Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reply Brief - Lindsey Matter

Reply Brief - Lindsey Matter

Ratings: (0)|Views: 228 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Mar 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/18/2011

pdf

text

original

 
REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSTHE FIRST SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JANET I. LEVINE (STATE BAR NO. 94255)MARTINIQUE E. BUSINO (STATE BAR NO. 270795)CROWELL & MORING LLP515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, 40TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-2258PHONE: (213) 622-4750FAX: (213) 622-2690EMAIL: jlevine@crowell.comEMAIL: mbusino@crowell.comAttorneys for DefendantSteve K. LeeJAN L. HANDZLIK (STATE BAR NO. 47959)THOMAS H. GODWIN (STATE BAR NO. 255384)GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 EastSanta Monica, Ca 90404Phone: (310) 586-6542Fax: (310) 586-0542EMAIL: handzlikj@gtlaw.comEMAIL: godwint@gtlaw.comAttorneys for Defendants Lindsey ManufacturingCompany and Keith E. Lindsey
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR ORIEGA, ANGELA MARIAGOMEZ AGUILAR, LINDSEYMANUFACTURING COMPANY,KEITH E. LINDSEY, andSTEVE K. LEE,Defendants.))))))))))))))))CASE NO. CR 10-1031(A)-AHM
REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’SOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’MOTION TO DISMISS THE FIRSTSUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
Date: March 24, 2011Time: 9:30 a.m.Place: Courtroom 14
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 290 Filed 03/17/11 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:6420
 
REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSTHE FIRST SUPERSEDING INDICTMENTi12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage(s)
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1II. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................1A. The DefendantsMotion is Timely.................................................1B. The Government’s Textual and Contextual Arguments Aboutthe Meaning of “Instrumentality” are Unavailing..........................2C. The
Charming Betsy
Canon Is Inapposite......................................7D. No Legislative History Supports the Government’sInterpretation.................................................................................12E. The Government Fails to Rebut Defendants’ VaguenessArguments.....................................................................................14F. Prior Cases the Government Cites are Inapposite Because TheyDid Not Raise Issues the Court Is Now Asked to Address ..........17III. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................20
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 290 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 27 Page ID #:6421
 
REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISSTHE FIRST SUPERSEDING INDICTMENTii12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)C
ASES
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams
,532 U.S. 105 (2001).............................................................................................4
Kolender v. Lawson
,461 U.S. 352 (1983)...........................................................................................16
Munoz v. Ashcroft 
,339 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................9
Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy,
6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804).......................................................................8, 9, 10
Northcross, et al. v. Bd. of Ed. of Memphis City Schools
¸412 U.S. 427 (1973).........................................................................................6, 7
Serra v. Lappin
,600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2010)..............................................................................9
Skilling v. United States
,130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) ...........................................................................16, 17, 20
Smith v. City of Jackson
,544 U.S. 228 (2005).........................................................................................6, 7
United States v. Aguilar 
,883 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1989)..............................................................................10
United States v. Carson
,
et al 
.,No. SA CR 09-00077-JVS (C.D. Cal.)...............................................................13
United States v. Covington
,395 U.S. 57 (1969)...............................................................................................2
United States v. Giffen
,326 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)................................................................18
United States v. Kay
,359 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2004)..............................................................................10
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 290 Filed 03/17/11 Page 3 of 27 Page ID #:6422

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->