Information — United States v. Shibley (Dkt. 164, W.D. Wash. No. 2:20-cr-00174)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · No. 2:20-cr-00174-JCC · Doc. 164 · 2022-04-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 
_____________________________________________________________
 )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC SHIBLEY, 
Defendants.
 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CR20-174-JCC  
Seattle, Washington
March 8, 2022 
9:00 a.m.
  
Sentencing
_____________________________________________________________
VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
LAURA CONNELLY
BRIAN WERNER
Assistant United States Attorneys
700 Stewart St., Ste. 5220
Seattle, WA 98101
For the Defendant:
MICHAEL NANCE
Attorney at Law
615 2nd Avenue, Ste. 760
Seattle, WA 98104
 P r o c e e d i n g s  s t e n o g r a p h i c a l l y  r e p o r t e d  a n d  t r a n s c r i p t     
    
   p r o d u c e d  w i t h  c o m p u t e r - a i d e d  t e c h n o l o g y
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 1 of 18

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
 
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
2
I N D E X
March 8, 2022
SENTENCING
 PAGE
Argument by Mr. Nance..........................
3
Defendant's Allocution.........................
8
Argument by Ms. Connelly.......................
9
Court's Ruling.................................
15
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 2 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
3
THE DEPUTY CLERK:  The first matter on the calendar is 
CR20-174-JCC, United States of America versus Eric Shibley.
Counsel, please make your appearances for the record. 
MS. CONNELLY:  Laura Connelly for the United States.  
MR. WERNER:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Brian Werner 
on behalf of the United States. 
MR. NANCE:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Michael Nance 
for Eric Shibley. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Nance, has he had an opportunity to 
review and comment on the Presentence Report?  
MR. NANCE:  Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Wish to be heard?  
MR. NANCE:  Yes.  Your Honor, as set forth in our 
sentencing memorandum, we are recommending 24 months of 
detention with credit for time served, a period of supervised 
release, and appropriate restitution and other non-mandatory 
costs and penalties be waived. 
Our objections to the Presentence Report and to the 
guideline application is set forth in the briefing, and I 
will rely largely on that. 
I would just want to comment briefly on this attempt to 
enhance with obstruction.  We don't feel it's appropriate 
particularly as to the points specifically raised in both the 
PSI and the Government's briefing.  There were two components 
to it.  The first was that, in response to a grand jury 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 3 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
4
subpoena, that Mr. Shibley submitted IRS forms, W-3 and 941 
forms, that the Government says were fabricated and not filed 
with the IRS.  That may be so.  It may well be that they 
weren't, but the subpoena requested supporting documents that 
were submitted in connection with the PPP loans, and these 
were, in fact, submitted, and these were simply a copy of 
what had been provided.  
If you take the Government's approach to this, it's a 
catch-22.  There would be an automatic obstruction merely 
flowing from the fact that the loan applications were 
fraudulent.  If you don't produce what you supplied with it, 
that's obstruction, and yet, if you do and it's not true, 
that's obstruction, so you can't win.  That's -- 
THE COURT:  Isn't that one of the problems you get 
into when you engage in the kind of conduct your client did?  
MR. NANCE:  Well -- 
THE COURT:  You kind of create a catch-22. 
MR. NANCE:  You kind of do, but he's being -- he's 
being punished, essentially -- it's a double punishment 
otherwise.  The obstruction, as I understand it, refers to 
obstructing the investigation process.  
The falsity was a part of the -- initially -- a part of 
the crime.  It was essentially complete.  They asked for 
supporting documents that he provided, and in these 
instances, he provided those.  So that's the first component.  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 4 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
5
The other is this offhand comment he made, and you know, 
he testified for the better part of a day here, and there was 
one cherry-picked line where he said -- and they quoted it -- 
but he chose not to provide the names of employees of Dituri 
Construction.  Of course, on the one hand, the Government is 
saying, "Well, you had no employees," and now he's being 
challenged because he chose not to provide the names of these 
nonexistent employees.  I mean, that can't be obstruction.  
And the other part of it is that, again, the subpoena asks 
for documents.  It didn't ask for the names.  It asked for 
documents listing employees, and there's no indication that 
any such documents existed or that Mr. Shibley had access to 
such documents.  There's no affirmative duty for him to 
compile a list.  The subpoena doesn't require that, if you 
look at it closely, or to affirmatively testify about 
nondocumentary matters.  
The other -- 
THE COURT:  Well, I can understand somebody taking 
the Fifth Amendment and refusing to testify, but once you 
take the stand and testify at length, don't you have an 
obligation to testify truthfully?  
MR. NANCE:  Yes, you do.  You do. 
THE COURT:  Don't you have an obligation to respond 
to questions like, "Tell us who these employees were."  
MR. NANCE:  Well, Mr. Shibley did -- he did some of 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 5 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
6
that in this trial.  
THE COURT:  But he didn't do some of it, too. 
MR. NANCE:  Well, I mean, we can -- I guess we can 
interpret what he said as he said it, but he even provided 
some documentation. 
In any event, I think it's a close question.  I don't -- 
it's their burden to show.  I would submit that they haven't 
met that.  
The other component -- I've addressed it, but I will 
mention it again -- is this notion of his ability to pay, and 
they keep referring to these great properties he has.  He had 
a residence.  He still, in name -- his name is still on that 
property, and he's got three rental properties, but they're 
in very, very sad shape.  They're -- he's really hanging by a 
thread on all of them.  He's over a year overdue in mortgage 
payments and installment loan payments on these properties.  
He's been trying to stave off foreclosure.  They're all in 
foreclosure, but that's been staved off.  He's bought a 
little time by filing bankruptcy, and we don't know where 
it's going to go, but it doesn't look good.  I mean, all 
these properties now have squatters.  They're not paying 
rent.  They're -- it's been difficult to get a realtor even 
to get into the properties.  I mean, you basically need a 
sheriff's deputy to go into these places.  They're dangerous.  
They have been vandalized and severely neglected, and to say 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 6 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
7
that he's going to be able to clear much on this is a real 
stretch.  I mean, I would venture to think that he'd be lucky 
to break even. 
This is a case with -- I recognize there are really 
disparate recommendations here.  We are recommending 
24 months.  The Government is some multiple of that.  There 
is no mandatory minimum.  The Court has fairly unbridled 
discretion to do the right thing here, and if you look at 
Mr. Shibley, he's kind of a mixed bag, I would venture.  He's 
intelligent; he's creative; he's ambitious; and I 
characterize it as him having a large blind spot.  He's used 
to living on the edge.  He's used to pushing the envelope, 
and the most generous interpretation I think you could make 
in this case would be that he pushed too hard, he cut too 
many corners and took too many liberties, and of course, the 
jury found -- they found fraud. 
I would suggest that a trial in this case was appropriate, 
and it was necessary.  It was a cathartic process for 
Mr. Shibley.  Some cases need to be tried.  This was one of 
them.  Mr. Shibley accepts the process.  He's prepared to 
move ahead with his life.  He actually has constructive 
plans.  He actually thinks he still has something to 
contribute.  He wants to write, and he's got some expertise, 
and he thinks he could use that to benefit himself and 
others.  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 7 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
8
He has spent 18 months, roughly, in jail.  It's been 
fairly hard time.  Much of the time he's been in jail has 
been in lockdown.  He's probably spent as much time in 
lockdown or in quarantine as out.  He did suffer a rather 
pronounced case of COVID-19 while in custody.  He's got drug 
and mental health issues, which the Court heard about during 
the trial. 
Of course, he's lost his medical license.  It's unlikely 
he will ever practice medicine again.  He's lost or is about 
to lose his home and properties.  I would suggest that he 
doesn't need to spend more time in prison to be held 
accountable.  
Our 24-month recommendation is in line with three other 
PPP loan cases in this district, including one in this court, 
I believe.  In this district, no one has received more than 
24 months, including at least one of the individuals that had 
a loan loss that was well in excess of what Mr. Shibley 
faces.  No one's gotten more than 24 months, and neither 
should Mr. Shibley.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Does he wish to speak?  
MR. NANCE:  Yes.  
THE COURT:  Go ahead.  You can take your mask off.  
THE DEFENDANT:  Your Honor, I made a big mistake.  I 
should never have done such a terrible thing.  I am 
expressing my clear and unequivocal apology to the honorable 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 8 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
9
Court, to the people of my country, to my Government.  I made 
a terrible mistake.  I regret every minute for that.  
I have -- I have taken a completely different course from 
what I have done, all the things that I've done in my life.  
It is a complete change in course of my life.  I'll not go 
back to the things that led me to this situation.  I embark 
on a new path.  I think that I -- I'm able to do things in an 
intellectual and scholarly manner, which I'm good at.  I 
started writing books on various scientific topics, including 
medical sciences, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, molecular 
evolutionary biology, astrophysics, war history, things like 
that.  
I'd be very much willing to start publishing books, and 
that's what I want to do going forward.  
I made a mistake.  I paid a heavy price for it.  I'm 
asking the Court to look at me with leniency and give me an 
opportunity to embark on a new course in my life.  Thank you.  
THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Connelly. 
MS. CONNELLY:  Thank you, Your Honor.  Just to touch 
on the obstruction piece before heading into my other 
remarks.  The basis for the obstruction enhancement is 
twofold, as the Government has outlined in its sentencing 
memorandum, but first, the grand jury's subpoena response.  
These W-3s were not provided to the Government as part of a 
loan package.  In fact, they were provided and we were told 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 9 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
10
that the loan documents would be sought out and provided 
later.  So these were provided as tax documents and not 
provided separately.  
But, in the alternative, Mr. Shibley testified extensively 
-- it wasn't just a one-off comment about not providing 
documents -- in response to repeated questioning from 
Mr. Werner, Mr. Shibley testified that he chose not to turn 
over documents, repeatedly.  And while the Government concurs 
that it's likely these documents don't exist, either the 
defendant was lying about those documents existing in his 
testimony repeatedly or he was concealing responsive 
documents in response to a grand-jury subpoena, and either 
way, that is a basis for the obstruction enhancement. 
In addition to the perjured testimony about these 
documents and him not turning them over and the fact that 
they existed, Mr. Shibley repeatedly lied about having 
employees, having businesses, and he really doubled down in 
his testimony, and thus, the Government believes that an 
obstruction enhancement is appropriate in this case. 
Turning to the Government's recommendation, which is for a 
97-month term of imprisonment followed by three years of 
supervised release, it's really hard to believe that at this 
point we have been living with COVID for two years, and it's 
easy to forget where we started, but in March 2020, almost 
two years ago to the day, everything shut down across America 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 10 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
11
and here in Seattle.  Businesses and the economy were 
devastated, and there was uncertainty about when things could 
reopen again, and so, in response, the Government put forward 
the PPP or the Paycheck Protection Program and expanded the 
EIDL program.  Both of these programs were meant to help 
small businesses with their expenses and, most importantly, 
keep employees on the payroll in the face of this 
unprecedented devastation.  
And in the face of this, the defendant chose, instead, to 
engage in a cash-grab.  He submitted over 25 PPP applications 
and 13 EIDL applications.  He made up numbers to put on those 
documents, and he created false tax forms to go along with 
them. 
The defendant submits that a 24-month sentence is 
appropriate and cites to other cases in this district that 
have dealt with COVID relief fraud, but in this case, and in 
particular, this defendant, there are many distinguishing 
factors that require a significantly higher sentence.  
So turning to, first, the conduct, which the Court is well 
aware of -- and I will not rehash at length here -- but there 
are certain pieces of this conduct that call for a higher 
sentence, the first being the volume of applications.  
Mr. Shibley submitted significantly more applications than 
the other defendants that have been sentenced in this 
district.  The second is the fact that the defendant didn't 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 11 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
12
stop this behavior even with significant law enforcement 
intervention.  At every step with which he was confronted, he 
chose to double down instead.  So the banks called him and 
asked questions, and he continued to apply.  The Government 
seized money at the end of May, and he continued to apply for 
these loans.  He was approached by law enforcement agents and 
served with grand jury subpoenas, and he continued to apply 
for these loans.  So the defendant had every opportunity to 
stop this behavior and, instead, continued to double down. 
Furthermore, the use of other people's identities is 
significant here.  The defendant actually stole people's 
identities to submit to the bank to conceal his crimes.  That 
included an individual who had died in 1987 and a woman who 
had never heard of him or worked for him, and he submitted 
their Social Security numbers and names as his employees.  
The second distinguishing factor is his complete lack of 
acceptance of responsibility in this case.  The other three 
defendants who were sentenced all pled guilty before trial 
and accepted responsibility early.  While Mr. Shibley is now 
kind of vaguely apologizing for his behavior, in his trial 
testimony he repeatedly doubled down that he had these 
employees and had these businesses.  He continued to assert 
that to probation, as was seen in the PSR, and then, to top 
it all off, he tried to obtain some of the illegally-obtained 
funds back through a bankruptcy proceeding just recently.  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 12 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
13
And while the bankruptcy filing may have been coincidental, 
the fact that he is trying to use the bankruptcy process to 
receive illegally-obtained funds back suggests that he does 
not accept that those funds were, in fact, illegally 
obtained. 
The third factor to consider is his conduct while on 
pretrial release in this case.  It shows that he's been 
incapable of abiding by the terms set by this Court.  He was 
arrested after two incidences of domestic violence while on 
pretrial release.  He also attempted to purchase another 
property while out on pretrial release, against the 
requirements of both the Court and the pretrial services 
officer.  So, in order to get around that, he had his then 
girlfriend, who was the victim of the domestic violence 
offenses, act as a straw buyer for that purchase in order to 
circumvent the Court and pretrial services. 
And finally, in addition to the actions while on pretrial 
release, the defendant has shown he's incapable of following 
direction from courts and other authority in many other 
instances.  First, looking at his career in the medical 
profession, certain issues demonstrate his willingness to 
skirt the law when it suits him.  Most notably, he continued 
to prescribe controlled substances after his license to 
prescribe controlled substances was revoked in January of 
2020, and that's especially relevant because some of the 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 13 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
14
people that Mr. Shibley claimed as employees in this case 
were actually patients of his who he was prescribing to.  
Second, while the defendant's criminal history puts him at 
a Category II, the fact that he committed this crime while on 
probation for another domestic violence offense should be 
considered in fashioning an appropriate sentence, and it's 
clear that court supervision did not deter him from 
committing other crimes while on probation for that offense.  
And while the Government acknowledges that that crime was, in 
fact, a misdemeanor, it was a misdemeanor violation of a 
no-contact order from a court, and so that, yet again, 
demonstrates Mr. Shibley's unwillingness to abide by court 
orders and the need for significant personal deterrence in 
fashioning a sentence in this case. 
So because of the severity of the crime and the 
defendant's personal history, the Government requests that 
the Court impose a term of 97 months imprisonment followed by 
three months -- or three years of supervised release.  The 
Government also requests that the Court enter an order of 
restitution in the amount detailed in the sentencing memo to 
the victims.  
THE COURT:  Mr. Nance, do you have any objection to 
the restitution amounts that were set forth in the 
Government's brief?  
MR. NANCE:  No. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 14 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
15
THE COURT:  Okay.  So I'll affix restitution at the 
amounts set forth in your brief.  
I am overruling the defendant's objections to the 
Presentence Report.  I find the total offense level is 29, 
the criminal history category is II, which gives a guideline 
range of 97 to 121 months.  I'm imposing a period of 
confinement of 48 months, a period of supervised release of 
three years, subject to standard conditions, together with 
those additional conditions set forth in the Presentence 
Report.  
I'm waiving the fine due to the defendant's financial 
condition and the restitution obligation.  He'll be required 
to pay the special assessment for each of the counts of 
conviction, which will be a total of $1,500.  The sentence is 
a product of the guidelines schedule, together with the 
factors of 18 USC 3553, and I'm adopting the Presentence 
Report, the probation officer's reasons for the sentence, as 
the Court's reasons for the sentence.  And I'm emphasizing, 
in particular, the blatant nature of the fraud and its size, 
the fact that there's significant distinctions between the 
other cases that were involved in this court, and the Court's 
reaction to the defendant's testimony in the case, which was, 
I have to say, one of the worst performances of a criminal 
defendant on examination.  I'm not punishing him for going to 
trial, but I do think it's appropriate to take into 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 15 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
16
consideration the fact that he had very little willingness to 
adhere to the truth while testifying.  
Mr. Shibley, you have the right to appeal this sentence.  
If you wish to file a notice of appeal, it must be filed 
within 14 days of today.  If you wish the assistance of an 
attorney in filing a notice of appeal and cannot afford one, 
one will be appointed to assist you if you so request.  If 
you wish the assistance of the clerk in filing a notice of 
appeal, he will assist you if you so request.  
Do you understand, sir?  
THE DEFENDANT:  Uh-huh (affirmative). 
THE COURT:  Anything further, Counsel?  
MR. NANCE:  Yes, Your Honor.  I would ask that the 
Judgment reflect the recommendations for his placement in the 
drug and alcohol program. 
THE COURT:  That's fine. 
MR. NANCE:  And secondly, we would ask for a 
placement recommendation to the federal prison camp at 
Sheridan. 
THE COURT:  That's fine.  
MS. CONNELLY:  Your Honor, the only -- we would ask 
that the Judgment reflect the forfeiture order. 
THE COURT:  I'm sorry?  
MS. CONNELLY:  That the Judgment reflect the 
forfeiture order that was already entered by this Court. 
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 16 of 18

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
March 8, 2022
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
17
THE COURT:  Yes.  
MS. CONNELLY:  Thank you.  
MR. NANCE:  Your Honor, we would ask the Court to 
waive the interest. 
THE COURT:  No. 
MR. NANCE:  No?  
MR. WERNER:  Your Honor, may I approach?  
THE COURT:  Yes.  Thank you, Counsel.
         (Proceedings concluded.)  
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 17 of 18

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
 
Sheri L. Schelbert, RMR, CRR - Federal Reporter - 700 Stewart St. - Seattle WA 98101
18
 
 C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from 
the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.
/s/ Sheri Schelbert  
SHERI SCHELBERT 
COURT REPORTER
   
Case 2:20-cr-00174-JCC     Document 164     Filed 04/12/22     Page 18 of 18

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.164.0.pdf

Size

166,710 bytes

SHA-256

7b757da48f99975c2a983521cb15565848a0da7514a8104781fd0962f52155a7

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wawd.290910.164.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)