17851 North 85th Street Telephone: (480) 626-8483

Suite 175 Facsimile: (480) 383-6224
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255 www.gzlawoffice.com

Mark D. Goldman
mgoldman@gzlawoffice.com

June 22, 2017

Via: First Class, U.S. Mail, Electronic Mail and Hand Delivery (Room D-103)
Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions, III
The Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice, Room 4400
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
askdoj@usdoj.gov

Re: United States of America vs. Joseph M. Arpaio,
U.S. District Court, District of Arizona Case No. 2:16-cr-01012-SRB

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

The Department of Justice is presently prosecuting the above referenced criminal
contempt charge against former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A bench trial is
scheduled to begin in Phoenix on Monday, June 26, 2017. The action was improperly
brought by the DOJ under 18 U.S.C. Section 401 as more particularly described in the
Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending before the United States
Supreme Court (the “Petition”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. We
request that you review this matter prior to the commencement of the trial, and at the very
least, you request the trial court to stay the trial pending the review of the Petition by the
United States Supreme Court that was filed on May 24, 2017.

The criminal contempt allegations stem from an alleged failure of the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Offices (MCSO) to comply with an Order of the Court (preliminary
injunction) dated December 23, 2011. This charge relates back to the prior Obama
administration and a time when the Sheriff’s practices were in direct opposition to
the Obama administration in regards to immigration policy. The Sheriff was
enforcing the law. The Obama administration appears to have been interested in
doing the opposite for apparent political reasons.



GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC
Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions, III
The Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
June 22, 2017
Page 2 of 3

8 U.S.C. Section 1357(g)(10) allows political subdivisions of a state to
communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any
individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully
present in the United States; or otherwise cooperate with the Attorney General in
the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully
present in the United States. This is precisely the activity that MCSO was involved
in that allegedly violated the Court’s order. Sheriff Arpaio is being prosecuted for
criminal contempt for allowing this lawful activity to occur in MCSO.

The political actions taken against Sheriff Arpaio are not unlike the apparent
political actions taken by Former FBI Director Comey in relation to his
pronouncements regarding then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and the
investigation of her. Whether Director Comey intended to influence the election is
irrelevant. The impact on candidate Clinton was clear.

In the case of Sheriff Arpaio, there were certain announcements by the Court
or Department of Justice officials that occurred coincident with Arizona voting
deadlines in 2016. The announcements influenced the election. The
announcements involved the Court’s referral of the matter for criminal contempt
and the Department of Justice’s announcement that it would, in fact, proceed with
the prosecution. These announcements had an undeniable effect upon Sheriff
Arpaio’s campaign to be elected to a seventh term in office. The impact on Sheriff
Arpaio’s re-election campaign is clear. He is no longer Sheriff. (I have attached
two timelines of certain actions, by certain parties, and the media, in relation to
occurrences in the case. See Exhibit “B” attached hereto.)

In regards to other aspects of the prosecution, we request that you reconsider
the DOJ’s prosecution of this matter because it was incorrectly brought under 18
U.S.C. Section 401. Section 401 relates to a simple criminal contempt of a lawful
order. The matter should have been brought under 18 U.S.C. Section 402. Section
402 applies to contumacious conduct that is also a separate crime as more
particularly described in the attached Petition. The allegations in this matter
compel it to be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. Section 402 that entitles the offender to
a jury trial in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 3691. Additionally, Section 402
offenses come with a one year statute of limitations. Given that the matter was not

17851 North 85th Street, Suite 175, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
www.gzlawoffice.com




GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC
Jefferson Beauregard "Jeff" Sessions, III
The Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
June 22, 2017
Page 3 of 3

charged under the correct statute, and consequently the Department of Justice has
deprived Sheriff Arpaio of his jury trial right and the applicable statute of
limitations, in the interest of justice we request that you move the Court to dismiss
the criminal contempt proceedings or, at the very least, move the Court to stay the
trial pending a full review of this matter by your office.

Time is of the essence for the reason that this matter is set to commence trial
on June 26, 2017. We request that you, at a minimum, move to adjourn this trial so
that your office may review the genesis of this prosecution, the incorrect
application by the DOJ of 18 USC Section 401 in lieu of Section 402, and the
pending Petition for Writ of Mandamus that is presently pending at the Supreme
Court of the United States.

Cordially yours,

GOLDMAN & ZWILLINGER PLLC

Mark D. Goldman

Mark D. Goldman

MDG/vrm
cc: Wilenchik & Bartness

17851 North 85th Street, Suite 175, Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
www.gzlawoffice.com








































Exhibit A

No. _______

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

IN RE: JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
Petitioner,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
to the Arizona District Court

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MARK GOLDMAN* DENNIS I. WILENCHIK
GOLDMAN & JOHN D. WILENCHIK
ZWILLINGER, PLLC WILENCHIK &
17851 North 85th St., BARTNESS, P.C.
Suite. 175 2810 N. Third St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Phoenix, AZ 85004
docket@gzlawoffice.com (602) 606-2810
*Admission Pending diw@wb-law.com
jackw@wb-law.com
admin@wb-law.com
Counsel for Petitioner
May 24, 2017

LANTAGNE LEGAL PRINTING
801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (800) 847-0477
i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Did the district court err in denying Peti-
tioner’s request for a jury trial?

Is Petitioner entitled to mandamus relief
on his claim that the District Court wrongly
deprived him of the right to a jury trial?
ii

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

The parties to the proceeding are as follows:
1. Petitioner/Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio
2. Respondent/Plaintiff United States of Amer-
ica.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED .............................. i

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................... iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................. v

OPINIONS BELOW........................................... 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........................... 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................... 4

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE
PETITION ..................................................... 6
I. Defendant is entitled to a jury trial ........ 7
II. Defendant is entitled to
mandamus relief .....................................10
III.There is a circuit split on the
issue of mandamus relief for
deprivation of a jury trial ...................... 15

CONCLUSION ..................................................17
iv

Appendix:

Exhibit A – May 18th, 2017 Order from
Ninth Circuit denying Petition for
Mandamus .......................................................... 1a

Exhibit B – March 1, 2017 Order denying
request for jury trial .......................................... 3a

Exhibit C – April 11, 2017 Order denying
Motion for Trial by Jury .................................... 8a

Exhibit D – October 25, 2016 Order to
Show Cause ....................................................... 9a

Exhibit E – December 13, 2016 Order ............ 13a

Exhibit F – Statutes ......................................... 18a
v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359
U.S. 500 (1959) ......................................... 12, 15
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278
(1936) ................................................................ 9
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227
(1940) ................................................................ 9
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S.
469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44
(1962) .............................................................. 15
Ex parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231, 239
(1918) .............................................................. 11
Ex parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S.
339 (1879) ......................................................... 9
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v.
Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271,
288 n.13 (1988) ............................................... 12
Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v.
Los Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913) .................... 9
In re Cty. of Orange, 784 F.3d 520,
526 (9th Cir. 2015) ......................................... 10
In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 305–06
(1920) .............................................................. 11
In re Union Nacional De
Trabajadores, 502 F.2d 113, 116
(1st Cir. 1974) ................................................. 11
In re Union Nacional De
Trabajadores, 527 F.2d 602 (1975) ............... 11
Kamen v. Nordberg, 485 U.S. 939
(1988) .................................................... 7, 11, 15
vi

Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923)............... 9
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45
(1932) ................................................................ 9
Tata Consultancy Servs. Ltd. v. Cty.
of Orange, Cal., 136 S. Ct. 808
(2016) .............................................................. 11
Timonds v. Hunter, 169 Iowa 598,
151 N.W. 961, 962 (1915) .............................. 13
United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299, 327 (1941) ................................................. 9
Statutes
18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 .......................................... 4, 8
18 U.S.C.A. § 241 ............................................ 4, 8
18 U.S.C.A. § 242 .................................... 3, 6, 8, 9
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 .................................... passim
18 U.S.C.A. § 52 .................................................. 9
28 U.S.C. § 1651 ................................................. 2
A.R.S. § 13-1303.............................................. 4, 8
A.R.S. § 13-2810.................................................. 4
A.R.S. § 13-2810(A)(2) ........................................ 8

Other Authorities
41 A.L.R.2d 780 ................................................ 16
Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed. Prac.
& Proc. Juris. § 3935.1 (3d ed.2014) ............. 11
Nathan A. Forrester, Mandamus As
A Remedy for the Denial of Jury
Trial, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 769 (1991) .............. 16
vii

Shay Lavie, Are Judges Tied to the
Past? Evidence from Jurisdiction
Cases, 43 Hofstra L. Rev. 337, 358
(2014) .............................................................. 16
Rules
Fed.R.Crim.P.42 ................................................. 4
1

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
_________

Joseph M. Arpaio (“Petitioner”) respectful-
ly petitions for a writ of mandamus to the Dis-
trict Court of Arizona granting his request for a
trial by jury at his upcoming trial for criminal
contempt scheduled to begin on June 26th, 2017.

OPINIONS BELOW
The Ninth Circuit Order denying the Peti-
tion, without opinion, is Docket Entry 11 in Case
No. 17-71094, and is included in the Appendix at
Exhibit “A.”
The orders of the Arizona District Court
denying Petitioner’s requests for jury trial are
Dkt. 83 and Dkt. 132 in Arizona District Court
Case No. 2:16-cr-01012-SRB. They are attached
as Exhibits “B” and “C” to the Appendix, respec-
tively.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The order of the Ninth Circuit denying the
Petition is dated May 18th, 2017. Petitioner filed
a request for a rehearing on May 18th. The Ninth
Circuit has not yet ruled on Petitioner’s request
for rehearing. However, because Petitioner’s trial
begins in one month (June 26th), Petitioner
cannot afford to wait to file this Petition until
after a ruling on the request for rehearing, which
may take weeks. The Petition is therefore filed,
2

strictly, under this Court’s Rule 11. Jurisdiction
of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.A. §
1651.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
PROVISIONS INVOLVED

28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 provides that: “(a) The
Supreme Court and all courts established by Act
of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdic-
tions and agreeable to the usages and principles
of law. (b) An alternative writ or rule nisi may be
issued by a justice or judge of a court which has
jurisdiction.”

18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 provides that: “When-
ever a contempt charged shall consist in willful
disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order,
rule, decree, or command of any district court of
the United States by doing or omitting any act or
thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing
done or omitted also constitutes a criminal of-
fense under any Act of Congress, or under the
laws of any state in which it was done or omit-
ted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be
entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as
near as may be to the practice in other criminal
cases. This section shall not apply to contempts
committed in the presence of the court, or so
near thereto as to obstruct the administration of
3

justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedi-
ence of any lawful writ, process, order, rule,
decree, or command entered in any suit or action
brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on
behalf of, the United States.”

18 U.S.C.A. § 242 provides that: “Whoever,
under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regu-
lation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in
any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Posses-
sion, or District to the deprivation of any rights,
privileges, or immunities secured or protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on
account of such person being an alien, or by
reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both; and if bodily injury results from
the acts committed in violation of this section or
if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explo-
sives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and
if death results from the acts committed in viola-
tion of this section or if such acts include kid-
napping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravat-
ed sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term
of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced
to death.”
4

18 U.S.C.A. § 241 (“Conspiracy against
rights”); 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 (“Obstruction of
court orders”); A.R.S. § 13-2810 (“Interference
with judicial proceedings”); and A.R.S. § 13-1303
(“Unlawful imprisonment”) are also involved,
and their pertinent text is set forth in Appendix
“F.”

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner requests a jury trial under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 at his trial for criminal con-
tempt scheduled to begin on June 26th, 2017.
Petitioner is the former democratically-elected
Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. The district
court referred the Petitioner for criminal prose-
cution on August 19th, 2016,1 and entered a
formal Order to Show Cause pursuant to
Fed.R.Crim.P.42 on October 25th, 2016.2 Peti-
tioner requested a trial by jury under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 on January 25th, 2017.3 The

1
Doc. 1 in Arizona District Court Case No. Case
2:16-cr-01012-SRB (hereinafter referred to as
the “District Court Case”).
2
Exhibit “D” to the Appendix. (Doc. 36 in the
District Court Case.)
3
Doc. 69 in the District Court Case.
5

district court denied the request in a footnote.4
Petitioner again requested a trial by jury under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 on April 10th, 2017.5 The
district court again denied the request, without
analysis, on April 10, 2017,6 and stated on the
record that it will not entertain any further
requests for a trial by jury. Petitioner filed a
Petition for Mandamus to the Ninth Circuit on
April 14, 2017.7 On May 18th, 2017, the Ninth
Circuit Motions Panel denied the request with-
out opinion.8 Petitioner filed a Petitioner for a
Rehearing the same day, May 18th, 2017. Be-
cause Petitioner’s trial is scheduled to begin on
June 26th, Petitioner cannot afford to wait for a
ruling on the Motion for Rehearing before filing
this Petition, and Petitioner requests that the

4
Exhibit “B” to the Appendix, at footnote “1.”
While the district court’s Order states that the
court “explained in its December 13, 2016 Or-
der” why Defendant’s conduct “does not consti-
tute a separate criminal offense,” the Decem-
ber 13, 2016 Order in fact does not address
this. See Exhibit “E” to the Appendix, Doc. 60.
5
Doc. 130 in the District Court Case.
6
Exhibit “C” to the Appendix.
7
Docket Entry 1 in Ninth Circuit Case No. 17-
71094.
8
Docket Entry 11 in Ninth Circuit Case No. 17-
71094.
6

Court consider this matter at its conference on
June 15th.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Petitioner is entitled to a jury trial under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691, because Defendant is
charged with criminal contempt for willfully
arresting persons without cause. 18 U.S.C.A. §
3691 provides that a defendant is entitled to a
jury trial if his criminal contempt, as charged,
constitutes a separate crime. Arresting persons
without cause and under color of state law is a
crime under 18 U.S.C.A. § 242. Therefore, De-
fendant is entitled to a trial by jury. The wrong-
ful deprivation of a jury trial is traditionally
reviewable by mandamus. But even if it were
not, the Defendant’s right here is so clear, that
there is nothing gained by reserving this issue
for a direct appeal. Defendant will suffer a
wrongful trial and could suffer a wrongful sen-
tence. If Defendant, who is eighty-four years old,
dies before a reversal on direct appeal, then the
sentence will stand. Judicial economy also coun-
sels in favor of review by mandamus, since order-
ing a jury trial in the first instance is less “try-
ing” on the court than conducting a wrongful
bench trial and second retrial by jury. Finally,
this case is of extraordinary public interest,
which uniquely counsels in favor of issuing
mandamus to direct a trial by jury. This is a
prosecution for criminal contempt that was
7

initiated by the district court against a demo-
cratically-elected Sheriff. If mandamus does not
issue, then the district court will be sitting in
judgment of its own prosecution of the defend-
ant, an elected officer in a “competing” branch of
government. This already subjects any verdict to
a certain degree of public suspicion, other than
raising the specter of something undemocratic.
But if the verdict is reversed on direct appeal (for
failure to grant a jury trial), then it strongly
signals to the public that the district court
lacked independence or fealty to our democratic
system. By issuing mandamus now, the Court
avoids such public scrutiny and disapproval.
The issue of whether mandamus must is-
sue to correct the wrongful deprivation of a jury
trial also implicates a long-unresolved circuit
split, which Justice Byron White identified in his
dissent to Kamen v. Nordberg, 485 U.S. 939
(1988).
Because Petitioner’s trial is set for June
26 , 2017, Petitioner files a Motion for Expedit-
th

ed Consideration herewith, and requests that the
Court consider this Petition at its conference on
June 15th. Each of the foregoing points is ad-
dressed in more detail below.
I. Defendant is entitled to a jury
trial
18 U.S.C.A. § 3691 provides that the de-
fendant is entitled to a jury in any criminal
contempt case where the “contempt
charged…also constitutes a criminal offense
8

under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of
any state in which it was done or omitted.” The
contempt charged in this case constitutes a
criminal offense under 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 (“Dep-
rivation of Civil Rights”), and so Defendant is
entitled to a trial by jury.9
Defendant is charged with “stop[ping] and
detain[ing] persons based on factors including
their race, and frequently arrest[ing] and deliv-
er[ing] such persons to ICE when there were no
state charges to bring against them.”10 This

9 The charged contempt also constitutes other
federal and state criminal offenses, but this
one is the most obvious, and fully encom-
passes the conduct charged. Other offenses
include 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 (“Conspiracy
against rights”); A.R.S. § 13-1303 (“Unlawful
imprisonment”); 18 U.S.C.A. § 1509 (“Ob-
struction of court orders”); and A.R.S. § 13-
2810(A)(2)(“Interference with judicial pro-
ceedings”).
10
See Order to Show Cause, attached as Exhibit
“D” to the Appendix. The Order to Show
Cause alleged that these acts were committed
in violation of a district court order enjoining
Defendant “and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s
Office…from enforcing federal civil immigra-
tion law or from detaining persons they be-
lieved to be in the country without authoriza-
tion but against whom they had no state
charges.”
9

constitutes a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 242, which “authorizes the punishment of two
different offenses. The one is willfully subjecting
any [person, under color of law] to the depriva-
tion of rights secured by the Constitution; the
other is willfully subjecting any [person, under
color of law] to different punishments on account
of his color or race, than are prescribed for the
punishment of citizens.” United States v. Classic,
313 U.S. 299, 327 (1941) (describing section 20 of
former 18 U.S.C.A. § 52, now 18 U.S.C. § 242).11
A state enforcement officer who, under color of
state law, willfully, without cause, arrests or
imprisons a person or injures one who is legally
free, commits an offense under 18 U.S.C.A. §
242. This undisputed conclusion is amply sup-
ported by the decisions of this Court, in cases
such as Ex parte State of Virginia, 100 U.S. 339
(1879); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. at
299; Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Los
Angeles, 227 U.S. 278 (1913); Chambers v. Flori-
da, 309 U.S. 227 (1940); Brown v. Mississippi,
297 U.S. 278 (1936); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S.
45 (1932); and Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86
(1923).
The contempt that was charged in this
case constitutes the same offense described
above. Petitioner, a county Sheriff, was charged
11 18 U.S.C.A. § 242 and the former 18 U.S.C.A. §
52 are identical in all relevant parts, except
that the word “inhabitant” has been replaced
with the word “person.”
10

with willfully detaining and arresting persons
without state charges, “based on factors includ-
ing their race.” This is clearly the same as “will-
fully subjecting any [person, under color of law]
to the deprivation of rights secured by the Con-
stitution,” or “willfully subjecting any [person,
under color of law] to different punishments on
account of his color or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens.” Because the
contempt with which Petitioner was charged also
constitutes a criminal offense, Petitioner is
entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of law.
II. Defendant is entitled to manda-
mus relief
The issue then becomes whether manda-
mus relief is available to Petitioner at this stage
of the proceedings. The Ninth Circuit Motions
Panel’s Order simply stated that “Petitioner has
not demonstrated that this case warrants the
intervention of this court by means of the ex-
traordinary remedy of mandamus.” The decision
by the Ninth Circuit Motions Panel to deny
Petitioner’s request on the grounds that the
issue is not “extraordinary” enough to “warrant”
its intervention is inconsistent not only with the
clear precedent of the Ninth Circuit and many
others, but also with the precedent of this Court.
The Ninth Circuit has held that “where, as here,
the mandamus petition alleges the erroneous
deprivation of a jury trial…the only question
presented is whether the district court erred in
denying petitioner’s request for a jury trial.” In
11

re Cty. of Orange, 784 F.3d 520, 526 (9th Cir.
2015), cert. denied sub nom. Tata Consultancy
Servs. Ltd. v. Cty. of Orange, Cal., 136 S. Ct. 808
(2016)(internal ellipsis omitted). “The right to a
jury trial has occupied an exceptional place in
the history of the law of federal mandamus.” Id.,
784 F.3d at 526. “For that reason, we will grant
mandamus where necessary to protect the con-
stitutional right to trial by jury. If the plaintiffs
are entitled to a jury trial, their right to the writ
is clear.” Id. (citing Charles Alan Wright et al.,
Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3935.1 (3d ed.2014)).
The First Circuit reached the same conclusion in
a criminal case concerning a statutory right to
jury trial: “We take the position that mandamus
would be appropriate if a jury trial were re-
quired, and any denial of mandamus should be
made only if either the case has not been ade-
quately presented or there is no such right to a
jury trial.” In re Union Nacional De Trabaja-
dores, 502 F.2d 113, 116 (1st Cir. 1974), vacated
on other grounds, 527 F.2d 602 (1975).12 The
Court’s Opinion in In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300,
305–06 (1920) provided the rationale for these
decisions: “if proceedings…would deprive peti-
tioner of his right to a trial by jury, the order

12
Also cited by Justice White in his dissent to
the denial of certiorari in Kamen v. Nordberg,
485 U.S. at 939.
12

should, as was said in Ex parte Simons,13 be
dealt with now, before the plaintiff is put to the
difficulties and the courts to the inconvenience
that would be raised by a proceeding that ulti-
mately must be held to have been required under
a mistake.” (Internal quotations and citations
omitted, emphasis added.) This Court has stated
that “[w]hatever differences of opinion there may
be in other types of cases, we think the right to
grant mandamus to require jury trial where it
has been improperly denied is settled.” Beacon
Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 511
(1959).14
The rationale for issuing mandamus to di-
rect a jury trial is even more compelling in this
case. Petitioner’s right to a jury trial is simple,
and clear. There is nothing to be gained by
“pushing off” a decision on the issue until after
the court has already conducted a bench trial,
wrongfully. Defendant will be subjected to the
harm and expense of an unnecessary criminal
trial, and could be subjected to a wrongful con-
viction and sentencing, which can never be fully

13
Referring to Ex parte Simons, 247 U.S. 231,
239 (1918).
14
See also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Ma-
yacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 288 n.13
(1988)(right to mandamus for an “order that
deprives a party of the right to trial by jury” is
“clear”).
13

“undone.” Defendant is eighty-four years old, and
the possibility that he may not outlive a convic-
tion and appeal, i.e. that he may die after a
conviction but before it is reversed—such that
the conviction stands—cannot be overlooked. See
Timonds v. Hunter, 169 Iowa 598, 151 N.W. 961,
962 (1915)(finding that defendant’s health and
age of eighty-six years old were factors support-
ing grant of an interlocutory appeal on the right
to a jury trial, because “his expectancy of life is
very brief”; “[a]n adverse judgment would fix his
status for the time being”; and “[i]f he should die
before his appeal could be heard and determined,
it is doubtful at least whether his appeal would
not be abated thereby”). Correcting the depriva-
tion of a jury trial by mandamus also offers
benefits in terms of judicial economy, because
one jury trial is always less burdensome than a
bench trial followed by another retrial to a jury.
Because there is a strong constitutional prefer-
ence for jury trials, especially in a criminal case,
and because conducting a jury trial is very rarely
(if ever) deemed erroneous per se, courts rarely
refuse them. So in practical terms, encouraging
the review of this issue by mandamus will not
“open a floodgates” or otherwise overwhelm the
appellate courts. (Nor has it overwhelmed any of
the circuits that do encourage mandamus on this
issue, such as the Ninth.) Given the importance
of jury trials to the American judicial system,
courts of review should not be “shy” of aggres-
sively protecting the right.
14

Finally, the public interest in this case
uniquely counsels in favor of issuing mandamus
to grant a jury trial, as partly addressed above.
The court’s use of its criminal contempt power to
initiate a criminal prosecution is, ab initio, a
rare incursion into authority that is normally
reserved for the executive branch. When the
court accedes to such executive powers, it should
be especially careful to avoid exercising the full
extent of its adjudicative authority, and it should
cede that authority whenever possible to another
independent body, such as a jury. This not only
avoids the appearance of bias, but it helps to
preserve a fundamental separation of powers in
between the judicial and executive branches.
These kinds of concerns are dramatically height-
ened in this case, because the Defendant is
charged with committing criminal contempt as a
democratically-elected sheriff, i.e. a member of
the executive branch. This case presents a direct
“clash” of the authority of the judicial and execu-
tive branches, which only a jury can decide in a
way that inspires plenary confidence by the
public in the result. If the court refuses to grant
a jury, then no matter what the outcome, it will
be wrongful—and viewed with suspicion—
because it did not come from a jury. This is
harmful to the public’s faith in the independence
and integrity of the judicial system, which is why
we have juries to begin with. The trial will also
be heavily publicized, making the conduct of a
second trial by jury difficult, since potential
15

jurors will have already seen and heard evidence
presented during the first trial to the court.
III. There is a circuit split on the is-
sue of mandamus relief for dep-
rivation of a jury trial
In 1988, Justice Byron White identified a
circuit split on this exact same issue, of “when
mandamus relief will be available to a party who
claims that the District Court wrongly deprived
him of the right to a jury trial.” Kamen v. Nord-
berg, 485 U.S. 939 (1988)(White, J. dissenting).
“…[T]he Seventh Circuit [holds] that mandamus
will lie to enforce a party’s demand for a jury
trial only when, first, the party’s right to a jury
trial is clear and indisputable and, second, the
party has no other adequate means to attain the
relief he desires….[This] conflicts with the deci-
sions of other Courts of Appeals, which hold that
mandamus relief is available to review an order
denying a claimed right of trial by jury, and that
a proper petition for mandamus in these circum-
stances obliges the Court of Appeals to address
the merits of the claimed right to a jury trial.”
Id. “It may also be inconsistent with this Court’s
prior decisions in Beacon Theatres, Inc. v.
Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 79 S.Ct. 948, 3 L.Ed.2d
988 (1959), and Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369
U.S. 469, 82 S.Ct. 894, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962),
which emphasize the responsibility of the Courts
of Appeals to grant mandamus relief where it is
necessary to protect the constitutional right to
trial by jury.” This split and ambiguity in the law
16

of mandamus has persisted over the years, and
perhaps only broadened. See e.g. Nathan A.
Forrester, Mandamus As A Remedy for the
Denial of Jury Trial, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 769
(1991)(“[a]lthough it has had the opportunity,
the Supreme Court has not yet resolved this
circuit split”); Shay Lavie, Are Judges Tied to the
Past? Evidence from Jurisdiction Cases, 43
Hofstra L. Rev. 337, 358 (2014)(“much ink has
been spilled in an attempt to decipher or suggest
the exact boundaries of the federal final judg-
ment rule”; discussing interlocutory appeals from
wrongful deprivation of a jury trial as an exam-
ple); “Mandamus or prohibition as remedy to
enforce right to jury trial,” 41 A.L.R.2d 780
(Originally published in 1955)(“The courts are
divided as to whether mandamus and prohibi-
tion are appropriate remedies to test a party’s
right to a jury trial”). While Petitioner has a
clear and present right to relief in his particular
case, the Court may regard this circuit split, and
the need for reaffirmation or clarification of its
views on this subject, as supportive of granting
this Petition.
17

CONCLUSION
Petitioner respectfully asks the Court to
grant this Petition by directing the district court
to conduct a trial by jury. Because Petitioner’s
trial is scheduled to begin on June 26th, 2017,
Petitioner respectfully requests expedited brief-
ing and consideration of this Petition, and sub-
mits a Motion for Expedited Consideration to-
gether herewith.
Respectfully submitted,

MARK GOLDMAN1 DENNIS I. WILENCHIK
Goldman & Zwillinger, JOHN D. WILENCHIK
PLLC WILENCHIK &
17851 North 85th St., BARTNESS, P.C.
Suite 175 2810 N. Third St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Phoenix, AZ 85004
docket@gzlawoffice.com diw@wb-law.com
1
Admission Pending jackw@wb-law.com
admin@wb-law.com
Counsel for Petitioner
No. _______

In The
Supreme Court of the United States

IN RE: JOSEPH M. ARPAIO,
Petitioner,

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
to the Arizona District Court

APPENDIX

MARK GOLDMAN* DENNIS I. WILENCHIK
GOLDMAN & JOHN D. WILENCHIK
ZWILLINGER, PLLC WILENCHIK &
17851 North 85th St., BARTNESS, P.C.
Suite. 175 2810 N. Third St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Phoenix, AZ 85004
docket@gzlawoffice.com (602) 606-2810
*Admission Pending diw@wb-law.com
jackw@wb-law.com
admin@wb-law.com
Counsel for Petitioner
May 24, 2017

LANTAGNE LEGAL PRINTING
801 East Main Street Suite 100 Richmond, Virginia 23219 (800) 847-0477
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Exhibit A – May 18th, 2017 Order from
Ninth Circuit denying
Petition for Mandamus..........................1a

Exhibit B – March 1, 2017 Order denying
request for jury trial…………................3a

Exhibit C – April 11, 2017 Order denying
Motion for Trial by Jury…….…...........8a

Exhibit D – October 25, 2016 Order to
Show Cause …………………….............9a

Exhibit E – December 13, 2016 Order…………......13a

Exhibit F – Statutes…………………………...…......18a
1a

APPENDIX A

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff.

JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, PHOENIX,
Respondent,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 17-71094 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-01012-SRB-1 Dis-
trict of Arizona, Phoenix

ORDER

Before: REINHARDT, CALLAHAN, and NGUYEN,
Circuit Judges.

To the extent that petitioner’s motion to file an
oversized reply in support of this petition for a writ
of mandamus (Docket Entry No. 7) is necessary, it is
granted. The reply has been filed.
2a

Petitioner has not demonstrated that this case
warrants the intervention of this court by means of
the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. According-
ly, the petition is denied.

All other pending requests are denied.

DENIED.
3a

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio,
Defendant.

No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB

ORDER

At issue are the Government’s Brief in Sup-
port of Request for Bench Trial (“Gov.’s Mot.”) (Doc.
61) and Defendant's Cross-Motion Requesting Jury
Trial (“Def.’s Mot.”) (Doc. 62).
I. BACKGROUND
This case comes to the Court by way of a crim-
inal contempt referral from Judge Snow. (Doc. 1,
Order Re Criminal Contempt.) On October 11, 2016,
the Court held a Status Conference where the Gov-
ernment asked the Court to limit Defendant's poten-
tial penalty to no more than six months in prison and
requested a bench trial. (Doc. 27, Rep.’s Tr. of Pro-
ceedings Status Conference 9:5-16.) Defendant
indicated that he wanted time to research the ques-
4a

tion of whether he was entitled to a jury trial. (Id.
15:19-16:2.) The Court declined to resolve the issue
at the Status Conference. (Id. 38:19-39:15.) On
October 25, 2016 the Court issued an Order to Show
Cause setting forth the essential facts constituting
the charged criminal contempt. (Doc. 36.) The Gov-
ernment submitted its Brief in Support of Request
for Bench Trial on December 15, 2016, Defendant
submitted a Cross-Motion Requesting Jury Trial on
December 27, 2016, and briefing concluded on Janu-
ary 9, 2017. (See Docs. 61, 62, 63, 66, 69.) The Court
heard argument on January 25, 2017. (See Doc. 71,
Minute Entry.) The Court now rules on the Govern-
ment's Request for Bench Trial and Defendant’s
Cross-Motion Requesting Jury Trial.
II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
The Government argues that there is no con-
stitutional right to a jury trial for criminal contempt
charges if the possible sentence of imprisonment is
no greater than six months. (Gov.’s Mot. at 1.) De-
fendant concedes that there is no constitutional right
to a jury trial when the maximum sentence of im-
prisonment cannot exceed six months, but argues
that the Court should, in its discretion, grant a jury
5a

trial. (Def.’s Mot. at 1.)1 Defendant argues that the
Court should grant a jury trial because “the objec-
tives and motives of Judge Snow” will be called into
question and “a trial by jury avoids any appearance
of bias or impropriety” on the part of any of the
judges in the District of Arizona. (Id. at 2-3.) A
defendant charged with criminal contempt does not
have a constitutional right to a jury trial where the
conviction can result in a sentence of imprisonment
not longer than six months. See Muniz v. Hoffman,
422 U.S. 454, 475-76 (1975); United States v.
Rylander, 714 F.2d 996, 1005 (9th Cir. 1983).
At the January 25, 2017 argument, Defendant,
through his counsel, stated “Judge, if the question
you posed to me was if it goes jury, all bets are off, if
it goes court, it’s capped, I would vote court.” (Doc.
74, Rep.’s Tr. of Proceedings Pretrial Conference
19:19-21.) The case law is clear, if the Court limits
Defendant’s potential sentence to six months or less,
there is no right to a jury trial. See Muniz, 422 U.S.
at 475-76. Furthermore, the Court has found no
precedent for granting a jury trial for a charge of
1
Defendant also argues that a jury trial is statutori-
ly required under 18 U.S.C. § 3691. (Doc. 69, Def.
Joseph M. Arpaio’s Supp. to Reply to Gov. Resp. in
Supp. of Def.’s Mot.) Section 3691, however, confers a
statutory right when the contumacious conduct also
constitutes a separate criminal offense. 18 U.S.C. §
3691. As the Court explained in its December 13,
2016 Order, Defendant’s conduct arising out of his
disobedience of Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction
does not constitute a separate criminal offense, and
therefore, § 3691 does not apply. (See Doc. 60, Dec.
13, 2016 Order at 2-3.)
6a

criminal contempt when the possible sentence was
limited to a maximum of six months in prison. See
e.g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 496 (1974) (“[A]
State may choose to try any contempt without a jury
if it determines not to impose a sentence longer than
six months”); United States v. Aldridge, 995 F.2d 233
(9th Cir. 1993) (Table) (concluding that Defendant
had no right to a jury trial because the district court
did not sentence him to more than six months’ im-
prisonment or fine him more than $500); United
States v. Berry, 232 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2000) (Table)
(concluding that when the trial court stipulates that
it will not impose a sentence longer than six months,
Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial).
The Court finds that this case is appropriate
for a bench trial. This case focuses on the application
of facts to the law to determine if Defendant inten-
tionally violated a court order. It does not necessitate
an inquiry into the “'motives of the referring judge”.
At oral argument, Defendant further explained that
he thought there was “anger” on the referring judge’s
part in making the referral. (Id. at 17:2-7.) As the
Court pointed out at oral argument, the referring
judge’s motives are not relevant in determining if
Defendant’s violations were in fact willful. (Id. at
17:11-16.) While Defendant argues that a jury trial
will prevent any appearance of impropriety, this
Court does not believe there is any such appearance.
Therefore, the Court grants Government’s Request
for a Bench Trial and denies Defendant’s Cross-
Motion Requesting Jury Trial.

IT IS ORDERED granting the Government’s Brief
in Support of Request for Bench Trial (Doc. 61).
7a

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s
Cross-Motion Requesting Jury Trial (Doc. 62).

Dated this 1st day of March, 2017.
[Signature]
Susan R. Bolton
United States District Judge
8a

APPENDIX C

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio,
Defendant.

No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB
ORDER

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Trial by
Jury (Doc. 130). The motion will be denied for two
reasons. First, the motion was filed after the dead-
line set by the Court for pre-trial motions. Second,
the Court has already considered and ruled on the
issues raised in Defendant’s motion. See, Docs. 60
and 83.

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion for Trial by
Jury (Doc. 130).
Dated this 11th day of April, 2017.
[Signature]
Susan R. Bolton
United States District Judge
9a

APPENDIX D

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio,
Defendant.

No. CR-16-01012-001-PHX-SRB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This Order is entered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
401 and Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. On October 11, 2016, the Government
stated its intention to prosecute Joseph M. Arpaio for
contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) based on the
Order Re Criminal Contempt entered by United
States District Judge G. Murray Snow on August 19,
2016, in the Melendres matter. See Melendres v.
Arpaio, no. 2:07-cv-02513 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2016),
Order Re Criminal Contempt, ECF No. 1792. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court issues this Order
to Show Cause as to whether Joseph M. Arpaio
should be held in criminal contempt for willful
disobedience of Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction
of December 23, 2011, entered in Melendres. See
Melendres, Order, ECF No. 494.
10a

The essential facts constituting the charged
criminal contempt are as follows:
In December 2011, prior to trial in the Melen-
dres case, Judge Snow entered a preliminary injunc-
tion prohibiting Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) from enforcing
federal civil immigration law or from detaining
persons they believed to be in the country without
authorization but against whom they had no state
charges. See Melendres, Order, ECF No. 494. The
preliminary injunction also ordered that the mere
fact that someone was in the country without author-
ization did not provide, without more facts, reasona-
ble suspicion or probable cause to believe that such a
person had violated state law. See id. Judge Snow
noted that Sheriff Arpaio admitted he knew about
the preliminary injunction upon its issuance and
thereafter. (Doc. 1677 ¶ 15.) Sheriff Arpaio’s attorney
stated to the press that the Sheriff disagreed with
the Order and would appeal it, but would also com-
ply with it in the meantime. (Id. ¶ 14.) Sheriff Ar-
paio’s attorney and members of his command staff
repeatedly advised him on what was necessary to
comply with the Order.
Almost immediately after the court entered its
original October 2, 2013 injunctive order, (Doc. 606),
Judge Snow had to amend and supplement the order
and enter further orders because: (1) the Sheriff
refused to comply in good faith with the order’s
requirement that he engage in community outreach,
(Doc. 670; see also Doc. 1677 ¶¶ 368, 368 n.13), and
(2) the Sheriff and his command staff were mischar-
acterizing the content of the order to MCSO deputies
and to the general public, (Doc. 680; see also Doc.
1677 ¶ 367). Within one month of those revisions, the
11a

Defendants disclosed to the court the arrest, suicide,
and subsequent discovery of misconduct of Deputy
Ramon “Charley” Armendariz who had been a signif-
icant witness at the trial of the underlying matter.
Among other things, the disclosure of Armendariz’s
misconduct eventually resulted in the determination
that the Sheriff had intentionally done nothing to
implement the court’s 2011 preliminary injunctive
order; and the Sheriff was not investigating the
allegations of misconduct in good faith—especially
those that pertained to him or to members of his
command staff.
The MCSO continued to stop and detain per-
sons based on factors including their race, (id. at ¶
161), and frequently arrested and delivered such
persons to ICE when there were no state charges to
bring against them, (id. ¶¶ 157–61). Judge Snow
concluded that Sheriff Arpaio did so based on the
notoriety he received for, and the campaign dona-
tions he received because of, his immigration en-
forcement activity. (Id. ¶¶ 58–60.) Since Sheriff
Arpaio had previously taken some of his arrestees to
the Border Patrol when ICE refused to take them, he
determined that referral to the Border Patrol would
serve as his “back-up” plan for all similar circum-
stances going forward. (Id. ¶¶ 40–41.) Sheriff Ar-
paio’s failure to comply with the preliminary injunc-
tion continued even after the Sheriff’s appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was denied. (Id. ¶¶
42–44.) When Plaintiffs accused Sheriff Arpaio of
violating the Order, he falsely told his lawyers that
he had been directed by federal agencies to turn over
persons whom he had stopped but for whom he had
no state charges. (Id. ¶¶ 50–52.) Nevertheless,
Sheriff Arpaio’s lawyer still advised him that he was
12a

likely operating in violation of the preliminary
injunction. (Id. ¶ 53.) Although Sheriff Arpaio told
counsel on multiple occasions either that the MCSO
was operating in compliance with the Order, or that
he would revise his practices so that the MCSO was
operating in compliance with the Order, he contin-
ued to direct his deputies to arrest and deliver unau-
thorized persons to ICE or the Border Patrol. (Id. ¶¶
55–57.) After exhausting “all of its other methods to
obtain compliance,” Judge Snow referred Sheriff
Arpaio’s intentional and continuing non-compliance
with the court’s preliminary injunction to another
Judge to determine whether he should be held in
criminal contempt. (Order Re Criminal Contempt at
12.)
THEREFORE, the Court issues a notice to
show cause as to whether Joseph M. Arpaio should
be held in criminal contempt for willful disobedience
of Judge Snow’s preliminary injunction of December
23, 2011.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trial for
this matter is set for December 6, 2016 at 9:00
a.m. in the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse,
401 W. Washington Street, Courtroom 502, Phoenix,
Arizona 85003.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2016.
[Signature]
Susan R. Bolton
United States District Judge
13a

APPENDIX E

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio,
Steven R. Bailey,
Michele Iafrate, and
Gerard Sheridan
Defendants.

No. CR-16-01012-PHX-SRB
ORDER

At issue are Defendants’ Memoranda Re: Statute of
Limitations (Docs. 34, 35, 37, & 38).1

1 Each Defendant filed a separate memorandum briefing
the applicable statute of limitations. The briefs all raise
similar arguments, so the Court will refer to one brief
throughout.
14a

I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from Judge G. Murray Snow’s
Order Re Criminal Contempt directing this Court to
determine whether Defendants Joseph M. Arpaio,
Steven R. Bailey, Michele Iafrate, and Gerard Sheri-
dan should be held in criminal contempt for their
conduct during their civil case. (Doc. 1, Aug. 19, 2016
Order at 31-32.) This order addresses the criminal
contempt referral of Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Deputy
Sheridan involving the non-disclosure of 50 Mont-
gomery hard drives and the criminal contempt
referral of Chief Deputy Sheridan, Captain Bailey,
and Ms. Iafrate involving the concealment of 1,459
IDs. (Order at 6-7, 10, 15, 18-19, 27.) These aspects
of Judge Snow’s civil contempt proceeding have a
long history which the Court briefly summarizes
here. In the underlying civil suit, Judge Snow ap-
pointed a Monitor to oversee various Maricopa
County Sheriff’s Office internal affairs investiga-
tions. Defendants were required to turn over various
related materials to the Monitor. Judge Snow or-
dered Sheriff Arpaio to oversee preservation and
production of the Montgomery materials, which he
did not do. (Order at 6-7.) Chief Deputy Sheridan
also did not produce the 50 Montgomery hard drives.
(Order at 15.) The Monitor discovered the hard
drives in July 2015. (Order at 16.) Chief Deputy
Sheridan also concealed 1,459 IDs that were found
during the course of an internal affairs investigation
and ordered Captain Bailey to suspend the investiga-
tion. (Order at 10, 18.) Chief Deputy Sheridan con-
sulted Ms. Iafrate about whether they had to disclose
the IDs to the Monitor, and she told them not to
disclose the IDs. (Order at 19, 27.) Captain Bailey
told the Monitor that they had not found any new
15a

IDs. (Order at 20, 25.) The Monitor was informed
about the IDs on July 22, 2015. (Id.) Judge Snow
held a hearing on July 24, 2015, wherein each De-
fendant testified regarding their participation in the
concealment of the IDs and/or the Montgomery
materials.
Judge Snow issued his Order Re Contempt on
August 19, 2016 directing this Court to determine
whether Sheriff Arpaio, Chief Deputy Sheridan,
Captain Bailey, and Attorney Iafrate should be held
in criminal contempt. (Doc. 1, Order at 32.) Judge
Snow’s order set forth three categories of contuma-
cious conduct: Defendant Arpaio’s violation of the
court’s preliminary injunction, Defendants Arpaio
and Sheridan’s participation in the non-disclosure of
the Montgomery hard drives, and Defendants Sheri-
dan, Bailey, and Iafrate’s concealment of the IDs.
(See Order at 1-2.) The Court held a status confer-
ence on October 11, 2016. (Doc. 24, Minute Entry.)
At the status conference, the Government as-
serted that there were two statutes governing crimi-
nal contempt, 18 U.S.C. § 401 and 18 U.S.C. § 402.
(Doc. 27, Rep.’s Tr. of Status Conference at 5.) Sec-
tion 401 addresses disobedience of court orders. (Id.)
Section 402 addresses a subset of that conduct,
conduct that also constitutes a criminal offense. (Id.)
The Government argued that Sheriff Arapio’s con-
tumacious conduct of violating Judge Snow’s prelim-
inary injunction order is punishable under Section
401, but because non-disclosure of the Montgomery
hard drives and concealment of the IDS also consti-
tute obstruction of justice, a separate crime, this
contumacious conduct is punishable under Section
402. (Id. at 6.) Contumacious conduct subject to
Section 401 does not have a statute of limitations;
16a

however conduct subject to Section 402 has a one-
year statute of limitations, which the Government
claimed had run. 18 U.S.C. § 3285; (Rep.’s Tr. of
Status Conference at 7-8.) The Court directed coun-
sel to file briefs regarding the statute of limitations
and possible tolling of the statute as relevant to the
Government’s position on the charges arising from
the Montgomery hard drives and the IDs. (Doc. 24,
Minute Entry.) The parties entered into an agree-
ment tolling the statute of limitations that day
awaiting a determination of the issue by the Court.
(Id.) The Court now considers whether the statute of
limitations applicable to contumacious conduct under
18 U.S.C. § 402 has run.
II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that a criminal contempt
prosecution related to the nondisclosure of Mont-
gomery materials and the IDs cannot be brought
because 18 U.S.C. § 3285 sets a one year statute of
limitations for contumacious conduct punishable
under Section 402, which expired prior to Judge
Snow’s order. (Doc. 34, Mem. Regarding Expiration
of Statute of Limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3285 at
2-3.) “No proceeding for criminal contempt within
section 402 of this title shall be instituted against
any person, corporation or association unless begun
within one year from the date of the act complained
of.” 18 U.S.C. § 3285. Defendants Arpaio and Sheri-
dan’s contumacious conduct arose from their actions
regarding the Montgomery hard drives and Defend-
ants Sheridan, Bailey, and Iafrate’s contumacious
conduct arose from concealment of the IDs. At latest,
their conduct ceased on July 24, 2015 when they
were called to the hearing before Judge Snow be-
cause at that time the Monitor had possession of the
17a

undisclosed evidence. Judge Snow’s order was not
issued until August 19, 2016, more than three weeks
after the statute of limitations expired. Additionally,
there is no basis for tolling the statute of limitations
because any potentially excludable time periods
occurred prior to the July 24, 2015 hearing. There-
fore, the Court cannot proceed with criminal con-
tempt charges against Defendants Arpaio and Sheri-
dan for their conduct regarding the nondisclosure of
the Montgomery hard drives or against Defendants
Sheridan, Bailey, and Iafrate for their conduct
regarding concealment of the IDs.
III. CONCLUSION
Because 18 U.S.C. § 3285 provides a one year
statute of limitations for criminal contempt that is
also a crime and the contumacious conduct at issue
ended more than one year ago, the Court dismisses
Defendants Sheridan, Bailey, and Iafrate from the
criminal contempt proceedings and will proceed
against Defendant Arpaio only for those allegations
of criminal contempt in the Order to Show Cause
(Doc. 36).
IT IS ORDERED dismissing Defendants
Sheridan, Bailey, and Iafrate.
Dated this 13th day of December, 2016.
[Signature]
Susan R. Bolton
United States District Judge
18a

APPENDIX F

18 U.S.C.A. § 241. Conspiracy against rights

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State,
Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privi-
lege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or because of his having so exercised
the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the high-
way, or on the premises of another, with intent to
prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than ten years, or both; and if death results
from the acts committed in violation of this section or
if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to
kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to
commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to
kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

18 U.S.C.A. § 1509

Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents,
obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully
attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere
with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of
duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a
19a

court of the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
No injunctive or other civil relief against the con-
duct made criminal by this section shall be denied on
the ground that such conduct is a crime.

A.R.S. § 13-2810

A. A person commits interfering with judicial pro-
ceedings if such person knowingly:
1. Engages in disorderly, disrespectful or insolent
behavior during the session of a court which directly
tends to interrupt its proceedings or impairs the
respect due to its authority; or
2. Disobeys or resists the lawful order, process or
other mandate of a court; or
3. Refuses to be sworn or affirmed as a witness in
any court proceeding; or
4. Publishes a false or grossly inaccurate report of a
court proceeding; or
5. Refuses to serve as a juror unless exempted by
law; or
6. Fails inexcusably to attend a trial at which he
has been chosen to serve as a juror.
B. Interfering with judicial proceedings is a class 1
misdemeanor.

A.R.S. § 13-1303

A. A person commits unlawful imprisonment by
knowingly restraining another person.
20a

B. In any prosecution for unlawful imprisonment,
it is a defense that:
1. The restraint was accomplished by a peace of-
ficer or detention officer acting in good faith in the
lawful performance of his duty; or
2. The defendant is a relative of the person re-
strained and the defendant's sole intent is to assume
lawful custody of that person and the restraint was
accomplished without physical injury.
C. Unlawful imprisonment is a class 6 felony un-
less the victim is released voluntarily by the defend-
ant without physical injury in a safe place before
arrest in which case it is a class 1 misdemeanor.
D. For the purposes of this section, “detention of-
ficer” means a person other than an elected official
who is employed by a county, city or town and who is
responsible for the supervision, protection, care,
custody or control of inmates in a county or munici-
pal correctional institution. Detention officer does
not include counselors or secretarial, clerical or
professionally trained personnel.







































Exhibit B

U.S. District Court
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division)
Civil Case # 2007-CV-02513-GMS


07/08/2016 AzCentral Published on July 8th 2016. “A federal judge said he will issue his final order in civil contempt
proceedings against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio within the next two weeks before moving on to consider
whether to refer Arpaio and several of his deputies for criminal contempt charges.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/07/08/judge-to-decide-later-whether-sheriff-joe-arpaio-faces-
criminal-contempt-charges/86868130/

08/01/2016 1774 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding
Compensation Pursuant to the Court's Order of July 22, 2016 by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order Proposed Order on Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona's Motion for Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Compensation Pursuant to the Court's Order of July 22, 2016)(Walker,
Richard) (Entered: 08/01/2016)

08/02/2016 1775 MOTION for Clarification re: Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order by Joseph M Arpaio.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/02/2016 1776 STATEMENT of of Non-Opposition and Request for Leave to Reply re: 1774 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for
Leave to Respond to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Compensation Pursuant to the Court's Order of
July 22, 2016 by Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez,
Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Young, Stanley) (Entered: 08/02/2016)

08/03/2016 Start of early voting in Arizona primary elections.

08/03/2016 1777 ORDER granting 1774 Motion for Leave to Respond. Defendant Maricopa County shall have, to and including,
8/8/2016, to respond to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Compensation (Doc. 1772 ). Signed by Judge
G Murray Snow on 8/3/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/03/2016 1778 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Related Non-Taxable Expenses by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on
Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses)(Walker, Richard) (Entered:
08/03/2016)

08/03/2016 1779 ORDER granting 1778 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Defendant Maricopa County shall
have to and including 9/1/2016 to file a Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Related Non-Taxable Expenses 1755 . Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/3/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/03/2016 1780 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen E Brody on behalf of Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel
Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/03/2016)

08/04/2016 1781 Joinder to Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses (Document Number 1778) by Interested Party
Brian Sands. filed by Brian Sands. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Murdy, M) (Entered:
08/04/2016)

08/05/2016 1782 ORDER granting 1781 Retired Chief Brian Sands Joinder to Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Extension of
Time. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/5/16. (EJA) (Entered: 08/05/2016)

08/08/2016 1783 Joinder to Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses (Doc. 1778) by Defendant Joseph M Arpaio.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Ackerman, Justin) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/08/2016 1784 RESPONSE re: 1772 Memorandum to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum Regarding Compensation Pursuant to
the Court's July 22, 2016 Order by Defendant Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 08/08/2016)

08/09/2016 1785 ORDER granting 1783 Sheriff Arpaio's Joinder to Defendant Maricopa County's Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response to Plaintiffs' SupplementalMotion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses. Signed
by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/8/2016. (LMR) (Entered: 08/09/2016)

08/11/2016 1786 ORDER re 1775 clarifying that IA investigations 2014-541, 2015-021, and2015-022 should be the subject of the
Independent Investigator's inquiry under paragraph 296 of the Court's Second Amended Second Supplemental
Injunctive Order (Doc. 1765 at p. 54) rather than IA investigations 2105-541, 2014-021, and 2014-022. Signed by
Judge G Murray Snow on 8/11/16.(KMG) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/11/2016 1787 ORDER: The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated August 1, 2016 for services rendered by the
Monitor in July 2016. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to
authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice for the total amount, including any past due balance. Signed by Judge G
Murray Snow on 8/11/2016. (LMR) (Entered: 08/11/2016)

08/12/2016 1788 ORDER/NOTICE: Daniel Giaquinto has requested that the Court have an informal introductory meeting with him in
the Court's chambers on Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. If any party plans on attending, they are directed to
notify the Court by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2016. See order for additional details. Signed by Judge G Murray
Snow on 8/12/2016. (LMR) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
08/12/2016 1789 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Nida Vidutis on behalf of plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega
Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, and Somos America. (BAS)
(Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX175192 as to Nida Vidutis. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY.
There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/15/2016 1790 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 1789 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the
Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is
advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS)
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 08/15/2016)

08/19/2016 1791 ORDER re Victim Compensation. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/19/16. (SJF) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016 1792 ORDER re Criminal Contempt: Pursuant to Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court
requests that the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, John M. Leonardo, or his designee(s), prosecute
this matter. If the United States Attorney declines the appointment he should so inform the Judge to whom the criminal
contempt matters arising from this case are referred, so that an additional assignment to a prosecuting attorney may be
made if that Judge deems it appropriate. Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). The Court retains its jurisdiction over this civil case
and the resulting continued supervision of the Defendants and directs that only the criminal contempt proceedings
initiated by this Order be randomly assigned to another Judge within the District of Arizona. In light of this Court's
referral, the assigned Judge shall determine and state to the Defendants the time and place of the trial, and allow the
Defendants a reasonable time to prepare a defense pursuant to Rule 42(a). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
pursuant to Rule 42(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court refers Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Chief
Deputy Gerard Sheridan, Captain Steven R. Bailey, and Attorney Michelle M. Iafrate to another Judge of this Court to
determine whether they should be held in criminal contempt for the matters detailed above. IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to refer the criminal contempt proceedings, by random lot, to another Judge in
the District of Arizona. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to promptly notify the United States
Attorney for the District of Arizona regarding this Order. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/19/16.
[Please Note: Criminal Case CR-16-1012-PHX-JJT opened.]
(SJF) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/23/2016 1793 *SEALED Information Re Personnel Transfer to CID filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,
# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on 9/28/2016 to change
from lodged to filed pursuant to Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 08/23/2016)

08/23/2016 1794 NOTICE re: Notice of Intent to Transfer Personnel to CID by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1793 Sealed Lodged Proposed
Document (Notice of Intent to Transfer Personnel to CID). (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/25/2016 1795 *SEALED Information Regarding Investigations filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
9/28/2016 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016 1796 NOTICE re: Lodging Under Seal Information Regarding Investigations by Joseph M Arpaio . (Popolizio, Joseph)
(Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/25/2016 1797 NOTICE re: Defendant Joseph M. Arpaios Notice of Compliance with Paragraph 165 of the Second Amended Second
Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order by Joseph M Arpaio . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 08/25/2016)

08/26/2016 Reuters story reporting that the DOJ will take Snow’s referral for criminal contempt charges against Arpaio, just days before the
primary election:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/justice-dept-will-now-decide-on-bringing-contempt-charges-against-ariz-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

08/26/2016 1798 *SEALED Information Re Personnel Transfer to PSB filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,
# 2 Exhibit)(Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on 9/28/2016 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to
Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016 1799 NOTICE re: Notice of Intent to Transfer Personnel to PSB by Joseph M Arpaio . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered:
08/26/2016)

08/26/2016 1800 *SEALED Information Regarding Investigations filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Popolizio,
Joseph) *Modified on 9/28/2016 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/26/2016 1801 NOTICE re: Lodging Under Seal Information Regarding Investigations by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1800 Sealed Lodged
Proposed Document Regarding Investigations. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/30/2016 Primary Election date in Arizona.

09/01/2016 1802 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Related Non-Taxable Expenses by Maricopa, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order on
Notice of Agreement in Principle to Settle Claims Asserted in Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses and Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Responding to
Same)(Walker, Richard) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/01/2016 1803 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona's, Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio's, the Unnamed
Contemnors' and former Chief Brian Sands's Notice of Agreement in Principal to Settle Claims Asserted in Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Related Non-Taxable Expenses and Unopposed Motion for
Extension of Time for Responding to Same (Doc. 1802 ) is GRANTED, and the aforementioned parties shall have to
and including September 30, 2016 to file their respective responses to the Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 1755 ).
Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/1/16. (LAD) (Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/01/2016 1804 NOTICE re: OF AUSA ROSALEEN T. O'GARA TERMINATION by United States of America . (OGara, Rosaleen)
(Entered: 09/01/2016)

09/09/2016 1805 NOTICE re: Defendant Joseph M. Arpaios Notice of Filing Ninth Quarterly Compliance Report by Joseph M Arpaio .
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

09/15/2016 1806 ORDER - The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated September 1, 2016 for services rendered by
the Monitor in August 2016. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to
authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice for the total amount, including any past due balance. Signed by Judge G
Murray Snow on 9/15/2016. (KFZ) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/15/2016 1807 * NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1748 Order, 1765 Order, 1786 Order
on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief by Joseph M Arpaio. Filing fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970-
13399666. (Masterson, John) * Modified to correct event on 9/15/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/15/2016 1808 NOTICE re: Filing 2016 Annual Compliance Report by Joseph M Arpaio . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Popolizio,
Joseph) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016 1809 * NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals re: 1748 Order, 1760 Order, 1630 Order
on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 1791 Order, 1765 Order, 1065 Order, 1048 Order by Maricopa, County of. Filing
fee received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970-13403759. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A-B, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits
C-G)(Walker, Richard) * Modified to correct event on 9/16/2016 (LAD). (Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/16/2016 1810 * NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
re: 1748 Order, 1760 Order, 1765 Order, 1603 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by Brian Sands. Filing fee
received: $ 505.00, receipt number 0970-13404733. (Murdy, M) * Modified to correct event on 9/16/2016 (LAD).
(Entered: 09/16/2016)

09/16/2016 1811 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Charles J Cooper on behalf of Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan,
and Joseph Sousa. (BAS) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX176504 as to Charles Justin Cooper. This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/19/2016 1812 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 1811 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the
Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is
advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS)
(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

09/20/2016 1813 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Michael W. Kirk by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph
Sousa. (Kirk, Michael) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

09/20/2016 1814 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Harold S. Reeves by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph
Sousa. (Reeves, Harold) (Entered: 09/20/2016)

09/20/2016 1816 USCA Case Number re: 1810 Notice of Appeal. Case number 16-16659, Ninth Circuit. (LAD) (Distributed by the
Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

09/21/2016 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX176704 as to Harold S Reeves. This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016 PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX176703 as to Michael W Kirk. This is a TEXT ENTRY
ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/21/2016 1815 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09-08 granting 1813 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 1814 Motion
for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5)
days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's
website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e-mail addresses in
their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated
with this entry.) (Entered: 09/21/2016)

09/22/2016 1817 USCA Case Number re: 1809 Notice of Appeal. Case number 16-16661, Ninth Circuit. (LAD) (Distributed by the
Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

09/22/2016 1818 USCA Case Number re: 1807 Notice of Appeal. Case number 16-16663, Ninth Circuit. (LAD) (Distributed by the
Ninth Circuit) (Entered: 09/22/2016)

09/23/2016 1819 *SEALED Information regarding Investigations filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
9/28/2016 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 09/23/2016)

09/23/2016 1820 *SEALED Information regarding Investigations filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
9/28/2016 to change from lodged to filed pursuant to Order 1827 (MAP)* (Entered: 09/23/2016)

09/23/2016 1821 NOTICE re: Lodging Under Seal Information regarding Investigations by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1819 Sealed Lodged
Proposed Document, 1820 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 09/23/2016)

09/27/2016 1822 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 09/18/15 and 10/26/15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016 1823 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 11-3-15 and 11-5-15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016 1824 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 11/18/15, Judge G Murray Snow hearing
judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/27/2016 1825 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: AO435 1824 Transcript Request filed by Joseph M Arpaio. Item 17 -
TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED: No court proceedings were transcribed or recorded for the requested date of proceeding
of 11/18/2015. FOLLOW-UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please refile with a valid date of proceeding for transcription in
Item 17. Deficiency must be corrected within one business day of this notice. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is
no PDF document associated with this entry. (RAP) (Entered: 09/27/2016)

09/28/2016 1826 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 07/08/16, Judge G Murray Snow hearing
judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/28/2016 1827 ORDER denying 1652 Motion for Reconsideration. FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 1659 Motion for Leave to
File Reply, FURTHER ORDERED The Clerk of Court is directed to file under seal the following lodged documents
regarding open investigations and/or transfer of personnel,
Docs. 1625 , 1662 , 1674 , 1690 , 1710 , 1725 , 1766 , 1767 , 1768 , 1793 , 1795 , 1798 , 1800 , 1819 and 1820 . Signed
by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/28/16.(MAP) (Entered: 09/28/2016)

09/29/2016 1828 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 8-26-14 and 07-31-15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/29/2016 1829 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 05/08/15 and 08/07/15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/29/2016 1830 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 08-11-15 and 8-21-15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

09/29/2016 1831 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 08-28-15-09-04-15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

10/03/2016 1832 WITHDRAWAL OF DOCUMENT re: 1755 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega
Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Young,
Stanley) (Entered: 10/03/2016)

10/06/2016 1833 ORDER - The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated October 1, 2016 for services rendered by
the Monitor in September 2016. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County
to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice for the total amount, including any past due balance. Signed by Judge G
Murray Snow on 10/6/2016. (KFZ) (Entered: 10/06/2016)

10/11/2016 The DOJ accepted the case on August 26th and announced they were filing charges on October 11th. That is only 45 days to
review 3 years and several thousands of pages of court filings, testimony and hearings in order to make their decision.

Arizona Republic story from October 11, 2016 (the day before early voting started for the general election) where the DOJ
announced they were filing charges:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/10/11/department-justice-charge-arpaio-criminal-
contempt/91901204/

10/11/2016 The Federalist Published on October 11th 2016 “The timing of the charges against Arpaio seem to be
convenient for his political opponents, who have loudly opposed his controversial border patrol
policies. He is up for re-election as Maricopa County sheriff for the seventh time in November.”
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-face-criminal-charges-just-before-election-day/

10/11/2016 1834 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 4-7-15 4-9-15 and 4-20-15, Judge G Murray
Snow hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/11/2016 1835 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 9-14-15 and 11-9-15, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/11/2016 1836 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: AO435 1834 Transcript Request filed by Joseph M Arpaio. Item 17 -
TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED: No court proceedings were transcribed or recorded for the requested dates of
proceeding of 04/07/2015, 04/09/2015, and 04/20/2015. FOLLOW-UP ACTION REQUIRED: Please contact
Customer Service at (602) 322-7200 for other options regarding the orders issued on the dates listed above. This is a
TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (RAP) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/12/2016 Early voting begins in the Arizona general election.

10/17/2016 1837 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY'S CHANGE OF ADDRESS/FIRM NAME by Ernest Calderon. (Calderon, Ernest)
(Entered: 10/17/2016)
10/18/2016 1838 NOTICE re: Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio's Notice of Compliance with Paragraph 273 of the Second Amended Second
Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1765 Order . (Popolizio, Joseph)
(Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/18/2016 1839 *FILED at Doc. 1842 *SEALED LODGED Proposed Information Re Personnel Transfer to PSB. Document to be filed
by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
10/19/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/18/2016 1840 NOTICE re: Notice of Intent to Transfer Personnel to PSB by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1839 Sealed Lodged Proposed
Document . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/19/2016 1841 ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the lodged document (Doc. 1839 ) regarding transfer personnel.
Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/19/16. (MAP) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/19/2016 1842 Sealed Information Re Personnel Transfer to PSB by Joseph M Arpaio. (MAP) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/19/2016 1843 Taxation Judgment in amount of $64,742.44. against defendant. Signed by Chief Deputy Clerk Michael O'Brien on
10/19/2016. (CSL) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/21/2016 ABC15 news story from October 21, 2016 reporting that even though the DOJ announced they were filing charges, 10 days
later no official charges have been filed, suggesting that the announcement was timed to impact early voting:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-case-no-official-
criminal-contempt-of-court-charges-yet

10/21/2016 1844 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Maya Milovic appearing for Maricopa County Attorney's Office, William
Montgomery. . (Milovic, Maya) (Entered: 10/21/2016)

10/25/2016 The media keeps the story in the press a week two weeks ahead of the general election: Arizona Republic story reporting that
Arpaio was formally charged with criminal contempt of court by the DOJ.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/10/25/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-officially-charged-
criminal-contempt/92472998/

10/25/16 Huffington Post Published on October 25th 2016 “According to court documents in the case, sheriff’s
deputies acting at Arpaio’s behest continued making such traffic stops for 18 months in
defiance of another judge who presided over the civil lawsuit challenging the practice.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sheriff-joe-arpaio-charged_us_580ffb76e4b001e247df2f48
10/25/2016 1845 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Nida Vidutis filed by Cecillia D Wang. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/25/2016 1846 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental Injunctive Order Re Policy
Review (Sheriff Aripaio's Motion to Extend) by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/25/2016 1847 *RESPONSE re: 1846 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental Injunctive
Order Re Policy Review (Sheriff Aripaio's Motion to Extend) filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz,
Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Wang,
Cecillia) *Modified to correct event type per request of filing party on 10/26/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/26/2016 1848 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1846 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental
Injunctive Order Re Policy Review (Sheriff Aripaio's Motion to Extend) filed by United States of America. (Coe,
Cynthia) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1849 ORDER setting a Status Conference for 11/3/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street,
Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge G Murray Snow. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 10/26/2016. (KFZ) (Entered:
10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1850 MANDATE of USCA, dismissing these consolidated appeals for lack of jurisdiction, re: 15-16440 and 15-
16626 1173 , 1238 Notices of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum, # 2 NDA) (copies sent by the Ninth
Circuit)(REW) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1851 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental Injunctive Order Re: IA
Investigations by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1852 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1846 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second
Supplemental Injunctive Order Re Policy Review (Sheriff Aripaio's Motion to Extend) filed by Joseph M Arpaio.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-3)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1853 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor by Joseph M Arpaio,
Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1854 *FILED at Doc. 1878 *LODGED Proposed Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor re: 1853 MOTION for
Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor . Document to be filed by Clerk if
Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph
Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) *Modified on 11/10/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered:
10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1855 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery of Ex Parte Communications Between the Court and Its Monitor by
Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles)
(Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/26/2016 1856 *MOTION DENIED By Doc. 1877 * LODGED Proposed Motion for Discovery of Ex Parte Communications Between
the Court and the Monitor re: 1855 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery of Ex Parte Communications
Between the Court and Its Monitor . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend
is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Cooper, Charles) *Modified on 11/10/2016 (MAP)*. (Entered: 10/26/2016)

10/27/2016 1857 ORDER of USCA, this petition for a writ of mandamus raises issues that warrant an answer; accordingly, within 14
days, the real parties in interest shall file an answer; the District Court, within 14 days, may address the petition if it so
desires; the District Court may elect to file an answer with this court or to issue a supplemental order and serve a copy
on this court; Petitioner may file a reply within 5 days after service of the answers, re: 16-73233. (copies sent by the
Ninth Circuit) (REW) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/28/2016 1858 *NINTH QUARTERLY REPORT from Independent Monitor for the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. (LSP)
(Attachments: # 1 A-1 Pla Comments, # 2 A-2 USDOJ Comments, # 3 A-3 MCSO Comments. *Modified to attach
corrected main PDF and add attachments on 10/28/2016 (APJ). (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/31/2016 1859 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 5/31/2016; 8/30/2013; 1/15/2015;
8/11/2015; 11/19/2015, Judge G Murray Snow hearing judge(s). (Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016 1860 NOTICE re: Sheriff Arpaio's Notice of Objection re: Monitor's Class Remedial Matter Designation for IA 16-0614 by
Joseph M Arpaio . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B)(Masterson, John) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016 1861 * FILED AT DOC 1881 SEALED LODGED Proposed Information Regarding Investigation. Document to be filed by
Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
11/15/2016 (DLC)*. (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016 1862 *FILED AT DOC 1882 SEALED LODGED Proposed Information Regarding Investigation. Document to be filed by
Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
11/15/2016 (DLC)*. (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016 1863 NOTICE re: Lodging Under Seal Information Regarding Investigation by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1861 Sealed Lodged
Proposed Document, 1862 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

11/01/2016 1864 ORDER that the Status Conference currently set for 11/3/2016 is vacated and reset for 11/10/2016 at 2:00 PM in
Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003 before Judge G Murray Snow. Signed by Judge G
Murray Snow on 11/1/2016. (KFZ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)
11/01/2016 1865 ORDER granting 1846 Motion to Extend Deadlines. The time for the Sheriff to comply with the obligations of
paragraph 165 of the Second Injunctive Order is extended until 12/26/2016. The Court further notes that this extension
will also extend by implication the time requirements set forth in paragraphs 180-182 of that Order (Doc. 1765 ).
Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/1/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

11/02/2016 1866 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1851 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental
Injunctive Order Re: IA Investigations filed by United States of America. (Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/04/2016 1867 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1853 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its
Monitor , 1855 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery of Ex Parte Communications Between the Court and
Its Monitor filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica
Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America, United States of America. (Segura, Andre) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/04/2016 1868 ORDER - The Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated November 1, 2016 for services rendered by
the Monitor in October 2016. The Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs Maricopa County to
authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice for the total amount, including any past due balance. Signed by Judge G
Murray Snow on 11/4/2016. (KFZ) (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/07/2016 1869 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1851 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second Supplemental
Injunctive Order Re: IA Investigations filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr,
David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Wang, Cecillia) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

11/08/2016 General election

11/08/2016 1870 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER in Response to Mr Montgomery's Petition for Writ of Mandamus re: 1857 USCA
Order 16-73233. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/8/16. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(REW) (Entered:
11/08/2016)

11/09/2016 1871 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1851 MOTION for Extension of Time Extend Deadlines in the Second
Supplemental Injunctive Order Re: IA Investigations filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered:
11/09/2016)

11/09/2016 1872 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 9/4/2015, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/09/2016 1873 *FILED AT DOC 1883 SEALED LODGED Proposed Information Regarding Investigation. Document to be filed by
Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio, Joseph) *Modified on
11/15/2016 (DLC)*. (Entered: 11/09/2016)
11/09/2016 1874 NOTICE re: Lodging Under Seal Information Regarding Investigation by Joseph M Arpaio re: 1873 Sealed Lodged
Proposed Document . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/10/2016 1875 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on 11-10-16, Judge G Murray Snow hearing
judge(s). (Masterson, John) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016 1876 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge G Murray Snow: Status Conference held on 11/10/2016. Order to
follow.

APPEARANCES: Cecillia Wang, Stanley Young, Daniel Pochoda, Andre Segura, Brenda Furnish, Kathleen Brody,
James Chanin, and Julia Gomez Hernandez (telephonically) for Plaintiffs. Cynthia Coe and Maureen Johnson for
United States of America. John Masterson, Joseph Popolizio and Justin Ackerman for Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office. Richard Walker for Maricopa County. Charles Cooper and Michael Kirk for Joseph M.
Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, and Joseph Sousa. M. Craig Murdy (subsequently excused) for Brian Sands. Chief Robert
Warshaw and Deputy Monitors Raul Martinez and John Girvin (all telephonically). (Court Reporter Gary Moll.)
Hearing held 2:10 PM to 3:23 PM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this
entry. (KFZ) (Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/10/2016 1877 ORDER granting 1853 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages for Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file the lodged Motion for Recusal 1854 . Plaintiffs may have to and including
12/16/16 which to respond to the motion. FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice 1855 Motion for Leave to
File Motion for Discovery of Ex Parte Communications Between the Court and Its Monitor. If necessary, may be
refiled after consulting with Plaintiffs. FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Oral Motion to Stay.
FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice 1851 Motion for Extension of Time to Extend Deadlines in the
Second Supplemental Injunctive Order re IA Investigations. FURTHER ORDERED The United States Marshal or his
representative is authorized to allow review of documents in their custody pertaining to ongoing PSB investigations
without further notice to the parties. FURTHER ORDERED Setting a Status Conference for 11/23/16 at 9:00am before
Judge G. Murray Snow. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/10/16.(MAP) (Entered:
11/10/2016)

11/10/2016 1878 MOTION for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (MAP)
(Entered: 11/10/2016)

11/11/2016 1879 Emergency MOTION To Suspend Proceedings Pending Resolution of Movants' Motion for Recusal of the Court and
Its Monitor by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Order
Granting Emergency Motion, # 2 Exhibit B - Nov. 10, 2016 Transcript)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 11/11/2016)

11/11/2016 1890 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference proceedings held on 11/10/2016, before
Judge G. Murray Snow. (Court Reporter: Gary Moll). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript
immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/2/2016. Redacted Transcript
Deadline set for 12/12/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/9/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

11/15/2016 1880 ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the lodged documents (Docs. 1861, 1862, 1873) regarding
internal affairs investigations. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/15/2016. (DLC) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 1881 Sealed Information Regarding Investigation by Joseph M Arpaio. (DLC) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 1882 Sealed Information Regarding Investigation by Joseph M Arpaio. (DLC) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 1883 Sealed Information Regarding Investigation by Joseph M Arpaio. (DLC) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit A - Counsel Statement, # 2 Exhibit B - Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit C - Nov. 10, 2016 Transcript)(Cooper,
Charles) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/15/2016 1885 LODGED Proposed Motion for Discovery re: 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery . Document to be
filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard
Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

11/16/2016 1886 ORDER directing Plaintiffs to respond to the Emergency Motion 1879 on or before 11/22/2016 at 5:00 p.m.
FURTHER ORDERED that if Movants wish to file a reply, they may do so no later than Noon on 11/28/2016. Signed
by Judge G Murray Snow on 11/16/2016. (KFZ) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/16/2016 1887 NOTICE re: Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney for Non-Party Potential Contemnor John MacIntyre by John
MacIntyre . (Ouimette, David) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/16/2016 1888 NOTICE OF WAIVER OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE by Gary L Birnbaum, counsel for Interested Party John
MacIntyre. (Ouimette, David) (Entered: 11/16/2016)

11/17/2016 1889 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for
Discovery , 1885 Lodged Proposed Document by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

11/18/2016 1891 REQUEST re: Richard K. Walker's Request to be Excused From the Status Conference Scheduled for November 23,
2010 at 9:00 a.m. by Defendant Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

11/22/2016 1892 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1879 Emergency MOTION To Suspend Proceedings Pending Resolution of Movants'
Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor filed by United States of America. (Coe, Cynthia) (Entered:
11/22/2016)

11/22/2016 1893 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1879 Emergency MOTION To Suspend Proceedings Pending Resolution of Movants'
Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel
Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/22/2016 1894 ORDER granting 1889 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose. The United States and Plaintiffs shall have to
and including 12/16/2016 in which to respond to the Motion for Leave to File Motion for Discovery 1884 . Signed by
Judge G Murray Snow on 11/22/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/23/2016 1895 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge G Murray Snow: Status Conference held on 11/23/2016.
Deadline for Movants to file a reply to 1879 Emergency Motion is extended to Noon on 12/1/2016. Plaintiffs shall
disseminate the call in number for the next status conference by 1/24/2017.

APPEARANCES: Cecillia Wang and Andre Segura (both telephonically), Brenda Furnish, and Kathleen Brody for
Plaintiffs. Cynthia Coe, Jennifer Mondino, and Maureen Johnson for United States of America. John Masterson and
Joseph Popolizio Defendant Joseph M. Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. Michael Kirk (telephonically) for
Joseph M. Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, and Joseph Sousa. Chief Robert Warshaw and Deputy Monitors Raul Martinez
and John Girvin (all telephonically).

Status Conference set for 1/26/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 602, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003
before Judge G Murray Snow. (Court Reporter Gary Moll.) Hearing held 9:01 AM to 9:44 AM. This is a TEXT
ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (KFZ) (Entered: 11/23/2016)

11/28/2016 1896 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1879 Emergency MOTION To Suspend Proceedings Pending Resolution of
Movants' Motion for Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa.
(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

12/02/2016 1897 NOTICE re: Intent to Transfer Personnel In and Out of the Professional Standards Bureau by Joseph M Arpaio .
(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/02/2016 1898 ***FILED at (Doc. 1902 )--SEALED LODGED Proposed Information Re Transfer Personnel In Out of PSB.
Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation to Seal is granted. Filed by Joseph M Arpaio. (Popolizio,
Joseph) Modified on 12/6/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 12/02/2016)

12/02/2016 1899 NOTICE re: Under Seal Information Regarding the Professional Standards Bureau Personnel Transfers by Joseph M
Arpaio re: 1898 Sealed Lodged Proposed Document . (Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
12/05/2016 1900 ORDER denying 1879 Sheriff Arpaio's Emergency Motion to Suspend Proceedings Pending Resolution of Movant's
Motion For Recusal of the Court and Its Monitor. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on
12/5/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/06/2016 1901 ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to file under seal the lodged document (Doc. 1898 ) regarding personnel transfers.
Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/06/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

12/06/2016 1902 Sealed Information re: Personnel Transfers by Joseph M Arpaio. (ATD) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

12/08/2016 1903 NOTICE of Errata re: 1893 Response in Opposition to Motion by Plaintiffs Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia
Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America.. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered:
12/08/2016)

12/09/2016 1904 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez,
Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America for proceedings held on 11/10/2016 and 11/23/2016, Judge G Murray
Snow hearing judge(s). (Young, Stanley) (Entered: 12/09/2016)

12/09/2016 1916 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference proceedings held on 11/23/2016, before
Judge G. Murray Snow. (Court Reporter: Gary Moll). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript
immediately. All others may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court
Reporter/Transcriber by filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript
Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 12/30/2016. Redacted
Transcript Deadline set for 1/9/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/15/2016 1905 Joint MOTION Clarification re: 1877 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, Order on Motion for Leave to File
Excess Pages by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica
Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Segura, Andre) (Entered:
12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 1906 ORDER that the Court has received and reviewed the Monitor's invoice dated December 1, 2016 for services rendered
by the Monitor in November 2016 and that the Court finds the invoice and charges to be reasonable and directs
Maricopa County to authorize payment of the Monitor's invoice for the total amount, including any past due balance.
Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/15/16. (KGM) (Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/15/2016 1907 ORDER granting 1905 Motion for Clarification. Plaintiffs and the United States are granted leave to file responses to
the Movants' Motion for Recusal of up to 30 pages in length. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/15/16.(KGM)
(Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/16/2016 1908 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1878 MOTION for Recusal of the Court and its Monitor filed by United States of
America. (Coe, Cynthia) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1909 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery and MOTION for Discovery of
Ex Parte Communications Between the Court and the Monitor filed by United States of America. (Coe, Cynthia)
(Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1910 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1878 MOTION for Recusal Defendant Maricopa County, Arizona's Response to Sheriff
Arpaio's, Chief Deputy Sheridan's, and Lieutenant Sousa's Motion for Recusal of the Court and its Monitor filed by
Maricopa, County of. (Walker, Richard) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1911 RESPONSE to Motion re: 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery Defendant Maricopa County,
Arizona's Response to Sheriff Arpaio's, Chief Deputy Sheridan's, and Lieutenant Sousa's Renewed Motion for
Discovery of Ex Parte Communications Between the Court and the Monitor filed by Maricopa, County of. (Walker,
Richard) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1912 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery and Renewed Motion for
Discovery 1885 filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz, Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica
Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Aug. 28, 2015 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit Aug. 21, 2015
Transcript, # 3 Exhibit Sept. 4, 2015 Transcript, # 4 Exhibit May 14, 2014 Transcript)(Segura, Andre) (Entered:
12/16/2016)

12/16/2016 1913 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 1878 MOTION for Recusal filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, Velia Meraz,
Manuel Nieto, Jr, David Rodriguez, Jessica Quitugua Rodriguez, Somos America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index and
Exhibits 1-17)(Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/16/2016)

12/19/2016 1914 NOTICE re: Defendant Joseph M. Arpaios Notice of Filing Tenth Quarterly Compliance Report by Joseph M Arpaio .
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Tenth Quarterly Report)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/19/2016 1915 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for
Discovery , 1885 Lodged Proposed Document, 1878 MOTION for Recusal by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan,
Joseph Sousa. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 12/19/2016)

12/20/2016 1917 ORDER granting 1915 Motion for Extension of Time and extending the deadline in which Defendant/Non-Party
Movants may file a Reply in support of their Motions for Recusal and Discovery (Docs. 1878 , 1884 ) to and including
12/30/2016. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/20/2016.(KFZ) (Entered: 12/20/2016)

12/21/2016 1918 NOTICE re: Defendant Joseph M. Arpaios Supplemental Notice and Status Report Re: Compliance with Paragraph
165 of the Second Amended Second Supplemental Permanent Injunction/Judgment Order by Joseph M Arpaio .
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Policy Grid re Paragraph 165)(Popolizio, Joseph) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
12/22/2016 1919 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 11/23/2016, Judge G Murray Snow
hearing judge(s). (Johnston, Maureen) (Entered: 12/22/2016)

12/28/2016 1920 NOTICE of Attorney Withdrawal Charles W. Jirauch filed by Richard K Walker. (Walker, Richard) (Entered:
12/28/2016)

12/30/2016 1921 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 1884 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Discovery , 1878 MOTION for
Recusal filed by Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Joseph Sousa. (Cooper, Charles) (Entered: 12/30/2016)

U.S. District Court
District of Arizona (Phoenix Division)
Criminal Case # 2016-CR-01012-SRB-1

Date Filed # Docket Text

07/08/2016 AzCentral Published on July 8th 2016. “A federal judge said he will issue his final order in civil contempt
proceedings against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio within the next two weeks before moving on to consider
whether to refer Arpaio and several of his deputies for criminal contempt charges.”
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/07/08/judge-to-decide-later-whether-sheriff-joe-arpaio-faces-
criminal-contempt-charges/86868130/

08/03/2016 Start of early voting in Arizona primary elections.

08/19/2016 1 ORDER re Criminal Contempt as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate - IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 42(a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court refers
Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, Chief Deputy Gerard Sheridan, Captain Steven R. Bailey, and Attorney Michelle M. Iafrate
to another Judge of this Court to determine whether they should be held in criminal contempt for the matters detailed
above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to refer the criminal contempt proceedings, by
random lot, to another Judge in the District of Arizona. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to
promptly notify the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona regarding this Order. (See document for further
details). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 8/19/16. (LAD) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/19/2016 2 ORDER OF RECUSAL in case as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate:
ORDERED this matter be reassigned, by lot, to another judge in the District of Arizona. FURTHER ORDERED that
this matter has been reassigned by random lot to the Honorable Susan R. Bolton. All future pleadings and papers
submitted for filing shall bear the following complete case number: CR-16-01012-PHX-SRB. Signed by Judge John J
Tuchi on 8/19/16.(SJF) (Entered: 08/19/2016)

08/26/2016 Reuters story reporting that the DOJ will take Snow’s referral for criminal contempt charges against Arpaio, just days before the
primary election:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/justice-dept-will-now-decide-on-bringing-contempt-charges-against-ariz-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

08/26/2016 3 NOTICE OF RECUSAL with attached formal notice from EOUSA by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan,
Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate. (Strange, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/26/2016)

08/30/2016 Primary Election.

09/06/2016 4 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John D. Keller appearing for USA . (Keller, John) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

09/06/2016 5 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Victor R. Salgado appearing for USA . (Salgado, Victor) (Entered:
09/06/2016)

09/06/2016 6 MOTION for Status Conference by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate.
(Keller, John) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

09/06/2016 7 ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey and Michele M Iafrate: On September 6, 2016,
Government's counsel filed a Motion for Status Conference Doc. 6 . The certificate of service on Page 3 of the
Government's motion states "....on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing filing with the Clerk of the Court using
the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the attorneys of record for the defendant." No
counsel having yet appeared in this criminal case for Defendants, IT IS ORDERED directing Government's counsel to
mail a copy of the motion to the attorney known to represent each of the Defendants and notify the Court in writing that
Government's counsel has complied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion will be denied within 3 days of the
date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section G,
specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/6/16.(MAW) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

09/07/2016 8 NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Andrew Melvin McDonald, Jr appearing for Joseph M Arpaio .
(McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/07/2016 9 NOTICE of No Objection to Status Conference by Joseph M Arpaio re: 6 MOTION for Status Conference .
(McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/07/2016 11 NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate.
(Salgado, Victor) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

09/09/2016 13 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Status Conference as to Joseph M Arpaio (1), Gerard Sheridan (2), Steven R Bailey (3)
and Michele M Iafrate (4). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting Status Conference on October 11, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.
Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 9/9/16.(MAW) (Entered: 09/09/2016)

10/11/2016 Arizona Republic story (the day before early voting started for the general election) where the DOJ announced they were filing
charges:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/10/11/department-justice-charge-arpaio-criminal-
contempt/91901204/

10/11/2016 The Federalist Published on October 11th 2016 “The timing of the charges against Arpaio seem to be
convenient for his political opponents, who have loudly opposed his controversial border patrol
policies. He is up for re-election as Maricopa County sheriff for the seventh time in November.”
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/sheriff-joe-arpaio-to-face-criminal-charges-just-before-election-day/

Oct 12, 2016 Start of Early voting in the general election

10/11/2016 21 NOTICE Defendant Arpaio's Notice Re: Tolling of Statute of Limitations Under 18 U.S.C. 402 by Joseph M Arpaio.
(McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 10/11/2016)

10/11/2016 24 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Susan R Bolton: Status Conference as to Joseph M Arpaio,
Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey and Michele M Iafrate held on 10/11/2016. IT IS ORDERED directing Defense
counsel to advise the Court in writing no later than 2:00 p.m., October 11, 2016, whether their clients agree to a tolling
of the statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. §3285 effective this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing
Government's counsel to submit to the Court no later than 5:00 p.m., October 12, 2016, an Order to Show Cause
regarding the preliminary injunction violation. The Order shall include the essential facts constituting the charged
criminal contempt and the date and time for Trial, which will be set for December 6, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. as to Defendant
Joseph Arpaio. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Defense counsel to file their briefs no later than October 25,
2016, regarding the applicability of the statute of limitations and possible tolling with respect to the contempt findings
related to the Montgomery documents and the identification documents [see attached minute entry for details]. (Court
Reporter Liz Lemke) Hearing held 10:04 AM to 11:07 AM.(MAW) (Entered: 10/12/2016)

10/11/2016 27 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of STATUS CONFERENCE proceedings as to Joseph M Arpaio,
Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, and Michele M Iafrate held on 10/11/2016, before Judge Susan R. Bolton. (Court
Reporter: Elizabeth A. Lemke). The ordering party will have electronic access to the transcript immediately. All others
may view the transcript at the court public terminal or it may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber by
filing a Transcript Order Form on the docket before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it
may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/1/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/14/2016.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/9/2017. (RAP) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/13/2016 25 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate for
proceedings held on 10-11-16, Judge Susan R Bolton hearing judge(s). (Keller, John) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/13/2016 26 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Joseph M Arpaio for proceedings held on October 11, 2016, Judge Susan R Bolton
hearing judge(s). (Ackerman, Justin) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/17/2016 28 *NOTICE of Filing Proposed Order re: 24 Minute Entry by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R
Bailey, Michele M Iafrate. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Keller, John) *Modified text and document number on
10/18/2016 (EJA). (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016 29 *OBJECTION to: 28 Notice (Other) Defendant Arpaio's Objection to the United State's Notice of Lodged Document by
Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(McDonald, Andrew) *Modified to correct event type on
10/18/2016 (EJA). (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/17/2016 30 *RESPONSE to 29 OBJECTION to Proposed Order to Show Cause by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan,
Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate. (Keller, John) *Modified to correct event type on 10/18/2016 (EJA). (Entered:
10/17/2016)

10/17/2016 31 MINUTE ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio: At the Court's direction, Government's counsel filed its lodged proposed
Order to Show Cause, Defendant Arpaio filed his Objection and the Government filed its Response. Defendant may file
a reply no later than 5:00PM, 10/18/2016. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with
this entry. (MAW) (Entered: 10/17/2016)

10/18/2016 32 REPLY re: 30 Reply Defendant Arpaio's Reply in support of his Objection to the United States' Lodged Order to Show
Cause by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 10/18/2016)

10/19/2016 33 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Daniel R. Ortega, Jr. of the Ortega Law Firm as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan,
Steven R Bailey, and Michele M Iafrate for Status Hearing proceedings held on 10/11/2016, Judge Susan R Bolton
hearing judge(s). (RAP) (Entered: 10/19/2016)

10/21/2016 ABC15 news story from October 21, 2016 reporting that even though the DOJ announced they were filing charges, 10 days
later no official charges have been filed, suggesting that the announcement was timed to impact early voting:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/central-phoenix/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-case-no-official-
criminal-contempt-of-court-charges-yet
10/25/2016 36 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE as to Joseph M. Arpaio: The Court issues a notice to show cause as to whether Joseph M.
Arpaio should be held in criminal contempt for willful disobedience of Judge Snow's preliminary injunction of
December 23, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trial for this matter is set for December 6, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in
the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Courtroom 502, Phoenix, Arizona 85003 [see
attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 10/25/16.(MAW) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/25/2016 37 MEMORANDUM by Joseph M Arpaio Defendant Sheriff Arpaio's Brief regarding the Statute of Limitations
Applicable to 18 U.S.C. Section 402. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

10/28/2016 39 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE WAIVER of Defendant's Appearance At Arraignment by Joseph M Arpaio filed
10/28/2016. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/28/2016 40 MOTION to Continue Defendant Arpaio's Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights and Request for Continuance, MOTION to
Continue Trial by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

10/31/2016 41 EX PARTE MOTION for Third Party Ex Parte by Ramon Gomez as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R
Bailey, Michele M Iafrate. (KGM) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

10/31/2016 42 NOTICE re: Request by Non-Prisoner Pro Se Party for Electronic Noticing by Ramon Gomez. (KGM) (Entered:
10/31/2016)

11/01/2016 43 ORDER as to Joseph M. Arpaio: On October 28, 2016, Defense counsel for Joseph M. Arpaio filed a Waiver of Speedy
Trial Rights and Request for Continuance (Doc. 40 ). IT IS ORDERED that the request will be denied within 3 days of
the date of this order if counsel does not comply with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, Section
G, specifically, subparagraph 1b. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/1/16.(MAW) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

11/01/2016 44 Additional Attachments to Main Document re: 40 MOTION to Continue Defendant Arpaio's Waiver of Speedy Trial
Rights and Request for Continuance MOTION to Continue Trial (Proposed Order) by Joseph M Arpaio. (McDonald,
Andrew) (Entered: 11/01/2016)

11/01/2016 47 NOTICE of service by Ramon Gomez as to Joseph M Arpaio re: 41 MOTION for Third Party Ex Parte. (KGM)
(Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/02/2016 48 ORDER as to Joseph M Arpaio: IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant's Request/Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 40 )
with leave to re-file said Motion in compliance with LRCiv 7.3(a) and (b). Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on
11/2/16.(MAW) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

11/04/2016 49 *RESPONSE to Defendants' Memoranda on Statute of Limitations re: 34 Memorandum, 35
Memorandum, 37 Memorandum and 38 Memorandum, by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R
Bailey, Michele M Iafrate . (Keller, John) *Modified to correct event on 11/4/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 11/04/2016)

11/08/2016 General Election

11/09/2016 50 MOTION to Continue Trial Defendant Arpaio's Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights and Request for Continuance by Joseph
M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/09/2016 51 RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio, Gerard Sheridan, Steven R Bailey, Michele M Iafrate
re: 50 MOTION to Continue Trial Defendant Arpaio's Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights and Request for Continuance .
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keller, John) (Entered: 11/09/2016)

11/17/2016 52 REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 50 MOTION to Continue Trial Defendant Arpaio's Waiver
of Speedy Trial Rights and Request for Continuance . (McDonald, Andrew) (Entered: 11/17/2016)

11/22/2016 53 ORDER denying 41 Ramon Gomez's Motion for Third Party Ex Parte as to Joseph M Arpaio (1), Gerard Sheridan (2),
Steven R Bailey (3) and Michele M Iafrate (4) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on
11/22/16.(MAW) (Entered: 11/22/2016)

11/28/2016 54 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Discovery by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order)(Keller, John) (Entered: 11/28/2016)

11/29/2016 55 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 Request for Continuance filed as to Joseph M Arpaio (1). IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED continuing Trial from December 6, 2016, to April 4, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. [see attached Order for
details]. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 11/29/16.(MAW) (Entered: 11/29/2016)

12/01/2016 56 RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 54 MOTION for Protective Order Governing Discovery . (McDonald,
Andrew) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/05/2016 57 MOTION to Continue Trial (Unopposed) by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed
Order)(Keller, John) (Entered: 12/05/2016)

12/06/2016 58 ORDER denying as premature 57 Government's Motion to Continue Trial filed as to Joseph M Arpaio (1). The Court
intends to schedule a Pretrial Conference in early 2017 to discuss the parties' readiness for trial and if an adjustment of
the trial date is required a motion can be filed at that time. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/6/16.(MAW)
(Entered: 12/06/2016)

12/06/2016 59 ORDER granting 54 Motion for Protective Order as to Joseph M Arpaio (1) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by
Judge Susan R Bolton on 12/6/16.(MAW) (Entered: 12/06/2016)

12/13/2016 60 ORDER: 18 U.S.C. § 3285 provides a one year statute of limitations for criminal contempt that is also a crime and the
contumacious conduct at issue ended more than one year ago, the Court dismisses Defendants Sheridan, Bailey, and
Iafrate from the criminal contempt proceedings and will proceed against Defendant Arpaio only for those allegations of
criminal contempt in the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 36 ) [see attached Order for details]. Signed by Judge Susan R
Bolton on 12/13/16.(MAW) (Entered: 12/13/2016)

12/15/2016 61 MOTION for Bench Trial by USA as to Joseph M Arpaio. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Keller, John)
(Entered: 12/15/2016)

12/27/2016 62 *RESPONSE to Motion by Joseph M Arpaio re: 61 MOTION for Bench Trial and CROSS MOTION Requesting Jury
Trial. (McDonald, Andrew) *Modified to add motion part on 12/28/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 12/27/2016)