Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
P. 1
Notice of Appeal and Matz Ruling

Notice of Appeal and Matz Ruling

Ratings: (0)|Views: 297|Likes:
Published by corruptioncurrents

More info:

Published by: corruptioncurrents on Dec 02, 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

02/21/2014

pdf

text

original

 
A-2 (01/07)
NOTICE OF APPEAL
 NameAddressCity, State, ZipPhoneFaxE-Mail
G
FPD
G
Appointed
G
CJA
G
Pro Per 
G
Retained
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PLAINTIFF(S),
v.
DEFENDANT(S).CASE NUMBER:
NOTICE OF APPEAL
 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that hereby appeals to
 Name of Appellant 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from:
Criminal MatterCivil Matter
G
Conviction only [F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(1)(A)]
G
Conviction and Sentence
G
Sentence Only (18 U.S.C. 3742)
G
Pursuant to F.R.Cr.P. 32(j)(2)
G
Interlocutory Appeals
G
Sentence imposed:
G
Bail status:
G
Order (specify):
G
Judgment (specify):
G
Other (specify):Imposed or Filed on . Entered on the docket in this action on .A copy of said judgment or order is attached hereto.DateSignature
G
Appellant/ProSe
G
Counsel for Appellant
G
Deputy Clerk 
Note:
The Notice of Appeal shall contain the names of all parties to the judgment or order and the names and addresses of theattorneys for each party. Also, if not electronically filed in a criminal case, the Clerk shall be furnished a sufficient number of copies of the Notice of Appeal to permit prompt compliance with the service requirements of FRAP 3(d).
Douglas M. Miller, AUSA312 N. Spring St., 13th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012(213) 894-2216(213) 894-6436Douglas.M.Miller@usdoj.gov
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CR 10-1031-AHMENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR NORIEGA, ET AL.United States of America
Granting motion to dismissDecember 1, 2011December 1, 201112/1/2011/s/ Douglas M. Miller 
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 666 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #:17909
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CR 10-01031(A)-AHM
Date
December 1, 2011
Present: The Honorable
A. HOWARD MATZ
Interpreter Stephen MontesNot Reported Not Present
 Deputy ClerkCourt Reporter/Recorder, Tape No.Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S.A. v. Defendant(s):PresentCust.BondAttorneys for Defendants:PresentApp.Ret.USA v. ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR  NORIEGA, et al.
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS (No Proceedings Held)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISSI.INTRODUCTION
In this case, the first Foreign Corrupt Practices Act criminal prosecution against acorporation to proceed to jury trial, the Court has been asked to vacate the convictions anddismiss the indictment because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. On November 29, 2011,the Court conducted a hearing on this motion. Before the hearing began, the Court provided adraft of this order to all the lawyers and allowed them three hours to prepare for argument. Thehearing lasted for more than two and a half hours.When faced with motions that allege governmental misconduct, most district judges arereluctant to find that the prosecutors’ actions were flagrant, willful or in bad faith.
1
In this case,for example, the Court denied several previous motions to dismiss and permitted the prosecution to proceed over the heated objections of defense counsel because it was willing to
1
For an example of a court’s reluctance to make those findings,see
United States v.Chapman
, 524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). There, the apparently ambivalent district judge statedthat “the government did not act intentionally” but also said that the government “did not . . . act[ ] . . . unintentionally.” The appellate court characterized this ruling as “somewhat confusing.”
 Id.
at 1080 n.2.
CR-11 (09/98)
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 41
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 665 Filed 12/01/11 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:17868
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 666 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 42 Page ID #:17910
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
accept the prosecutors’ assurances that their conduct was inadvertent and would not berepeated. The Court even said it was “not anxious to attribute a deliberate, intentional, anddevious motive” to the Government. April 5, 2011, R.T. at 448.In this Court’s experience, almost all of the prosecutors in the Office of the United StatesAttorney for this district consistently display admirable professionalism, integrity and fairness.
2
So it is with deep regret that this Court is compelled to find that the Government team allowed akey FBI agent to testify untruthfully before the grand jury, inserted material falsehoods intoaffidavits submitted to magistrate judges in support of applications for search warrants andseizure warrants, improperly reviewed e-mail communications between one Defendant and her lawyer, recklessly failed to comply with its discovery obligations, posed questions to certainwitnesses in violation of the Court’s rulings, engaged in questionable behavior during closingargument and even made misrepresentations to the Court.Consequently, the Court throws out the convictions of Defendants LindseyManufacturing Company, Keith E. Lindsey and Steve K. Lee and dismisses the FirstSuperseding Indictment.
II.BACKGROUND
On October 21, 2010, the Government filed a First Superseding Indictment (“FSI”)charging Defendants Keith E. Lindsey, Steve K. Lee, and Lindsey Manufacturing Company(“the Lindsey Defendants”) with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(“FCPA”), as well as substantive violations of the FCPA. Lindsey Manufacturing Company(“LMC”) is a relatively small, privately-owned company that manufactures emergencyrestoration systems and other equipment used by electrical utility companies. Keith Lindsey isits President and CEO. Lee is LMC’s Vice-President and CFO.The gist of the allegations in the FSI was that the Lindsey Defendants paid bribes to twohigh-ranking employees of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (“CFE”), an electric utilitycompany wholly-owned by the Mexican Government. LMC funneled the alleged bribes to theCFE employees (Nestor Moreno and Arturo Hernandez) by making payments to GrupoInternational (“Grupo”), a company owned and controlled by co-Defendants Enrique FaustinoAguilar Noriega (“Enrique Aguilar”) and his wife, Angela Maria Gomez Aguilar (“Angela
2
Two of the three members of the prosecution team in this case were from theWashington, D.C., main office of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), including the lawyer whoinitiated the investigation. Only one “local” AUSA was involved.
CR-11 (09/98)
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 41
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 665 Filed 12/01/11 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:17869
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 666 Filed 12/01/11 Page 3 of 42 Page ID #:17911

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)//-->