throbber
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 ..........

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket