United States of America v. Litvak
Court Docket Sheet

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

2014-02902 (ca2)

REPLY TO OPPOSITION [{{33}}], on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 09/22/2014 by CM/ECF.[1325730][37] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/22/2014 01:53 PM]

Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page1 of 14 14-2902-cr In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE v. JESSE C. LITVAK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (CRIM. NO. 13-19) (THE HONORABLE JANET C. HALL, C.J.) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING APPEAL KANNON K. SHANMUGAM DANE H. BUTSWINKAS ALLISON B. JONES MASHA G. HANSFORD WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5000 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page2 of 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction................................................................................................................1 Argument....................................................................................................................2 A. Materiality.............................................................................................3 B. Evidentiary rulings................................................................................ 6 C. Scienter..................................................................................................8 Conclusion...............................................................................................................10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Feinman v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 84 F.3d 539 (2d Cir. 1996)................3, 4, 6 Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59 (1995)............................................................................6 SEC v. DiBella, 587 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2009)............................................................ 5 SEC v. Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130 (7th Cir. 1982)....................................................8, 9 United States v. Certified Environmental Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2014)....................................................................................7 United States v. Gupta, No. 12-4448 (2d Cir.).......................................................... 6 United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2010)............................................... 8 United States v. Leonard, 529 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2008).............................................. 5 United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997)....................................................... 8 United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985).......................................1, 10 United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174 (2d Cir. 1970)................................................................................ 9 United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987).................................................... 9 United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2013).................................................... 8 (i) Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page3 of 14 INTRODUCTION The government does not contest three of the four statutory factors for de-termining whether Mr. Litvak is entitled to continued release pending appeal. Spe-cifically, the government does not contest (1) that there is clear and convincing ev-idence that Mr. Litvak is not likely to flee or pose a danger; (2) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay; or (3) that, if the appeal is decided in Mr. Litvak’s fa-vor, it is likely to result in reversal or a new trial on all counts. Nor does the gov-ernment dispute that, unless this motion is granted, Mr. Litvak will have served much of his sentence by the time the Court decides his appeal. The only point the government contests is whether the appeal raises a sub-stantial question. On that point, the government’s response reads like a preview of its merits brief. But the only issue at this juncture is whether the appeal raises a substantial question—one that is "close" or "fairly debatable" or "has not been de-cided by controlling precedent." United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1985) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Nowhere does the government identify any precedent that squarely forecloses Mr. Litvak’s argu-ments, nor does it deny that this case raises legal questions of first impression. Be-cause there can be no serious doubt that each of the questions Mr. Litvak intends to raise is substantial, and because the other requirements for continued release pend-ing appeal are indisputably satisfied, Mr. Litvak’s motion should be granted. (1) Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page4 of 14 ARGUMENT In its opposition to Mr. Litvak’s motion, the government offers its own spin on the facts—a spin that is unsupported by any citations to the actual record at tri-al. But the accuracy of the government’s rendition aside, the factual core of this case is simple and undisputed: Mr. Litvak made misrepresentations about his em-ployer’s profit margin on certain transactions, either by misstating Jefferies’ acqui-sition or resale price for a security or by misrepresenting whether the security was in Jefferies’ inventory. See Mot. 2-3. In those two ways, Mr. Litvak misstated his reservation price for the transaction—a figure that he was under no obligation to disclose (and that the counterparties testified they accordingly took with a grain of salt). See Mot. 5-6. None of the misrepresentations had any bearing on the value of the securities transacted, see Mot. 4-5, and in none of the cases did Jefferies earn a higher profit than it was permitted to charge, see SA7 (Eveland). Notably, the government fails to mention that, in each trade, the counterpar-ty knew the total price and agreed to transact at that price. See, e.g., A106 (Norris) (testifying that he "knew how much [he was] paying" and he "knew what [he was] getting"). This was therefore not a case where a counterparty agreed to one price but the broker charged another, or where a counterparty bargained for a fixed commission on top of an unknown best-available price—as, say, the seller of a house may do with his real-estate agent. In each of the charged trades, the coun-2 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page5 of 14 terparty knew the total price and could compare it against others available in the market. Each counterparty transacted because a transaction at the total price was viewed as profitable when compared to all the other options available in the mar-ket. See, e.g., A97 (Vlajinac) (testifying that he "achieved best execution" at the total price); SA5 (Lemin) (explaining that he "mak[es] investment decisions[] based upon the full price to the fund when agreeing to buy a bond," and that "[w]hat’s important" is the total price). It is against that factual backdrop that the questions Mr. Litvak intends to raise on appeal must be understood. And by any standard, those questions are substantial ones. A. Materiality This Court has already held that misstatements relevant to a counterparty’s ability to negotiate but unrelated to the value of a security are immaterial as a mat-ter of law. See Feinman v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 84 F.3d 539, 541 (2d Cir. 1996). Unable to distinguish Feinman, the government resorts to mischaracteriz-ing the facts both of this case and of that one. As to this case: the government ar-gues that the charged misrepresentations were relevant to more than the parties’ negotiations. Not so. In fact, the government does not, and cannot, dispute that the misrepresentations were irrelevant to the value of the securities. In each trade, the price proposed by Mr. Litvak was acceptable to the counterparty. As the coun-terparties testified, all that was left was to determine the final price in the range ac-3 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page6 of 14 ceptable to both parties—i.e., the negotiation. See, e.g., A94-95 (Vlajinac) (testify-ing that misrepresentations "did not affect my thinking about the bond itself" be-cause "[the information] sets the parameters of the negotiations, but did not influ-ence the valuation of the securities"); SA2-3 (Canter) (stating that he "made a deci-sion that [he] should transact with Jefferies because of the price levels" and then moved "on to negotiating, hopefully, a still better price with Jefferies"). As to Feinman: the government asserts that the plaintiffs there "admitted that the alleged misrepresentations were irrelevant to the prices they paid." Opp. 11. That is incorrect. The plaintiffs in Feinman argued that the misrepresentations mattered to the price they paid because they hampered plaintiffs’ "efforts to nego-tiate [fees]." See Br. of Appellants at 3, Feinman, supra (No. 95-9081), available at 1995 WL 17207220; see also id. at 2, 11, 26-27. And the Court decided Feinman on that premise. See 84 F.3d at 540 (explaining the plaintiffs’ allegation that the misrepresentation "prevent[ed] customers from negotiating the fees"). In Feinman, just as in this case, the counterparties knew and agreed to the final price. The misrepresentation in both cases went only to the makeup of that price: name-ly, what portion of it reflected actual "cost to the firm[]" and what portion repre-sented a profit. Id. Knowing that a certain component represented pure profit might have spurred further negotiation, but that was insufficient to establish mate-riality in Feinman, and it is similarly insufficient here. 4 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page7 of 14 As to the other cases the government cites, see Opp. 11-12, those cases are readily distinguishable because the misrepresentation at issue in each of those cas-es actually affected the value of the security. See, e.g., SEC v. DiBella, 587 F.3d 553, 562, 565-566 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding material a fee arrangement that gave a pension fund treasurer a personal stake in making a certain investment, because the investment decision could have been made for reasons other than the fund’s best interest); United States v. Leonard, 529 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 2008) (describing a scheme in which the offering memoranda for a security—an interest in a compa-ny—substantially understated the company’s liability for sales commissions). Of course there are circumstances in which fee structures or commissions could affect the value of a security: for example, the profits that Jefferies makes would be rele-vant to an investor considering a purchase of Jefferies’ stock. Critically, however, the government is unable to identify any case—from this Court or from any oth-er—in which a misstatement irrelevant to the value of the security was deemed ma-terial. Furthermore, the government has no answer to the argument that the charged misrepresentations could not constitute fraud at common law. As the Supreme Court has explained, "where Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these 5 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page8 of 14 terms." Field v. Mans, 516 U.S. 59, 69 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alter-ations omitted). As Mr. Litvak has explained, it is well established at common law that misrepresentations of this type are immaterial. See Mot. 10. Given this Court’s decision in Feinman and the common-law principles sup-porting it—and the government’s failure to identify even a single case to the con-trary—the question whether Mr. Litvak’s misrepresentations were material is plainly a substantial one. The government errs in contending otherwise. B. Evidentiary Rulings The government does not assert that the district court’s evidentiary rulings excluding Mr. Litvak’s evidence were harmless, nor does it cite any cases in which exclusions of this type were upheld. Instead, in defense of the evidentiary rulings, the government merely asserts, without elaboration, that the district court was "in the best position to assess" the evidence. Opp. 14. In some sense, of course, that is true. But it hardly follows that the district court’s evidentiary rulings do not present substantial questions. 1 Based on nothing more than its conclusory view that the evidence was irrelevant, the district court excluded evidence that goes to the heart of the materiality inquiry—including evi-dence of the fair market value of the securities at issue, the arm’s-length nature of 1 It is beyond dispute that evidentiary rulings can create a substantial issue for the purposes of release pending appeal. Indeed, this Court recently granted a bail motion based entirely on alleged errors in evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Gupta, No. 12-4448, ECF No. 47 (2d Cir. Dec. 6, 2012). 6 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page9 of 14 the transactions, and features of the market for the securities. See Mot 11-12 & n.5.2 Similarly, the district court excluded testimony about the widespread nature of this conduct, highly relevant to the question of good faith, because it "does not [directly] involve... Mr. Litvak." A143. To be sure, the evidence did not guarantee Mr. Litvak’s good faith: he could somehow have been unaware of the widespread norms in his industry. By excluding the evidence on this basis, how-ever, the district court required the evidence to be conclusive before Mr. Litvak could introduce it. That was error. See, e.g., United States v. Certified Environ-mental Services, Inc., 753 F.3d 72, 90 (2d Cir. 2014) (stating that "evidence need not be conclusive in order to be relevant" (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Misconstruing the relevance standard, the district court dismissed crucial de-fense evidence on core disputed issues and substituted its own assessment of the evidence for that of the jury. The district court’s evidentiary rulings constituted a clear abuse of discretion and thus present a substantial question for appeal. 2 The government implies that the district court excluded evidence of fair mar-ket value on the independent ground that it would be "prejudicial and confusing" to the jury. Opp. 14. But the district court ultimately based that ruling on relevance: it explained that, because the opinions "are irrelevant[,] their ability to confuse the jury about what the issue really is in this case greatly outweighs any probative val-ue which I don’t think it has any." A63-64 (emphases added). 7 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page10 of 14 C. Scienter Struggling to justify its failure of proof as to scienter, the government simply ignores this Court’s statement that the government must prove that a defendant "in-tended to defraud [the victim] in connection with his sale of the [security]." See United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 93 (2d Cir. 2013). Failing even to cite Vilar in this connection, the government instead points to general descriptions of the scien-ter standard in two civil cases. See Opp. 16. And it argues that, in a case that pre-dated Vilar, this Court approved an instruction that required only deceit. Opp. 16 (citing United States v. Kaiser, 609 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2010)). The government fails to mention, however, that intent to defraud was not at issue in Kaiser: the de-fendant challenged the scienter instruction in that case only on the ground that "‘willfulness’ required knowledge of illegality." Kaiser, 609 F.3d at 568. This Court’s failure to address an error that the defendant did not raise hardly consti-tutes support for the government’s view. Nor does the government explain why this Court’s holdings about intent to defraud would apply any differently to securities fraud than to mail and wire fraud. Far from disregarding precedent from the mail-and wire-fraud context, the Su-preme Court has described it as "a particularly apt source of guidance" for inter-preting securities fraud under Rule 10b-5. United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 654 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g., SEC v. 8 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page11 of 14 Holschuh, 694 F.2d 130, 144 n.24 (7th Cir. 1982) (describing a statement about a scheme to defraud "written in reference to a mail fraud scheme" to be "fully appli-cable to a scheme to defraud under the securities laws"). The government is thus left to argue that "even if securities fraud required an intent to cause harm... the government has met that burden." Opp. 18. But Mr. Litvak transacted securities that were worth exactly what the counterparties expected and that the counterparties testified they would transact again at the same price. Mr. Litvak did not "intend[] to get," nor did he in fact get, "more for [his] merchandise than it was worth to the average customer." United States v. Regent Office Supply Co., 421 F.2d 1174, 1181 (2d Cir. 1970). As a result, there could not have been any harm "affect[ing] the very nature of the bargain itself." United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987). The government’s contrary arguments run afoul of Regent Office Supply and Starr. In both of those cases, the defendants made "misrepresentations in order to reap a pecuniary benefit." Opp. 18. And in both, the misrepresentations sought "to induce [the] victims to agree" to transact at a certain price. Opp. 19. But that intent was insufficient in those cases, and it is similarly insufficient here. 3 3 The government does not dispute that Mr. Litvak’s appeal will pose substan-tial questions as to the TARP-fraud and false-statements counts; accordingly, a substantial question as to scienter on the securities-fraud counts would entitle Mr. Litvak to release. See Mot. 17 n.8. 9 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page12 of 14 * * * * * Mr. Litvak need only show that his appeal will present one substantial ques-tion, but his appeal will in fact present three. Each of the foregoing questions is "close" and "fairly debatable" and "very well could be decided the other way." Randell, 761 F.2d at 125 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If this Court were ultimately to reject all of Mr. Litvak’s arguments on the merits, his continued release would have no impact on his ability to serve the full term of im-prisonment imposed by the district court. But if Mr. Litvak surrenders in Novem-ber and this Court accepts even one of his arguments, he will have served most, if not all, of the term of imprisonment by the time this Court rules. Mr. Litvak’s con-tinued release is necessary to ensure he has a meaningful opportunity to raise his substantial arguments before this Court.4 CONCLUSION The motion for release pending appeal should be granted. 4 The government has not opposed Mr. Litvak’s request that his surrender date be stayed if this motion cannot be decided before November 5. See Mot. 1 n.1. 10 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page13 of 14 Respectfully submitted,/s/Kannon K. Shanmugam KANNON K. SHANMUGAM DANE H. BUTSWINKAS ALLISON B. JONES MASHA G. HANSFORD WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 434-5000 September 22, 2014 Case 14-2902, Document 37-1, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page14 of 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kannon K. Shanmugam, counsel for defendant-appellant Jesse C. Litvak and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that, on September 22, 2014, a copy of the attached Reply in Support of Motion for Release Pending Appeal was filed electronically through the appellate CM/ECF system with the Clerk of the Court. I further certify that all parties required to be served have been served./s/Kannon K. Shanmugam KANNON K. SHANMUGAM Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page1 of 11 Supplemental Addendum Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page2 of 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. Trial Transcript, February 20, 2014 (excerpt).............................................. SA1 2. Trial Transcript, February 24, 2014 (excerpt)............................................. SA4 3. Trial Transcript, February 27, 2014 (excerpt).............................................. SA6 (i) Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page3 of 11 458 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 3 ___________________________ United States of America)February 20, 2014 4 Government)9:22 a.m. v.) 5 Jesse C. Litvak)3:13cr19(JCH) Defendant.) 6 ___________________________) 7 141 Church Street 8 New Haven, Connecticut 9 DAY THREE OF TRIAL 10 B E F O R E: 11 THE HONORABLE JANET C. HALL, U.S.D.J. AND JURY OF 16 12 13 A P P E A R A N C E S: 14 For The Government: Jonathan N. Francis Eric Glover 15 U.S. Attorney's Office-NH 157 Church St., 23rd floor 16 New Haven, CT 06510 17 For the Defendant: 18 Michael Chase Shipman & Goodwin 19 One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-1919 20 Patrick Smith 21 Sarah B. Zimmer John Michael Hillebrecht 22 DLA Piper US LLP-NY 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 23 27th Floor New York, NY 10020-1104 24 25 SA1 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page4 of 11 533 1 perhaps want to sell and the prices they would like to do so. 2 That's somewhat automated. We're not calling 10 or 20 3 dealers every time we buy a bond. We're using that 4 automation to check whether the bond is available. 5 Q. Once you satisfied yourself about availability and 6 this all takes you back to Jefferies, you pretty much 7 discharged your best execution obligations and are now 8 focused on negotiating with Jefferies, correct? 9 A. It could be happening simultaneously. 10 Q. But the mere fact that you don't get a better price 11 out of the dealer you selected than they are offering doesn't 12 mean you haven't discharged your best execution 13 responsibilities, right? 14 A. I'm sorry. Say it again. 15 Q. You have gone through the process of checking 16 around, we all agree that you did. And it leads you back to 17 Jefferies, they have either the best price or the only price 18 that day for that bond. Are you with me so far? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. You made a decision that you should transact with 21 Jefferies because of the price levels. And now you are on to 22 negotiating, hopefully, a still better price with Jefferies 23 for the benefit of your investors, correct? 24 A. Right. So just I want to clarify, I don't know if I 25 did. So there are times where we would specifically ask SA2 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page5 of 11 534 1 other dealers about an opinion of a bond we might buy from 2 Jefferies or another firm. We'll call that checking away. 3 And we're really just asking for another opinion, and other 4 times we didn't do that. And we just relied on the 5 information we had. 6 Q. Information you had in terms of the fundamentals, 7 your analytics? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. You told us yesterday the target allocation 10 scorecard. Did I get that right? You had a scorecard for 11 the bonds in the upper quartile? 12 A. That's the fundamental scorecard, yes. 13 Q. For bonds you were following, you had a lot of 14 information about the value of those bonds and how much you 15 should pay for them, right? 16 A. The scorecard is more just fundamental, not what we 17 should pay. 18 Q. But the best execution part of it is done once you 19 made your decision to go and transact with a particular 20 dealer, right? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. The fact that you can't negotiate a little bit 23 better price out of the dealer, that doesn't mean you didn't 24 get best execution, right? 25 A. No. SA3 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page6 of 11 992 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 3 ___________________________ United States of America)February 24, 2014 4 Government)8:56 a.m. v.) 5 Jesse C. Litvak)3:13cr19(JCH) Defendant.) 6 ___________________________) 7 141 Church Street 8 New Haven, Connecticut 9 DAY FIVE OF TRIAL 10 B E F O R E: 11 THE HONORABLE JANET C. HALL, U.S.D.J. AND JURY OF 16 12 13 A P P E A R A N C E S: 14 For The Government: Jonathan N. Francis Eric Glover 15 U.S. Attorney's Office-NH 157 Church St., 23rd floor 16 New Haven, CT 06510 17 For the Defendant: 18 Michael Chase Shipman & Goodwin 19 One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-1919 20 Patrick Smith 21 Sarah B. Zimmer John Michael Hillebrecht 22 DLA Piper US LLP-NY 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 23 27th Floor New York, NY 10020-1104 24 25 SA4 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page7 of 11 1139 1 using common sense, it states the same bond, although it 2 states a different face amount. Yeah, I guess it is on the 3 same date, so I guess it is related to this transaction. But 4 I don't operate based on this document, sir. But, yes, it 5 states the full price, correct. 6 Q. You do operate, in terms of making investment 7 decisions, based upon the full price to the fund when 8 agreeing to buy a bond, correct? 9 A. Yes. What's important is this 53 and a quarter 10 number, correct. 11 Q. That's a decision you and Magnetar always have 12 complete control of, correct, how much to pay for a bond, 13 correct? 14 A. No. Because the other party may not be willing to 15 sell, though, right? 16 Q. But if you reach an agreement on the price level, 17 you and Magnetar decide whether that level makes sense for 18 this bond, correct? 19 A. Correct, yes. 20 Q. We talked a little bit before, before we got into 21 the trade confirms and trade tickets, about you following a 22 disciplined approach. Do you remember those questions? 23 A. Before we go to into this exhibit, I think. 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. Correct. SA5 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page8 of 11 1765 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 3 ___________________________ United States of America)February 27, 2014 4 Government)9:20 a.m. v.) 5 Jesse C. Litvak)3:13cr19(JCH) Defendant.) 6 ___________________________) 7 141 Church Street 8 New Haven, Connecticut 9 DAY EIGHT OF TRIAL 10 B E F O R E: 11 THE HONORABLE JANET C. HALL, U.S.D.J. AND JURY OF 15 12 13 A P P E A R A N C E S: 14 For The Government: Jonathan N. Francis Eric Glover 15 U.S. Attorney's Office-NH 157 Church St., 23rd floor 16 New Haven, CT 06510 17 For the Defendant: 18 Michael Chase Shipman & Goodwin 19 One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103-1919 20 Patrick Smith 21 Sarah B. Zimmer John Michael Hillebrecht 22 DLA Piper US LLP-NY 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 23 27th Floor New York, NY 10020-1104 24 25 SA6 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page9 of 11 1887 1 Q. Were you required to attend these training sessions? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And was that part of sort of just regular compliance 4 procedure, that even though you were supervisor, you had to 5 go, too? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Now, there's several bullets in here, some of which 8 we reviewed with the jury already, but I would like to focus 9 in on the second bullet. 10 MR. SMITH: If you can pull that up? 11 Q. And this one has to do with what a markup and 12 markdown is and it deals with excessive markups and 13 markdowns. Do you see that? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. May constitute securities fraud, violate rules, 16 right? What--do you see that? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. What is an excessive markup? How do we judge an 19 excessive markup? 20 A. There's--my understanding is that there's 21 guidelines in place for investment grade securities. The 22 maximum is 5 percent for noninvestment grade securities 23 traded, to QIBs it's 10 percent. Those are just guidelines 24 and it has to--you know, you have to look at what the 25 security is. SA7 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page10 of 11 1888 1 Q. So 5 percent would apply to investment grade. What 2 is investment grade bonds on debt? 3 A. Investment grade debt are securities that are rated 4 triple B or higher by the rating agencies. 5 Q. You said that for noninvestment grade, it would be 6 up to 10 percent? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And you mentioned a term called a QIB. What's a 9 QIB? 10 A. A qualified counter-party. 11 Q. Does QIB stand for Qualified Institutional Buyer? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And please explain your understanding of that term. 14 MR. GLOVER: Objection. Relevance. 15 THE COURT: We'll have to take it up at the break 16 because I would sustain it. So you'll have to explain to me 17 the relevance. 18 Q. Well, was the guidance that you gave the sales force 19 with respect to noninvestment grade debt, was the Q-I-B or 20 QIB status part of that guidance? 21 MR. GLOVER: Objection. Relevance. 22 THE COURT: Sustained. 23 Q. Would you have discussions with Mr. Litvak and other 24 trades about the amount of markup that was permissible in 25 trading RMBS bonds? SA8 Case 14-2902, Document 37-2, 09/22/2014, 1325730, Page11 of 11 1889 1 MR. GLOVER: Objection. Relevance. 2 THE COURT: I think the problem I have is the 3 "would". If you ask him did he, I would overrule the 4 objection, if there was one. 5 Q. Did you have discussions with Mr. Litvak and other 6 traders with respect to how much markup was permitted on 7 noninvestment grade RMBS trades? 8 A. We discussed markup policies with Compliance and the 9 traders on a regular basis. 10 Q. The policy with respect to noninvestment grade debt 11 was 10 percent? 12 A. No, that's the maximum guideline. 13 Q. So what policy was, in fact, followed with respect 14 to transactions on noninvestment grade debt? 15 A. Anything over 3 percent would show up on a markup 16 report that would get reviewed by Compliance and myself. 17 Q. And was there a threshold for supervisory approval 18 on same-day riskless transactions? 19 A. I think it was a 4 percent threshold that needed to 20 get a sign-off on all trades, not just same-day. 21 Q. Let's take a look at the riskless transactions 22 section here. 23 MR. SMITH: If you can move down, Mr. McLoud. 24 Q. Just take a look at that, Mr. Eveland. I have a 25 couple of questions. Could you explain to us the procedure SA9

MOTION ORDER, granting motion for bail pending appeal, [{{19}}], filed by Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, by RKW, RR, PWH, C.JJ., FILED. [1335682][41] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/03/2014 10:13 AM]

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT _____________________ At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3rd day of October, two thousand fourteen. Present: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.----------------------------------------------------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, ORDER v. No. 14-2902-cr JESSE C. LITVAK, Defendant-Appellant.----------------------------------------------------------------------Defendant Jesse C. Litvak, through counsel, moves for release pending appeal. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED because Litvak has raised "a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in... reversal." 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). The conditions of release established by the district court shall remain in full force and effect during the pendency of this appeal. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

Interested in this case?

Sign up to receive real-time updates
Last full docket sheet refresh: 309 days ago. Refresh now
#
Datesort arrow up
Description
1
08/14/2014
NOTICE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. [1296270] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 11:29 AM]
2
08/14/2014
DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 07/25/2014, RECEIVED.[1296282] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 11:33 AM]
3
08/14/2014
PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, district court receipt # CTXN00008656, FILED.[1296287] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 11:34 AM]
4
08/15/2014
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/15/2014 by CM/ECF. [1296736] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 04:13 PM]
5
08/15/2014
ATTORNEY, Kannon K. Shanmugam, [4], in place of attorney Ross H. Garber, SUBSTITUTED.[1296747] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 04:18 PM]
6
08/15/2014
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/15/2014 by CM/ECF. [1296759] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 04:30 PM]
7
08/15/2014
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/15/2014 by CM/ECF. [1296855] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/15/2014 05:50 PM]
8
08/18/2014
ATTORNEY, Masha Hansford for Jesse C. Litvak, in case 14-2902, [6], ADDED.[1296964] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/18/2014 08:38 AM]
9
08/18/2014
ATTORNEY, Allison Blair Jones for Jesse C. Litvak, in case 14-2902, [7], ADDED.[1296968] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/18/2014 08:40 AM]
10
08/18/2014
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/18/2014 by CM/ECF. [1297020] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/18/2014 09:12 AM]
11
08/18/2014
ATTORNEY, Dane Hal Butswinkas for Jesse C. Litvak, in case 14-2902, [10], ADDED.[1297061] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/18/2014 09:32 AM]
12
08/19/2014
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/19/2014 by CM/ECF.[1298156] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/19/2014 09:18 AM]
13
08/19/2014
FORM B, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/19/2014 by CM/ECF.[1298180] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/19/2014 09:26 AM]
16
08/19/2014
NEW CASE MANAGER, Frank Perez, ASSIGNED.[1298807] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/19/2014 02:03 PM]
17
08/20/2014
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS ADDITIONAL COUNSEL, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 08/20/2014 by CM/ECF. [1299521] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/20/2014 10:13 AM]
18
08/20/2014
ATTORNEY, Jonathan Francis for United States of America, in case 14-2902, [17], ADDED.[1299711] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/20/2014 11:23 AM]
35
08/21/2014
INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[1319915] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/15/2014 01:40 PM]
19
08/22/2014
MOTION, for bail, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 08/22/2014 by CM/ECF. [1301848] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/22/2014 10:08 AM]
23
08/26/2014
MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 08/26/2014 by CM/ECF. [1305536] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/26/2014 06:10 PM]
28
08/29/2014
MOTION ORDER, granting motion to extend time to respond to appellant's bail motion until 9/11/2014 [23] filed by Appellee USA United States of America, by SLC, FILED. [1308030][28] [14-2902] [Entered: 08/29/2014 09:46 AM]
29
09/02/2014
LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, informing Court of proposed due date 11/18/2014, RECEIVED. Service date 09/02/2014 by CM/ECF.[1309557] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/02/2014 12:39 PM]
30
09/02/2014
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellant Jesse C. Litvak Brief due date as 11/18/2014; Joint Appendix due date as 11/18/2014, FILED.[1309965] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/02/2014 04:15 PM]
33
09/11/2014
OPPOSITION TO MOTION for bail [19], on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 09/11/2014 by CM/ECF. [1317948][33] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/11/2014 04:07 PM]
36
09/19/2014
ARGUMENT/SUBMITTED NOTICE, to attorneys/parties, TRANSMITTED.[1324069] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/19/2014 09:46 AM]
37
09/22/2014
REPLY TO OPPOSITION [33], on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 09/22/2014 by CM/ECF.[1325730][37] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/22/2014 01:53 PM]
41
10/03/2014
MOTION ORDER, granting motion for bail pending appeal, [19], filed by Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, by RKW, RR, PWH, C.JJ., FILED. [1335682][41] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/03/2014 10:13 AM]
42
10/03/2014
CERTIFIED ORDER, dated 10/03/2014, to United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, ISSUED.[1335695] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/03/2014 10:18 AM]
43
10/07/2014
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM SIDLEY AUSTIN, with fee, RECEIVED.[1338284] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/07/2014 11:05 AM]
44
10/10/2014
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD from M. CLEARY, with fee, RECEIVED.[1342368] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/10/2014 02:03 PM]
45
10/16/2014
ARGUMENT CD, TRANSMITTED to Maureen Cleary. [1346186] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/16/2014 01:37 PM]
46
10/21/2014
ARGUMENT CD, TRANSMITTED to Peter McGowan.[1349898] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/21/2014 12:26 PM]
47
10/21/2014
ARGUMENT CD, TRANSMITTED to Susan Scott.[1349924] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/21/2014 12:43 PM]
48
10/21/2014
ARGUMENT CD, TRANSMITTED to Kelly Owen-Diaz.[1349928] [14-2902] [Entered: 10/21/2014 12:45 PM]
49
11/03/2014
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD R. HERSHFANG, with fee, RECEIVED.[1361251] [14-2902] [Entered: 11/03/2014 06:02 PM]
50
11/14/2014
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Daniel Conniff, TRANSMITTED.[1370338] [14-2902] [Entered: 11/14/2014 03:27 PM]
51
11/18/2014
BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 11/18/2014 by 3rd party, CM/ECF.[1372626] [14-2902] [Entered: 11/18/2014 02:25 PM]
52
11/18/2014
JOINT APPENDIX, volume 1 of 2, (pp. 1-585), on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 11/18/2014 by 3rd party, CM/ECF.[1372638] [14-2902] [Entered: 11/18/2014 02:32 PM]
53
11/18/2014
JOINT APPENDIX, volume 2 of 2, (pp. 586-1084), on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 11/18/2014 by 3rd party, CM/ECF.[1372644] [14-2902] [Entered: 11/18/2014 02:34 PM]
54
11/18/2014
CORRECTED BRIEF & SPECIAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 11/18/2014 by 3rd party, CM/ECF. [1373008] [14-2902]--[Edited 11/18/2014 by KS] [Entered: 11/18/2014 04:45 PM]
61
12/01/2014
LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, informing Court of proposed due date 02/17/2015, RECEIVED. Service date 12/01/2014 by CM/ECF.[1381334] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/01/2014 04:14 PM]
62
12/02/2014
SO-ORDERED SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, setting Appellee USA United States of America Brief due date as 02/17/2015, FILED.[1381703] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/02/2014 09:16 AM]
65
01/26/2015
NEW CASE MANAGER, Brenda Mojica, ASSIGNED.[1423317] [14-2902] [Entered: 01/26/2015 10:02 AM]
66
02/17/2015
MOTION, to file supplemental appendix, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 02/17/2015 by CM/ECF. [1439727] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/17/2015 05:19 PM]
67
02/17/2015
SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 02/17/2015 by CM/ECF. [1439729] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/17/2015 05:23 PM]
68
02/17/2015
BRIEF, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 02/17/2015 by CM/ECF. [1439743] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/17/2015 05:54 PM]
69
02/17/2015
MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 02/17/2015 by CM/ECF. [1439755] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/17/2015 09:04 PM]
73
02/18/2015
MOTION ORDER, granting motion to extend time until March 17, 2015 to file the reply brief. [69] filed by Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. [1440069][73] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/18/2015 10:11 AM]
76
02/20/2015
MOTION ORDER, granting motion to file supplemental appendix [66] filed by Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. [1442252][76] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/20/2015 08:39 AM]
78
02/24/2015
ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Jonathan Francis for Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 02/24/2015 by CM/ECF. [1445604] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/24/2015 05:46 PM]
81
03/03/2015
ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Attorney Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Esq. for Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 03/03/2015 by CM/ECF. [1451306] [14-2902] [Entered: 03/03/2015 03:28 PM]
83
03/04/2015
CASE CALENDARING, for the week of 05/11/2015, PROPOSED.[1452225] [14-2902] [Entered: 03/04/2015 12:50 PM]
84
03/17/2015
CASE CALENDARING, for argument on 05/13/2015, SET.[1462351] [14-2902] [Entered: 03/17/2015 11:09 AM]
86
03/17/2015
REPLY BRIEF, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 03/17/2015 by CM/ECF. [1462494] [14-2902] [Entered: 03/17/2015 11:53 AM]
88
04/03/2015
ARGUMENT NOTICE, to attorneys/parties, TRANSMITTED.[1476620] [14-2902] [Entered: 04/03/2015 12:04 PM]
89
04/03/2015
NOTICE OF HEARING DATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, on behalf of Appellant Jesse C. Litvak, FILED. Service date 04/03/2015 by CM/ECF. [1476816] [14-2902] [Entered: 04/03/2015 02:36 PM]
90
04/03/2015
NOTICE OF HEARING DATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 04/03/2015 by CM/ECF. [1476842] [14-2902] [Entered: 04/03/2015 02:59 PM]
93
05/13/2015
CASE, before CJS, BDP, SLC, C.JJ., HEARD.[1509000] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/13/2015 12:44 PM]
94
05/13/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD from WESTLAW, with fee, RECEIVED.[1509485] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/13/2015 05:24 PM]
96
05/14/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM O'MELVENY & MYERS, with fee, RECEIVED.[1510785] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/14/2015 05:57 PM]
97
05/14/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM SIDLEY, with fee, RECEIVED.[1510786] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/14/2015 05:59 PM]
98
05/14/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM KAYE SCHOLER, with fee, RECEIVED.[1510787] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/14/2015 06:03 PM]
99
05/15/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD, from Williams & Connolly LLP with fee, RECEIVED.[1511029] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/15/2015 09:51 AM]
100
05/15/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent regular mail to Kannon K. Shanmugam at Williams & Connolly LLP TRANSMITTED.[1511033] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/15/2015 09:52 AM]
101
05/19/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM RK&O, with fee, RECEIVED.[1513963] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/19/2015 07:23 PM]
102
05/19/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM ALSTON & BIRD, with fee, RECEIVED.[1513964] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/19/2015 07:26 PM]
103
05/19/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM P. BENNETT, with fee, RECEIVED.[1513968] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/19/2015 08:01 PM]
104
05/21/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to John DiGregorio, TRANSMITTED.[1515164] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:48 AM]
105
05/21/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to William Ioas,TRANSMITTED.[1515166] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:49 AM]
106
05/21/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Dan Norber,TRANSMITTED.[1515179] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:55 AM]
107
05/21/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Marie Bonitatibus, TRANSMITTED.[1515183] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/21/2015 09:55 AM]
108
05/21/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Nicholas La Forge, TRANSMITTED.[1515194] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/21/2015 10:00 AM]
109
05/22/2015
LETTER, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, RECEIVED. Service date 05/22/2015 by CM/ECF.[1516561] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/22/2015 12:17 PM]
111
05/29/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM S. DESISTO, with fee, RECEIVED.[1521080] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/29/2015 06:19 PM]
113
06/03/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD, with fee, RECEIVED.[1523612] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/03/2015 11:00 AM]
114
06/03/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Stephanie DeSisto, TRANSMITTED.[1523879] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/03/2015 01:54 PM]
115
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(USDOJ), TRANSMITTED.[1526077] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 02:57 PM]
116
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Sidley), TRANSMITTED.[1526080] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 02:57 PM]
117
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(USSEC), TRANSMITTED.[1526082] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 02:58 PM]
118
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Ellington), TRANSMITTED.[1526084] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 02:59 PM]
119
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Alston), TRANSMITTED.[1526087] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 03:00 PM]
120
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Kirkland), TRANSMITTED.[1526088] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 03:00 PM]
121
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Park Jensen Bennett), TRANSMITTED.[1526090] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 03:01 PM]
122
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(RKO), TRANSMITTED.[1526097] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 03:05 PM]
123
06/05/2015
ARGUMENT CD(Weinberg), TRANSMITTED.[1526101] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/05/2015 03:06 PM]
124
06/08/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM MORVILLO ET AL, with fee, RECEIVED.[1527434] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/08/2015 04:58 PM]
125
06/18/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD FROM WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, with fee, RECEIVED.[1535849] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/18/2015 04:35 PM]
126
06/22/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP with fee, RECEIVED.[1537507] [14-2902] [Entered: 06/22/2015 01:54 PM]
128
07/08/2015
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD from HUGHES HUBBARD, with fee, RECEIVED.[1548779] [14-2902] [Entered: 07/08/2015 11:50 AM]
129
07/09/2015
ARGUMENT CD sent to David Shanies, TRANSMITTED.[1549756] [14-2902] [Entered: 07/09/2015 11:05 AM]
130
07/16/2015
ARGUMENT CD sent to Morris Fodeman, TRANSMITTED.[1555231] [14-2902] [Entered: 07/16/2015 09:42 AM]
131
07/16/2015
ARGUMENT CD sent to Miriam Glaser, TRANSMITTED.[1555272] [14-2902] [Entered: 07/16/2015 09:58 AM]
132
07/23/2015
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Cassandra Vogel, TRANSMITTED.[1605892] [14-2902] [Entered: 09/24/2015 11:28 AM]
134
12/08/2015
NEW CASE MANAGER, Yana Segal, ASSIGNED.[1658378] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/08/2015 09:25 AM]
135
12/08/2015
OPINION, reversing and vacating the judgment of the district court and remanding the case for a new trial, by CJS, BDP, SLC, FILED.[1658389] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/08/2015 09:29 AM]
136
12/08/2015
CERTIFIED OPINION, dated 12/08/2015, to CONNECTICUT (NEW HAVEN), ISSUED.[1658394] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/08/2015 09:32 AM]
139
12/08/2015
INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with internet citation, ATTACHED.[1658686] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/08/2015 11:46 AM]
141
12/08/2015
JUDGMENT, FILED.[1659114] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/08/2015 03:30 PM]
142
12/18/2015
MOTION, to extend time, on behalf of Appellee USA United States of America, FILED. Service date 12/18/2015 by CM/ECF. [1667732] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/18/2015 01:16 PM]
146
12/22/2015
MOTION ORDER, granting motion to extend time until 01/21/2016 to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc [142] filed by Appellee USA United States of America, by SLC, FILED. [1670401][146] [14-2902] [Entered: 12/22/2015 04:07 PM]
147
02/03/2016
JUDGMENT MANDATE, ISSUED.[1697791] [14-2902] [Entered: 02/03/2016 01:16 PM]
148
05/03/2017
REQUEST FOR ARGUMENT CD from DAY PIITNEY, with fee, RECEIVED.[2025673] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/03/2017 12:44 PM]
149
05/03/2017
ARGUMENT CD, sent to Daniel Wenner, TRANSMITTED.[2026277] [14-2902] [Entered: 05/03/2017 04:42 PM]
Would you like this case removed from DocketBird? Request removal.