Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page1 of 170
`
`15-1815-CR
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`
`IN THE
`
`FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
`
`>> >>
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`v.
`
`Appellee,
`
`ROSS WILLIAM ULBRICHT, AKA DREAD PIRATE ROBERTS, AKA SILK ROAD,
`AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 1, AKA DPR,
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Southern District of New York (New York City)
`
`BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
`
`JOSHUA L. DRATEL, P.C.
`Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant
`29 Broadway, Suite 1412
`New York, New York 10006
`212-732-0707
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page2 of 170
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 3
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 8
`
`A. The Charges ............................................................................................. 9
`
`B. Pretrial Motions ..................................................................................... 10
`
`C. Disclosure of Force’s Corruption During the Investigation .................. 11
`
`D. The Trial ................................................................................................. 13
`
`E. The Charge and Verdict ......................................................................... 17
`
`F. Post-Trial Motions and Further Disclosure
`Regarding Corruption In the Investigation ............................................ 18
`
`G. Sentencing .............................................................................................. 18
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 20
`
`POINT I
`
`ITS DISCRETION AND DENIED
`THE COURT ABUSED
`ULBRICHT HIS FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO
`DUE PROCESS, THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A DEFENSE, AND A
`FAIR TRIAL BY (A) PRECLUDING THE DEFENSE FROM USING
`AT TRIAL THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO DEA SPECIAL
`AGENT CARL FORCE’S CORRUPTION; (B) REFUSING TO
`ORDER THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
`DISCOVERY AND
`BRADY MATERIAL
`REGARDING
`CORRUPTION; AND (C) DENYING ULBRICHT’S MOTION FOR
`A NEW TRIAL BASED ON ADDITIONAL POST-TRIAL
`DISCLOSURES REGARDING FORCE AND ANOTHER CORRUPT
`LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT INVOLVED IN THE SILK ROAD
`INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page3 of 170
`
`A. The Government’s Eve-of-Trial Disclosure of
`Force’s Corruption ................................................................................. 23
`
`B. The Court’s Further Preclusion at Trial of Evidence the Pretrial
`Rulings Had Permitted the Defense to Use ........................................... 27
`
`1.
`
`The Post-Trial Revelation of Bridges’s Corruption, and the
`Additional Post-Trial Disclosures of Force’s Misconduct .......... 30
`
`C. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Precluding Ulbricht from
`Utilizing at Trial Information Related to Force’s Corruption ............... 37
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`There Was Not Sufficient Need to Maintain Secrecy
`of the Investigation of Force and Bridges to Ulbricht’s
`Detriment In This Case ................................................................ 39
`
`The Record Demonstrates That Silk Road
`Investigations Were Coordinated and Combined ........................ 40
`
`The Information Regarding the Investigation of Force
`and Bridges Is Relevant to This Case Regardless Whether
`the Investigations Were Independent .......................................... 46
`
`a. The Government’s Initial Exhibit List ................................. 46
`
`b. The Importance of the First Half of
`2013 Regarding the Evidence At Trial ................................ 47
`
`D. The Court Abused Its Discretion By Deviating From Its
`Pretrial Ruling and Precluding Evidence That It Had
`Determined Would Be Admissible ........................................................ 48
`
`E. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Denying Ulbricht’s Motion
`for a New Trial Based on the Government’s Failure to Make
`Complete and Accurate Pretrial Disclosure Regarding Law
`Enforcement Corruption In the Government’s Investigation ................ 50
`
`1.
`
`The Principles Applicable to Exculpatory Material
`and Information ........................................................................... 50
`
`a. General Principles Governing the Government’s
`Brady Disclosure Obligations .............................................. 50
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page4 of 170
`
`b. The Manner of the Government’s Brady
`Disclosure Obligations ......................................................... 59
`
`2.
`
`The Government Failed to Make Timely Production
`of Exculpatory Material ............................................................... 60
`
`POINT II
`
`THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY CURTAILING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE DEFENSE THEORY AT
`TRIAL ............................................................................................................ 63
`
`A. HSI SA Jared Der Yeghiayan ................................................................ 63
`
`1.
`
`In Curtailing and Striking Cross Examination of SA
`Der-Yeghiayan, the Court Improperly Concluded There
`Was No Nexus Between the Alternative Perpetrator and
`the Specific Offenses ................................................................... 66
`
`a. Relevant Case Law Regarding An Alternate Perpetrator ...... 66
`
`b. The Requisite Nexus Was Established By the
` Government Itself Through Its Direct Examination
`
`of SA Der-Yeghiayan ............................................................ 69
`
`The Court Also Erred by Disregarding the Untimeliness
`of the Government’s Objections, Failing to Acknowledge
`That Cross Examination of SA Der-Yeghiayan Was Relevant
`to Another Proper Defense Ulbricht Was Presenting, and
`Improperly Considering Issues Regarding the Government’s
`Possible Redirect ......................................................................... 70
`
`The Court Abused Its Discretion by Precluding the
`Defense From Eliciting from SA Der-Yeghiayan that
`Karpeles Attempted to Exchange Immunity for the
`Identity of DPR ............................................................................ 71
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B. FBI Computer Specialist Thomas Kiernan ............................................ 75
`
`C. The Court’s Rulings Which Curtailed the Cross Examinations
`of SA Der-Yeghiayan and Agent Kiernan Constituted an Abuse
`of Discretion ........................................................................................... 76
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page5 of 170
`
`POINT III
`
`THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING TWO
`DEFENSE EXPERTS ................................................................................... 78
`
`A. The Court’s Decision Precluding the Two Defense Experts ................. 80
`
`B. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Precluding
`the Two Defense Experts ....................................................................... 83
`
`POINT IV
`
`THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN PRECLUDING
`ADMISSION OF ANDREW JONES’S STATEMENT AGAINST
`PENAL
`INTEREST
`PURSUANT TO RULE
`804(3)(b),
`FED.R.EVID., AND/OR RULE 807, FED.R.EVID. ................................... 90
`
`A. Pretrial Disclosure of Andrew Jones’s Exculpatory Statement ............. 90
`
`B. The Trial Proceedings ............................................................................ 91
`
`C. The Court Abused Its Discretion In Precluding Admission
`of Jones’s Statement Under Either Rule 804(3)(b) or Rule 807............ 92
`
`POINT V
`
`THE COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULINGS
`CONSTITUTED CUMULATIVE ERROR THAT DEPRIVED
`ULBRICHT OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL ............................. 97
`
`POINT VI
`
`THE UNLIMITED SEARCHES AND SEIZURE OF ULBRICHT’S
`ENTIRE LAPTOP AND GMAIL AND FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS
`VIOLATED THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BECAUSE THEY
`CONSTITUTED THE FRUIT OF (A) A WARRANT THAT
`LACKED ANY PARTICULARITY; AND (B) UNLAWFUL AND
`WARRANTLESS PEN REGISTER AND TRAP AND TRACE
`ORDERS ........................................................................................................ 98
`
`A. The Search of Ulbricht’s Laptop and Gmail and Facebook
`Accounts Violated the Fourth Amendment Because the
`Warrant Authorizing the Search Lacked Any Particularity ................... 98
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page6 of 170
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Unlimited Scope of the Warrants At Issue ........................... 98
`
`The Court’s Rationale for Denying Ulbricht’s
`Motion to Suppress .................................................................... 100
`
`The Overriding Importance of the Particularity
`Requirement ............................................................................... 100
`
`4.
`
`The Warrants At Issue Are Devoid of Particularity .................. 102
`
`B. The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Orders Were Unlawful
`and Violated the Fourth Amendment Because They Required a
`Warrant and Also Failed to Adhere to Statutory Limitations .............. 109
`
`1.
`
`
`The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Orders Were Unlawful
`Because They Required a Warrant ........................................... 109
`
`a. Smith v. Maryland Does Not Control the Issue Herein ..... 111
`
`b. The Pen-Trap Devices In This Case Required a Warrant
`
`Because They Captured Information About Ulbricht’s
`
`Activities In His Home ...................................................... 118
`
`c. The Pen-Trap Devices In This Case Required a Warrant
`and/or Violated the Operative Statute Because They
`Captured Prospective Data and Information ..................... 120
`
`2.
`
`The Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices Used In
`This Case Were Unlawful Because They Exceeded
`Statutory Authority .................................................................. 121
`
`POINT VII
`
`IMPOSED ON ULBRICHT WAS
`THE LIFE SENTENCE
`PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY UNREASONABLE ......... 125
`
`A. The Life Sentence Was Procedurally Unreasonable ........................... 125
`
`1. The Court Erred In Considering the Alleged Overdose
`Deaths Based on An Entirely Subjective, Undefined, and
`Unprecedented Standard ........................................................... 127
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page7 of 170
`
`2.
`
`The Court Improperly Relied on the Alleged
`Overdose Deaths Purportedly Attributable to
`the Silk Road Site Without Sufficient or Reliable Proof .......... 128
`
`a. The Relevant Case Law ..................................................... 128
`
`
`
`
`b. The Court Improperly Relied on “Erroneous Facts”
`In Considering the Alleged Overdose Deaths That
`the Defense Expert Forensic Pathologist Concluded
` Was Incomplete, Unreliable, and Inaccurate ..................... 130
`
`B. The Life Sentence Was Substantively Unreasonable ......................... 133
`
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 140
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page8 of 170
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................ 115, 117
`
`Alvarez v. Ercole, 763 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2014) ....................................................... 69
`
`Andersen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 96 S.Ct. 2737,
`49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976) ...................................................................................... 106
`
`Andrews v. Stegall, 11 Fed.Appx. 394 (6th Cir. 2001) ............................................ 68
`
`In re Application, 2006 WL 1876847 (N.D. Ind. July 5, 2006) ............................ 123
`
`In re Application, 396 F.Supp.2d 747 (S.D. Tex. 2005) ........................................ 122
`
`In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Authorizing the Release of
`Historical Cell-Site Info., 809 F.Supp.2d 113 (E.D.N.Y.2011) ....................... 117
`
`In re Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the
`Installation and Use of a Pen Register Device, 497 F.Supp.2d 301
`(D.P.R. 2007) with In re Application of the United States for an
`Order for Disclosure of Telecommunications Records and
`Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register and Trap and Trace, 405
`F.Supp.2d 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) ....................................................................... 121
`
`In re Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the
`Use of a Pen Register and a Trap and Trace Device on Wireless
`Telephone Bearing Telephone Number [Redacted], Subscribed to
`[Redacted], Service by [Redacted], No. 08 MC 0595(JO), 2008
`WL 5255815 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.16, 2008) ............................................................ 123
`
`In re Application of the United States for an Order Authorizing the
`Use of a Pen Register With Caller Identification Device Cell Site
`Location Authority on a Cellular Telephone, 2009 WL 159187
`(S.D.N.Y. Jan.13, 2009) .................................................................................... 122
`
`In re Application of the United States for an Order Directing a
`Provider of Electronic Communication Service to Disclose
`Records to the Government, 534 F.Supp.2d 585 (W.D.Pa. 2008) ................... 121
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page9 of 170
`
`In re Application of the United States for an Order for Prospective
`Cell Site Location Information on a Certain Cellular Telephone,
`460 F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................ 121
`
`In re Applications of U.S. for Orders Authorizing Disclosure of Cell
`Cite Info., 05-403, 2005 WL 3658531 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2005) ........................ 123
`
`Authorizing Disclosure of Location-Based Servs. No. 07-128, 2007
`WL 3342243 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2007) ............................................................ 124
`
`In re Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register, 384 F.Supp.2d 562 on
`reconsideration sub nom. In re Application of the U.S. for an
`Order (1) Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register & a Trap & Trace
`Device, 396 F.Supp.2d 294 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) ................................................... 124
`
`Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.) .......................................................... 70
`
`Bowen v. Maynard, 799 F.3d 593 (10th Cir. 1986) ................................................. 67
`
`Boyette v. LeFevre, 246 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 66
`
`Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (963) .............................................................passim
`
`Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) ................................................passim
`
`Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ............................................................ 77
`
`Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) ............................................................... 51, 54, 62
`
`Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2003) .................................................. 69, 71
`
`Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) ................................................................. 83
`
`Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855 (1966) ................................................... 38, 56
`
`DiBenedetto v. Hall, 272 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) ...................................................... 67
`
`Douglas Oil Co. Of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest,
`441 U.S. 211 (1979) ............................................................................................ 56
`
`Florida v. Jardines, __ U.S. __, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013) ....................................... 120
`
`Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977) (plurality opinion) ............................... 129
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page10 of 170
`
`Hein v. Cuprum, S.A., De C.V., 53 Fed.Appx. 134 (2d Cir. 2002) .......................... 84
`
`Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) ............................................................ 102
`
`Klayman v. Obama, 957 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), vacated and
`remanded on other grounds, 800 F.3d 559 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ........................... 115
`
`Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) .............................................................. 77
`
`Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) ..............................................................passim
`
`Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) .................................................... 119, 120
`
`Lambert v. Beard, 537 Fed.Appx. 78 (3d Cir. 2013), after remand by,
`Wetzel v. Lambert, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 1195 (2012) ............................... 52, 62
`
`Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89 (2d Cir.2001) .................................................. 58, 61
`
`Limone v. United States, 497 F.Supp.2d `43 (D. Mass. 2007) ................................ 73
`
`Martindell v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) ......................... 38
`
`Mendez v. Artuz, 303 F.3d 411 (2d Cir. 2002) ......................................................... 67
`
`Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999) ....................................................... 94
`
`Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972) .................................................................... 51
`
`Muncie Aviation Corporation v. Party Doll Fleet, Inc., 519 F.2d 1178
`(5th Cir. 1975) ..................................................................................................... 73
`
`In re Order Authorizing Prospective and Continuous Release of Cell
`Site Location Records, 31 F.Supp.3d 889 (S.D. Tex. 2014) ............................ 121
`
`Parsons v. Honeywell Incorporated, 929 F.2d 901 (2d Cir. 1991) ......................... 73
`
`People of Territory of Guam v. Ignacio, 10 F. 3d 608 (9th Cir. 1993) ................... 68
`
`In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [Redacted]
`@mac.comthat is Stored at Premises Controlled by Apple, Inc.,
`13 F.Supp.3d 157 (D.D.C. August 8, 2014) ..................................................... 107
`
`Sherwin-Williams Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference
`Pension and Retirement Fund, 969 F.Supp. 465 (N.D. Oh. 1997) .................. 132
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page11 of 170
`
`Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) ..........................................................passim
`
`Steinberg v. Obstetrics-Gynecological & Fertility Group, P.C.,
`260 F.Supp.2d 492 (D.Conn. 2003) .................................................................... 73
`
`St. Germain v. United States, Nos. 03 cv 8006 (CM), 99 cr 339 (CM),
`2004 WL 1171403, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2004) ........................................ 58
`
`In re U.S. For an Order Authorizing the Disclosure of Prospective
`Cell Site Info., 412 F.Supp.2d 947 (E.D. Wisc. 2006), aff'd, 06-
`MISC-004, 2006 WL 2871743 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 6, 2006) ................................. 124
`
`In re U.S. for an Order Authorizing the Use of a Pen Register and
`Trap on [xxx] Internet Service Account/User Name
`[xxxxxxx@xxx.com], 396 F.Supp.2d 45 (D. Mass 2005) ................................. 114
`
`United States v. Abrams, 615 F.3d 541 (1st Cir. 1980) ......................................... 105
`
`United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) ....................................................... 54, 83
`
`United States v. Al-Moayad, 545 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2008) ...................................... 97
`
`United States v. Aldeen, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) ........................................... 134
`
`United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978) .............................................. 73
`
`United States v. Blake, 107 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 1997).1 2 ........................................ 71
`
`United States v. Breit, 767 F.2d 1084 (4th Cir. 1985) ............................................. 59
`
`United States v. Bridges, No. CR 15-319 (RS) (N.D. Cal.)..................................... 23
`
`United States v. Camacho, 163 F.Supp.2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ............................ 93
`
`United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) .......................... 126
`
`United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc.,
`753 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................passim
`
`United States v. Chan, 184 F.Supp.2d 337 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) .................................. 92
`
`United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2008) ............................................ 84
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page12 of 170
`
`United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc.,
`621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (per curiam) ..................................... 105
`
`United States v. Coppa, 267 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2001) ......................................passim
`
`United States v. Crowley, 318 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2003),
`cert. denied, 540 U.S. 894 (2003) ....................................................................... 76
`
`United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en banc) ......................... 117
`
`United States v. DeSilva, 613 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2010) ......................................... 126
`
`United States v. Diallo, 40 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 1994) .................................................. 88
`
`United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1999) ................................................... 68
`
`United States v. Dumeisi, 424 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2005) .......................................... 73
`
`United States v. Dwyer, 539 F.2d 924 (2d Cir. 1976) ............................................. 87
`
`United States v. Fatico, 458 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y. 1978),
`aff’d in part rev’d in part, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir. 1979) ................................. 129
`
`United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2008) ................................... 71, 77
`
`United States v. Figueroa, 647 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2011) ....................................... 126
`
`United States v. Forrester, 512 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................... 114
`
`United States v. Fucillo, 808 F.2d 173 (1st Cir. 1987) .......................................... 104
`
`United States v. Fuller, 149 F.Supp.2d 17 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ................................... 93
`
`United States v. Galpin, 720 F.3d 436 (2d Cir. 2013) ......................................passim
`
`United States v. Ganias, 755 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2014), reh'g en banc
`granted, 791 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2015) ............................................... 101, 102, 103
`
`United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1992) ............................................ 104
`
`United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2002) ......................................... 55, 56, 59
`
`United States v. Graham, 796 F.3d 332 (4th Cir. 2015), reh’g en banc
`granted, 2015 WL 6531272 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2015) ...............116, 117, 119, 120
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page13 of 170
`
`United States v. Holzman, 871 1496, 1509 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................... 104
`
`United States v. Hsia, 24 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 1998) ....................................passim
`
`United States v. Iaconetti, 406 F.Supp. 554 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) ................................. 73
`
`United States v. Ingram, 721 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2013)
`(Calabresi, J., concurring) ................................................................................. 134
`
`United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)
`(Sotomayor, J., concurring) .............................................................................. 117
`
`United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) .......................................................... 119
`
`United States v. Kim, 896 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1990) ............................................... 139
`
`United States v. Lee, 818 F.2d 1052 (2d Cir. 1987) .............................................. 128
`
`United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012) ........................................... 53
`
`United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 1995) ......................................... 67
`
`United States v. Mannino, 635 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1980) ........................................ 106
`
`United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ................................... 104
`
`United States v. McBride, 786 F.2d 45 (2d Cir. 1986) ............................................ 87
`
`United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) ........................................................ 116
`
`United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................ 94
`
`United States v. Peter Nash, 13 Cr. 950 (TPG) ..................................................... 136
`
`United States v. Olsen, 737 F.3d 625 (9th Cir. 2013) ........................................ 62, 63
`
`United States v. Onumonu, 967 F.2d 782 (2d Cir. 1992) ............................ 86, 87, 88
`
`United States v. Otero, 563 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2009) ........................................ 101
`
`United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200 (2d Cir. 1995) .............................................. 52
`
`United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ........................................ 57
`
`United States v. Prescott, 920 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1990) ......................................... 129
`
`
`
`xii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page14 of 170
`
`United States v. Rattoballi, 452 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006) ...................................... 133
`
`United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) ............................................. 133
`
`United States v. Rivas, 377 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................... 53
`
`United States v. Roche, 614 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1980) ............................................... 103
`
`United States v. Solomonyan, 451 F.Supp.2d 626 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ....................... 55
`
`United States v. Stifel, 594 F.Supp. at 154 ................................................... 67, 71, 74
`
`United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785 (2d Cir. 1994) ................................................... 84
`
`United States v. Thomas, 981 F.Supp.2d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .......................passim
`
`United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) ....................................................... 129
`
`United States v. Van Brandy, 726 F.2d 548 (9th Cir.1984) ..................................... 54
`
`United States v. Vilar, 2007 WL 1075041 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007) ..................... 104
`
`United States v. Wade, 512 Fed.Appx. 11 (2d Cir. 2013) ....................................... 68
`
`United States v. Youngblood, 379 F.2d 365 (2d Cir. 1967) ..................................... 56
`
`United States v. Zemlyansky, 945 F.Supp.2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ...................... 108
`
`Voss v. Bergsgaard, 774 F.2d 402 (10th Cir. 1985) .............................................. 108
`
`Wade v. Mantello, 333 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2003) .................................................. 66, 67
`
`Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) ............................................................... 107
`
`Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594 (1994) .................................................. 95
`
`Zerega Ave. Realty Corp. v. Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC,
`571 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2009) ......................................................................... 84, 85
`
`State Cases
`
`Commonwealth v. Augustine, 467 Mass. 230 (2014) ............................................ 120
`
`State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564 (2013) ........................................................................ 120
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page15 of 170
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2 .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`18 U.S.C. § 371 ...................................................................................................... 108
`
`18 U.S.C. §§ 981 & 982 ........................................................................................... 10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1028(f) .................................................................................................. 10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)(2) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1030(b) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1341 .................................................................................................... 108
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) ......................................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1960 ...................................................................................................... 46
`
`18 U.S.C. §§ 2703 and 3122 .................................................................................. 128
`
`18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) ............................................................................................... 128
`
`18 U.S.C. §§ 3122 and 3123 .................................................................................. 129
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3127 ............................................................................125, 126, 127, 128
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3127 (3) .............................................................................................. 115
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3127 (4) .............................................................................................. 115
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3231 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3500 .................................................................................... 23, 59, 60, 74
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) ................................................................ 9
`
`21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(h) and (b)(1)(A) .................................................................. 10
`
`21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) ....................................................................................... 142
`
`21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 848 ..................................................................................... 108
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`
`Case 15-1815, Document 30, 01/12/2016, 1682738, Page16 of 170
`
`21 U.S.C. § 846 .................................................................................................... 8, 10
`
`21 U.S.C. § 848(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`21 U.S.C. § 853 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2461 ...................................................................................................... 10
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2703 .................................................................................... 122, 128, 129
`
`47 U.S.C. § 1002(a) ............................................................................................... 127
`
`Rules
`
`Rule 6(e), Fed.R.Crim.P. ............................................................................. 12, 29, 40
`
`Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P. ...................................................................................... 83, 87
`
`Rule 29, Fed.R.Crim.P. ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Rule 33, Fed.R.Crim.P. .....................................................................................passim
`
`Rule 403, Fed.R.Evid. .............................................................................................. 68
`
`Rule 803(4), Fed.R.Evid. ..................................................................... 2, 95, 100, 101
`
`Rule 803(24), Fed.R.Evid ..........