United States of America,

For good cause showing, IT IS ORDERED Defendants James Larkin, Michael Lacey, Scott Spear, Jed Brunst, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught’s Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Reply (Doc. 1579) is granted.

Defendants shall file their Reply to the pending Motion to Dismiss on or before May 12, 2023.

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2023.

United States of America,

Upon consideration of Defendant James Larkin’s Unopposed Motion to Amend Conditions of Release (Doc. 1574) and finding good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motion (Doc. 1574) and Defendant’s conditions of release are hereby amended to remove the location monitoring technology, condition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED affirming all previously imposed conditions of release unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

The Court finds there is no excludable delay.

The Court will order Plaintiff to file an expeditated response and set the Motion for hearing.

The Court also seeks the parties’ positions on whether severing Defendants Lacey and Larkin for a separate trial has previously been considered,1 and whether, under the circumstances, judicial economy and the Defendants’ interests would be better served by setting Defendants Lacey and Larkin for a separate trial.

Therein, Plaintiff shall also set out its position on the issue of severing Defendants Lacey and Larkin for separate trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may file a Response to Plaintiff’s 1 If so, the parties shall provide citation to the docket and briefing that reference such discussions.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that a hearing on the Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 1526) is set for Monday, March 20, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 605 of the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S.

Authorization Number: 22-10000.09022022 Voucher ID: CJA (Argument), Joy Bertrand Purpose of travel: Oral Hearing in San Francisco Oral Hearing Date: 09/02/2022 Pursuant to Section 702 of the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Public Law 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506, you are hereby authorized to obtain government travel rates for the above described trip in connection with your representation under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).

The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely.

You must complete a constructive cost analysis prior to submitting a reimbursement request for airline tickets that incorporate personal travel, and you will not be reimbursed for any part of your ticket if the scheduled hearing is changed or canceled for any reason.

If a rental car is required, a written justification must be submitted and approved in advance of the travel dates.

If using a personal vehicle to travel, mileage will be reimbursed up to the established GSA rate (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715).

Authorization Number: 22-10000.09022022 Voucher ID: CJA (Argument), David Eisenberg Purpose of travel: Oral Hearing in San Francisco Oral Hearing Date: 09/02/2022 Pursuant to Section 702 of the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, Public Law 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506, you are hereby authorized to obtain government travel rates for the above described trip in connection with your representation under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA).

The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely.

You must complete a constructive cost analysis prior to submitting a reimbursement request for airline tickets that incorporate personal travel, and you will not be reimbursed for any part of your ticket if the scheduled hearing is changed or canceled for any reason.

If a rental car is required, a written justification must be submitted and approved in advance of the travel dates.

If using a personal vehicle to travel, mileage will be reimbursed up to the established GSA rate (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715).

On July 25, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a 100-count Superseding Indictment (“SI”) against Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, Scott Spear, John “Jed” Brunst, Dan Hyer, Andrew Padiliia, Joye Vaught (collectively, “Defendants”).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.1, a Final Pretrial Conference is set for June 14, 2023, at 1:00 p.m. before the Honorable Diane J. Humetewa in Courtroom 605 of the Sandra Day O’Connor United States Courthouse, 401 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ, 85003.

There have been no breaks in the chain of custody between when the drugs were seized by law enforcement in this case and the date of trial.” Or: Stipulation of Evidence: The parties waive any objections relating to authenticity of the photos.

“The doctrine encourages the conservation of limited judicial resources and promotes consistency by allowing court decisions to govern the same issues in subsequent stages of the same case.” East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242, 1262 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Am. Civil Liberties Union v.

The parties must meet in person to exchange marked copies of all exhibits to be used at trial (excluding impeachment evidence not subject to early disclosure) no later than seven (7) days before the Final Pretrial Conference.

The Court analyzed several cases, including Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 511 (1966), and United States v. Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 449 (9th Cir. 1974), “conclude[d] none of ...

Parties to the case (and attorneys admitted to practice in our Court) must electronically file the original in the ECF system.

If the deposit fee was insufficient to cover all charges, the court will notify you of the balance due which must be paid prior to receiving the completed order.

Orders are considered received upon receipt of the deposit: 30-Day Transcript (Ordinary).

NOTE: Full price may be charged only if the transcript is delivered within the required time frame.

For example, if an order for expedited transcript is not completed and delivered within seven (7) calendar days, payment would be at the 14-day delivery rate, and if not completed and delivered within 14 calendar days, payment would be at the ordinary delivery rate.

Federal courts have recognized that a convicted criminal defendant has a limited statutory right to retain the jury that found him guilty in order to determine whether specific property alleged to be subject to forfeiture has a sufficient nexus to the jury’s finding of guilt.

Defendants have indicated that, in the event they are convicted on a relevant count, they seek to retain the jury to determine forfeiture of any specific assets pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(5)(A).

However, courts have recognized that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2 creates a statutory right to retain the jury to address the limited question of any nexus between specific property and the relevant offense of conviction.

Courts have held that this language of Rule 32.2 means that there is no statutory jury right when the government only seeks a money judgment.

With respect to forfeiture of specific property, however, Rule 32.2(b)(5)(A) provides that, “[i]n any case tried before a jury, if the indictment or information states that the government is seeking forfeiture, the court must determine before the jury begins deliberating whether either party requests that the jury be retained to determine the forfeitability of specific property if it returns a guilty verdict.” Courts have held that this language creates a statutory right to a jury’s determination as to whether the government can establish a nexus between the specific assets and the offenses of conviction.

Nonetheless, the presence and participation of attorneys in the moderation process is quite relevant to Mr. Padilla’s state of mind: he relied on and followed their directions.

This supplemental memorandum sets forth the procedures that would apply at the criminal forfeiture phase of trial, in the event that any of the defendants are found guilty of one or more associated counts.

In addition, the government separately may seek an order of restitution and/or a money judgment of forfeiture, in amounts to be determined following trial, neither of which are questions for the jury and both of which the Court may address at or prior to sentencing.

Forfeiture Authority Based on Travel Act Offenses – 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) Section 981(a)(1)(C) of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 2461(c) of Title 28 of the United States Code authorize the criminal forfeiture of any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as the result of certain violations, including violations of the provisions of the Travel Act, codified in 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952.

Other circuits define this nexus as a connection between the property and the offense “more than incidental,” but “need not be substantial.” See Seventh Circuit Model Instruction, “Nexus Instruction,” available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pattern-jury- instructions/7th_criminal_jury_instr.pdf, at p. 264 5 “[F]or example, if the Government is seeking to forfeit the vessel that the defendant used to smuggle drugs, either party may request that the jury be retained to determine whether the Government has established the factual nexus between the vessel and the particular offense on which the defendant was found guilty.

At that point, the court conducts a separate proceeding in which all potential third party claimants are given an opportunity to challenge the forfeiture by asserting a superior interest in the property.

) Without such allegations, Robinson has done nothing more than discuss lawful conduct because none of these actions, without being tied to illegality, are illegal conduct on their own.

The United States moves in limine to preclude defense counsel, Defendants, and their witnesses from referencing the First Amendment and “free speech” at any time in the presence of the jury.1 In their September 8, 2021 opening statements, defense counsel repeatedly framed this case as “about free speech and the limits on the government to prosecute those who provide a location, a platform for other people to place legal speech.” (Doc. 1342 at 18:9-11).

Ruling from the bench, just before the opening statements, the Court announced that it had emailed the parties “a corrected draft of the preliminary jury instructions” that “on purpose doesn’t include a First Amendment instruction.” (Doc. 1340 at 25:10-12.)

Defendants should not be allowed to circumvent the Court’s rulings—and confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time—by making inapplicable legal arguments.

United States v. Lewis, 2023 WL 1990544, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2023) (“[T]rial courts have the duty to forestall or prevent [jury nullification], including by firm instruction or admonition.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Fla. Sept. 19, 2012) (granting government’s motion to preclude argument that defendants’ unlawful conduct is protected by the First Amendment); United States v. Mohamud, 941 F. Supp.

vs. James Larkin (2), et al., Defendants.

Osborn Maledon, P.A., by and through Timothy J. Eckstein, Joseph N. Roth, and Sarah P. Lawson, gives notice of its appearance as counsel for the Estate of James Larkin in the above captioned matter.

DATED this 13th day of October, 2023.

United States of America, Plaintiff,

Osborn Maledon, P.A., by and through Timothy J. Eckstein, Joseph N. Roth, and Sarah P. Lawson, gives notice of its appearance as counsel for defendant James Larkin in the above captioned matter.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2022.