Transcript of Motion Hearing, May 16, 2022 — United States v. Bowens, No. 6:21-cr-141 (Middle District of Florida)

Summary

Document 233, filed February 25, 2026 in Case No. 6:21-cr-141-RBD-NWH in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, is the transcript of a motion hearing (Docs. 40, 47) in United States of America v. Emmet Bowens, on May 16, 2022 before United States Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd. The two motions are for a competency evaluation and for modification of conditions of release. On the first, the court appoints Dr. Danziger, the expert defense counsel Andrew C. Searle requested, finds reasonable cause to believe Mr. Bowens may be incompetent and orders an outpatient evaluation. On the second, Mr. Searle asks that the ankle monitor be removed and the government opposes. The court states the ankle monitor will remain in place. The transcript runs 19 pages and is certified by reporter Nikki L. Peters.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Transcript of Motion Hearing, May 16, 2022 — United States v. Bowens, No. 6:21-cr-141 (Middle District of Florida).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-flmd-396523-233-0-37923a9560/, SHA-256 ccefb7834295c02f7fe0206dd17db51488cdae328bfee3e9160246657cd51053.

Full text

Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID 732
1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
2 ORLANDO DIVISION

3 Case No.: 6:21-cr-141-RBD-NWH

5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

6 Plaintiff, Orlando, Florida
May 16, 2022
7 v. 10:01 a.m. - 10:22 a.m.

8 EMMET BOWENS,

9 Defendant.
______________________________/
10

11
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING (Docs. 40, 47)
12 BEFORE THE HONORABLE EMBRY J. KIDD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13

14 APPEARANCES:

15 Counsel for the Government:

16 Amanda Sterling Daniels
United States Attorney's Office
17 400 West Washington Street, Suite 3100
Orlando, Florida 32801
18
Counsel for Defendant:
19
Andrew C. Searle
20 Searle Law PA
200 East Robinson, Suite 1150
21 Orlando, Florida 32801

22 Transcriptionist: Nikki L. Peters, RMR, CRR, CRC
Federal Official Court Reporter
23 401 West Central Boulevard, Suite 4600
Orlando, Florida 32801
24 courttranscripts@outlook.com

25 Proceedings recorded by FTR Gold digital recording.
Transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 19 PageID 733
2

1 INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS

2 PAGE

4
Motion for Competency Evaluation 3
5
Motion for Modification of Conditions of Release 7
6
Certificate of Reporter 19
7

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID 734
3

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (Court called to order.)

3 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Case No. 6:21-cr-141, United

4 States of America v. Emmet Bowens.

5 Counsel, please state your appearance for the record.

6 MS. DANIELS: Good morning, Your Honor.

7 Amanda Daniels on behalf of the United States.

8 THE COURT: Good morning.

9 MR. SEARLE: Good morning, Your Honor.

10 Andrew Searle on behalf of Emmet Bowens, who's

11 present in the courtroom and seated to my right.

12 THE COURT: Good morning.

13 We're here today for two pending motions. One is

14 to -- a renewed motion to modify the conditions of Mr. Bowens'

15 release. And then the second is a motion for a hearing and

16 outpatient examination to determine Mr. Bowens' competency.

17 Why don't we start with the second, Mr. Searle, and

18 I'll hear from you on that.

19 MR. SEARLE: The motion for competency, Your Honor?

20 THE COURT: That's correct.

21 MR. SEARLE: Yes, Your Honor.

22 I believe I've laid out the basis for my request in

23 my written motion, which was filed with the Court. To the

24 extent that the Court wishes for me to provide specific

25 details, I would actually ask that that be done in an ex parte

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 4 of 19 PageID 735
4

1 proceeding, as some of the information I'd prefer for the

2 Government not to hear at this juncture.

3 THE COURT: Sure.

4 Ms. Daniels, do you mind -- I'm sorry. You were

5 about to say something?

6 MR. SEARLE: The only other thing I'd add, Your

7 Honor, is that the Government does not oppose the motion. I

8 believe they -- they understand that in situations like this

9 the defense counsel's interactions and beliefs concerning

10 whether or not the client needs to be evaluated for competency

11 carries some weight, because I'm in the best position right now

12 to know whether or not there's a concern when evaluating the

13 situation through the Dusky standards.

14 THE COURT: All right. And have the parties agreed

15 on a psychologist or psychiatrist?

16 MR. SEARLE: We have not, Your Honor.

17 I prefer Dr. Danziger. From my conversations with

18 Ms. Daniels, my understanding is that the Government is now not

19 inclined to agree to Dr. Danziger. But based on the specific

20 issues that I'm seeing here, I think Dr. Danziger is the most

21 qualified court-appointed expert to do this evaluation.

22 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Daniels, do you have an

23 alternative proposal? Or what's your objection to

24 Dr. Danziger?

25 MS. DANIELS: Your Honor, the United States has been

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 5 of 19 PageID 736
5

1 in contact with Dr. Otto. I have worked with Dr. Otto on

2 previous cases. I know that he -- you know, I -- I know his

3 work. I'm familiar with him. He's very easy to work with.

4 And I've confirmed that he's available before June -- any time

5 before June 24th is my memory of it.

6 THE COURT: Okay. What's your objection to

7 Dr. Danziger?

8 MS. DANIELS: No specific objection, Your Honor. I

9 don't know Dr. Danziger. I've never worked with him. But I do

10 know Dr. Otto.

11 I worked very closely with him on another case that I

12 went to trial on. He did work evaluating the work of two

13 additional experts on that trial. And on one of those experts

14 he actually found out that the expert had -- not that I

15 would -- I believe that Dr. Danziger would do this, but

16 Dr. Otto figured out that the defense expert that had been

17 hired, unknown to the defense, had committed some sort of

18 fraud, so -- in their evaluation.

19 So I have a lot of trust with Dr. Otto. I've worked

20 with him extensively, and I think he does an excellent job.

21 And I think he would be perfectly capable of doing this

22 evaluation.

23 THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose my question is

24 to Mr. Searle, what's -- do you have an objection to Dr. Otto?

25 MR. SEARLE: Yes, Your Honor. I don't think that the

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 6 of 19 PageID 737
6

1 basis the Government has provided is a reason to go with their

2 expert as opposed to the one I'm requesting.

3 I'm sure the Court is well aware that Dr. Danziger

4 has a longstanding reputation in this district as a

5 well-regarded expert in this field. He's a medical doctor and

6 a psychiatrist. So I believe he brings a different background

7 to these evaluations. He's not just a psychologist. And so I

8 think, based on his experience, he's able to, I guess, do a

9 more comprehensive evaluation and really kind of drill down as

10 to what's going on with an individual.

11 And I don't believe he's, by any means, a

12 defense-slanted expert. He frequently finds people competent

13 to proceed and makes determinations that people are malingering

14 and things of that nature.

15 He's been practicing in this district for at least

16 two decades, as far as I understand. So I think he'd be an

17 appropriate person.

18 I'm not familiar with Dr. Otto's work. He may have

19 been an expert in another case that I've had. But off the top

20 of my head, I'm just not aware of his work. And I do know

21 Dr. Danziger's work and his reputation. And so based on my

22 past experience with him, I'd like for him to be appointed.

23 THE COURT: All right. Well, I've had experience

24 with both. Both are fine with me.

25 Since this is the defense's motion, I will grant

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 7 of 19 PageID 738
7

1 their request to appoint Dr. Danziger. And I'll issue an order

2 on that.

3 Of course, if the United States disagrees with

4 Dr. Danziger, the United States can obtain its own expert to

5 rebut that report.

6 All right. So I will -- based on the representations

7 from Mr. Searle, both in his motion and on the record today, I

8 do find that there is reasonable cause to believe that

9 Mr. Bowens may be presently suffering from a mental disease or

10 defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he

11 is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the

12 proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.

13 So I will order that he undergo an outpatient evaluation with

14 Dr. Danziger. And I will issue an order setting forth more

15 specific deadlines on that.

16 As to the other motion, which was to modify the

17 conditions of release, I'll hear from you on that, Mr. Searle.

18 MR. SEARLE: Yes, Your Honor.

19 Again, I've laid out my basis for the motion in the

20 written filing.

21 I'm not asking for the Court to do away with all of

22 the conditions of release.

23 I'm simply asking for the ankle monitor to be

24 removed.

25 I noted from the initial pretrial services report

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 8 of 19 PageID 739
8

1 that pretrial was not actually even asking for electronic

2 monitoring when Mr. Bowens had his initial appearance in the

3 Northern District of Georgia.

4 I don't believe he's a flight risk based on his

5 background. He has longstanding ties to this district.

6 He has a family who he lives with. His wife is

7 present in the courtroom in the audience. He has a daughter

8 who lives in the home. They own their home in Apopka.

9 He does not have any significant criminal history.

10 There was one international trip that he took, that

11 he returned from when he was arrested at the Atlanta

12 International Airport. I would note, for the record, that

13 Mr. Bowens was aware of the Government's investigation, I

14 believe, well in advance of his arrest. He had been contacted

15 by the FBI. He was in the process of attempting to try to

16 secure counsel. I don't believe that ever actually came to

17 fruition. But, certainly, he knew that he was under

18 investigation.

19 And had he been a true flight risk, he could have

20 decided not to return to the United States. He obviously did

21 that because this is his home. This is where he -- where he

22 lives. This is where his family is. So this isn't a situation

23 where he was doing international travel trying to avoid

24 apprehension in this case or anything of that nature.

25 So I believe the Court has the ability to modify the

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 9 of 19 PageID 740
9

1 conditions at any time the Court deems appropriate.

2 I can -- I can understand why the judge at the

3 initial appearance in the Northern District of Georgia decided

4 to have the electronic monitoring device put on Mr. Bowens to

5 ensure that he made it to the district where he was charged and

6 showed up for his initial appearance, but he did that. I think

7 he's demonstrated to the Court these past several months, while

8 he's been under supervision, that he's fully able to comply

9 with all conditions of release. My understanding is that he's

10 had no issues whatsoever with his pretrial services officer.

11 So I think it would be appropriate to remove the

12 electronic monitoring device. It provides Mr. Bowens with a

13 great deal of discomfort on his ankle. And I just don't think

14 it's necessary in this -- in this white-collar case that does

15 not involve any violence whatsoever or any obstructive conduct,

16 really.

17 I mean, this is a pretty simple and straightforward

18 case, Your Honor, of a discrete act of PPP loan alleged fraud.

19 So this isn't a Ponzi scheme where we're dealing with assets in

20 foreign accounts or money that the Government has not been able

21 to recover. They've seized all the money that -- from the

22 accounts that was not, I guess, spent before the Government

23 decided to execute the seizure warrant. So there's not assets

24 in foreign countries, there's not ties to foreign countries,

25 Your Honor.

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 10 of 19 PageID
741
10

1 The Government handed me a case that I don't know if

2 they're going to rely on or not. I will address that if the

3 Government does rely on it. But it's -- it's completely

4 distinguishable from -- from this situation before the Court in

5 terms of the ties to a foreign country and the flight risk

6 presented by Mr. Bowens as compared to the individual in the

7 case the Government handed me before the hearing.

8 So I think based on the pretrial services report,

9 based on Mr. Bowens' track record these past several months

10 while he's been on pretrial services, I think the Court can

11 fashion conditions of release that don't require electronic

12 monitoring that would assure his appearance at future court

13 proceedings and would protect the public in this case.

14 THE COURT: All right.

15 Ms. Daniels.

16 MS. DANIELS: Your Honor, the United States has filed

17 a response, as I'm sure this Court is aware. So I will rely

18 primarily on that response.

19 However, a few things that I'd like to note for the

20 Court.

21 So Mr. Bowens was contacted by the FBI -- as is

22 stated in the motion and as defense counsel has stated --

23 around October 2020. My understanding from the case agent is

24 that there were multiple calls placed to Mr. Bowens, that a

25 call was placed from an attorney to the case agent in response

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 11 of 19 PageID
742
11

1 to the calls that the case agent placed to Mr. Bowens, that the

2 case agent gave a brief description of what the investigation

3 involved, then called the attorney back about, I think, a week

4 later, she said. And the attorney said that Mr. Bowens had cut

5 off communication with that attorney. And then, when the case

6 agent went to call Mr. Bowens back, his phone had been

7 disconnected.

8 So Mr. Bowens, also, when he came back from Rwanda,

9 where he had traveled to, he wasn't coming back to the Middle

10 District of Florida according to his own statements. He was

11 coming back to Mississippi. And there is some evidence in the

12 case that he was, in fact, living in Mississippi. So the

13 concern by the Government is not necessarily that he's going to

14 travel internationally -- although that is a concern, because

15 he clearly has ties outside of this country -- it is that he is

16 going to travel outside of this district and be very difficult

17 to locate thereafter, which is why the Government requested a

18 GPS monitor and travel restrictions for Mr. Bowens.

19 Mr. Bowens has family -- as is evident in the

20 pretrial services report -- outside of this district. He has

21 family in Mississippi. And I believe he has family elsewhere

22 outside of the district, although I don't want to try to guess

23 where because I don't remember at this time.

24 Additionally, his wife -- there is evidence that his

25 wife was present with him while he was using proceeds from his

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID
743
12

1 fraud. There is a clear-as-day surveillance image capture

2 where Mr. Bowens is, I believe in Louisiana, pulling out, I

3 believe, approximately $40,000 in cash. And who is standing

4 next to him but Ms. (Unintelligible) Bowens, who is present in

5 this --

6 MR. SEARLE: Your Honor, I'm going to object. This

7 isn't a trial. I don't see how that's a basis for --

8 (Multiple simultaneous, overlapping speakers.)

9 THE COURT: -- raise the fact that his wife was

10 present and was able to somehow contribute to his not leaving

11 the district.

12 So, go ahead, Ms. Daniels.

13 MS. DANIELS: Yes, Your Honor.

14 And so the United States has asked for conditions

15 that are specifically tied to Mr. Bowens' conduct during this

16 investigation. It was not tailored to be overly burdensome on

17 Mr. Bowens. Mr. Bowens can work. Mr. Bowens can go to, you

18 know, whatever religious services he might want to go to. He

19 can do -- essentially, he can go anywhere he wants to within

20 the district with the monitor on.

21 Additionally, the United States believes that this

22 inquiry should be, at least in part, guided by the 3142(f),

23 which states that a hearing should be opened where there is new

24 information that has a material bearing on the issue of whether

25 the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community.

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID
744
13

1 The United States would submit, as is stated in our

2 motion, that (audio interference) new information here,

3 Your Honor. You know, it is known or knowable that, you know,

4 a monitor attached to an ankle might be uncomfortable while it

5 is attached. That is knowable at the time that the condition

6 is fashioned.

7 Additionally, the fact that Mr. Bowens has complied

8 with the Court's conditions is not new information. To the

9 extent that it is new information would suggest that Mr. Bowens

10 was not planning on following the Court's conditions, which

11 weighs against releasing him from these conditions. However,

12 it is evidence that the conditions are properly tailored to

13 meet their end, which is making sure Mr. Bowens shows up to his

14 court appearances, as he continues to do.

15 And the fact that Mr. Bowens had a mistaken belief

16 that this condition would be altered, I can't really speak to

17 that. I don't know why that is. But that's not new

18 information; that's a mistaken belief.

19 And so for these reasons, Your Honor, the

20 United States would just request that the conditions remain in

21 place.

22 The United States brought case law just in case the

23 Court had a question about the relationship between the new and

24 material information, so subsection (f), and -- I think it is

25 (c)(3). That case really just has a -- it's a slip copy. It

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 14 of 19 PageID
745
14

1 just talks about the relationship between those and how

2 subsection (f) might provide context for the Court in

3 considering whether or not it's going to amend its prior order.

4 So I just wanted to bring that as authority for Your Honor.

5 But the facts are different. I mean, they do talk

6 about -- sorry. And this is United States v. Fard. It's a

7 slip copy. It is 2017 Westlaw 11610729.

8 The facts are different. That person had extensive

9 travel. That person had previously been an alien in the

10 United States who had naturalized, had further extensive travel

11 than Mr. Bowens did. Although, I will note that Mr. Bowens

12 does have international travel on his record. In that case,

13 the Court determined that his conditions -- his GPS that he was

14 seeking to have removed should not be removed.

15 Mr. Bowens is facing a substantial amount of time

16 with the statutory maximums if he were to be convicted of all

17 of these offenses, just as the defendant in Fard was, which the

18 Court also considered in its analysis of denying the motion to

19 modify conditions.

20 But, for those reasons, Your Honor, the United

21 States, respectfully, opposes the motion.

22 Additionally, this motion should be deemed as a

23 motion to reconsider. This was brought at the defendant's

24 initial appearance. And motions to reconsider have a different

25 standard. There's no manifest errors of law or fact that

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 15 of 19 PageID
746
15

1 Mr. Bowens has brought up. And there are none that happened in

2 the Court's prior ruling.

3 So for those reasons, Your Honor, the United States

4 opposes the motion.

5 THE COURT: All right.

6 MR. SEARLE: Your Honor --

7 THE COURT: (Overlapping speech) -- respond?

8 MR. SEARLE: Yes, Your Honor.

9 First of all, it's not a motion to reconsider. The

10 Bail Reform Act vests this Court with authority to amend the

11 initially set conditions of release and impose different or

12 additional conditions of release at any time.

13 So the Court has the authority to do that without

14 reconsidering any prior ruling. And that's the basis that

15 we've moved under or the ground that we've moved under.

16 Mr. Bowens does not have ties to a foreign country.

17 He traveled to a foreign country a single time. I don't

18 believe that, in and of itself, makes someone have ties to a

19 foreign country. If I visited Italy one time, that does not

20 mean I have ties to the country of Italy.

21 This case that was cited before Your Honor, it has no

22 bearing on the situation we're dealing with here. In that

23 case, the defendant was actually seeking to eliminate the

24 conditions of his release. I'm not asking to eliminate

25 conditions of release. I'm simply asking for one aspect of the

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 16 of 19 PageID
747
16

1 conditions to be modified.

2 In terms of the travel outside of the district, my

3 client has a travel restriction. His passport has been seized.

4 All of that can address the concerns the Government has without

5 the need to have an electronic device on my client's ankle

6 24/7.

7 This is a white-collar case. It's not an extensive

8 fraud. It's a very discrete circumstance here. So I don't

9 think that an ankle monitor is appropriate here.

10 This isn't a drug case.

11 As I said, there's not money in foreign accounts.

12 There's not property in foreign accounts. My client doesn't

13 have any family overseas like the defendant in Fard did.

14 So I do think this is a different situation,

15 Your Honor, and I do think you can impose conditions of release

16 that don't have to have the electronic monitoring device on my

17 client's ankle 24/7.

18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Searle.

19 I know that this has been an issue for Mr. Bowens

20 since the outset.

21 I do recall his initial appearance in this district

22 where he himself raised this issue and -- through his attorney.

23 I recognize Mr. Searle wasn't his attorney at that time. And,

24 as I recall, this was in the order that was set forth by the

25 magistrate judge in -- I believe it was Atlanta. And I was not

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 17 of 19 PageID
748
17

1 presented with any information to -- I know that Mr. Bowens was

2 under the impression -- at least as he stated in court or his

3 attorney stated in court -- that the purpose of the ankle

4 monitor, the GPS unit, was simply to assure his appearance in

5 this district. However, that's not reflected in the order.

6 I have not been presented with, for instance, a

7 transcript of the hearing to indicate that that's what the

8 judge indicated. So the information before me is that the

9 judge in Atlanta decided, after hearing from both parties, that

10 it was appropriate to set as a condition of Mr. Bowens' release

11 that he have a GPS unit for location monitoring.

12 So that was raised at the prior hearing. And, as the

13 parties know, under 3142(f), that can really only be revisited

14 if information exists that was not known to the movant at the

15 time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the

16 issue of whether there are conditions of release that would

17 reasonably assure the appearance of such person, as required,

18 and the safety of any other person from the community.

19 We're not dealing with danger to the community. It's

20 really risk of flight. And I've not been presented with new

21 information.

22 I can't -- I appreciate that Mr. Bowens has been

23 compliant while on pretrial release. But compliance, in my

24 view, does not equate to new information. Otherwise, these

25 decisions will be revisited all the time. Most of our

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 18 of 19 PageID
749
18

1 pretrial -- most of the defendants who are released on pretrial

2 conditions are, indeed, compliant. So that, in itself, does

3 not serve as a basis for revisiting the conditions.

4 In terms of burden on Mr. Bowens, I understand that

5 it might be uncomfortable, but I'm not hearing anything that

6 leads me to believe it's impeding his ability to do important

7 things in his life such as attend medical appointments or

8 things of that nature.

9 So I'm not really inclined to revisit the issue of

10 the ankle monitor, those raised previously. It's been raised

11 again. I've not received new information.

12 Unless I receive new information regarding the ankle

13 monitor along the lines of, "The judge in Atlanta said that

14 this was only supposed to be in place until he arrived in

15 Orlando," I'm not inclined to revisit this issue again.

16 So the ankle monitor will remain in place.

17 Is there anything else from the United States?

18 MS. DANIELS: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

19 THE COURT: All right. Anything else from the

20 defense?

21 MR. SEARLE: No, Your Honor. Thank you.

22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

23 As I said, I will issue an order on the competency

24 issue, and we'll forward from there.

25 This hearing is adjourned.

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
Case 6:21-cr-00141-RBD-NWH Document 233 Filed 02/25/26 Page 19 of 19 PageID
750
19

1 (Proceedings adjourned at 10:22 a.m.)

2 C E R T I F I C A T E

4 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript

5 from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

8 February 25, 2026

9 s\ Nikki L. Peters
Nikki L. Peters, RMR, CRR, CRC
10 Federal Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
11 Middle District of Florida

United States District Court
Middle District of Florida

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.233.0.pdf
Size: 95,890 bytes
SHA-256: ccefb7834295c02f7fe0206dd17db51488cdae328bfee3e9160246657cd51053
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.396523.233.0.pdf
Original: No public link identified.