Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona TIMOTHY T. DUAX Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 012694 Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Telephone (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Robert McKay, et al. Defendants. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO DISMISS LAUGHLIN PREDICATE ACT;MEMORANDUM REGARDING LAUGHLIN VIDEO EVIDENCE: MOTION TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT KELLY'S OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT'S EX PARTE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 16, MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE SUPPLEMENT THERETO No. CR-03-1167-PHX-DGC

The United States of America, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby responds to defendant Robert McKay's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Laughlin Predicate Act; Memorandum Regarding Laughlin Video Evidence: Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Kelly's Objection to Government's Ex Parte Memorandum in Support of Its Compliance With Rule 16, Motion to Dismiss and the Supplement thereto. As the response to the above-referenced defense motions calls for essentially the same response, in that they involve issues with the Laughlin videotapes, a single Response was deemed appropriate and consistent with this Court's expressed concerns with repetitive motions and/or responses. The United States has provided the videotapes of the Laughlin shooting incident to the defendants. The defendants have sufficient time to review and investigate matters pertaining to the tapes prior to trial and have not made a showing that would warrant either preclusion of

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 13

1 evidence or dismissal of counts. The position of the United States with respect to the defendant's 2 Memorandum is set forth in greater detail in the attached Memorandum of Points and 3 Authorities. 4 5 6 7 8 s/ Timothy T. Duax 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
2

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January, 2006.

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona

TIMOTHY T. DUAX Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 13

1 2 3 4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. Factual background regarding Matrix Item number 457, which includes videotapes referenced by the parties as Items 400 through 430, 500 through 506, and 349 through 399. The videotapes referenced in Matrix Item number 457 can be separated into two categories:

5 items 400-430 and 500-506 (hereinafter referred to as the "38 videos"); and Items 349 through 6 399 (hereinafter referred to as the "51 videos"). 7 8 A. The 38 videos. The 38 videos were given to the defense on two separate occasions. April of 2004, and again

9 in February of 2005 to remedy defendants' complaints regarding the quality of the copied 10 videotapes. On May 16, 2005, counsel for defendant Smith, Mark Paige, indicated that certain 11 tapes, specifically Items 378-415, had not been provided to the defense. As the government had 12 learned from other defense counsel (See, Exhibit 1) that all but three of those items were 13 actually in the possession Mr. Paige or one of his employees, and it was highly likely the other 14 three items were also in Mr. Paige's possession, the government so informed Mr. Paige, who 15 filed a motion to dismiss anyway. (Dkt. #705) . 16 Despite this disagreement between the parties, undersigned counsel continued to discuss the

17 matter with counsel for defendant Smith in an effort to resolve the dispute. In late June of 2005, 18 undersigned counsel inquired as to the nature of defendants' difficulties, and was told that the 19 defense had no video covering the time period from 10:00 p.m. April 26, 2002, through 6:00 a.m. 20 April 27, 2002. (See, Exhibit 2) Undersigned counsel reviewed the government's copies of the 21 videotapes (tapes also in the possession of the defense) and it was immediately clear there was 22 footage from the time frame cited by Mr. Paige. At that point, undersigned counsel believed Mr. 23 Paige was mistaken, which he was. Issues regarding matrix item #457 were discussed briefly 24 at the pretrial conference on July 8, 2005, but the issue of footage from April 26, and April 27, 25 2002 was not specifically discussed, nor was any failure to disclose in that regard set forth in the 26 Court's August 2, 2005 order pertaining to Mr. Paige's motion. No issues regarding the 38 27 videos were discussed at the August 23, 2005, status conference. However, issues regarding the 28
3

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 13

1 38 videos did arise at the October 21, 2005 status conference. The Court directed counsel to meet 2 and discuss the issues, which the parties did on November 4, 2005. On October 27, 2005, 3 undersigned counsel received a letter from Barbara Hull detailing specific content issues 4 pertaining to the 38 videos. This was the first time the United States had been made aware of 5 such content-based issues, previously, the issues involved tape quality, or tape delivery. 6 Undersigned counsel reviewed the letter and the issues contained therein in preparation for the 7 November 4, 2005, meeting. During its preparation for the November 4, 2005 meeting, the 8 United States discovered that its copies of the 38 videos of videos contained the same defects 9 as the copies disclosed to the defense. Furthermore, the United States discovered that the 38 10 videos were not an edited montage, as was previously believed based upon discussions with the 11 case agent. 12 After the November 4, 2005 meeting, undersigned counsel arranged to travel to Las Vegas

13 on November 9, 2005 to consult with the Las Vegas Metro Police Department officers regarding 14 the 38 videos, and the other issues referenced in Ms. Hull's letter. It appeared that many of the 15 defects were the result of copying errors. Arrangements were made to have the LVMPD send 16 a complete set of the 38 videos to the United States. This was done, and arrived on December 17 6, 2005. The videos were placed at APEX on the same date, so the defense could review and 18 copy them. Apparently, video item #429 was missing, so counsel for the United States obtained 19 another copy of #429 and placed it with APEX. Undersigned counsel spoke to Chuck Whiteman 20 (the defense's tape expert), with the permission of the defense, on December 15, 2005, and was 21 told there didn't appear to be any problems with the 38 videos. The United States considers its 22 disclosure of the 38 videos of videos to be complete. 23 The defense has complained regarding the timing of the disclosure. In response, the

24 government would submit to the court that the content-based defects listed in Ms. Hull's letter 25 of October 27, 2005, were not obvious, and escaped preliminary review by both the defense and 26 prosecution. For example, Mr. Paige's June, 2005 communications pertained to content, 27 however, his specific complaint regarding footage from 10:00 p.m. April 26, through 6 a.m. 28
4

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 4 of 13

1 April 27, was incorrect as he did have footage within those parameters. What Mr. Paige had 2 missed, as had the government, was that there was footage from approximately 12:00 a.m. to 3 2:00 a.m. that was missing from both the prosecution's copies of the tapes, as well as the defense 4 copies of the tapes. This type of defect was not discovered until on or near October 27, 2005. 5 After the government learned, for the first time, of the content-based defects in the tapes,

6 it remedied the situation as quickly as possible, in just over a month. The ability of the 7 government to resolve the issues regarding the 38 videos in a relatively short time was due in 8 no small part to the cooperative attitude and assistance of defense counsel Gitre who was willing 9 to expend considerable effort to document the outstanding issues regarding the tapes. As a result, 10 the government was better able to resolve the outstanding issues. 11 12 B. The 51 videos In approximately April of 2005, an additional 51 videos were placed with All Around Video

13 in Laughlin, Nevada, for discovery purposes. Subsequent to the placement at All Around Video, 14 the defendants requested the videos be produced. This occurred in June or July of 2005. After 15 inquiring as to the content of the 51 videos, undersigned counsel did not believe the United 16 States needed to incur the cost of copying all 51 videos as most of them were not pertinent to the 17 government's case. As the government believed its obligation under Rule 16, and the orders of 18 this Court was to make the materials available to the defense for inspection and copying, and the 19 materials were available to the defense for inspection and copying at All Around Video, the 20 government so informed the defense in writing on August 12, 2005. 21 As this Court is aware, the defense decided not to obtain copies from All Around Video, and

22 chose to maintain a claim to the court that the government needed to obtain copies and give them 23 to the defense. This claim was addressed by the court on October 21, 2005, and the government 24 was directed to obtain copies of the 51 videos by November 4, 2005. Copies of the 51 videos 25 were ordered from All Around Video, and were to be delivered on or before November 4, 2005. 26 On or about November 3, 2005, the United States received the shipment from All Around Video, 27 and found only 45 tapes. Undersigned counsel inquired as to the problems with the shipment and 28
5

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 5 of 13

1 was told by Dave Tipton, the proprietor of All Around, that he was missing some of the tapes, 2 and would get them as soon as possible. The government gave the 45 tapes in its possession to 3 the defense on November 4th. 4 Soon thereafter, Ms.Gitre informed undersigned counsel that there were additional problems

5 with the 45 videos provided by Tipton. Ms. Gitre also provided a list of the defense issues 6 regarding the 51 videos. Undersigned counsel sent Ms. Gitre's list to Tipton and to the LVMPD 7 case agent, and requested that all issues by addressed as quickly as possible. Ms. Gitre also 8 agreed to return the 45 tapes already produced so the government by November 22, 2005, so the 9 government could produce a complete set. The government received the 45 tapes from Ms. Gitre 10 on November 23, 2005. On or about December 5, 2005, the government received more videos 11 from All Around, and combined with the tapes returned by Ms. Gitre had a complete set. 12 Contrary to assertions made by the defense, the government never visited Mr. Tipton while

13 in Laughlin, Nevada, but did speak to him telephonically. In addition, undersigned counsel never 14 instructed Mr. Tipton to get all 51 videos out of impound and recopy them, undersigned counsel 15 directed Tipton to get the tapes he was missing from impound and copy them to complete the 16 set of 51. Finally, undersigned counsel never represented to the defense that the 51 tapes 17 produced on December 7, 2005, were a full new set, they weren't. The videos that were not on 18 the list were retained, and supplemented with the second shipment from All Around. 19 Undersigned counsel read defendant McKay's motion of December 14, 2005, and

20 immediately inquired of defense counsel why they had made such claims, and if they could 21 consult with their expert regarding such claims. Counsel further explained that the only videos 22 that would have been "new" to the disclosure were the videos referenced in Ms. Gitre's list as 23 missing or defective. (See Exhibit 3). The government's request for clarification culminated in 24 a referral to Mr. Whiteman, who was traveling to Reno, Nevada. During a December 15, 2005, 25 telephone conversation, Mr. Whiteman stated he believed the issues with the 38 videos were 26 resolved, that only 6 or so of the 51 videos were important, that he was still reviewing those 27 tapes, and would let undersigned counsel know if there were issues. 28
6

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 6 of 13

1

It appears from the defendants' latest pleading, dated December 28, 2005, that the 51 tapes

2 produced are complete. 3 C. Video from VCR 42 4 Video from VCR 42 is contained on Item #373, which was produced to the defense on

5 November 4, 2005. However, due to the previously explained issues with the set of 51, the 6 defense returned Item #373 to the government on November 23, 2005. The government gave 7 Item #373 back to the defense on December 7, 2005. The defense has also requested earlier 8 video from VCR 42, covering the time period from approximately 8:00 p.m. April 26, through 9 2:00a.m. April 27, 2002. The United States has requested Sgt. Causey of LVMPD to acquire 10 such footage if it exists. 11 D. Chain of Custody 12 The defense complains that all the tapes are not accounted for in the documentation provided

13 by the government. The complaint is incorrect. As undersigned counsel explained to the defense 14 when the documents were produced, the documents reference all of the applicable package 15 numbers. Each package contains several Item #'s. The handwritten notes in the documents 16 indicate the first Item # in the package, the other Items in that package number have the same 17 chain of custody. For example, Package #3 starts with Item #503, and also includes Items 504, 18 505 and 506. Package #9 contains Item #427, and Items 428, 429 and 430. The documents were 19 obtained using a search program, and were done the way they were to save time. Otherwise 20 hundreds of searches would have been required, one for each tape. What is clear is that chain of 21 custody documentation was provided for the 38 videos, the 51 videos, and the 348 videos. The 22 sufficiency of that documentation will be for the court to decide in determining the admissibility 23 of the tapes. 24 There are LVMPD property reports concerning the packages and items representing the

25 Laughlin videotapes. The United States believes those are in the possession of the defense 26 because undersigned counsel was given a copy of the reports by Mr. Whiteman during the 27 November 4, 2005 meeting. However, if the defense so desires, the government will give them 28
7

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 7 of 13

1 new copies of the property reports. 2 Another issue regarding the chain of custody pertains to the fact that the videos do not

3 appear in the chain of custody logs provided to the defense until May 16, 2002. The incident 4 occurred on April 27, 2002. With respect to the portion of the 38 videos from Harrah's, LVMPD 5 homicide detectives impounded the tapes, which were kept by LVMPD Detective Long, who 6 maintained custody of the tapes until they were logged into the computerized chain of custody 7 database on May 16, 2002. With respect to the portion of the 38 videos that were from the 8 Golden Nugget, casino security personnel delivered the tapes to LVMPD intelligence detectives, 9 who then turned them over to Detective Long. With respect to the 348 video set and the 51 10 videos, they were impounded in 2004, pursuant to a federal subpoena, reviewed, and were put 11 into the computerized chain of custody database. Prior to that time, the videos were in the 12 custody of Harrah's security personnel. 13 Detective Long is currently searching to see if any other documents exist regarding chain

14 of custody. As of the date of this Response, he has yet to locate any such documents. 15 E. Video From Cameras 21 and 22 16 Defendants claim the video from cameras 21 and 22 is missing, it is not. The video from

17 cameras 21 and 22 referenced by the defense is contained on Item #419 of the set of 38 videos. 18 In fact, as to this Item, #419, a correct copy of the video was produced to the defense in April 19 of 2004, February of 2005, and again on December 6 of 2005. As it is a multiplex view, the 20 defendants will need to make arrangements to access a "demuxing" device to view the video. 21 This necessity of demuxing was specifically communicated to the defense on November 16, 22 2005, but was already known to defense counsel's tape expert prior to that date. 23 F. Item #426 24 The defense cites as missing purported Item #426, which it claims is a quad tape from the

25 Flamingo. Item #426 was produced to the defense on December 6, 2005, and is not a quad tape 26 from the Flamingo. However, there is a tape from the Flamingo, not a quad tape, and the 27 government will produce a copy of that tape to the defense. 28
8

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 8 of 13

1 G. Tape Numbers 431, 432, 433, 434 and 435 2 Based upon an inquiry to LVMPD Sgt.Causey, the government does not believe tapes with

3 Item #'s 431-435 exist. 4 H. The driver of the "Ramada Express" cab 5 The defense has for the first time demanded production of the name of the driver of a

6 Ramada Express cab. The United States will try to get that information for the defense. 7 However, it should be noted that the driver of the cab was not a member of law enforcement. 8 In fact, the driver of the cab was a Mongol, and had commandeered the cab for purposes of 9 driving the Mongol president to the hospital after the president had been stabbed by one of the 10 Hells Angels. 11 I. Quality of the Videos 12 The government is not sure if video quality is still an issue for the defense. However, the

13 government can say that all of the 38 videos are first generation copies, that is, they were copied 14 directly from the originals. As for the 51 videos, undersigned counsel believes all of the videos 15 listed as missing or defective in Ms. Gitre's defective media discovery list were first generation 16 copies because Dave Tipton at All Around had to get such videos out of impound at LVMPD 17 to make copies. As for the rest, Mr. Tipton believes that all of those copies were likewise made 18 directly from the original tapes in impound at LVMPD. Mr. Tipton states that when he originally 19 made copies of the 51 from the originals at LVMPD, he made five or six sets, and the 45 of the 20 51 sent on or about November 3, 2005 consisted of those first generation copies. Consequently, 21 the United States believes all of the 51 videos produced to the defense are first generation copies. 22 The defense also claims that government conduct may have degraded the original tapes. In

23 what is hopefully a tongue-in-cheek allegation, the defense says Sgt. Causey claimed to have 24 reviewed the tapes "seven thousand times". They cite his Grand Jury testimony to support their 25 claim. It seems clear from a fair reading of defense Exhibit One, page 49, line 7, that Sgt. Causey 26 said "like seven thousand times", and did so in the way people say they've done things for the 27 "millionth" time. In any event, undersigned counsel asked Sgt. Causey about the quote, and he 28
9

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 9 of 13

1 confirmed what most would suspect, that he had not reviewed the video seven thousand times. 2 Before consulting again with Mr. Tipton regarding the 51 videos, undersigned counsel

3 offered to obtain new first generation copies of those videos within the 51 that were material to 4 the defense. The government expected this number to be relatively small based upon comments 5 by Chuck Whiteman to the effect that only 6 or so of the 51 were material. The government 6 figured it could take those 6 or so and ask for new first generation copies to be made, and it 7 could be done relatively quickly, as opposed to requesting 51 new first generation copies, which 8 would take about 9 times longer. After the government's offer was rejected, undersigned counsel 9 obtained Mr. Tipton's confirmation that all 51 videos produced were first generation copies. 10 J. Testimony of Tracy Crow 11 Ms. Crow did give LVMPD video tapes, however, the tapes she gave to LVMPD were

12 montage tapes and not original tapes, those were already in the possession of LVMPD. One of 13 those tapes, Item #428 was disclosed to the defense in the set of 38. It is the only tape in the set 14 of 38 that is not a copy from the original Harrah's or Golden Nugget videos. 15 K. Exhibit #43 from the Nevada Grand Jury Testimony 16 The defense requested, for the first time, Exhibit #43 from the Nevada Grand Jury

17 testimony, and the government does not object to producing the document. 18 L. Camera 14 19 The videotape containing footage from Camera 14 is contained in Item #418, part of the set

20 of 38. It is a multiplex view, and was disclosed in April of 2004, February of 2005, and 21 December of 2005. 22 M. Exhibit 12 23 The defense lists as its Exhibit 12 two still photographs. The video containing the excerpted

24 still photographs is contained in Item #419 of the set of 38, and was disclosed in April of 2004, 25 February of 2005, and December of 2005. It should be noted that the time stamps on the 26 multiplex tapes are not precise, and can be off by as much as 20 seconds. The LVMPD has 27 researched this issue, and has computed the amount of time each multiplex camera was off. This 28
10

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 10 of 13

1 information can be provided to the defense if they so desire. 2 N. Exhibit 13 3 The video from which defense Exhibit 13 was derived is contained in Item #408, of the set

4 of 38 videos produced to the defense on December 6, 2005. 5 II. Defendants have not shown sufficient prejudice to warrant preclusion or dismissal. 6 The United States has endeavored to produce the videotapes pertaining to the Laughlin

7 shooting incident to the defendants for some time. The 38 videos were produced in April of 8 2004, the 348 videos in February of 2005, and the 51 videos on August 12, 2005. It is undeniably 9 true that with respect to the 38 videos and the 51 videos there were defects in disclosure. 10 However, such defects were not the product of deliberate conduct on the part of the United 11 States, and resulted from the circumstances previously described herein. When this Court entered 12 its order of September 14, 2005, it concluded that none of the delays in disclosure were 13 occasioned by bad faith on the part of the government. That has continued to be the case, and 14 the United States has acted with all due dispatch in complying with this Court's order of October 15 22, 2005, in which it was ordered to discuss the problems with the Laughlin videos with the 16 defense, and resolve said problems as quickly as possible. 17 However, if this Court finds the government in violation of Fed R. Crim. P. 16, the

18 appropriate sanction for the government's failure to comply rests in this Court's sound 19 discretion, and in the exercise of its discretion this Court must consider whether the defense has 20 been prejudiced. United States v. Gee, 695 F.2d 1165, 1168 (9th Cir. 1983). 21 In exercising its discretion regarding Rule 16, the trial court should not impose a sanction

22 harsher than necessary to accomplish the goals of Rule 16. Id. at 1169. Certainly the relief 23 requested by the defendants, dismissal, is a disfavored remedy that should be used infrequently. 24 United States v. Owen, 580 F.2d 365, 367 (9th Cir. 1978). Dismissal of charges with prejudice 25 is permissible only in cases of flagrant Government misconduct. United States v. Simpson, 927 26 F.2d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 1991). In light of the absence of bad faith on the part of the 27 government, and the length of time before the trial date, dismissal seems wholly inappropriate. 28
11

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 11 of 13

1 "A violation of Rule 16 does not itself require a reversal, or even exclusion of the affected 2 testimony." United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1247 (9th Cir. 1997). The prejudice 3 that must be shown to justify reversal for a discovery violation is a likelihood that the verdict 4 would have been different had the government complied with the discovery rules, not had the 5 evidence been suppressed. United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002) 6 citing United States v. Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1398 n.8 (9th Cir. 1993). 7 In the present case, there has been no bad faith conduct on the part of the United States, and

8 the time remaining before trial is substantial. This is not a case where the defense is receiving 9 the material pertaining to Laughlin on the day of trial, or a week before trial or even a month 10 before trial. The defense has had possession of the majority of the tapes for over a year prior to 11 trial, and of the 38 and 51 videos for over four months prior to trial of this matter. In addition, 12 it is no secret to this Court or the prosecution that the defense, with some of its members facing 13 charges in the Nevada courts, has had actual possession of the Laughlin tapes from other sources. 14 Although that fact does not excuse the government from its disclosure obligations in this case, 15 it is relevant when discussing the issue of unfair surprise and prejudice. 16 III. Conclusion 17 The defendants seek dismissal or preclusion of evidence of the Laughlin incident as a

18 sanction for the alleged failure of the government to comply with Rule 16, and this Court's 19 discovery orders. Although there have been defects in the disclosure of the Laughlin videotapes, 20 those defects were not occasioned by bad faith on the part of the United States. To the contrary, 21 when fully informed of the precise issues regarding the content of the videotapes, the United 22 States acted as quickly as possible to remedy the defects. Throughout the discovery process, 23 undersigned counsel has solicited the input of defense counsel in an attempt to resolve discovery 24 issues. The willingness to resolve such issues by the United States persists to this date, and the 25 government has not taken the attitude that the time for talking is over. There is a good deal of 26 time before this matter is tried, and if the trial is to go smoothly, counsel must continue to talk. 27 28 In the end, the defendants have not made a showing of prejudice sufficient to warrant the
12

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 12 of 13

1 extraordinary and disfavored remedies requested. Without such a showing, imposition of 2 sanctions is premature. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
13
s/ Timothy Duax Timothy Duax I hereby certify that on January 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Joseph E. Abodeely, [email protected], [email protected] David Zeltner Chesnoff, [email protected] Carmen Lynne Fischer, [email protected], [email protected] Patricia Ann Gitre, [email protected], [email protected] Alan Richard Hock, [email protected] Thomas M. Hoidal, [email protected], [email protected] Barbara Lynn Hull, [email protected] David M. Ochoa, [email protected] Jose S. Padilla, [email protected], [email protected] Mark A. Paige, mpaige@[email protected] James Sun Park, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] C. Kenneth Ray, II, [email protected] Brian Fredrick Russo, [email protected], [email protected] Michael Shay Ryan, [email protected], [email protected] Philip A. Seplow, [email protected], [email protected] Robert Storrs, [email protected], [email protected] Loyd C. Tate, [email protected]

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona s/ Timothy T. Duax TIMOTHY T. DUAX Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1075

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 13 of 13