Appeal in Insider Trading Case Centers on Wiretap

October 24, 2012

The New York Times on October 23, 2012 released the following:

“BY PETER LATTMAN

In March 2008, the Justice Department made an extraordinary request: It asked a judge for permission to record secretly the phone conversations of Raj Rajaratnam, a billionaire hedge fund manager.

The request, which was granted, was the first time the government had asked for a wiretap to investigate insider trading. Federal agents eavesdropped on Mr. Rajaratnam for nine months, leading to his indictment — along with charges against 22 others — and the biggest insider trading case in a generation.

On Thursday, lawyers for Mr. Rajaratnam, who is serving an 11-year prison term after being found guilty at trial, will ask a federal appeals court to reverse his conviction. They contend that the government improperly obtained a wiretap in violation of Mr. Rajaratnam’s constitutional privacy rights and federal laws governing electronic surveillance.

Such a ruling is considered a long shot, but a reversal would have broad implications. Not only would it upend Mr. Rajaratnam’s conviction but also affect the prosecution of Rajat K. Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs director who was convicted of leaking boardroom secrets to Mr. Rajaratnam. Mr. Gupta is scheduled to be sentenced on Wednesday.

A decision curbing the use of wiretaps would also affect the government’s ability to police Wall Street trading floors, as insider trading cases and other securities fraud crimes are notoriously difficult to build without direct evidence like incriminating telephone conversations.

“Wiretaps traditionally have been used in narcotics and organized crime cases,” said Harlan J. Protass, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who is not involved in the Rajaratnam case. “Their use today in insider trading investigations indicates that the government thinks there may be no bounds to the types of white-collar cases in which they can be used.”

More broadly, Mr. Rajaratnam’s appeal is being closely watched for its effect on the privacy protections of defendants regarding wiretap use. Three parties have filed “friend-of-the-court” briefs siding with Mr. Rajaratnam. Eight former federal judges warned that allowing the court’s ruling to stand “would pose a grave threat to the integrity of the warrant process.” A group of defense lawyers said that upholding the use of wiretaps in this case would “eviscerate the integrity of the criminal justice system.”

To safeguard privacy protections, federal law permits the government’s use of wiretaps only under narrowly prescribed conditions. Among the conditions are that a judge, before authorizing a wiretap, must find that conventional investigative techniques have been tried and failed. Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers said the government misled the judge who authorized the wiretap, Gerard E. Lynch, in this regard.

They say that the government omitted that the Securities and Exchange Commission had already been building its case against Mr. Rajaratnam for more than a year using typical investigative means like interviewing witnesses and reviewing trading records. Had the judge known about the S.E.C.’s investigation, he would not have allowed the government to use a wiretap, Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers argue.

Before Mr. Rajaratnam’s trial, the presiding judge, Richard J. Holwell, held a four-day hearing on the legality of the wiretaps. Judge Holwell criticized the government, calling its decision to leave out information about its more conventional investigation a “glaring omission” that demonstrated “a reckless disregard for the truth.”

Nevertheless, Judge Holwell refused to suppress the wiretaps, in part, he said, because they were necessary to uncover Mr. Rajartanam’s insider trading scheme. “It appears that the S.E.C., and by inference the criminal authorities, had hit a wall of sorts,” Judge Holwell wrote.

On appeal, Mr. Rajaratnam lawyers argued that the government’s lack of candor should not be tolerated. They described the government’s wiretap application as full of “misleading assertions” and “outright falsity” that made it impossible for Judge Lynch to do his job.

“The government’s self-chosen reckless disregard of the truth and of the critical role of independent judicial review breached that trust and desolated the warrant’s basis,” wrote Mr. Rajaratnam’s lawyers at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

In their brief to the appeals court, federal prosecutors dispute that they acted with a “reckless disregard for the truth.” Instead, they argue that omitting details of the S.E.C.’s investigation was at most “an innocent mistake rising to the level of negligence.” In addition, they said that the S.E.C.’s inquiry failed to yield sufficient evidence for a criminal case, necessitating the use of a wiretap.

Once Judge Lynch signed off on the wiretap application, the government’s investigation into Mr. Rajaratnam accelerated. The wiretapping of Mr. Rajaratnam’s phone, along with the subsequent recording of his supposed accomplices, yielded about 2,400 conversations. In many of them, Mr. Rajaratnam could be heard exchanging confidential information about technology stocks like Google and Advanced Micro Devices.

Three years ago this month, federal authorities arrested Mr. Rajaratnam and charged him with orchestrating a seven-year insider trading conspiracy. The sprawling case has produced 23 arrests of traders and tipsters, many of them caught swapping secrets with Mr. Rajaratnam about publicly traded companies.

Among the thousands of calls were four that implicated Mr. Gupta, a former head of the consulting firm McKinsey & Company who served as a director at Goldman Sachs and Procter & Gamble. On one call in July 2008, the only wiretapped conversation between the two men, Mr. Gupta freely shared Goldman’s confidential board discussions with Mr. Rajaratnam. On another, Mr. Rajaratnam told a colleague at his hedge fund, the Galleon Group, “I heard yesterday from somebody who’s on the board of Goldman Sachs that they are going to lose $2 per share.”

Those conversations set off an investigation of Mr. Gupta. He was arrested in October 2011 and charged with leaking boardroom secrets about Goldman and P.& G. to Mr. Rajaratnam. A jury convicted him in May after a monthlong trial.

On Wednesday at Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Jed S. Rakoff will sentence Mr. Gupta. Federal prosecutors are seeking a prison term of up to 10 years. Mr. Gupta’s lawyers have asked Judge Rakoff for a nonprison sentence of probation and community service. One proposal by the defense would have Mr. Gupta living in Rwanda and working on global health issues.

Regardless of his sentence, Mr. Gupta plans to appeal. And because prosecutors used wiretap evidence in his trial, Mr. Gupta would benefit from a reversal of Mr. Rajaratnam’s conviction.

Yet a reversal would not affect the convictions of the defendants in the conspiracy who have pleaded guilty. As part of their pleas, those defendants waived their rights to an appeal.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Federal appeals court hears murder-for-hire case

May 18, 2012

Richmond Times-Dispatch on May 18, 2012 released the following:

“By: REED WILLIAMS

RICHMOND, Va. —
Attorneys on Thursday argued before a federal appeals panel in Richmond the question of whether a death sentence should be reinstated against Justin Wolfe in a murder-for-hire in Northern Virginia.

Wolfe, 31, was convicted in 2002 of hiring Owen Barber IV to kill Daniel Petrole Jr., Wolfe’s marijuana supplier, in Prince William County. Wolfe was sentenced to death.

Barber, who pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison, testified as the star witness against Wolfe, but he later recanted that testimony in an affidavit stating that Wolfe did not hire him for the shooting.

Barber later recanted the affidavit. Wolfe has maintained his innocence.

Wolfe’s attorneys argue that no jury would have convicted Wolfe without Barber’s testimony against him, but the Virginia Attorney General’s Office contends that enough other evidence existed to convince a jury of Wolfe’s guilt.

In July, U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson overturned Wolfe’s convictions and sentences, criticizing evidence in the case and finding prosecutorial misconduct. Jackson found that prosecutors failed to provide exculpatory information to Wolfe’s attorneys and allowed Barber to give false testimony.

The Virginia Attorney General’s Office appealed Jackson’s ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Katherine Baldwin Burnett, a senior assistant attorney general, argued Thursday before a three-judge panel at the appeals court that the defense had been given full discovery and that the evidence of Wolfe’s guilt was overwhelming at his trial.

Burnett said Jackson was wrong in concluding that Barber’s testimony was the only direct evidence of Wolfe’s guilt. She said Wolfe’s own testimony corroborated the prosecution’s case against him.

Ashley C. Parrish, an attorney for Wolfe, said that Jackson observed Barber “eye to eye and face to face” at an evidentiary hearing before concluding that he found Barber’s recantation credible.

The defense has argued that the prosecution should have turned over to the defense a police report detailing a conversation between Barber and an investigator.

According to the report, the detective named Wolfe as a suspect and said Barber would not get the death penalty if he told the truth.

Burnett argued that prosecutors were not obligated to disclose the report to the defense. “This is not material,” Burnett said.

Parrish argued, however, that the report would have been important because it showed that Barber was told he should name Wolfe “or you’re going to get the chair.”

Parrish also said that Barber testified at the trial that he didn’t know Petrole and that police knew that wasn’t true. “This trial was so tainted,” he said.

Wolfe is still in prison. His mother, Terri Steinberg, attended Thursday’s arguments.

“Now that we’re a little closer to the door, it’s like the time clock moves a little slower,” Steinberg said. “Hopefully this nightmare can be over for our family and we can finally start to heal.”

She added that the proceedings also are hard on Petrole’s family.

The appeals court panel will rule on the case at a later date.

According to authorities, on March 5, 2001, Barber fatally shot Petrole after he pulled up to his town house in Bristow after returning from a meeting at which he had given Wolfe between 10 and 15 pounds of high-grade marijuana.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Federal prosecutors argue against appeal for Arkansas man convicted of federal hate crimes

May 5, 2012

The Republic on May 4, 2012 released the following:

“THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Prosecutors want a federal appeals court to deny the request of a Green Forest man to dismiss his convictions on hate crime charges stemming from a highway collision that injured five Hispanic men.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez responded to an appeal for Frankie Maybee, who was convicted last year of violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [] reports the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t set a date for oral arguments.

Maybee was accused of using a pickup truck to force a car off U.S. Highway 412 near Alpena on June 20, 2010. The vehicle rolled, struck a tree and caught fire.

His attorney, Byron Rhodes, argues there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Maybee on hate crimes charges.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Barry Bonds files appeal to overturn his felony obstruction conviction

May 4, 2012

The Washington Post on May 4, 2012 released the following:

“By Associated Press,

SAN FRANCISCO — Barry Bonds has asked a federal appeals court to toss out his felony obstruction conviction, arguing it was based on his rambling — but truthful — answer to a grand jury question about whether his trainer ever provided him with an injectable substance.

Responding to the jury, the Major League Baseball’s career home runs leader replied that he was a “celebrity child,” rather than answering the question directly. Bonds’ father was Bobby Bonds, a 13-year major league veteran and three-time All Star.

A jury decided after a roughly three-week trial last year that the answer represented an obstruction of justice. The jury deadlocked on three other charges alleging Bonds lied to a grand jury when he denied knowing taking performance-enhancing drugs. Prosecutors dismissed those counts, bringing an anticlimactic end to their eight-year pursuit of Bonds.

Bonds attorneys filed a 60-page legal brief filed Thursday with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His counsel stressed that federal investigators whiffed on proving the heart of their case against the slugger, which was that he lied when he denied in 2003 grand jury testimony that he took performance-enhancing drugs to boost his career. Federal prosecutors revised their indictment several times and delayed trial for a year while appealing an important evidentiary decision to the 9th Circuit.

“This case arose out of the federal government’s efforts to combat steroid use in sports,” Bonds’ appellate attorney Dennis Riordan wrote. “That crusade, while admirable in its underlying purpose, has been pursued with an intensity at times bordering on zealotry.”

Riordan also argued that Bonds answered the question earlier in his grand jury appearance when he said that only his doctor injected him with anything.

“Any competent English speaker would understand Mr. Bonds’s initial statement as answering the question in the negative,” Riordan wrote. “Mr. Bonds was no more guilty of obstruction than he would have been if, having answered one prosecutorial question, he chatted with grand jurors about the weather while the prosecutor was formulating his next one.”

Riordan further argued that the prosecutors questioning Bonds before the grand jury had a “legal obligation to clarify unresponsive testimony.” Riordan contends the prosecutors should have repeated the question until Bonds answered directly.

Federal prosecutors are expected to file their opposition later this month. The federal appeals court has no deadline to decide the case.

Prosecutors are expected to argue that Bonds’ ”celebrity child” answer was calculated to evade the steroids question and mislead the grand jury.

Bonds was sentenced to 30 days house arrest and two years of probation. That sentence was suspended pending the appeal.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Supreme Court rejects appeal in Enron-related case

April 23, 2012

The Associated Press on April 23, 2012 released the following:

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from a former Merrill Lynch executive who was convicted on perjury and obstruction charges that stemmed from a bogus 1999 deal involving Enron.

The justices did not comment Monday in leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the conviction of James A. Brown. He argued that federal prosecutors improperly withheld favorable evidence in his case.

The charges centered on Enron Corp.’s sham 1999 sale to Merrill Lynch of three power barges moored off the Nigerian coast. Brown was a managing director at Merrill Lynch and head of its strategic asset and lease finance group at the time.

The case is Brown v. U.S., 11-783.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Appeal is Blagojevich’s last hope to cut sentence

December 9, 2011

The Associated Press (AP) on December 8, 2011 released the following:

“By MICHAEL TARM

CHICAGO (AP) — Rod Blagojevich has one last hope to reduce his harsh 14-year sentence: an appeal.

But lawyers for the disgraced former Illinois governor face long odds in chipping away at the time he must serve for attempting to auction off an appointment to President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat and other crimes, legal experts said Thursday.

Attorneys will have the daunting task of demonstrating that the respected, 25-year veteran Judge James Zagel who oversaw Blagojevich’s two trials made major errors at trial and in calculating a sentence for the 18 convictions, said Lance Northcutt, an adjunct professor at Chicago’s John Marshall Law School.

“Zagel is careful to rule in a way to avoid having his decisions overturned and his reasoning for this sentence on Wednesday was detailed,” he said. “A higher court is loath to second-guess the trial court – and they rarely do.”

Northcutt was in the crowded Chicago courtroom Wednesday observing as Zagel scolded a visibly anxious Blagojevich – in a tone befitting a school principal – for harming public confidence in government.

Blagojevich’s attorney Sheldon Sorosky told The Associated Press on Thursday that the defense would ask for the convictions to be overturned and for the sentence to be reduced.

“We intend to appeal everything,” he said.

Potential issues on appeal, he said, included whether Zagel placed so much emphasis on sending a message to other would-be political schemers that he unduly inflated the sentence of the twice-elected Democrat.

“He absolutely did,” said Sorosky, noting that Zagel several times mentioned Blagojevich’s predecessor, Republican George Ryan, who was convicted in 2006 and is serving a 6 1/2-year sentence for corruption.

“He said Ryan got 6 1/2 and so I have to give you way more,” Sorosky said. “He was giving Blagojevich the sentence not to punish Blagojevich for what he did but to stop other governors. That’s not right.”

An appeal could drag on for years, and experts add that there is virtually no chance Blagojevich, who turns 55 Saturday, would be able to put off reporting to prison as scheduled on Feb. 16.

Blagojevich has started a bleak countdown toward that date. In the meantime, he will spend a Christmas at home with his wife, Patti, and their daughters – Amy, 15, and Annie, 8. Once behind bars, Blagojevich will be cut off from the outside world, with visits from his family strictly limited. He’ll share a cell and perform a menial job.

As it stands, he won’t be eligible for early release until 2024, when he’s 67.

Only felons deemed likely to prevail on appeal can stay out of prison in the interim, and that doesn’t seem to apply to Blagojevich. Zagel will make that determination.

The chance that Zagel will let Blagojevich remain free pending appeal?

“Slim to none,” said Gal Pissetzky, a Chicago-based attorney who practices in federal court.

Zagel’s comments at the sentencing weren’t devoid of conciliation. He told Blagojevich he accepted that he did some good as governor, such as on children’s health issues, and said it was “a mitigating factor” for the sentence.

He also cited the former governor’s direct appeal for mercy, in which an untypically contrite Blagojevich repeated apologized and said, “I have nobody to blame but myself. … I am just so incredibly sorry.”

Zagel’s acceptance of Blagojevich’s apologies, Northcutt said, likely kept the former governor from getting an even longer term. Blagojevich’s attorneys will thus likely focus their appeal on trial errors and not on asserting that he did not commit the crimes, Northcutt said.

If the higher court determines Zagel didn’t give Blagojevich a fair trial – even if he admitted the crimes during sentencing – they could toss out the convictions and order a new trial.

In defense motions filed during Blagojevich’s retrial, the defense accused Zagel of bias, pointing to how he almost invariably sided with prosecutors when there were objections during testimony.

They could make similar claims in any appeal.

Blagojevich’s lawyers also have complained that Zagel had repeatedly rejected their requests to play FBI wiretap evidence that they claimed would help their defense.

Chicago attorney Michael Ettinger, who represented Blagojevich’s brother and co-defendant, Robert Blagojevich, at a first trial, said the tapes may be good grounds for appeal.

“I’ve heard those tapes, and what Rod says in one hour, he says something the opposite the next hour,” he said Thursday.

During the sentencing hearing, Zagel rejected the notion – made often by Blagojevich’s own attorneys at trial – that the recordings showed Blagojevich was merely a big talker who brainstormed wildly as a way to weed out good ideas from bad ones.

“Musings are talks without purpose, not the material of arranged meetings and repeated phone calls” to commit crimes, Zagel said. “The jury and I do not believe these were musings.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Ex-McKinsey Consultant Banki’s Conviction Reversed in Part

October 26, 2011
Mahmoud Reza Banki

Business Week on October 24, 2011 released the following:

“By Bob Van Voris and Patricia Hurtado

(Updates with hearing date in 14th paragraph.)

Oct. 24 (Bloomberg) — Former McKinsey & Co. consultant Mahmoud Reza Banki’s convictions for violating the Iran trade embargo and running an unlicensed money-transfer business were thrown out on appeal.

A federal appeals court in New York today reversed Banki’s June 2010 conviction on three counts that charged him with violating U.S. regulations barring trade with Iran and running an informal transfer business called a hawala.

The court upheld Banki’s convictions on two counts of lying in response to a subpoena from the U.S. Treasury Department about the matter. The court said prosecutors may retry Banki on two of the three overturned counts.

Banki, who has been in U.S. custody since his arrest in January 2010, has served most of his 30-month sentence and is due to be released no later than March, according to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons website.

The decision today may affect the government’s attempt to collect $3.3 million in asset forfeitures it’s seeking in connection with the overturned criminal charges.

Banki, 35, is a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iran. He has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from Princeton University.

‘Life Back Together’

“He’s going to be able to put his life back together and live a very productive life,” said Baruch Weiss, a lawyer for Banki.

Banki used a system called a hawala, popular in the Middle East and South Asia, to transfer funds, according to the appeals court.

U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin, writing for a three-judge appeals panel, said Banki’s family transferred $3.4 million to him from Iran. He received as many as 56 hawala transfers into his bank account from 44 different people and companies over more than three years, Chin said.

In a hawala, money doesn’t physically move through the banking system across borders. Instead, customers transfer funds to operators known as hawaladars in one country, and corresponding funds are distributed by associate hawaladars in another country. The parallel accounts are later settled by the hawaladars in a variety of ways.

Defense lawyers claimed Banki didn’t violate the law because he got the money from his family and reported the funds to the U.S. government.

“This is a vindication of the defense,” Weiss said of the appeals court decision.

Ellen Davis, a spokeswoman for Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, said his office was reviewing the opinion and had no further comment.

U.S. District Judge John Keenan set a hearing in the case for Nov. 2, according to Weiss.

The case is U.S. v. Banki, 1:10-CR-00008, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Crimes Watch Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.