. Supp. at 456- 57.

I t i s appar ent even f r omt he def endant ' s l i mi t ed descr i pt i on

of hi s pot ent i al wi t nesses t hat much of t he pot ent i al t est i mony he

descr i bes woul d be i r r el evant . For exampl e, t he def endant r ef er s t o

"pot ent i al def ense wi t nesses" who observed "event s bot h di r ect l y

5 The Gover nment i s i n no way suggest i ng t hat t hese payment s ar e pr operunder New Yor k St a t e l aw. See New Yor k St a t e Boar d of El ect i ons Opi ni on# 89- 1 ( campa i gn f unds may be used t o pay l ega l f ees i n a c r i mi nalpr oc eedi ng when " a cr i mi nal mat t er ar i s es out o f t he hol di ng of publ i cof f i c e i f t he ac t i vi t y or al l eged ac t i vi t y whi c h i s t he s ubj ec t o f t hatmat t er i s wi t hi n t he pur vi ew of t he publ i c of f i c e hol der ' s dut i es . " )



26/37

25

bef or e and af t er [ t he FBI i nt er vi ew] " who woul d t est i f y about "what

t hey observed on t he day i n quest i on. " As t he di scover y i n t hi s case

shows, t her e wer e no wi t nesses t o t he FBI ' s i nt er vi ew of t he def endant

except t he t wo agent s and t he def endant hi msel f . Event s t hat happened

bef or e or af t er t he i nt er vi ew, such as st at ement s t he def endant made

t o ot her s, ar e not l i kel y t o be admi ssi bl e and f ur t her ar e not l i kel y

t o be rel evant t o t he i ssue of whether t he def endant made the seven

st at ement s speci f i ed i n t he I ndi ct ment dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew whi l e

knowi ng them t o be f al se.

On t he ot her hand, many, i f not most , of t he Government ' s

wi t nesses ar e her e i n Whi t e Pl ai ns. The t wo FBI agent s who i nt er vi ewed

t he def endant ar e st i l l based her e. Obvi ousl y, t hey wi l l t est i f y about

t hat i nt er vi ew. The t wo par t ner s of t he l aw f i r mwho deal t wi t h t he

def endant wi t h r espect t o hi r i ng t he def endant ' s son st i l l bot h l i ve

i n West chest er . They wi l l t est i f y about t hei r i nt er act i ons wi t h t he

def endant on t hat mat t er . I n t er ms of l engt h of t est i mony, t hose f our

ar e t he pr i mar y wi t nesses i n t he case. The Gover nment wi l l al so cal l

at l east t wo wi t nesses f r om Bi nghamt on, who wi l l t est i f y about

i nt er act i ons they had wi t h t he def endant . I t i s j ust as easy f or t hose

wi t nesses t o t est i f y her e as i t woul d be f or t hemt o t r avel t o Al bany.

The Government wi l l al so cal l at l east t wo wi t nesses f r omt he Al bany

l obbyi ng f i r m who bot h st i l l l i ve i n t he Al bany ar ea.

The def endant has not , and l i kel y cannot , meet hi s bur den

wi t h r espect t o t he l ocat i on of wi t nesses. Accor di ngl y, t hi s f actor



27/37

26

wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er .

C. Locat i on of Event s Li kel y t o Be i n I ssue

Al t hough t he i nt er vi ew of t he def endant t ook pl ace i n Al bany,

many, i f not most , of t he si gni f i cant event s t hat demonst r at e t he

def endant ' s knowl edge of t he f al si t y of hi s st at ement s t ook pl ace i n

t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k. The def endant met i n West chest er

wi t h r epr esent at i ves of t he l aw f i r m t o di scuss t hei r hi r i ng of hi s

son. The l aw f i r mi t sel f was based i n West chest er . The l aw f i r msent

t he l obbyi ng f i r mf ake i nvoi ces f r omWest chest er and t he l obbyi ng f i r m

sent t he money back t o West chest er . The l aw f i r mt hen used t hat money

t o pay t he def endant ' s son i n West chest er . Event s rel at i ng t o t he son' s

j ob per f or mance at t he f i r mal l t ook pl ace i n West chest er . Event s at

t he l aw f i r m' s hol i day par t y, whi ch t ook pl ace i n West chest er , ar e al so

l i kel y t o be i n i ssue, as t hey demonst r at e t he def endant ' s per sonal

i nvol vement i n t he l aw f i r m' s hi r i ng of hi s son.

The def endant i s wel l awar e of t hese event s and t hei r

l ocat i ons, whi ch expl ai ns why he speaks mor e of l ocat i ons of ent i t i es

r at her t han l ocat i ons of event s l i kel y t o be i n i ssue. Def endant ' s

Br i ef at 20 ( "The I ndi ct ment r ef er ences t hr ee l ocat i ons: Law Fi r m1,

Lobbyi ng Fi r m1, and t he si t e [ of t he i nt er vi ew] ") . Under Pl at t , t he

Cour t shoul d consi der t he l ocat i on of event s l i kel y to be i n i ssue.

Si nce event s i n t he case t ook pl ace i n bot h t he Sout her n

Di st r i ct and t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct , no one f or umcoul d accommodat e t he

ent i r e case excl usi vel y. As a r esul t , t he Const i t ut i onal pr opr i et y



28/37

27

of venue shoul d sat i sf y t hi s f act or . Uni t ed St at es v. Hays, 1997 WL

34666 at *4 ( E. D. Pa. 1997) ( pr oper venue sat i sf i es f actor when event s

t ook pl ace i n mul t i pl e di st r i ct s) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bl oom, 78 F. R. D.

591, 609 ( E. D. Pa. 1977) ( same) ; see Uni t ed St ates v. Val des, 2006 WL

738403 at *5 ( S. D. N. Y. 2006) ( wher e cr i mi nal act i vi t y i s nat i onal i n

scope and has t i es t o mul t i pl e si t es, t he l ocat i on of event s at i ssue

f avor s nei t her si de) .

The def endant has not car r i ed hi s bur den her e. Thi s f act or

wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er .

D. Locat i on of Document s

Physi cal copi es - - meani ng t he copi es t hat woul d be admi t t ed

i nt o evi dence - - of essent i al l y al l document s r el evant t o t he case ar e

gat her ed i n Whi t e Pl ai ns, whi ch wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er . Keuyl i an,

602 F. 2d at 1038 ( pr esence of exhi bi t s i n New Yor k wei ghed agai nst

t r ansf er t o Cal i f or ni a) . The physi cal copi es of document s pr oduced

i n di scover y f i l l appr oxi mat el y t went y boxes. Whi l e t he over whel mi ng

maj or i t y of t hose document s wi l l not be used at t r i al , a t r ansf er of

t he case woul d r equi r e t he Gover nment t o t r anspor t al l t hose mat er i al

t o t he si t e of t he t r i al so t hat t hey ar e al l avai l abl e.

Cust odi ans of r ecor ds, assumi ng t he par t i es do not st i pul at e t o

admi ssi bi l i t y of many, i f not al l , document s, ar e i n bot h Di st r i ct s

and el sewhere.

Thi s f act or wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er .



29/37

28

E. Di sr upt i on of Def endant ' s Busi ness

Ot her t han not i ng t hat he i s a St at e Senat or , t he def endant

of f er s no det ai l or expl anat i on of how a one- week t r i al i n Whi t e Pl ai ns

woul d so di sr upt t he oper at i on of t he Senat e - - assumi ng t hat t he Senat e

coul d be consi der ed t he def endant ' s busi ness - - t hat a t r ansf er t o

Al bany woul d be war r ant ed. Br ooks, 2008 WL 2944626 at *2 ( def endant

f ai l ed t o pr ovi de f act s i ndi cat i ng how busi ness, j ob or car eer woul d

be di srupt ed by t r i al i n or i gi nal di st r i ct) , quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v.

Guast el l a, 90 F. Supp. 2d 335, 340 ( S. D. N. Y. 2000) ( t hi s f act or unhel pf ul

t o def endant s who f ai l t o speci f y i mpact of t r i al on t hei r busi nesses) .

The def endant di d not even i dent i f y t he busi ness f or whi ch he si t s as

a di r ect or , al t hough he ci t es hi s boar d member shi p as a f act or

war r ant i ng a t r ansf er . 6

Al l cr i mi nal t r i al s i nher ent l y r esul t i n some i nconveni ence

t o def endant s and t he def endant ' s act i vi t i es i n t he Senat e may be

cur t ai l ed t o some degr ee dur i ng t r i al , r egar dl ess of wher e t he t r i al

i s hel d. The def endant ' s suggest i on t hat he pl ans t o conduct busi ness

when not i n cour t dur i ng t r i al i s dubi ous at best , gi ven t he need t o

pr epar e f or t he upcomi ng t r i al days and t o consul t wi t h counsel . Spy

Fact or y, 951 F. Supp. at 458. Even i f t he def endant ser i ousl y pl ans

t o wor k when not i n cour t dur i ng t r i al , he has not even at t empt ed t o

6 The def endant al s o f ai l ed t o addr es s h ow a t r i al i n Al bany woul d mi t i gat et he i mpact of t he pr osecut i on on a bus i ness i n Bi nghamt on and, as of now,cannot even know whet her t he Boar d has a meet i ng sc hedul ed dur i ng t het r i a l .



30/37

29

show why communi cat i ons by t el ephone, emai l or ot her wi se woul d be

i nsuf f i ci ent t o meet hi s needs f or a per i od of one week. Val des, 2006

WL 738403 at *7; Spy Fact ory, 951 F. Supp. at 458. 7

Whi l e he pr of esses t o be gr eat l y concerned about t he i mpact

of t he one week t r i al on t he Senat e, t he def endant never of f er s any

al t er nat i ves t o t r ansf er t hat t he Cour t coul d consi der t o r educe t hat

i mpact . For exampl e, t he Cour t coul d consi der t he Senat e' s cal endar

i n schedul i ng t he t r i al . The Senat e hel d sessi ons on onl y t hr ee days

i n Apr i l 2014, met onl y t hr ee days a week dur i ng most weeks i n May and

was done wi t h t he sessi on by J ul y. See www. nysenate. gov

/ cal endar / sessi on. Pr esumabl y, t he Senat e' s schedul e wi l l be si mi l ar

t hi s year .

The def endant has f ai l ed t o meet hi s bur den her e.

Accor di ngl y, t hi s f actor wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er .

F. Expense t o t he Par t i es

The def endant at t empts t o meet hi s bur den of proof on t hi s

f act or by r ef er r i ng al most excl usi vel y t o t he cost of t r anspor t i ng hi s

uni dent i f i ed wi t nesses, t he "vast maj or i t y" of whoml i ve somewher e i n

t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct . 8 He i s abl e t o make t hat sweepi ng r epr esent at i on

7

The de f endant has ar t f ul l y ed i t ed hi s quot e f r om Ar onof f , 463 F. Supp.at 459, t o suppor t hi s a r gument t hat even t he abi l i t y t o wor k a f ew hour sa week woul d so l essen t he i nconveni ence of t he t r i al t o wa r r ant at r ans f er . The f ul l quot e s hows how eas i l y Ar ono f f c a n be di s t i ngui s hed:" To a f a i l i ng bus i ness t hat depends s o much on per sona l i nvo l vement , evena f ew hour s each weekday pl us weekends c oul d make a subst ant i aldi f f er enc e. " Ar onof f , 463 F . Supp. at 459 ( e mphas i s added) .

8 I t woul d cos t t he def endant about t he same t o t r anspor t anyBi nghamt on- based wi t nesses he woul d ca l l t o Al bany as i t woul d t o



31/37

30

t o t he Cour t despi t e hi s compl ai nt el sewher e t hat " [ a] t t hi s ear l y st age

of l i t i gat i on, i t i s di f f i cul t t o det er mi ne speci f i c wi t nesses and t hei r

l i kel y t est i mony. " Def endant ' s Br i ef at 18.

When consi der i ng t hi s f act or , cour t s do not l ook to t he

over al l expense of a t r i al t o a def endant , as ever y cr i mi nal pr osecut i on

i mposes some expense on al l but i ndi gent def endant s. See Ri l ey, 296

F. R. D. at 277; Br ooks, 20078 WL 2944626 at *3; Val des, 2006 WL 738403

at *7. I nst ead, t o meet hi s bur den, t he def endant must show t hat he

has i nsuf f i ci ent f unds t o pr ovi de f or hi s def ense i f t he case i s not

t r ansf er r ed. Lar sen, 2014 WL 177411 at *3; Ri l ey, 296 F. R. D. at 277;

Val des, 2006 WL 738403 at *7; Spy Fact ory, 951 F. Supp. at 459. Thi s

def endant cannot meet hi s bur den because he i s f undi ng hi s def ense,

i ncl udi ng l egal f ees f or wi t nesses on hi s st af f , t hr ough hi s campai gn

commi t t ee. The di scl osure r epor t s f i l ed wi t h t he New Yor k Boar d of

El ect i ons by the Fr i ends of Senat or Li bous Commi t t ee, whi ch ar e publ i cl y

avai l abl e at www. el ect i ons. ny. gov, show t hat t he def endant ' s commi t t ee

has pai d t he def endant ' s at t orney more than $100, 000 si nce May 2014.

The commi t t ee had a cash bal ance of mor e t han $718, 000 as of J ul y 2014,

whi ch i s mor e t han suf f i ci ent t o f und a def ense i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct

and t o t r anspor t as many as hi s uni dent i f i ed wi t nesses and t hei r counsel

t o Whi t e Pl ai ns as he wi shes.

On t he ot her hand, expenses ar e a si gni f i cant f act or f or t he

Government . Cour t s have r ecogni zed t hat Apubl i c f unds are to be

t r ans por t t hem t o Whi t e Pl ai ns .



32/37

31

saf eguarded. @ Uni t ed St at es v. At wood, 538 F. Supp. 1206, 1209 ( E. D. Pa.

1982) ; see Hays, 1997 WL 34666 at *4 ( cour t r equi r ed t o consi der expenses

t o al l par t i es) . Cour t s i n t hi s Di st r i ct have consi der ed expenses t hat

t he Gover nment woul d i ncur as a r esul t of a t r ansf er i n deci di ng Pl at t

mot i ons. Ri l ey, 296 F. R. D. at 277; Br ooks, 2008 WL 2944626 at *3;

Val des, 2006 WL 738403 at *7; Spy Fact ory, 951 F. Supp. at 459. Thi s

Of f i ce woul d t r y the case i n any di st r i ct t o whi ch i t was t r ansf er r ed.

The Government woul d have t o t r anspor t and house at l east t he t wo

Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys, t he t wo case agent s and a par al egal t o Al bany,

as wel l as i t s t went y boxes of document s, al ong wi t h cour t r oomequi pment

and ot her mat er i al s.

Thi s f act or wei ghs heavi l y agai nst t r ansf er .

G. Locat i on of Counsel

Whi l e some cases, i ncl udi ng some of t hose ci t ed her ei n,

i dent i f y t hi s f act or as ' l ocat i on of def ense counsel , ' bot h t he Supr eme

Cour t and t he Cour t of Appeal s woul d have cour t s consi der ' l ocat i on

of counsel ' - - i ncl udi ng Gover nment counsel - - when deci di ng Rul e 21( b)

mot i ons. Pl at t , 376 U. S. at 771; Keuyl i an, 602 F. 2d at 1038. Gi ven

t hat t hi s Of f i ce wi l l t r y t he case even i f i t i s t r ansf er r ed, and t he

expense t o t he Gover nment t hat woul d ar i se f r om such a t r ansf er , i t

i s onl y f ai r t o consi der t he l ocat i on of bot h Gover nment and def ense

counsel .

Bot h Assi st ant U. S. At t or neys wor k r i ght i n t hi s bui l di ng.

As i s hi s r i ght , t he def endant chose an at t or ney who mai nt ai ns hi s of f i ce



33/37

32

i n Al bany.


H. Rel at i ve Accessi bi l i t y of t he Pl ace of Tr i al

Whi t e Pl ai ns i s more access i bl e f or Government counsel and

t hei r st af f , t he case agent s and t he many, i f not most , of t he wi t nesses

t hat t he Gover nment wi l l cal l i n i t s di r ect case, as descr i bed i n mor e

det ai l above. For t hose who do not l i ve i n t he ar ea, Whi t e Pl ai ns enj oys

excel l ent t r ai n ser vi ce wi t hi n wal ki ng di st ance of t he cour t house and

i s at or near some of t he busi est hi ghways i n t he nat i on. Whi t e Pl ai ns

i s wi t hi n a r easonabl e dr i vi ng di st ance of f our commer ci al ai r por t s

and t her e ar e f ar mor e schedul ed commer ci al f l i ght s t o and f r omt hi s

ar ea t han t her e ar e t o and f r omAl bany. Whi t e Pl ai ns i s mor e accessi bl e

t han Al bany by ei t her publ i c or pr i vat e t r anspor t at i on.


I . Docket Condi t i ons

I f j udges i n t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct have a sl i ght l y hi gher

casel oad t han t hei r count er par t s i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct , Def endant ' s

Br i ef at 23, t hi s f act or woul d wei gh agai nst t r ansf er , as t he def endant

admi t s.

The opt i on suggest ed by t he def endant of havi ng t hi s Cour t

and i t s st af f put asi de i t s appr oxi mat el y 650 pendi ng cases, see

Federal Cour t Management St at i st i cs at www. uscour t s. gov, and bear t he

expense of t r anspor t i ng and housi ng t he Cour t and st af f upst at e so

t hat t he def endant and hi s counsel can avoi d a one week t r i p t o a ci t y



34/37

33

t wo hour s away i s pr obabl y not al l t hat compel l i ng t o t he Cour t . I n

Fr i edman, J udge Knapp made t he t r i p t o New Haven due t o t he si gni f i cant

pr et r i al publ i ci t y t hat publ i c cor r upt i on case had r ecei ved i n New Yor k

Ci t y. That does not appear t o be a concer n i n t hi s case.

A t r ansf er of t hi s case woul d l i kel y r esul t i n a del ay of

t he t r i al . As a r esul t , t hi s f actor wei ghs agai nst t r ansf er .

J . Speci al Consi der at i ons

Even i f t he docket condi t i ons i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct and

t he Nor t her n Di st r i ct wer e t he same, a t r ansf er of t hi s case woul d ver y

l i kel y resul t i n a del ay, "si nce t he case woul d t hen have . . . t o be

pl aced at t he end of some ot her di st r i ct cour t ' s busy cr i mi nal docket

i n [ Al bany. ] " Keuyl i an, 602 F. 2d at 1038. Fur t her , a t r ansf er woul d

i mpose a "doubl e bur den on t he j udi ci ar y, " as t hi s Cour t has al r eady

devot ed r esour ces t o t he case and, unl ess t hi s Cour t t r avel s t o Al bany,

a new j udge i n Al bany woul d al so t hen have to become f ami l i ar wi t h i t

and t r y i t . Uni t ed St at es v. Wheat on, 463 F. Supp. 1073, 1079 ( S. D. N. Y.

1979) ; see Uni t ed St at es v. Zyl st r a, 713 F. 2d 1332, 1336 ( 7t h Ci r .

1983) ( "Cour t s must be mi ndf ul of . . . t he act ual expense and wast e

of cour t t i me i n our sever el y bur dened and over t axed f eder al j udi ci al

syst em" i n r evi ewi ng a Rul e 21( b) mot i on) ; Bl oom, 78 F. R. D. at 610

( consi der i ng j udi ci al economy i n denyi ng mot i on t o t r ansf er ) .


Concl usi on

A cour t shoul d not gi ve any one f act or pr eemi nent wei ght or



35/37

34

consi der onl y the quant i t y of f act or s f avor i ng one par t y over t he ot her .

I nst ead, t he cour t shoul d " t r y t o st r i ke a bal ance and det er mi ne whi ch

f act or s ar e of gr eat est i mpor t ance. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Mal donado- Ri ver a, 922 F. 2d 934, 966 ( 2d Ci r . 1990) . The bal ance here

f avor s a t r i al i n Whi t e Pl ai ns. The t r i al i n t hi s case wi l l be

r el at i vel y shor t . As a r esul t , i t wi l l i nvol ve r el at i vel y mi ni mal

di sr upt i on t o t he def endant . The Government pr osecut i on t eamand many,

i f not most , of t he Gover nment ' s wi t nesses ar e i n t he l ocal ar ea. A

t r ansf er woul d r esul t i n si gni f i cant expense t o t he Gover nment and woul d

l i kel y del ay t he t r i al . The def endant woul d gai n l i t t l e benef i t f r om

a t r ansf er , as hi s home i s st i l l t wo hour s away f r omAl bany. For t hese

r easons, t he Cour t shoul d f ol l ow t he gener al r ul e t hat cases shoul d

r emai n i n t he di st r i ct i n whi ch t hey wer e i ndi ct ed. The def endant ' s

mot i on shoul d be deni ed.

VI.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS DISCLOSED AND

WILL CONTINUE TO DISCLOSE

ALL BRADY INFORMATION

The Government acknowl edges Br ady and has al r eady di scl osed

some i nf or mat i on as a r esul t of t hat obl i gat i on. I t wi l l cont i nue t o

do so.

The def endant r ai sed t hi s i ssue when we wer e l ast bef or e t he

Cour t . At t hat t i me, t he Cour t r emi nded def ense counsel t hat t he Br ady

obl i gat i on exi st ed r egar dl ess of whether an or der was ent er ed and t hat



36/37

35

t he Gover nment woul d pr oceed at i t s per i l i f i t f ai l ed t o compl y wi t h

i t s Br ady obl i gat i ons.

Accor di ngl y, no or der i s necessary.

VII.

THE GOVERNMENT WILL GIVE

NOTICE PURSUANT TO RULE

404(b) IN A TIMELY FASHION

The Government wi l l gi ve t he r equi si t e not i ce under Rul e

404( b) i n suf f i ci ent t i me so as t o al l ow t he Cour t and t he def endant

t o consi der t he i ssues and f or t he Cour t t o r ul e on t he admi ssi bi l i t y

of evi dence. The Government has al r eady pr oduced i n di scover y

document s i t may of f er pur suant t o Rul e 404( b) .

VIII.

DEFENDANT'S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

The Government woul d not obj ect i f t he def endant f i l ed new

mot i ons i n t he f ut ur e on gr ounds t hat ar i se, or coul d not have been

known, bef ore now. The Cour t has set a schedul e f or mot i ons, however ,

so t he Gover nment r eserves i t s r i ght t o obj ect t o any unt i mel y mot i ons

t hat shoul d have been f i l ed i n accor dance wi t h t he Cour t ' s schedul e.



37/37

CONCLUSION

For al l t hese reasons, t he Gover nment r espect f ul l y request s

t hat t he Cour t deny t he def endant s =mot i ons, except as ot her wi se st at ed

above.

Dated: Whi t e Pl ai ns, New Yor kNovember 24, 2014

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

PREET BHARARAUni t ed St at es At t or ney

By: ________/ s____________________Per r y A. Car bone/ J ames McMahonAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys


21 usa libous memo

Documents