Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
` Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321
`Joseph N. Roth, 025725
`Sarah P. Lawson, 036436
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
`(602) 640-9000
`teckstein@omlaw.com
`jroth@omlaw.com
`slawson@omlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Defendant James Larkin submits this notice to inform the Court of the D.C.
`Circuit’s decision in Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States, __ F.4th __, No. 22-5105,
`2023 WL 4376244 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2023). See Ex. A.
`In Woodhull, the D.C. Circuit held that, as the “Government . . . contends,”
`“‘promote or facilitate’ should be read to mean aid or abet.” Slip. op. at 18. Like the
`Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. __ (2023)—the opinion
`prompting defendants’ motion for reconsideration, Doc. 1622—Woodhull strongly
`supports defendants’ contention that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” in the Travel
`Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3), must be construed in a “traditional criminal law context” to
`mean aid and abet. Slip op. at 19. Indeed, in explaining its reasoning, the D.C. Circuit
`cites as support the Travel Act’s use of “promote” and “facilitate,” and references a First
`Circuit case for the proposition that the “conduct underlying promotion of unlawful
`activity [under the Travel Act] was tantamount to aiding and abetting.” Woodhull, slip op.
`at 21-22 (citing Urena-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2003)). After Hansen and
`Woodhull, there is no room to argue that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” in the Travel
`Act mean something different than “aid and abet.”
`Finally, as with Hansen, given that the D.C. Circuit has now adopted the
`government’s argument as to the meaning of “promote” and “facilitate,” the doctrine of
`judicial estoppel should bar the government from advancing contrary interpretations in
`this case. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). The government “should
`not be allowed to gain an advantage by litigation on one theory, and then seek an
`inconsistent advantage by pursuing an incompatible theory.” Id. (quoting 18B Fed. Prac.
`& Proc. Juris. § 4477). The government successfully pressed in Hansen and Woodhull for
`narrow “aiding-and-abetting” interpretations of “promote” and “facilitate.” The
`government should not be allowed to “play[] fast and loose” with inconsistent
`interpretations of the same words in this case just because it suits a preferred outcome. Id.
`(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`DATED this 7th day of July, 2023.
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`
`By
`
`
`
`s/ Joseph N. Roth
`Timothy J. Eckstein
`Joseph N. Roth
`Sarah P. Lawson
`2929 North Central, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`