Letter From Justin T. Loughry (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (LOUGHRY, JUSTIN) (Entered: 06/13/2021)

Case 1:19-cr-00617-RBK Document 79 Filed 06/13/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 547
LOUGHRY and LINDSAY, L.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
330 Market Street
Camden, New Jersey 08102
Phone: (856) 968-9201
Fax: (856) 968-9204
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUSTIN T. LOUGHRY LAWRENCE W. LINDSAY
JTLoughry@loughryandlindsay.com LWLindsay@loughryandlindsay.com
NJ and PA Bar NJ and PA Bar
Certified by the Supreme Court of New Jersey
as a Criminal Trial Attorney
Of Counsel: Of Counsel:
JONATHAN D. BENNETT LEAH MCGARRY MORRIS
NJ and PA Bar LMMorris@loughryandlindsay.com
NJ and PA Bar
June 13, 2021
Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.

Mitchell H. Cohen U.S. Courthouse, Rm. 6040
1 John F. Gerry Plaza, 4th and Cooper Streets
Camden, NJ 08101
USA v. Kevin Ruiz-Quezada

Crim. No. 1:19-617 (RBK)
Dear Judge Kugler:
The Court has ruled inadmissible and off limits Mr. Ruiz’s favorable result in the
deportation/removal hearing of July 2018—the hearing that rejected the grounds that ICE
invoked as the reason for its enforcement action arrest on December 19, 2017, and its placement
of Mr. Ruiz in removal proceedings. The Court reached this result on a single and narrow basis:
that the deportation hearing and its outcome favorable to Mr. Ruiz came eight months
subsequent to the day of his arrest, and therefore could not have had any impact upon Mr. Ruiz’s
mental state or intent on the day of his arrest.
Defendant has had an opportunity to review substantial amounts of Jenks material
provided on June 3, 2021, and now urges a different ground for leave to confront the ICE agent
witnesses with Mr. Ruiz’s victory over their attempt at his removal: that ICE’s defeat in the July

June 13, 2021
Page 2
2018 removal proceeding constitutes a fact “from which bias, prejudice or lack of credibility of a
prosecution’s witness [here Deportation Officers Surick and Lombardi, at a minimum] may be
inferred.” See Dorsey v Parke, 87F. 2d 163, 167 (6th Cir 1989), quoting United /States v.
Garrett, 542 F. 2d 23, 25 (6th Cir 1976).
Cross examination is “the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the
truth of his testimony are tested”. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-16 (1974).
These agents were very invested in Mr. Ruiz’s removal. When it did not occur as they
expected, one may infer that they developed or harbored resentment and a determination to make
the present prosecution succeed.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to confront witnesses
on the basis of arguable bias, because it can ground an argument of bias and hostility to Mr. Ruiz
that gives these agents a motive to exaggerate or color their testimony to try to ensure that Mr.
Ruiz does not legally prevail again against the ICE agents’ – who are determined to inflict
punishment on the man whom they blame for allegedly injuring one of theirs.
Agents such as Lombardi and Surick are not mere witnesses in this case; they were part
of the prosecution team from inception. They assisted in serving subpoenas for grand jury
appearances. See Exhibit A, text messages. Lombardi was on the team that criminally arrested
Mr. Ruiz outside his workplace in August 2018 after the immigration authorities had to release
Mr. Ruiz from his eight months of detention, in light of his prevailing in the removal
proceedings. See Exhibit B. From the tenor of one or more of the emails that issued from the
ICE agents concerning the July 2018 removal proceeding, it seems they expected that an
Immigration Judge would find Mr. Ruiz deportable based on his 2002 and 2005 convictions for
unsworn falsification and for simulating an auto insurance identification card. For sure, they
2

June 13, 2021
Page 3
thought that Mr. Ruiz had received too many “slaps on the wrist” and that it was time for him to
be dealt with more harshly. See Exhibit C, email from Lombardi 11/23/18 to AUSA Carle.
It had to have come as a serious disappointment to the agents that ICE’s judgement, as
reflected in and expressed by the pre arrest documentation signed by Surick and Kovac setting
for the justification for the immigration arrest, met such repudiation in the Immigration Judge’s
ruling that saved Mr. Ruiz from deportation and that required his release from immigration
detention.
Lombardi remained in regular communication with the Assistant United States Attorneys
who were reviewing the file and avidly tracked their progress or lack of progress.
Surick himself expressed in a text message to one or more of his agent confreres some
apparent glee that the United States Attorney who had been overseeing the development of the
case and had offered a misdemeanor plea was moving on to other employment and that the office
might reconsider a plea that she had been offering. See Exhibit A.
From these materials a bias or prejudice might be inferred. The defendant has a right
under the sixth amendment to explore that potential bias; it is the right “to expose to the jury the
facts from which jurors ….could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the
witness.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986).
The relevance as evidence of bias is sufficiently strong that preclusion of the evidence
will dilute Mr. Ruiz’s right to confront and cross examine the government’s witnesses as to their
bias and motive to fabricate or enhance or embellish their testimony against Mr. Ruiz.
The defense should have the right to confront them with the result in the deportation
hearing - - in the service of an argument that they are biased witnesses against Mr. Ruiz whom
the jury ought to view with skepticism. The Court should allow, in keeping with the right of
3

June 13, 2021
Page 4
confrontation, the defense to explore with these agents their upset at Mr. Ruiz winning his
deportation hearing and gaining release from custody in August 2018.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
LOUGHRY and LINDSAY, LLC
/s/ Justin T. Loughry

Justin T. Loughry, Esquire
JTL/plg
cc: Daniel A. Friedman, AUSA (via ecf filing)
4
Case 1:19-cr-00617-RBK Document 79-1 Filed 06/13/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 551
EXHIBIT A
TS - 8
EXHIBIT B
'(3$570(172)+20(/$1'6(&85,7<
+20(/$1'6(&85,7<,19(67,*$7,216
(1)25&(0(1723(5$7,213/$1
('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI
&ULPLQDODUUHVWRI.HYLQ58,=48(=$'$
+6,2IILFH &DVH1XPEHU &DVH$JHQWV
૤+,&KHUU\+LOO1- ૤+,&+, ૤3DWULFN*O\QQ
+6,6XSHUYLVRU 7HDP/HDG $86$3URVHFXWRU

૤-RKQ)LWFK ૤3DWULFN*O\QQ ૤-DVRQ5LFKDUGVRQ
૤ ૤ ૤
૤-RKQ-)LWFK#LFHGKVJRY ૤3DWULFN7*O\QQ#LFHGKVJRY ૤MDVRQULFKDUGVRQ#XVGRMJRY
/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

%ULHILQJ )LW]JHUDOG$YHQXH0RQURH1- $XJ$0
5HDU

6WDJLQJ )LW]JHUDOG$YHQXH0RQURH1- $XJ$0
5HDU

([HFXWLRQ
$)LW]JHUDOG$YH0RQURH1- $XJ$0
7\SHRI2SHUDWLRQ 9LRODWLRQV&KDUJHV &RQWUDEDQG'HVFULSWLRQ

$5$UUHVW:DUUDQW 86&
3UHPLVHV %XVLQHVV
:DUHKRXVHVW\OHVKLSSLQJUHFHLYLQJEXLOGLQJ
2SHUDWLRQDO2EMHFWLYHV
([HFXWHIHGHUDOZDUUDQWRIDUUHVWIRU.HYLQ58,=48(=$'$DWKLVSODFHRIHPSOR\PHQWLQ0RQURH1-
('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI

3HUVRQQHO$VVLJQPHQWV
9HKLFOH
1DPH &DOO6LJQ $VVLJQPHQWV 5HSRUW$VVLJQPHQWV 1RWHV
'HVFULSWLRQ
%LOO(ZLQJ %ODFN&KHY\
$UUHVW7HDP
,PSDOD
0RQURH7RZQVKLS3ROLFH
7RZQVKLS&DU

($*/(%RRNLQJ
,&0,QFLGHQW5HSRUW
3DWULFN*O\QQ 6LOYHU*0&
1-$ 7HDP/HDGHU 5HSRUWRI,QYHVWLJDWLRQ52,
7HUUDLQ
6($&$766$6
6LJQLILFDQW,QFLGHQW5HSRUW6,5
-2+1),7&+-5 %ODFN)RUG
1-$ 6XSHUYLVRU
([SORUHU
1,&+2/$6
6LOYHU)RUG
75$1&+,7(//$ 1-$ $UUHVW7HDP
([SORUHU

-26(3++,/(6 %ODFN)RUG
1-$ $UUHVW7HDP
([SORUHU
$17+21<-21(6 %ODFN)RUG
1-$ $UUHVW7HDP
([SHGLWLRQ
0,&+$(/&8//(< %ODFN)RUG)
6XSHUYLVRU

%25,676<3,6 *UH\)RUG
$UUHVW7HDP
([SORUHU
-HII0LQW] *ROG&KHY\
$UUHVW7HDP
,PSDOD
52%(57/20%$5', 6LOYHU'RGJH
$UUHVW7HDP
&DUDYDQ
('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI

EXHIBIT C
Friedman, Daniel (USANJ)
From: Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 1:10 PM
To: Richardson, Jason (USANJ)
Cc: Skahill, Matthew (USANJ); Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ); Glynn, Patrick T; Culley, Michael P
Subject: RE: Custody of Kevin Ruiz-Quezada
All,
The NTA, and the case as a whole, was reviewed by an ICE attorney and OCC approved it for arrest and signed off on the
I‐265 prior to the date of arrest in December, so there was no problem with the NTA. From what I was able to
determine, Ruiz‐Quezada's attorney argued that the charges on the NTA weren't CIMT's.

The termination decision was made by a visiting IJ from Puerto Rico on July 5th, 2018. I informed Jacqui of the
termination at the 2nd grand jury on July 11, 2018 and that there could be a custody issue. I waited until Ruiz had his
latest (at the time) scheduled court date of July 10, 2018 to relay this in case there was some kind of reversal.

The OCC has 30 days to appeal. They filed a request, but they haven't actually appealed the case yet. The deadline is
8/6/2018 according to an entry PLAnet (agency database). I'm not sure why he is being released on Thursday the 2nd.

The problem as I see it is that he's been in ICE custody since his arrest last December, throughout his administrative case
and, as of today that case has been terminated without an appeal, there is no basis to keep him detained longer than
the 8+ months he's already been in ICE custody. ICE can't detain him legally on pending assault/resisting charges.

We also can't prevent him from travel in or out of the United States as he hasn't been charged and there's no arrest
warrant. I believe the most we can do is enter a lookout to notify us if he travels.

Please let me know if I can get anything else for you, Rob

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Richardson, Jason (USANJ) [mailto:Jason.Richardson@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:30 AM
To: Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov>
Cc: Skahill, Matthew (USANJ) <Matthew.Skahill@usdoj.gov>; Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ) <Jacqueline.Carle@usdoj.gov>;
Glynn, Patrick T <Patrick.T.Glynn@ice.dhs.gov>; Culley, Michael P <Michael.P.Culley@ice.dhs.gov>
Subject: Re: Custody of Kevin Ruiz‐Quezada

What was the basis for the termination? Was there a problem with the NTA? Was this decision made by an IJ? Did OCC
appeal the decision, if not why not?

We can discuss when Jacqui and I are back.

Thanks, Jason

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 31, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov> wrote:
>
> Good morning,
1
From: Richardson, Jason (USANJ) <Jason.Richardson@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 5:46 PM
To: Lombardi, Robert T
Cc: Skahill, Matthew (USANJ); Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ); Glynn, Patrick T; Culley, Michael P
Subject: Re: Custody of Kevin Ruiz-Quezada
Thanks. Please let me know if the OCC appeals the case and if it doesn’t what justification they gave in Planet. Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 1, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov> wrote:
>
> All,
> The NTA, and the case as a whole, was reviewed by an ICE attorney and OCC approved it for arrest and signed off on
the I‐265 prior to the date of arrest in December, so there was no problem with the NTA. From what I was able to
determine, Ruiz‐Quezada's attorney argued that the charges on the NTA weren't CIMT's.
>
> The termination decision was made by a visiting IJ from Puerto Rico on July 5th, 2018. I informed Jacqui of the
termination at the 2nd grand jury on July 11, 2018 and that there could be a custody issue. I waited until Ruiz had his
latest (at the time) scheduled court date of July 10, 2018 to relay this in case there was some kind of reversal.
>
> The OCC has 30 days to appeal. They filed a request, but they haven't actually appealed the case yet. The deadline is
8/6/2018 according to an entry PLAnet (agency database). I'm not sure why he is being released on Thursday the 2nd.
>
> The problem as I see it is that he's been in ICE custody since his arrest last December, throughout his administrative
case and, as of today that case has been terminated without an appeal, there is no basis to keep him detained longer
than the 8+ months he's already been in ICE custody. ICE can't detain him legally on pending assault/resisting charges.
>
> We also can't prevent him from travel in or out of the United States as he hasn't been charged and there's no arrest
warrant. I believe the most we can do is enter a lookout to notify us if he travels.
>
> Please let me know if I can get anything else for you, Rob
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
> From: Richardson, Jason (USANJ) [mailto:Jason.Richardson@usdoj.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 9:30 AM
> To: Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov>
> Cc: Skahill, Matthew (USANJ) <Matthew.Skahill@usdoj.gov>; Carle,
> Jacqueline (USANJ) <Jacqueline.Carle@usdoj.gov>; Glynn, Patrick T
> <Patrick.T.Glynn@ice.dhs.gov>; Culley, Michael P
> <Michael.P.Culley@ice.dhs.gov>
> Subject: Re: Custody of Kevin Ruiz‐Quezada
>
> What was the basis for the termination? Was there a problem with the NTA? Was this decision made by an IJ? Did OCC
appeal the decision, if not why not?
>
> We can discuss when Jacqui and I are back.
>
1

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 8:13 AM
To: Brundage, Christopher P
Cc: Sims, Robert D
Subject: RE: Federal Assault Case
Attachments: RUIZ-QUEZADA Complaint-Arrest Warrant-Sealing order-SIGNED.pdf
Yes.
It’s attached.
Sorry for the delay, I can’t currently get e‐mail on my phone.

From: Brundage, Christopher P
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 4:30 PM
Cc: Sims, Robert D <Robert.D.Sims@ice.dhs.gov>

Rob,
Do you have the complaint?

From: Lombardi, Robert T
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Amezquita, Michael <Michael.Amezquita@ice.dhs.gov>; Brundage, Christopher P
<Christopher.P.Brundage@ice.dhs.gov>
Cc: Culley, Michael P <Michael.P.Culley@ice.dhs.gov>

Mike / Chris,
I don’t think I gave enough info on the initial e‐mail (below)…
If this subject gets at least a year sentence, does it matter if it’s a felony or a misdemeanor?

Subject alien number is: A73 550 282

Just to be clear, the current charge in NJ District Court is:
8 U.S. Code § 111(a)(1) and (b) ‐ Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees
(a) In General.—Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of
this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;
AND
(b) Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a
weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily
injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Which is a felony.
The plea agreement they are discussing would lower it to a misdemeanor with a year sentence (if the judge doesn’t
deviate lower).
Just so you’re aware, his attorney in both this criminal matter and for immigration court is Derek DeCosmo.
1
Our concern is to not only to convict him for the 111 charge, but have him return to immigration court.

The other prior convictions in his criminal history are:
02/27/2002: Unsworn Falsification Authorization Forged (N.J.S. 2C: 28‐3B(3)) ‐ $355 Fine
04/11/2005: Exhibit False MV Insurance Card (N.J.S. 2C: 21‐2.3B) ‐ $155 Fine / 2 Years Probation (Felony on NCIC)
09/18/2013: Harassment (N.J.S. 2C: 33‐4) – $358 Fine (Original charge was Sexual Assault – Force/Coercion)

The 2002 and 2005 convictions were on his original NTA dated 12/21/2017 and charged as two CIMT’s anytime after
entry. The case was terminated in May, 2018.

From: Amezquita, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:14 PM

Rob,

I don’t think we can prevail on a CIMT based upon this statute.

18 U.S. Code § 111 ‐ Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees
US Code
(a) In General.—Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of
this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 1:01 PM
To: Amezquita, Michael <Michael.Amezquita@ice.dhs.gov>
Subject: Federal Assault Case

Mike,
The federal Officer Assault / Resisting case we have in NJ District Court Camden is in plea negotiations.
They are discussing a plea agreement that would yield a year sentence, but downgrade to a misdemeanor.

If we were to charge him again with a new NTA, would a previous confirmed CIMT together with this new conviction
qualify as two CIMTS after entry?
The federal statute for the new case is: Title 18 USC Section 111(a)(1) and (b).

Thanks,
Rob

Robert T. Lombardi
Deportation Officer, TECS/PICS Officer
Fugitive Operations / Criminal Prosecutions
532 Fellowship Road, Suite A
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054
856‐787‐3499 x3426 Office
856‐787‐3452 FAX
973‐417‐9242 Work Cell
2
DHS/ICE/ERO
robert.t.lombardi@ice.dhs.gov

3
From: Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ) <Jacqueline.Carle@usdoj.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 3:45 PM
To: Lombardi, Robert T
Subject: RE: Kevin Ruiz-Quezada
Thank you so much Rob! Happy Holidays to you!

Jacqui

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:58 PM
To: Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ) <JCarle@usa.doj.gov>
Cc: Richardson, Jason (USANJ) <JRichardson@usa.doj.gov>
Subject: RE: Kevin Ruiz‐Quezada

Good afternoon,
I hear that someone is leaving the USAO for TD bank!
Best of luck to you and it’s been a pleasure working with you over the years.

Jason,
Can I assume that you will be taking over this case?
If so, can you keep me informed? I’m getting info from HSI even though this is my case!

Thanks (and happy holidays),
Rob

(I will be on leave from 12/22/2018 through 1/7/2019

Robert T. Lombardi
856‐787‐3499 x3426 Office
856‐787‐3452 FAX
973‐417‐9242 Work Cell
DHS/ICE/ERO

Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 1:44 PM
To: 'Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ)' <Jacqueline.Carle@usdoj.gov>
Subject: RE: Kevin Ruiz‐Quezada

Hello and hope you had a great Thanksgiving,

1
I finally got word from our ICE attorney in regard to Immigration proceedings for Mr. Ruiz‐Quezada, and the general
consensus is that they are unsure if the assault charge would land him back in immigration court.

The felony conviction would certainly help, but it would still have to be evaluated by them.

Above all, my agency doesn’t want to see the case dismissed. We feel that it’s most important that he’s convicted and
serves time for injuring a law enforcement officer.

Having said that, I still feel this defendant, and defendants in general, need to know that assaulting an officer will land
you a conviction and you’re going to go to jail.

This particular defendant has gotten enough breaks and slaps on the wrist for the justice system.

Thanks,
Rob

Robert T. Lombardi
856‐787‐3499 x3426 Office
856‐787‐3452 FAX
973‐417‐9242 Work Cell
DHS/ICE/ERO

Subject: RE: I have to step out

I just wanted to speak with you regarding the Kevin Ruiz‐Quezada matter. I knew your office was talking about it, and I
wanted to try to chat before sending out a plea. Feel free to give me a call if you can. Thanks!

To: Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ) <JCarle@usa.doj.gov>
Subject: RE: I have to step out

The e‐mail on my phone is still not working and I’ll off at 2:30.
Can we meet next week?

Subject: I have to step out

Letter From Justin T. Loughry (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (LOUGHRY, JUSTIN) (Entered: 06/13/2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Letter From Justin T. Loughry (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (LOUGHRY, JUSTIN) (Entered: 06/13/2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:19-cr-00617-RBK Document 79 Filed 06/13/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 547

LOUGHRY and LINDSAY, L.L.C.

June 13, 2021

Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.

USA v. Kevin Ruiz-Quezada

Dear Judge Kugler:

mental state or intent on the day of his arrest.

Defendant has had an opportunity to review substantial amounts of Jenks material

Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.

Garrett, 542 F. 2d 23, 25 (6th Cir 1976).

the present prosecution succeed.

Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.

witness.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986).

Hon. Robert B. Kugler, U.S.D.J.

deportation hearing and gaining release from custody in August 2018.

Thank you for your consideration.

/s/ Justin T. Loughry

+6,6XSHUYLVRU 7HDP/HDG $86$3URVHFXWRU

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

7\SHRI2SHUDWLRQ 9LRODWLRQV&KDUJHV &RQWUDEDQG'HVFULSWLRQ

('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI

('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI

Friedman, Daniel (USANJ)

From: Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov>

Friedman, Daniel (USANJ)

From: Richardson, Jason (USANJ) <Jason.Richardson@usdoj.gov>

Friedman, Daniel (USANJ)

From: Lombardi, Robert T <Robert.T.Lombardi@ice.dhs.gov>

Friedman, Daniel (USANJ)

From: Carle, Jacqueline (USANJ) <Jacqueline.Carle@usdoj.gov>

You might also like

+6,6XSHUYLVRU 7HDP/HDG $86$3URVHFXWRU

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

/RFDWLRQ $GGUHVV 'DWH7LPH

7\SHRI2SHUDWLRQ 9LRODWLRQV&KDUJHV &RQWUDEDQG'HVFULSWLRQ

('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI

('7 2)),&,$/86(21/<_/$:(1)25&(0(176(16,7,9( 3DJHRI