I write to request the Court's permission for Mr. Nissen to travel, along with his wife, to the Dominican Republic from March 1 to March 4, 2024, to attend the wedding of close friends.

Mr. Nissen is on Low Intensity Probation for six more months.

Delta Flight DL1994 from JFK to Punta Cana leaving at 8:30 am and arriving at 1:25 pm on Friday, March 1 Delta Flight DL 1833 from Punta Cana to JFK leaving at 2:50 pm and arriving at 6:16 pm on Monday, March 4 The Nissens will be staying at the resort where the wedding is taking place: Casa de Campo Resort and Villas, Carretera La Romana - Higuey Hwy, La Romana 22000, Dominican Republic.

Your Honor’s consideration of this request is greatly appreciated.

The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 172.

By letter dated January 15, 2024, Defendant David Correia, proceeding pro se, has requested early termination of his three-year term of supervised release.

The Government opposes Correia’s request.

Having considered the pertinent factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including deterrence, public safety, proportionality, and consistency, the Court concludes that early termination is not in the interests of justice.

While Correia has successfully completed two years of his term of supervised release and has made restitution payments, the Court does not find that extraordinary or unanticipated circumstances warrant a reduction of the previously imposed term.

Accordingly, Defendant Correia’s request for early termination of supervised release is denied.

Relying on Lora v. United States, 599 U.S. 453 (2023), Petitioner has moved for reconsideration of my November 16, 2015 decision denying his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (ECF No. 132), to the extent that that ruling held that his sentence for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) had to run consecutively to any other sentence, (ECF No. 223).

With respect to Rule 60(b)(5), the application is denied essentially for the reasons stated by the Government in ECF No. 225.

With respect to Rule 60(b)(6), the application is denied essentially for the reasons stated by the Government in ECF No. 228.

That rule likewise does not provide a pathway around the limitations on successive § 2255 petitions in the circumstances here.

Dated: January 22, 2024 White Plains, New York

In exchange for setting up the meetings in Chad, Gadio sought a written contract with CEFC Energy to formalize his role and ensure his compensation for assisting the company in acquiring business in the Chadian oilfields.

This is “because a reviewing court must sustain the jury’s guilty verdict if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As to the Chad scheme, the jury heard testimony that Ho reached out to Jeremić on behalf of the NGO and asked for a connection to Gadio, whom Ho met at Trump World Tower – the very location that Riccardi-Zhu stated was occasionally used by the U.S.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing all inferences in support of the verdict, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that Ho acted on behalf of a domestic concern in directing business to CEFC.

“Where there are several ways to violate a criminal statute, ... federal pleading requires that an indictment charge in the conjunctive to inform the accused fully of the charges.” Id. (brackets, ellipsis, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted) (explaining that “[a] conviction under such an indictment will be sustained if the evidence indicates that the statute was violated in any of the ways charged”); see also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 51 (1991) (acknowledging the “historical” and “regular practice for prosecutors to charge conjunctively, in one count, the various means of committing a statutory offense, in order to avoid the pitfalls of duplicitous pleading”).

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of December, two thousand twenty.

Reena Raggi, Before: Denny Chin,

The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court’s record and the parties’ briefs.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

In exchange for setting up the meetings in Chad, Gadio sought a written contract with CEFC Energy to formalize his role and ensure his compensation for assisting the company in acquiring business in the Chadian oilfields.

This is “because a reviewing court must sustain the jury’s guilty verdict if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As to the Chad scheme, the jury heard testimony that Ho reached out to Jeremić on behalf of the NGO and asked for a connection to Gadio, whom Ho met at Trump World Tower – the very location that Riccardi-Zhu stated was occasionally used by the U.S.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing all inferences in support of the verdict, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that Ho acted on behalf of a domestic concern in directing business to CEFC.

“Where there are several ways to violate a criminal statute, ... federal pleading requires that an indictment charge in the conjunctive to inform the accused fully of the charges.” Id. (brackets, ellipsis, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted) (explaining that “[a] conviction under such an indictment will be sustained if the evidence indicates that the statute was violated in any of the ways charged”); see also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 51 (1991) (acknowledging the “historical” and “regular practice for prosecutors to charge conjunctively, in one count, the various means of committing a statutory offense, in order to avoid the pitfalls of duplicitous pleading”).

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 29th day of December, two thousand twenty.

Reena Raggi, Before: Denny Chin,

The appeal in the above captioned case from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court’s record and the parties’ briefs.

Upon consideration thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,

In exchange for setting up the meetings in Chad, Gadio sought a written contract with CEFC Energy to formalize his role and ensure his compensation for assisting the company in acquiring business in the Chadian oilfields.

This is “because a reviewing court must sustain the jury’s guilty verdict if viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

As to the Chad scheme, the jury heard testimony that Ho reached out to Jeremić on behalf of the NGO and asked for a connection to Gadio, whom Ho met at Trump World Tower – the very location that Riccardi-Zhu stated was occasionally used by the U.S.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and drawing all inferences in support of the verdict, we find that the jury reasonably concluded that Ho acted on behalf of a domestic concern in directing business to CEFC.

“Where there are several ways to violate a criminal statute, ... federal pleading requires that an indictment charge in the conjunctive to inform the accused fully of the charges.” Id. (brackets, ellipsis, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted) (explaining that “[a] conviction under such an indictment will be sustained if the evidence indicates that the statute was violated in any of the ways charged”); see also Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 51 (1991) (acknowledging the “historical” and “regular practice for prosecutors to charge conjunctively, in one count, the various means of committing a statutory offense, in order to avoid the pitfalls of duplicitous pleading”).