S. HRG. 111–695, Pt. 3 

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL 

APPOINTMENTS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 29, SEPTEMBER 9, and SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–4 

PART 3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

62–345 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–695, Pt. 3 

CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL 

APPOINTMENTS 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 29, SEPTEMBER 9, and SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

Serial No. J–111–4 

PART 3 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ................................. 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 707 

PRESENTERS 

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia presenting 

Beverly Baldwin Martin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 5 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia presenting 

Beverly Baldwin Martin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 6 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota presenting 

Jeffrey L. Viken, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 

South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 4 

NOMINEES 

Kappos, David J., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ............ 77 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 79 

Martin, Beverly Baldwin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 8 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 9 

Viken, Jeffrey L., Nominee to be United States District Judge for the District 

of South Dakota .................................................................................................... 53 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 54 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of David J. Kappos to questions submitted by Senators Hatch, 

Schumer and Specter ........................................................................................... 678 

Responses of Beverly Baldwin Martin to questions submitted by Senator 

Coburn ................................................................................................................... 686 

Responses of Jeffrey L. Viken to questions submitted by Senator Coburn ........ 690 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Intellectual Property Law Association, Teresa Stanek Rea, President, Arlington, Virginia, letter .......................................................................... 696 

Former Law Clerks, July 27, 2009, letter .............................................................. 698 

Kappos, David J., Nominee to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, statement 702 

Intellectual Property Owners Association, Steven W. Miller, President, Washington, DC, letter ................................................................................................. 709 

Nothhaft, Henry R., President and Chief Executive Officer, Tessera, San 

Jose, California, letter ......................................................................................... 710 

Page

IV 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 944 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 719 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 713 

PRESENTERS 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota Presenting 

Roberto A. Lange, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 

South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 715 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 

Presenting Joseph A. Greenaway, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge 

for the Third Circuit ............................................................................................ 717 

Menendez, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey Presenting Joseph A. Greenaway, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge 

for the Third Circuit ............................................................................................ 718 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida Presenting 

Charlene Edwards Honeywell, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida .................................................................................... 716 

Rockefeller, John D. IV., a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia 

Presenting Irene Cornelia Berger, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for 

the Southern District of West Virginia .............................................................. 714 

NOMINEES 

Berger, Irene Cornelia, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern 

District of West Virginia ...................................................................................... 772 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 773 

Greenaway, Joseph A., Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the 

Third Circuit ......................................................................................................... 720 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 725 

Honeywell, Charlene Edwards, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida .................................................................................... 827 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 828 

Lange, Roberto A., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 

South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 806 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 807 

Moreno, Ignacia S., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General Environmental 

and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice .................................. 861 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 862 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Irene Cornelia Berger, to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 907

Responses of Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., to questions submitted by Senator 

Sessions ................................................................................................................. 911 

Responses of Charlene Edwards Honeywell to questions submitted by Senator 

Sessions ................................................................................................................. 915 

Responses of Roberto A. Lange to questions submitted by Senator Sessions .... 920 

Responses of Ignacia S. Moreno to questions submitted by Senators Feingold 

and Sessions ......................................................................................................... 923 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Bar Association, Lauren J. Caster, former Chair, Kenneth J. Warren, former Chair, Claudia Rast, former Chair, Eugene E. Smary, former 

Chair, Sheila Clocume Hollis, former Chair, Lynn L. Bergeson, former 

Chair, Chicago, Illinois, joint letter .................................................................... 930 

Boggs, Roderic V.O., Executive Director, Washington Lawyers’ Committee, 

Washington, DC, letter ........................................................................................ 931 

Cave, Robert B., Counsel, Hogan & Hartson LLP, Washington, DC, letter ....... 932 

Page

V 

Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Daniel Barstow 

Magraw, President, Washington, DC, letter ...................................................... 933 

Department of Justice, former Assistant Attorneys General, Environment 

Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, joint letter ............................... 935 

Futrell, J. William, President, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, 

DC, letter .............................................................................................................. 937 

Gracer, Jeffrey B., Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C., New York, New York, letter ...... 939 

Herman, Steven A., Assistant Administrator, Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, letter .......... 940 

Hispanic National Bar Association, Ramona E. Romero, National President, 

Washington, DC, letter ........................................................................................ 941 

Kissinger, William D., Bingham, San Francisco, California, letter ..................... 943 

Moreno, Ignacia S., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General Environmental 

and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice .................................. 946 

National Council of La Raza, Janet Murguı ́a, President and CEO, Washington, DC, letter ................................................................................................. 949 

National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, Lillian Rodriguez-Lopez, Chair, on 

Behalf of Cuban American National Council; Hispanic Federation; Hispanic 

National Bar Association; Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; 

League of United Latin American Citizens; MANA, A National Latina 

Organization; National Association of Hispanic Federal Executives; National Association of Hispanic Publications; National Conference of Puerto 

Rican Woman; National Council of La Raza; National Hispana Leadership 

Institute; National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators; National Hispanic 

Environmental Council; National Puerto Rican Coalition; Self-Reliance 

Foundation; SER-Jobs for Progress; Southwest Voter Registration and Education Project, joint letter .................................................................................... 951 

National Native American Bar Association, Heather Dawn Thompson, President, letter ............................................................................................................ 953 

Norton, Edward M., Chairman, National Conservation System Foundation 

Founding, Durango, Colorado, letter .................................................................. 955 

Revesz, Richard L., Dean and Lawrence King Professor of Law, New York 

University, New York, New York, letter ............................................................ 957 

Schiffer, Lois J., fomer Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, letter ............... 959 

Sheehan, Charles J., Judge, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

DC, letter .............................................................................................................. 961 

Simon, James F., Acting Chief Executive Officer, Oceana, Washington, DC, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 962 

Solow, Steven P., Washington, DC, ........................................................................ 964 

Torres, Gerald, Austin, Texas, letter ..................................................................... 966 

Zaelke, Durwood, President, IGSD, Director, INECE Secretarist, Washington, 

DC, letter .............................................................................................................. 968 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California ................. 973 

Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota .......................... 971 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1265 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 972 

PRESENTERS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of California presenting 

Dolly M. Gee, Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District of 

California .............................................................................................................. 974 

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEES 

Chen, Edward Milton, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 1012 

Page

VI 

Chen, Edward Milton, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of California—Continued 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 1013 

Gee, Dolly M., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District of 

California .............................................................................................................. 1080 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 1081 

Nguyen, Jacqueline H., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 977 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 979 

Seeborg, Richard, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 1109 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 1110 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Edward Milton Chen to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Sessions ......................................................................................................... 1159 

Responses of Dolly M. Gee to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ............ 1176 

Responses of Jacqueline H. Nguyen to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ...................................................................................................................... 1181 

Responses of Richard Seeborg to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ...... 1184 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Asian American Bar Associations, Various, San Francisco Bay Area, San 

Francisco, California, letter ................................................................................. 1188 

Asian American Justice Center, Karen K. Narasaki, President and Executive 

Director, Washington, DC, letter ........................................................................ 1191 

Asian/Pracific Bar of California, Edwin K. Prather, President, San Francisco, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 1194 

Asian American Judges, San Francisco Superior Court, Bruce E. Chan, Andrew Cheng, Samuel Feng, Newton J. Lam, Cynthia M. Lee, Ronald E. 

Quidachay, Lillian K. Sing, Julie Tang and Garrett L. Wong, San Francisco, 

California, joint letter .......................................................................................... 1198 

Boat People SOS, Inc., Thang Dinh Nguyen, Executive Director, Falls Church, 

Virginia, letter ...................................................................................................... 1199 

Bratton, William J., Chief of Police, Los Angeles Police Department, Los 

Angeles, California, letter .................................................................................... 1202 

Catterson, Cathy A., Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco, California, letter and attachments ............ 1204 

Japanese American Citizens League, S. Floyd Mori, National Director, Washington, DC, letter ................................................................................................. 1260 

Kardon, Nancy, Kardon Law, Inc., Torrance, California, letter .......................... 1263 

Low, Harry W., retired Justice, JAMS, San Francisco, California, letter .......... 1267 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Andrew T. Hahn, 

Sr., President, Tina R. Matsuoka, Executive Director, John C. Yang, CoChair, Judiciary Committee and Wendy Wen Yun Chang, Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC, joint letter .................................................... 1271 

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Washington, DC, letter ....... 1274 

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Andrew T. Hahn, Sr., President, and Asian American Justice Center, Karen Narasaki, President & 

Executive Director, Washington, DC, joint letter .............................................. 1278 

National Asian Peace Officers Assocation, Regan O. Fong, President, Oakland, California, letter ......................................................................................... 1287 

National Conference of Vietnamese American Attorneys, Dominique N. Thieu, 

co-chair, and May Trinh Gibbs, co-chair, Fountain Valley, California, joint 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 1288 

Renfrew, Charles B., San Francisco, California, letter ........................................ 1290 

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, David Wong, President, San 

Francisco, California, letter ................................................................................. 1292 

Thor, Doua, Executive Director, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center 

(SEARAC), Washington, DC, letter .................................................................... 1294 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES 

Berger, Irene Cornelia, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern 

District of West Virginia ...................................................................................... 772 

Page

VII 

Chen, Edward Milton, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 1012 

Gee, Dolly M., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District of 

California .............................................................................................................. 1080 

Greenaway, Joseph A., Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the 

Third Circuit ......................................................................................................... 720 

Honeywell, Charlene Edwards, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida .................................................................................... 827 

Kappos, David J., Nominee to be Under Seretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office .................... 77 

Lange, Roberto A., Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of 

South Dakota ........................................................................................................ 806 

Martin, Beverly Baldwin, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh 

Circuit ................................................................................................................... 8 

Moreno, Ignacia S., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General Environmental 

and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice .................................. 861 

Nguyen, Jacqueline H., Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 977 

Seeborg, Richard, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of California .......................................................................................................... 1109 

Viken, Jeffrey L., Nominee to be United States District Judge for the District 

of South Dakota .................................................................................................... 53 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF BEVERLY BALDWIN MARTIN, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT; 

JEFFREY L. VIKEN, NOMINEE TO BE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA; AND, DAVID 

J. KAPPOS, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD– 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Specter, Franken, Sessions and 

Hatch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning, everyone. Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee reported the nomination of Judge Sonia 

Sotomayor to be a justice on the United States Supreme Court. 

And this morning, we are holding our first confirmation hearing for 

lower court nominees since the Supreme Court vacancy arose in 

May. 

The vacancies throughout the Federal courts have already risen 

to over 80. In addition, 27 upcoming vacancies have been announced. That is going to push Federal judicial vacancies to over 

100. We worked very hard to fill the vacancies during the last presidency. 

Back when I chaired this Committee and we had a President of 

the other party in the White House, we were able to reduce overall 

vacancies by two-thirds, from over 100 down to 34, and reduce circuit court vacancies to single digits. 

Despite having received Federal judicial nominees since March 

from President Obama and despite having held hearings and reported those nominees in June, not a single Federal judge has been 

2 

confirmed by the Senate all year. I believe the Senate has to do 

better. 

I mention that because when I was Chairman of this Committee 

with a Republican President, I moved President Bush’s nominees 

through faster than either of the Republican chairmen did for 

President Bush, because I did not want to go back to what had 

been, during President Clinton’s time, when 61 of President Clinton’s nominees were pocket filibustered by the other side. 

I mention that because we tried very hard to have judges looked 

at as judges and to get out of partisan politics, and I hope we can 

get back to that. There is absolutely no excuse for not having 

moved yet. In fact, I notice even the U.S. Attorney recommended 

by Senator Sessions, the Ranking Member of this Committee, has 

been blocked. This is despite the fact that we cleared his nomination on the Democratic side of the aisle. This nominee of a Republican has been blocked by the Republican side. We have got to do 

better than that. 

Now, both judicial nominations we consider today come to us 

with bipartisan support. President Obama’s nomination of Judge 

Beverly Martin to be elevated from the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Georgia to the Eleventh Circuit has the support of Georgia Senators, Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson. 

Senator Isakson and I had a good chat about this yesterday on the 

floor. Senator Chambliss and I talked with Judge Martin this 

morning. 

Jeffrey Viken has been nominated to serve on the U.S. District 

Court for the District of South Dakota and he has the support of 

South Dakota senior Senator, Senator Johnson, and Senator 

Thune. 

Judge Martin is the fourth of President Obama’s circuit court 

nominees to come before the Committee and the fourth with extensive experience as a well respected Federal district court judge. 

When her nomination came to the Senate in 2000, it had the 

support of Senator Max Cleland, Democrat, and Senator Paul 

Coverdell, a Republican, also a friend of all of ours who died much 

too early. 

Since her confirmation, she has managed a docket of 3,100 cases. 

Her nomination to the circuit court is rated unanimously well 

qualified by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. I should note that is the highest rating they can give. 

Before becoming a Federal judge, she served as the U.S. Attorney 

for the Middle District of Georgia; as an Assistant U.S. Attorney 

in that office; and as an Assistant Attorney General in the Office 

of the Attorney General of Georgia. It is no secret on this Committee that, as a former prosecutor, I love seeing people who have 

had prosecutorial experience. 

Jeffrey Viken’s wide-ranging experience makes him particularly 

qualified to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. He is currently the Federal defender for the 

combined districts of North Dakota and South Dakota. I kind of 

gulp when I think of the land area that covers. I do not even want 

to think of how many times the size of Vermont that is. 

He spent more than two decades at a South Dakota law firm. Before that, he served as the District of South Dakota’s Acting U.S. 

3 

Attorney and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, again, a former prosecutor. 

We will also include in today’s hearing the nomination of David 

Kappos to be Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. He is well 

respected on both sides of the aisle, all parts of the intellectual 

property community, someone I have known for years. 

He is no stranger to the members of the Committee. He has 

worked with Senator Hatch and I and others on patent reform legislation. Coalitions on all sides of that debate applauded his nomination. We know the PTO needs strong and accountable leadership. 

It has a significant backlog of applications and faces serious challenges and we need somebody who can work with us on patent reform legislation and also can run the department, because, ultimately, patent quality begins at the PTO and that requires effective leadership. 

I am pleased that the President has nominated someone for this 

position with strong qualifications and abilities. I said to him earlier I do not know whether to give him congratulations or condolences, because it is going to be one of the toughest jobs in the government. 

So I hope the hearing today can mark a new start in cooperating 

to fill vacancies. Republican objections have prevented the Senate 

from confirming nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee for 

over 2 months, since May 12, including, as I said, somebody sponsored by the Ranking Republican on this Committee, Senator Sessions. 

There are currently 17 nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee pending on the executive calendar. A dozen have been installed on the Senate executive calendar since before the Fourth of 

July recess, five U.S. Attorneys, four Assistant Attorneys General, 

Chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission and others, 

as well as a number of judges. So I hope we can move forth. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator Hatch, former Chairman of this Committee, former 

Ranking Member of this Committee, experienced person who, at 

least once or twice a year, will agree with me on something. I am 

delighted to have you here. 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Long-term listener to Senator Leahy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. It is a privilege to be with you, Mr. Chairman, 

and I appreciate your leadership of this Committee. 

Judge Martin, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. I was 

chairing the Committee when you first arrived. We have been 

proud of your service. And, Mr. Viken, we look forward to helping 

to confirm you. 

Mr. Kappos, I agree with the distinguished Chairman. This is 

one of the toughest jobs in all of the Federal Government and I 

4 

think you are not only up to the job, I think you can do a great 

job there, and I look forward to supporting you. 

There is no question that America’s ingenuity fuels our economy 

and we have to ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as possible; not only to protect our country’s premier position 

as the world leader in innovation, but, also, to secure our economic 

future. 

So I support you. I will announce that in advance. I may not be 

able to stay for the whole hearing, but just know that I am very 

proud of you for being willing to leave the private sector and come 

to the government and work in this very difficult position. 

You two nominees for judge, we are very grateful you are willing 

to serve and willing to participate in our government. We know 

that there are nice things that come from being a Federal judge, 

but there are a lot of difficulties, too, and we appreciate your willingness to serve. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I would note for the record that 

Senator Hatch and I have been good friends for decades. 

Senator HATCH. That is true. 

Chairman LEAHY. And we do enjoy teasing each other, but we 

have worked together and there has been an awful lot of HatchLeahy and Leahy-Hatch legislation that has passed this body. 

We are going to go, as we normally do, by seniority of the Senators who are here. I appreciate you taking the time. I would note 

that, to the nominees, if the Senators, after they have introduced 

you, leave, that is not an indication how they feel about your qualifications. It is just that each one of these three Senators have several other committee meetings going on at this time. 

We will begin with Senator Johnson. 

PRESENTATION OF JEFFREY L. VIKEN, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, BY 

HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and members of the Committee. It is my great pleasure to be here 

this morning to introduce my friend, Jeff Viken, to be a Federal 

judge for our home State of South Dakota. I am also glad to see 

Jeff’s wife, Linda Lea, is here. 

I have known Jeff since law school at the University of South 

Dakota and know well of his qualifications to fill the post of U.S. 

district judge. It is a great honor that President Obama has placed 

on Jeff. We are very lucky in South Dakota to have a great member 

of the legal community nominated to this post. 

Jeff has many years of public service and I look forward to his 

continued work for the people of our home state in the future. 

Thank you for your consideration of this nominee. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very, very much. Before I move on 

to the others, you have introduced Jeffrey Viken. Mr. Viken, do you 

have other members of your family here? I mention this because 

at some point, this will be in the Viken archives and you will want 

to know who was here. 

5 

Mr. VIKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My district is 124,000 

square miles. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is bigger than Vermont. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. VIKEN. [Off microphone.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much for having 

them all here. Senator Chambliss. 

PRESENTATION OF BEVERLY BALDWIN MARTIN, NOMINEE TO 

BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is 

a privilege for me to be here before you and my dear friend, Senator Hatch, Senator Franken to introduce to this Committee Beverly Martin. Beverly is a long-time dear friend, but her father and 

I go back even further than that, as a brand new lawyer in the 

Middle District of Georgia about 40 years ago. 

You always, as young lawyers, as you know, try to look to the 

best lawyers around to emulate and to learn from. Beverly’s father, 

her grandfather and her great-grandfather were all lawyers and 

her father was one of the outstanding lawyers in our state and 

somebody that I looked to early on to learn from. 

So it is, indeed, a privilege to be back here 9 years after I came 

here to help introduce her before Chairman Hatch, at that point in 

time, to this Committee, regarding her nomination to the district 

court bench for the Northern District of Georgia. 

Beverly brings a great tradition, not just a family tradition, to 

the bench. She served as a member of Attorney General Mike Bowers’ team at the state level for many years, and, there, I had the 

opportunity to work with her from time to time, because I did an 

awful lot of condemnation work and we worked very closely with 

that group of lawyers at the state level. I knew then what an outstanding person and outstanding lawyer she is. 

Beverly then went to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the 

Middle District and, ultimately, the U.S. Attorney, as she was 

named by President Clinton, and then was elevated to the bench 

on the Northern District of Georgia thereafter and, as the Chairman noted, she has handled over 3,100 cases during that 9 years, 

and she is so well respected by not just the judges who work with 

her every day, but by the lawyers that practice before her, and that 

is a real credit to her. 

She is one of those special individuals and I know Senator Sessions, as a former U.S. Attorney, remembers the weed-and-seed 

program that was so popular. Beverly was a strong advocate of the 

weed-and-seed program during her U.S. Attorney days and she 

started programs in different parts of the district, in Valdosta, Columbus, Macon and Athens, and just did so many great things outside of the courtroom, just like she did inside the courtroom. 

She is tough, but she is fair, and that is what I hear from lawyers who practice before her on a regular basis. She replaces another great Maconite, Lanier Anderson, who was appointed by 

President Carter back in the 1970’s. He has served us well on the 

Eleventh Circuit and Beverly is going to bring not just a great traVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 062345 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\62345.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
6 

dition to the Eleventh Circuit from a family perspective, but she is 

an excellent lawyer. She is an excellent judge, and she is going to 

make a fine member of the Eleventh Circuit bench. 

I look forward to supporting her as her nomination moves to the 

floor. I thank you again for the opportunity to be here today to introduce her. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. As I said, I enjoyed 

meeting her with you. Of course, Senator Chambliss and I have 

served together on another committee for years, on the Agriculture 

Committee, when he was chairman and since. 

Senator Isakson. 

PRESENTATION OF BEVERLY BALDWIN MARTIN, NOMINEE TO 

BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 

OF GEORGIA 

Senator ISAKSON. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member 

Sessions. It is an honor for me to join with the senior Senator from 

Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, in introducing Judge Beverly Martin. 

I suffer at an extreme disadvantage when it comes to judicial appointments. I am not an attorney. So I have to set a criteria that 

may be different in judging people, and there are three things I 

look for when I consider the judicial appointments. One is knowledge, second is integrity, and the third is judicial activism. 

I was called out of a dinner at the Marriott downtown the day 

of the announcement by the President of Beverly Martin’s nomination to the Eleventh Circuit. I received an emergency call, which 

I rarely get. It was from Mike Bowers, the former Republican Attorney General of the State of Georgia, now a practicing attorney, 

under whom Beverly Martin served in the Georgia Attorney General’s office many years ago. 

He said, ‘‘Johnny, I just want you to know I heard today that 

Beverly Martin has been nominated for the Eleventh Circuit. I 

want to tell you that I have never known a finer practicing attorney, never known a finer prosecutor,’’ which I know the Chairman 

will identify with that remark, ‘‘and I think she will be an outstanding judge in the Northern District.’’ 

The last call I received today was from south Georgia, from an 

attorney by the name of Jimmy Franklin, just to tell me how much 

he thought of Judge Beverly Martin. But for me, on the case of judicial activism, I tried to look back at her record to find some way 

to give me an indication of her position on judicial activism and I 

came upon her testimony when she was before this Committee on 

judicial activism in her appointment to the Northern District. 

If I can, I would like to quote her answer to this Committee. 

‘‘Once a case is properly before a court, a judge is obligated to follow the United States Constitution, statutory law and the doctrine 

of stare decisis, to adhere to the legal precedent. The precept is 

paramount, because it is necessary to the stability of our system 

for individuals and commercial concerns to find predictability in 

our judicial system and anticipate what actions are legally permissible. United States district courts have a limited jurisdiction and 

it is the solemn obligation of a judge not to find jurisdiction where 

it does not exist.’’ 

7 

That was all I needed to know that Judge Martin was the type 

of judge that I am proud to be able to be before you today and introduce to you as a Georgian, a great justice, and a fine person. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Judge, this just elaborates on the 

very nice things that Senator Isakson said to me on the floor of the 

Senate. Judge, you have family members here, do you? 

Ms. MARTIN. [Off microphone.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I suspect two very proud gentlemen. Thank 

you. I thank all three of you for being here. I appreciate you being 

here. I know you have to be out—you are welcome to stay, of 

course, but I know you have all got committee meetings. So thank 

you very much. 

I should note, while they are moving things around, that on 

David Kappos, he has been nominated by President Obama to be 

the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

In March, he had testified before the Committee on patent reforms. He has spent his entire professional career with IBM Corporation; graduated with highest honors from University of California-Davis in 1983 with a degree in electrical and computer engineering; again, worked for IBM as an engineer; went to the general 

counsel’s office after receiving his law degree from the University 

of California-Berkeley in 1990; has held several positions within 

the general counsel’s office, now serving as vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property. 

He serves on the board of directors of the American Intellectual 

Property Law Association, Intellectual Property Owners Association, the International Intellectual Property Association, as the vice 

president of the Intellectual Property Owners Association. I will 

put the rest of that in the record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Kappos, do you have family members 

here? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Yes, I do. 

Chairman LEAHY. For the Kappos archives, go ahead, please. 

Mr. KAPPOS. [Off microphone.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Oh, boy, you know how to get it. Where in 

Vermont? 

Mr. KAPPOS. [Off microphone.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Manchester. 

Mr. KAPPOS. [Off microphone.] 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAPPOS. [Off microphone.] 

Chairman LEAHY. No wonder the room is so full today. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. We will check after with the staff to make sure 

we get all these names spelled correctly. Let us have the three 

nominees come forward and let me administer the oath, and we 

can begin. 

[Nominees sworn.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Let the record show that each of the nominees 

took the oath and agreed to it. We will start with you, Judge Martin, if you have an opening statement that you would like to give. 

8 

STATEMENT OF BEVERLY BALDWIN MARTIN, NOMINEE TO BE 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

Ms. MARTIN. I do not have an opening statement, but I have got 

some people I would like to thank. On my way walking up here 

this morning, I remember that it was 35 years ago this summer 

that I was a summer intern for Senator Sam Nunn. So to be here 

this morning with both of my Senators from the State of Georgia 

is a big deal for me and I am grateful to them for being here. 

I wanted to mention that in addition to my husband and my father, there are six of my law clerks here today, former, present and 

future; one that is going to start in 2 weeks. Also, I noticed a couple of my colleagues from my time as United States Attorney, and 

I appreciate them being here, as well. But most of all, thank you 

all for having me here this morning. 

Chairman LEAHY. You had the privilege of serving with Sam 

Nunn. His wife, Colleen, was my wife’s big sister when she came 

here. Spouses will help spouses of incoming Senators, and they 

often become friends forever. My wife has served in a similar position with a number of people. She did it with a young Senator from 

Illinois named Barack Obama, with Michelle Obama. 

Mr. Viken. 

[The biographical information of Beverly B. Martin follows.] 

9 


62345.001
10 


62345.002
11 


62345.003
12 


62345.004
13 


62345.005
14 


62345.006
15 


62345.007
16 


62345.008
17 


62345.009
18 


62345.010
19 


62345.011
20 


62345.012
21 


62345.013
22 


62345.014
23 


62345.015
24 


62345.016
25 


62345.017
26 


62345.018
27 


62345.019
28 


62345.020
29 


62345.021
30 


62345.022
31 


62345.023
32 


62345.024
33 


62345.025
34 


62345.026
35 


62345.027
36 


62345.028
37 


62345.029
38 


62345.030
39 


62345.031
40 


62345.032
41 


62345.034
42 


62345.035
43 


62345.036
44 


62345.037
45 


62345.038
46 


62345.039
47 


62345.040
48 


62345.041
49 


62345.042
50 


62345.043
51 


62345.044
52 


62345.045
53 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY L. VIKEN, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Mr. VIKEN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Just a word of thanks, 

Mr. Chairman, to you and Senator Sessions, Senator Hatch, Senator Franken, the members of the Committee, for your investment 

of time and your deliberative energy in the process of considering 

the confirmation of myself to serve on the Federal bench. 

I, of course, greatly appreciate Senator Tim Johnson being 

present for the introduction and for President Obama’s confidence 

in the nomination, and I am sure Beverly shares that thought with 

me, as well. 

We are honored to be here and honored to have an opportunity 

to be considered for this form of public service. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Mr. Kappos. 

[The biographical information of Jeffrey L. Viken follows.] 

54 


62345.046
55 


62345.047
56 


62345.048
57 


62345.049
58 


62345.050
59 


62345.051
60 


62345.052
61 


62345.053
62 


62345.054
63 


62345.055
64 


62345.056
65 


62345.057
66 


62345.058
67 


62345.059
68 


62345.060
69 


62345.061
70 


62345.062
71 


62345.063
72 


62345.064
73 


62345.065
74 


62345.066
75 


62345.067
76 


62345.068
77 

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. KAPPOS, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

Mr. KAPPOS. Good morning. If it is OK, I do have a short statement that I would like to read, Chairman Leahy. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, Senator Sessions, distinguished members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you 

very much for the opportunity to appear before you here today. I 

am very grateful to President Obama and to Secretary Locke for 

the trust that they have placed in me, and to you for considering 

my nomination as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 

It is exceptional and humbling under any circumstance to have 

the opportunity to serve one’s country, but it is particularly so for 

me as the son and grandson of emigrants. My father, who you met 

just a moment ago, came to this country from Greece and my mother’s parents came to the U.S. from Italy. So the opportunity to be 

here today is particularly poignant for me and it is, also, for my 

family. 

If recommended by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate, 

I look forward to joining Secretary Locke, his team at Commerce, 

in their mission as stewards of American economic growth, job creation, and innovation. I have spent nearly my entire professional 

career in the field of intellectual property law and, indeed, my entire career around technology and innovation, first, as an electrical 

and computer engineer; then as a patent attorney handling matters 

before the U.S. PTO; litigating patent disputes both as defendant 

and as plaintiff; managing intellectual property matters in Asia; 

and, finally, as vice president and assistant general counsel for intellectual property law, managing IBM’s IP interests globally. 

So I have seen the intellectual property system from all sides. I 

care passionately about this field and the role intellectual property 

plays in advancing American innovation. So it is particularly exciting for me to be considered for the position of Director of the U.S. 

PTO, an organization that traces its roots to the Founding Fathers 

and to their understanding that promoting and rewarding innovation is critical to our country’s success. 

PTO faces many challenges, as we all know. Most immediate are 

those resulting from the economic downturn, the need for a stable 

and sustainable funding model, the need to address pendency concerns while preserving and enhancing patent quality, and the imperative to attract and retain skilled personnel at a time of fiscal 

constraint. 

Secretary Locke has personally asked me to refashion the patent 

examination process to meet these challenges and in carrying forward this direction, I will focus substantial personal attention 

within the U.S. PTO as my top priority. 

Additional challenges flow from rapid globalizing trade environment, impacting trademark and patent interests, as well as respect 

for intellectual property and the consequences where intellectual 

property is not respected. Longer term, the U.S. PTO is going to 

78 

need to keep abreast of the astounding pace of technological change 

across a broad range of scientific disciplines. 

It must constantly rethink how it carries out its constitutional 

imperative to promote innovation and scientific advancement for 

the public good, both in terms of the technology confronting the office and in terms of leveraging that technology and applying the 

law to that technology. 

So as I consider these challenges, I am mindful of several things. 

I am mindful that the U.S. PTO serves the interests of all 

innovators in this country, small and large, corporate and independent, academic and applied, and, most importantly, the public 

interests. While I have spent my career to date at a large corporate 

enterprise, I am familiar with the concerns of all U.S. PTO constituents, including small and independent investors, the venture 

and startup community, public interest groups, the patent bar and 

many others, and I will reach out to all of them. 

I am mindful of the incredible dedication of the thousands of U.S. 

PTO employees and the essential role they play in the success of 

the U.S. innovation system. I will work every day with the U.S. 

PTO employees and the unions that represent them to establish 

strong, positive relationships grounded in professional treatment 

for professional judgment. 

I am acutely mindful that innovation today is global and that IP 

policy is of paramount importance, not only in our country, but also 

in the EU, in Japan, in China, Brazil, India and many other developing countries. 

I will use my international experience and my understanding of 

global IP trends to help this administration represent the interests 

of American innovators globally. 

Finally, I am mindful that the office for which I am being considered, working as part of Secretary Locke’s team and within the administration’s agenda, must be intensely focused on how to serve 

the American people at this time of economic uncertainty. 

I believe the U.S. PTO can play a significant role in enhancing 

economic growth, creating jobs and advancing American innovation, and I hope to play a part of this important mission. 

Again, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you here 

today and I am pleased to answer any questions. 

[The biographical information of David J. Kappos follows.] 

79 


62345.069
80 


62345.070
81 


62345.071
82 


62345.072
83 


62345.073
84 


62345.074
85 


62345.075
86 


62345.076
87 


62345.077
88 


62345.078
89 


62345.079
90 


62345.080
91 


62345.081
92 


62345.082
93 


62345.083
94 


62345.084
95 


62345.085
96 


62345.086
97 


62345.087
98 


62345.088
99 


62345.089
100 


62345.090
101 


62345.091
102 


62345.092
103 


62345.093
104 


62345.094
105 


62345.095
106 


62345.096
107 


62345.097
108 


62345.098
109 


62345.099
110 


62345.100
111 


62345.101
112 


62345.102
113 


62345.103
114 


62345.104
115 


62345.105
116 


62345.106
117 


62345.107
118 


62345.108
119 


62345.109
120 


62345.110
121 


62345.111
122 


62345.112
123 


62345.113
124 


62345.114
125 


62345.115
126 


62345.116
127 


62345.117
128 


62345.118
129 


62345.119
130 


62345.120
131 


62345.121
132 


62345.122
133 


62345.123
134 


62345.124
135 


62345.125
136 


62345.126
137 


62345.127
138 


62345.128
139 


62345.129
140 


62345.130
141 


62345.131
142 


62345.132
143 


62345.133
144 


62345.134
145 


62345.135
146 


62345.136
147 


62345.137
148 


62345.138
149 


62345.139
150 


62345.140
151 


62345.141
152 


62345.142
153 


62345.143
154 


62345.144
155 


62345.145
156 


62345.146
157 


62345.147
158 


62345.148
159 


62345.149
160 


62345.150
161 


62345.151
162 


62345.152
163 


62345.153
164 


62345.154
165 


62345.155
166 


62345.156
167 


62345.157
168 


62345.158
169 


62345.159
170 


62345.160
171 


62345.161
172 


62345.162
173 


62345.163
174 


62345.164
175 


62345.165
176 


62345.166
177 


62345.167
178 


62345.168
179 


62345.169
180 


62345.170
181 


62345.171
182 


62345.172
183 


62345.173
184 


62345.174
185 


62345.175
186 


62345.176
187 


62345.177
188 


62345.178
189 


62345.179
190 


62345.180
191 


62345.181
192 


62345.182
193 


62345.183
194 


62345.184
195 


62345.185
196 


62345.186
197 


62345.187
198 


62345.188
199 


62345.189
200 


62345.190
201 


62345.191
202 


62345.192
203 


62345.193
204 


62345.194
205 


62345.195
206 


62345.196
207 


62345.197
208 


62345.198
209 


62345.199
210 


62345.200
211 


62345.201
212 


62345.202
213 


62345.203
214 


62345.204
215 


62345.205
216 


62345.206
217 


62345.207
218 


62345.208
219 


62345.209
220 


62345.210
221 


62345.211
222 


62345.212
223 


62345.213
224 


62345.214
225 


62345.215
226 


62345.216
227 


62345.217
228 


62345.218
229 


62345.219
230 


62345.220
231 


62345.221
232 


62345.222
233 


62345.223
234 


62345.224
235 


62345.225
236 


62345.226
237 


62345.227
238 


62345.228
239 


62345.229
240 


62345.230
241 


62345.231
242 


62345.232
243 


62345.233
244 


62345.234
245 


62345.235
246 


62345.236
247 


62345.237
248 


62345.238
249 


62345.239
250 


62345.240
251 


62345.241
252 


62345.242
253 


62345.243
254 


62345.244
255 


62345.245
256 


62345.246
257 


62345.247
258 


62345.248
259 


62345.249
260 


62345.250
261 


62345.251
262 


62345.252
263 


62345.253
264 


62345.254
265 


62345.255
266 


62345.256
267 


62345.257
268 


62345.258
269 


62345.259
270 


62345.260
271 


62345.261
272 


62345.262
273 


62345.263
274 


62345.264
275 


62345.265
276 


62345.266
277 


62345.267
278 


62345.268
279 


62345.269
280 


62345.270
281 


62345.271
282 


62345.272
283 


62345.273
284 


62345.274
285 


62345.275
286 


62345.276
287 


62345.277
288 


62345.278
289 


62345.279
290 


62345.280
291 


62345.281
292 


62345.282
293 


62345.283
294 


62345.284
295 


62345.285
296 


62345.286
297 


62345.287
298 


62345.288
299 


62345.289
300 


62345.290
301 


62345.291
302 


62345.292
303 


62345.293
304 


62345.294
305 


62345.295
306 


62345.296
307 


62345.297
308 


62345.298
309 


62345.299
310 


62345.300
311 


62345.301
312 


62345.302
313 


62345.303
314 


62345.304
315 


62345.305
316 


62345.306
317 


62345.307
318 


62345.308
319 


62345.309
320 


62345.310
321 


62345.311
322 


62345.312
323 


62345.313
324 


62345.314
325 


62345.315
326 


62345.316
327 


62345.317
328 


62345.318
329 


62345.319
330 


62345.320
331 


62345.321
332 


62345.322
333 


62345.323
334 


62345.324
335 


62345.325
336 


62345.326
337 


62345.327
338 


62345.328
339 


62345.329
340 


62345.330
341 


62345.331
342 


62345.332
343 


62345.333
344 


62345.334
345 


62345.335
346 


62345.336
347 


62345.337
348 


62345.338
349 


62345.339
350 


62345.340
351 


62345.341
352 


62345.342
353 


62345.343
354 


62345.344
355 


62345.345
356 


62345.346
357 


62345.347
358 


62345.348
359 


62345.349
360 


62345.350
361 


62345.351
362 


62345.352
363 


62345.353
364 


62345.354
365 


62345.355
366 


62345.356
367 


62345.357
368 


62345.358
369 


62345.359
370 


62345.360
371 


62345.361
372 


62345.362
373 


62345.363
374 


62345.364
375 


62345.365
376 


62345.366
377 


62345.367
378 


62345.368
379 


62345.369
380 


62345.370
381 


62345.371
382 


62345.372
383 


62345.373
384 


62345.374
385 


62345.375
386 


62345.376
387 


62345.377
388 


62345.378
389 


62345.379
390 


62345.380
391 


62345.381
392 


62345.382
393 


62345.383
394 


62345.384
395 


62345.385
396 


62345.386
397 


62345.387
398 


62345.388
399 


62345.389
400 


62345.390
401 


62345.391
402 


62345.392
403 


62345.393
404 


62345.394
405 


62345.395
406 


62345.396
407 


62345.397
408 


62345.398
409 


62345.399
410 


62345.400
411 


62345.401
412 


62345.402
413 


62345.403
414 


62345.404
415 


62345.405
416 


62345.406
417 


62345.407
418 


62345.408
419 


62345.409
420 


62345.410
421 


62345.411
422 


62345.412
423 


62345.413
424 


62345.414
425 


62345.415
426 


62345.416
427 


62345.417
428 


62345.418
429 


62345.419
430 


62345.420
431 


62345.421
432 


62345.422
433 


62345.423
434 


62345.424
435 


62345.425
436 


62345.426
437 


62345.427
438 


62345.428
439 


62345.429
440 


62345.430
441 


62345.431
442 


62345.432
443 


62345.433
444 


62345.434
445 


62345.435
446 


62345.436
447 


62345.437
448 


62345.438
449 


62345.439
450 


62345.440
451 


62345.441
452 


62345.442
453 


62345.443
454 


62345.444
455 


62345.445
456 


62345.446
457 


62345.447
458 


62345.448
459 


62345.449
460 


62345.450
461 


62345.451
462 


62345.452
463 


62345.453
464 


62345.454
465 


62345.455
466 


62345.456
467 


62345.457
468 


62345.458
469 


62345.459
470 


62345.460
471 


62345.461
472 


62345.462
473 


62345.463
474 


62345.464
475 


62345.465
476 


62345.466
477 


62345.467
478 


62345.468
479 


62345.469
480 


62345.470
481 


62345.471
482 


62345.472
483 


62345.473
484 


62345.474
485 


62345.475
486 


62345.476
487 


62345.477
488 


62345.478
489 


62345.479
490 


62345.480
491 


62345.481
492 


62345.482
493 


62345.483
494 


62345.484
495 


62345.485
496 


62345.486
497 


62345.487
498 


62345.488
499 


62345.489
500 


62345.500
501 


62345.501
502 


62345.502
503 


62345.503
504 


62345.504
505 


62345.505
506 


62345.506
507 


62345.507
508 


62345.508
509 


62345.509
510 


62345.510
511 


62345.511
512 


62345.512
513 


62345.513
514 


62345.514
515 


62345.515
516 


62345.516
517 


62345.517
518 


62345.518
519 


62345.519
520 


62345.520
521 


62345.521
522 


62345.522
523 


62345.523
524 


62345.524
525 


62345.525
526 


62345.526
527 


62345.527
528 


62345.528
529 


62345.529
530 


62345.530
531 


62345.531
532 


62345.532
533 


62345.533
534 


62345.534
535 


62345.535
536 


62345.536
537 


62345.537
538 


62345.538
539 


62345.539
540 


62345.540
541 


62345.541
542 


62345.542
543 


62345.543
544 


62345.544
545 


62345.545
546 


62345.546
547 


62345.547
548 


62345.548
549 


62345.549
550 


62345.550
551 


62345.551
552 


62345.552
553 


62345.553
554 


62345.554
555 


62345.555
556 


62345.556
557 


62345.557
558 


62345.558
559 


62345.559
560 


62345.560
561 


62345.561
562 


62345.562
563 


62345.563
564 


62345.564
565 


62345.565
566 


62345.566
567 


62345.567
568 


62345.568
569 


62345.569
570 


62345.570
571 


62345.571
572 


62345.572
573 


62345.573
574 


62345.574
575 


62345.575
576 


62345.576
577 


62345.577
578 


62345.578
579 


62345.579
580 


62345.580
581 


62345.581
582 


62345.582
583 


62345.583
584 


62345.584
585 


62345.585
586 


62345.586
587 


62345.587
588 


62345.588
589 


62345.589
590 


62345.590
591 


62345.591
592 


62345.592
593 


62345.593
594 


62345.594
595 


62345.595
596 


62345.596
597 


62345.597
598 


62345.598
599 


62345.599
600 


62345.600
601 


62345.601
602 


62345.602
603 


62345.603
604 


62345.604
605 


62345.605
606 


62345.606
607 


62345.607
608 


62345.608
609 


62345.609
610 


62345.610
611 


62345.611
612 


62345.612
613 


62345.613
614 


62345.614
615 


62345.615
616 


62345.616
617 


62345.617
618 


62345.618
619 


62345.619
620 


62345.620
621 


62345.621
622 


62345.622
623 


62345.623
624 


62345.624
625 


62345.625
626 


62345.626
627 


62345.627
628 


62345.628
629 


62345.629
630 


62345.630
631 


62345.631
632 


62345.632
633 


62345.633
634 


62345.634
635 


62345.635
636 


62345.636
637 


62345.637
638 


62345.638
639 


62345.639
640 


62345.640
641 


62345.641
642 


62345.642
643 


62345.643
644 


62345.644
645 


62345.645
646 


62345.646
647 


62345.647
648 


62345.648
649 


62345.649
650 


62345.650
651 


62345.651
652 


62345.652
653 


62345.653
654 


62345.654
655 


62345.655
656 


62345.656
657 


62345.657
658 


62345.658
659 


62345.659
660 


62345.660
661 


62345.661
662 


62345.662
663 


62345.663
664 


62345.664
665 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. My mother’s parents 

also emigrated to Vermont from Italy. 

Judge Martin, the courts are—and they were set up this way by 

the founders of the country—they are the one undemocratic part of 

our government. So they have a special responsibility to Americans 

who have the least power and greatest need for protection. 

Judges are protected in their own decisions by lifetime appointments. You certainly understand that, after 9 years on the Federal 

bench. But I also think there is a need to show sensitivity to people 

of different backgrounds, to show equal justice, whether you are 

coming before a court, whether you are rich, poor or no matter 

what your political background, no matter whether you are plaintiff or defendant, to show that they are going to be treated the 

same. 

Can you describe any situation, either as a lawyer or as a judge, 

in which you have taken difficult positions on behalf of comparatively poor or powerless individuals or members of racial minorities 

against a large corporation or the government? 

Ms. MARTIN. The first thing that comes to mind is criminal sentencing. That is probably the toughest day for any district judge. 

It is the worst day in the criminal defendant’s life, but it is also 

the worst day in his or her family’s life. 

So that is a time when I think it is important really to the rehabilitative process for me to treat the criminal defendant, as well as 

his or her family, with respect. 

In civil cases, a very large part of our docket in the Eleventh Circuit are employment discrimination cases. So I have had some exposure to providing trials to people claiming race discrimination. 

Again, I think it is my role to treat the parties and their counsel 

with respect and provide them with access to the courts. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me talk about a case, a recent Eleventh 

Circuit case I was reading about in Legal Times, Williams v. Mohawk Industries. That is a case where hourly wage employees 

brought a racketeering class action against the employer, Georgia 

Carpet, a flooring manufacturer. 

They said that the manufacturer had violated Federal law for 

years by hiring illegal aliens to keep wages low. The district court 

denied class certification to the employees, and, normally, the Eleventh Circuit, as in most circuits, the circuit would accept what the 

district court had done in denying class certification. 

In this case, somewhat rare, they reversed it. They remanded the 

decision to the lower court. Now, obviously, as a district court 

judge, I know you accept what the circuit has done, but how do you 

handle those kinds of decisions on class certifications? Is there any 

rule of thumb or is each one different? How do you handle those? 

Ms. MARTIN. Each one is different, of course. I see a lot of securities class action cases. In those instances, every single member of 

the class really does have the same claim. So the class certification 

process for those cases is a little bit different than the one that 

Judge Murphy faced in the Mohawk Industries case. 

I have read the case and the primary impression it made on me 

at the time was that great judges really do get reversed sometimes, 

because Harold Murphy is probably the most beloved judge in the 

Northern District of Georgia. 

666 

I think it went up three different times, maybe. So beyond that, 

I am not familiar with the details of the case. 

Chairman LEAHY. But how do you handle the issue? You have 

one come before you on a motion for class certification. Do you 

treat each one differently or do you have a matrix that applies? 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, I have Rule 23. So I go through the Rule 23(a) 

factors and, as I said, with securities class action cases, that is fairly straightforward; then the 23(b) factors, which I think is where 

the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with what Judge Murphy had done, 

if I understand the decision correctly. 

But I approach each one differently, but follow Rule 23. Of 

course, those decisions go up on an interlocutory appeal whether 

you certify the class or not. 

Chairman LEAHY. But you certainly understand the precedent 

that a court of appeals may overrule. 

Ms. MARTIN. I understand it very well. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Kappos—and I apologize to Senator Sessions. I am going somewhat over time here—but we have been 

working on a bipartisan basis in this Committee on comprehensive 

patent reform legislation. We have done this the past three Congresses. 

If you are confirmed, as I fully expect you will be, will you work 

with us members, both Republicans and Democrats, work with us 

on trying to resolve the final issues in the patent reform legislation? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Yes, absolutely, Chairman Leahy. That would be, I 

am tempted to say, the top priority, but there will be several very 

top priorities. 

Chairman LEAHY. You also have a big backlog of patent cases. 

Mr. KAPPOS. That is right. 

Chairman LEAHY. I assume you are going to try to clear those 

up, too. 

Mr. KAPPOS. That is right. That would be the second one, yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Viken, I notice you currently supervise 32 

employees. You find time to initiate an annual law day program to 

teach local students about their constitutional rights and obligations. You did not have to do that. Why did you do that? 

Mr. VIKEN. Mr. Chairman, in our districts, in North and South 

Dakota, as you know, it is very rural. We serve people on 13 Indian 

reservations. Law day programs are a wonderful thing, but they 

tend to focus on communities which are larger and public school 

systems. 

My effort was designed to go out into the reservation communities, where kids just do not have access to lawyers to the same 

extent; someone to come into the classroom and really talk to them 

in a front line way about their constitutional rights and their obligations as American citizens. 

So that was the motivation, sir, and we have touched about 1,000 

children a year with our law day programs on the reservations in 

the Dakotas. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Senator Sessions, I 

thank you for your forbearance. I went over time there. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is fine. 

Chairman LEAHY. Please go ahead. 

667 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was prepared to 

yield to Senator Hatch or Senator Coburn. Both I know have serious matters on their agenda. I am not sure who. 

Senator HATCH. Maybe I could just ask one question of Judge 

Martin and then just maybe a little bit of comment for Mr. Kappos. 

Senator SESSIONS. Please. 

Senator HATCH. I want to congratulate all three of you. These 

are important jobs. I take them very seriously. Judge Martin, like 

I say, I was chairman when you first came up before the Committee. 

Ms. MARTIN. I remember it very well. My father and I speak 

often of your kindness to both of us that day. It was a highlight 

for both of us. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. I hope you do not think this question 

is unkind. 

Ms. MARTIN. All right. 

Senator HATCH. But I have one question about one of your cases. 

That was U.S. v. Farley, which you decided last year. The reason 

I am concerned about this is I understand that this decision is currently on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. So I just want to ask you 

about your decision and how you reached it. 

In that case, you found a man guilty of crossing state lines with 

intent to engage in a sexual act with a child under the age of 12. 

You found the mandatory minimum 30-year sentence required by 

the Federal statute to be unconstitutional and a violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. 

Now, I am interested in this decision for a number of reasons, 

one of which is that this mandatory sentence was established by 

the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which I introduced in the Senate. Now, you said that the mandatory minimum 

was grossly disproportionate to the crime, but I was surprised at 

your reasoning. 

You said that no harm was suffered because the predator had 

not actually had sex with the child. You even observed that, quote, 

‘‘It was not possible for a child to be harmed because the child was 

a creation of law enforcement and no real child exists,’’ unquote. 

Now, I have some difficulty seeing how either of those observations is relevant, since the crime for which the predator was convicted is defined in terms of the intent to have sex with a child. 

Now, Congress made that a crime and imposed a hefty mandatory minimum, as you know, precisely because the consequences of 

a predator actually abusing a child are so horrific. 

Now, with respect, it sounds like you were saying no harm, no 

foul. But that is certainly not what the Congress thought. Now, 

your decision suggests that you would have viewed the case differently if law enforcement had actually used real children as bait 

rather than setting up a sting. 

Now, I have to say I was disturbed by the decision, but I have 

great confidence in you. I would just appreciate whatever insight 

you can give me about it. 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, 18 United States Code Section 3553(a) requires that I look at the nature and the circumstances of the crime 

committed, and there was a challenge made to the 30-year mandatory minimum. 

668 

There is a presumption, as I well understand, that any act of 

Congress is constitutional. The United States Supreme Court has 

a test that judges are supposed to apply when there is a challenge, 

Eighth Amendment challenge made to a statute, and I set out to 

apply that test, which requires that I look at the punishment for 

similar crimes or more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction and 

how other jurisdictions punish similar crimes. 

It is a pretty onerous test and I looked at how each of the 50 

states treat that crime and what I ran into was the laws are—for 

example, the law for producing child pornography which involves 

the molestation of an actual child and then the continuing molestation of that child by the distribution of the photographs of the molestation that can go on for the child’s whole life, and the sentence 

for that was a mandatory minimum 15 years, a cap of 30 years. 

In my case, the defendant talked to an FBI agent who pretended 

to be the mother of a child and he was arrested on the plane. He 

never left the plane. He waived a jury trial. I convicted him of the 

30-year count, which is what I refer to it as, and then there was 

the Federal statute that criminalizes crossing state lines with intent to murder somebody, murder for hire. There was a statutory 

cap on that of 10 years. 

Senator HATCH. You basically thought the 30 years was excessive. 

Ms. MARTIN. It wasn’t about what I thought. My effort was to 

write an opinion applying the test and when I got to the proportionality analysis, as I said, I could not find the words to say that 

it was not disproportionate. 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I am going to 

support you, but I did want to hear what your reasoning was. So 

I plan on supporting you. I plan on supporting you with respect. 

Mr. Kappos, there is no question we are going to support you, as 

well. You have an eminent experience in this field and I just challenge you. I know that Senator Leahy and I and others on this 

Committee work very strongly together to try and help bring about 

the effective changes that we need to make to help you to do your 

job better and to help this country and to keep us at the forefront 

of innovation. 

I think you are the type of person who can help us to do that 

and I am very proud of you for accepting this position, as I am of 

these two judgeship nominations. I had some questions for you, but 

I will submit those in writing and just know that I am very impressed that you are willing to do this, very impressed with you 

personally, and I am counting on you really helping us do a better 

job up here on Capitol Hill for the people, for innovators, for the 

Patent Office, and we will do everything we can to assist you. 

I know that Senator Leahy feels exactly the way I do. We are together really on these issues. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Hatch, I thank you for what you said, 

too, because one of the things we have found, all these patents, 

every single patent bill has been a bipartisan patent bill when it 

is passed and, actually, most of the good legislation on here has 

been bipartisan and I would like to keep it that way. 

Senator Franken. 

669 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Judge, 

Mr. Viken, Mr. Kappos. Just a few quick questions. Mr. Kappos, 

you talked about your experience in Asia and the importance of intellectual property in innovation and in the American economy. 

I was wondering if you had any thoughts about intellectual property in terms of the entertainment industry, in terms of knock-offs 

of movies and those sorts of things, especially in China. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thank you, Senator Franken, for that question. 

There unquestionably is a significant problem with counterfeiting 

and piracy, the two areas that affect the entertainment industry, 

and that is movies we think of and that is also, of course, entertainment content in the form of music and, additionally, other content, software. 

Senator FRANKEN. Books. 

Mr. KAPPOS. And the high tech industry. Significant challenges. 

We have got some new capability in the administration that I 

would like to see and hope that will lead to more aggressive action 

in terms of working with our overseas counterparts. 

I hope, if confirmed for this job, to be able to work with the new 

players in order to be able to engage with whatever countries are 

needed, in Asia, in some cases, in Eastern Europe, in some cases, 

in Africa, in order to be able to put a new emphasis on piracy and 

counterfeiting. 

The special 301 process that USTR undertakes is clearly an important part of that equation, but there are other parts, too, including education, including working with our counterparts in these 

other countries to help them put in place new laws and win-win enforcement scenarios that will encourage them to take the aggressive enforcement actions we need. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. Mr. Viken, I am the newest member of the Indian Affairs Committee and I was particularly happy 

to see and hear about your significant work with the Native community. 

Can you tell us a little bit about that? I understand you and your 

wife were adopted by a Lakota family. 

Mr. VIKEN. We were, Senator. About 15 years ago, full blood families on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota gave us the 

honor of going through a hunka lo’api ceremony, which is a very 

ancient, traditional form of Lakota adoption, a making of relatives 

ceremony. 

So we have functioned with families, traditional families on Pine 

Ridge for all of these years. It has been a wonderful experience personally, and, professionally, I think it brings a level of cultural 

competence that is very useful in the work that we do. 

Senator FRANKEN. Judge Martin, I heard in your introduction by 

Senator Chambliss that you were involved in the weed-and-seed 

program. 

Ms. MARTIN. You know the weed-and-seed program. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. We have that in Minnesota and I have 

been to some weed-and-seed events, and they seem to be diminishing, the number of them. Is that the case and do you not think 

we should be encouraging those programs? 

Ms. MARTIN. Well, of course, that is policy and judges do not 

make policy. But I was thrilled with my involvement in the proVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 062345 PO 00000 Frm 00679 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\62345.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
670 

gram and the effect it had on some neighborhoods that needed 

some help throughout my part of the state. 

We had summer camps in our weed-and-seed program. Did you 

know about those? 

Senator FRANKEN. They did all kinds of things in different weedand-seed programs. Basically, it was a way of reducing crime in 

these neighborhoods and by doing various things like camps, but 

other stuff, too. 

Ms. MARTIN. We have so many military reservations in Georgia 

that we could partner with the military reservations and have the 

children come to the military reservations and spend the night and 

so they were exposed to all sorts of things they would have otherwise not known about. It was a real highlight for me. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am glad you took the initiative to do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SESSIONS. Are you recognizing me? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. Mr. Ranking Member Sessions, Senator, 

sir, from the great State of Alabama. 

Senator SESSIONS. We are great. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry. 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Kappos, Senator Coburn is in the middle 

of a markup he had to attend, but he wanted me to ask you this. 

He had talked to you previously, I think. 

Do you think you can effectively manage the PTO through this 

difficult time, reduce the backlog, reduce patent pendency, if you 

constantly have the threat of fee diversion hanging over your head 

every year? 

In other words, what Congress has done is we have allowed these 

fees to be assessed on the private companies and then we spent 

them on other things, looted the fund. So how do you answer that? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thank you for that question, Senator Sessions. I am 

already well on the record as being opposed to fee diversion and, 

certainly, speaking as a citizen and as a member of the intellectual 

property community, I know well that the community is strongly 

supportive of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and, in fact, 

will fully fund the Patent and Trademark Office, including even 

paying more fees than are currently paid. 

So it is one of the few places where a user community will readily step up and say, ‘‘We do not mind paying whatever it costs.’’ 

However, the challenge of fee diversion has been very costly in 

terms of user community confidence in the Patent and Trademark 

Office and that comes in the sense that the community is steadfast 

in that it does not want to pay additional fees just to have them 

diverted to other government uses, as worthy as those other government uses may be. 

So one of the things that I would like to focus very substantial 

attention on, in addition to the backlog and some of the other 

things that we mentioned, S. 515, getting legislation through, is 

working with the Congress, as well as the administration to come 

up with a sustainable, long-term funding model for the U.S. PTO 

that includes the director’s ability to set reasonable fees, and that 

provision is in S. 515; that includes some way to enable the PTO 

to have the fees that it collects 1 year in order to be able to spend 

them in a future year to conduct the work that the fees are paid 

671 

for in the first place; and then, finally, Senator Sessions, to your 

question and to Dr. Coburn’s question, to work with the administration to put a sustainable system in place that makes fee diversion something that the user community does not have to worry 

about so that it will fund the patent. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I would just say I think you are right 

about that. I think there is a concern about delays. Some of those 

delays are probably a lack of resources for you and your team and 

if the fees had not been diverted, we would not have a shortage of 

resources. 

The same thing has happened with nuclear power, where we 

were going to tax the nuclear companies to create a storage place, 

and that money has been spent on other things and now they are 

suing the government because the government cannot take the nuclear waste that they have been paying billions of dollars for. So 

it is bad government and bad management on our side. 

Ms. Martin, thank you. I hear great things about you. I have 

talked to a number of people who have known you. So I am very 

positively disposed about it. I have gotten a lot of calls to that effect. 

But to follow-up on Senator Hatch’s question, to me, there is a 

danger if a judge feels that a sentence is incorrect, and I can respect that. That is a pretty strong, heavy sentence, 30 years, in this 

kind of case, even though the man thought, by all bits of evidence, 

that he was going to have sex with a 12-year-old child. So I think 

people can disagree on what the right sentence there is. 

I am a bit concerned about your leap to the fact that the Eighth 

Amendment would cover this. I would just ask, first, has there 

been any other case that you are aware of in which a court has 

held that a heavy sentence, even a life sentence, violates the 

Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition of cruel and 

unusual punishment? 

Ms. MARTIN. The test that applied in the case was a United 

States Supreme Court case, and I, frankly, cannot remember how 

they came out in applying that test. It sounds so terrible when we 

are sitting here. I want to be sure people understand. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me just say I know a lot of judges. We 

have had a previous one this year that has got a little bit of a problem, because he, I would say, was criticized, I will just say it that 

way, because he did not want to follow one of these sentences. 

These child molestation cases have very heavy sentences and I 

think good judges could think that some of them may be more excessive. But Congress, we debated that at great length and we 

passed that and we take that very seriously. We want to end this 

problem. But go ahead. 

Ms. MARTIN. And I do, as well. I bet, when you were a United 

States attorney, you prosecuted these folks when the Postal agent 

was the case agent in the case. I did, as well. 

So I am delighted not to be the policymaker in this area, because 

I think it is a terrible problem and I have no idea how to solve it. 

As I said in the transcript, when I set out to apply the test, I had 

no idea it would turn out that way. But I think that is what judges 

have to do. You have to look at each case fresh and apply the test 

672 

that the Supreme Court has provided and it comes out how it 

comes out, and I understand. 

My father is probably having a heart attack back there about 

what I did. This man, there was no evidence he ever touched a 

child. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand that. 

Ms. MARTIN. And I sentenced him to 20 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. I just want to raise the question with you, just 

basically—go ahead, if I am interrupting. 

Ms. MARTIN. No. I just wanted to be sure my daddy knew I sentenced him to 20 years. I did not just let him go home. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Well said. 

Chairman LEAHY. Before your father walked out of the room. 

Ms. MARTIN. He is not going to vote for me now. 

Senator SESSIONS. No, no. Twenty years without parole is a very 

serious, heavy sentence. 

Ms. MARTIN. I am under oath. So it was 235 months, 5 months 

short of 20 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. Very good. Well, I am just of the view that 

this was a pretty significant or a fairly unusual thing that former 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, ranking in the House Judiciary Committee, has filed a brief in the case, being concerned that it does 

violate the congressional authority in that area. 

My time is up. I would just say to you that there is a siren call 

of temptation out there, always, ‘‘Well, this is not quite the way I 

would like it to come out and I would like to do it differently.’’ The 

majority of your record is not that way. This is just one of the cases 

that jumps out at some people, especially since the House has filed 

a brief, members have filed a brief on it. 

I would like your commitment that you understand that it will 

be your responsibility to serve under the Constitution and under 

the laws of the United States, as the oath says, and not above it. 

Ms. MARTIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. I do impose mandatory 

minimums all the time, Senator Sessions. I wanted to be sure you 

knew that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. I know that is true and your record demonstrates that. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Senator Specter. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kappos, you 

have been nominated for a very, very important job. This Committee has labored arduously on the issue of patent reform and we 

have heard many, many witnesses testify about the importance of 

patents and intellectual property as our place preeminent in the 

world and to stimulate inventions. 

So it is a big responsibility. The Patent Act has allowed for petitions to make special, which is an accelerated procedure, and there 

had been a special opportunity for environmental patents to expedite the process. That was changed to put those applications in line 

very far back and there is great emphasis, as we all know, on the 

effort to develop environmentally safe approaches to the environment. 

673 

We are struggling mightily with cap-and-trade now. I would be 

interested in your views and interested in your assurances that you 

would do whatever is possible to expedite the patent applications 

for environmental issues. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thanks for that question, Senator Specter. That 

goes into the green tech area. I am very familiar with the accelerated prosecution rider, petition to make special process, that was 

formerly applicable in that area that has been somewhat cut back. 

One thing that I think is very straightforward to do and very 

clearly positive for our country and our economy is to reinvigorate 

the right for an applicant to make her or his application special. 

Senator SPECTER. You would put back the old system where environmental applications had precedence. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Exactly, on account of the invention relating to the 

environment. I would like to do even more than that, though, because I believe there is a strong nexus between the patent system, 

the innovation capability behind the patent system and fueling sustainable innovation, like innovation that benefits the environment. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Kappos, I have a couple of other questions. 

So would you supplement your answer in writing as to specifically 

what you would do? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Sure, I would be happy to. 

Senator SPECTER. That is a very weighty issue and I think there 

would be a lot of interest in going beyond the old rules which gave 

expedited attention to that issue. 

You come to the position with an extensive background with IBM 

and IBM will have a great many issues before the Patent Office 

which you will be called upon to rule. Now, the government welcomes people of competence who have experience and there is inevitably an issue as to whether you may be faced with some matters which would have special benefit for IBM. 

It is a matter of some delicacy and there is not a whole lot that 

you can do except to focus on it. But address that issue and tell 

us what special precautions you would take to be fair to IBM, but 

not to be biased to anybody one way or another, because there are 

so many competing interests and these rules are—some of them are 

favored by IBM and to the disadvantage of others. How will you 

handle that? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thanks, Senator Specter. This, to me, is a very clear 

situation involving conflicts, actual and apparent. To me, it is extraordinarily important that I have absolutely nothing to do with 

any particular decision that involves my former employer, if I am 

confirmed for this job, IBM. Therefore, I will have to recuse myself. 

Senator SPECTER. But how do you avoid the issue beyond that? 

The Federal circuit has granted a request for en banc hearing in 

Tafas v. Dudas, and there has been a stay of proceedings to see 

what attitude you might have, and IBM would be benefited in one 

way and other companies would be benefited another way. 

If there is some specific issue which IBM is the sole party to, 

that is one thing. But how do you handle a more subtle and sophisticated issue like the one I just mentioned? 

Mr. KAPPOS. In the Tafas v. Dudas case, my current employer, 

IBM, has no stake in that case in the sense that it is not a party 

on either side. 

674 

Senator SPECTER. But is it not true that one interpretation of the 

rules or one application of the rules would benefit IBM and another 

would benefit many other smaller companies? 

Mr. KAPPOS. I do not know that I see it that way. I think of my 

role, if I am confirmed for this job, is doing the right thing for the 

American people and the United States of America. Like other people who are in private industry and move to the government, I will 

put my previous role behind me and focus entirely on doing the 

right thing for the United States of America, in the Tafas case, in 

the Bilski case, and in everything else, on a policy level that faces 

the U.S. 

Senator SPECTER. That is a very good answer and doing that will 

satisfy everybody. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. Let me make one additional comment, if I 

may, Mr. Chairman, to the judicial nominees. When Senator Thurmond was chairman in here, he—Judge Martin, you are already a 

judge and, Mr. Viken, you are likely to become a judge. 

Senator Thurmond used to say, ‘‘If you’re confirmed, do you 

promise to be courteous,’’ which translates from South Carolinaese, ‘‘If you are confirmed, do you promise to be courteous.’’ 

When I first heard him ask the question, I said, ‘‘That is not a 

very meaningful question. What is anybody going to say but yes?’’ 

The nominees dutifully answered ‘‘yes’’ and then he said, ‘‘Because 

the more power a person has, the more courteous a person should 

be.’’ Translated, ‘‘More power a person has, the more courteous the 

person should be.’’ 

Sometimes there is a tendency, when you put on that black robe 

and have all that power, especially lifetime tenure, which Senators 

do not have, except for Senator Leahy—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SPECTER. When you have all that power, bear Senator 

Thurmond’s admonition in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I will resist the response to that. I do recognize Senator Klobuchar, but before the 

clock starts on her, having Senator Thurmond here was a very interesting thing. I once made a comment on something Senator Kennedy said and I said, ‘‘The problem with you guys from the southern states, meaning Massachusetts.’’ 

Senator Thurmond sat bolt upright and for 20 minutes, he said, 

‘‘I’ll tell you boys,’’ you boys, ‘‘what southern is.’’ And at the end 

of that 20-minute lecture, we realized Massachusetts may be south 

of Vermont, but it is not southern. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to all of you. I would tell you, Judge Martin, that I 

have been watching your father back there and he is doing fine. 

Ms. MARTIN. Good, good, good. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. He was laughing at the last jokes. He is 

doing Okay. 

Ms. MARTIN. As long as he is still here. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, that is good. I will say I have appreciated your honest explanation about that case and I think Senator 

Sessions understands, as does everyone up here, that people may 

675 

not agree with every decision that you make, but it is looking at 

your record as a whole, which is very strong. 

Also, your explanation here was very good. I would add, which 

I am sure was mentioned before, that you got the blue slips, which 

means the go-ahead from the two Republican Senators in Georgia, 

Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss, both of whom are well respected here. But thank you for your answer. 

Ms. MARTIN. It is a real honor. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Viken, neighboring state of South Dakota, for Mr. Viken, congratulations on your nomination, as well. 

Mr. VIKEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am going to focus my questions on Mr. 

Kappos. We believe that your nomination is a good thing for this 

country. I appreciate your willingness to work with this Committee. 

I know I saw you before in your previous role. 

As you know, we have 5,600 IBM employees in Minnesota, which 

I think you have pointed out to me, and we stand ready to work 

with you in your new position. I am very interested in this patent 

issue, because as you know, in my state, we have companies that 

have a lot of patents, from Medtronic to 3M. We gave the world everything from the Post-It Note to the pacemaker. 

So we care very much about this issue. So I wanted to focus on 

the Patent and Trademark Office, how you think that we could improve the efficiency. I hear a lot of concerns about that, as well as 

improving the morale in the office. 

Mr. KAPPOS. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Yes. The efficiency 

challenge in the U.S. PTO is a considerable one. There are so many 

things that need to be done, we will not be able to go into all of 

them this morning, but I would list just a few right off the top. 

One of them that is critical and I believe is a major morale issue 

and productivity issue to the examining corps itself, especially on 

the patent side, is the so-called count system. This is a system that 

has been in place for more than a generation, since the 1970’s, that 

governs how examiners are encouraged to do their work. 

As I understand it, the examining corps hates the count system 

the way it is. The applicant community, the 3Ms and the 

Medtronics of the world, hate the count system the way it is, because it results in dysfunctional behavior. 

One of the things that I commit to do, if confirmed for this job, 

is to work immediately with the unions that represent PTO employees, the examining corps, and completely remake the count system. 

Secretary Locke has personally asked me to do that. That is 

going to be priority one, among a few other priority ones, like S. 

515. So the count system needs to be fixed. That will help morale 

tremendously and it will help substantively to enable examiners 

and applicants to get to the issues that count in patent applications, that matter, and to get them to appropriate disposal much 

more quickly. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. When we had our hearing on 

the patent reform bill, we talked a little bit about the economy and 

the state of the economy and how that affects the issues of innovation in America and really the issue of patent reform. 

676 

Could you talk about your views, in general, on that and why it 

is important that we not only get the PTO as functional as possible, but also get something done with regard to patent reform? 

I actually believe that it helped to forge some consensus. We 

know there is still some work to be done on the issue, but that the 

economy was a major factor. Do you want to comment on, in general, the effect of the economy on innovation and patents and 

things like that? 

Mr. KAPPOS. Yes, sure. Thanks for that question, Senator Klobuchar. So I believe that at the top, first and foremost, the intellectual property system truly is the facilitator of innovation. It truly 

is the engine that encourages innovation for our country. 

In a world in which, the way I put it, the distance between innovation and products is decreasing continuously, because of how 

easy it is to move from an idea to a finished product, the only thing 

that protects the innovation is intellectual property. It is the patent 

system, in the case of inventions. 

So there is nothing more important to returning our country to 

economic health than getting the innovation system working again, 

and the Patent Office is right at the center of that. 

So I would say, yes, clearly, there is a tremendous nexus. The 

Patent and Trademark Office can play an enormous role as part of 

the Department of Commerce. 

The second thing I would say is that in terms of just the economics of managing and leading a large intellectual property granting 

authority, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as you know from 

the legislation that recently had to be passed just a few weeks ago, 

there are some significant challenges with patent application filings being down, patent grants being down, renewal fees or maintenance fees being down, all of which is taking fee collections down 

in an era in which there is this tremendous backlog of over a million applications to examine. 

So we clearly need to, in addition to refashioning the count system, we need to refashion the fee system of the U.S. PTO in order 

to be able to more accurately assess fees against the work that is 

being done. I believe that with that piece of work, which is part of 

S. 515, director fee-granting authority, plus fixing the issue of fee 

diversion that we spoke about before, we can make a tremendous 

amount of progress and get tremendous support from the intellectual property system. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, and thank you for 

that practical answer. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Any further questions? If no further questions, we will hold the record open for a week, as we normally do, for Senators who wish to submit questions. 

I thank all three of the nominees. I applaud you on being nominated. I think it speaks well for the United States to have three 

people of the quality of the three of you being nominated, two for 

lifetime appointments on our Federal court. For those of us who 

spent years practicing before Federal courts at all levels, that 

means a lot. 

Mr. Kappos, as I said, I have known you for years and, as we 

face increasingly worldwide economic competition, we need to have 

a strong Patent Office. 

677 

Senator Klobuchar, Senator Franken and I represent states that 

have had a lot of patents. It is what is going to create jobs, it is 

what is going to create the future in our country and it is important that we have the best as the head of the office. 

So I thank you all. We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record follow.] 

678 


62345.665
679 


62345.666
680 


62345.667
681 


62345.668
682 


62345.669
683 


62345.670
684 


62345.671
685 


62345.672
686 


62345.673
687 


62345.674
688 


62345.675
689 


62345.676
690 


62345.677
691 


62345.678
692 


62345.679
693 


62345.680
694 


62345.681
695 


62345.682
696 


62345.683
697 


62345.684
698 


62345.685
699 


62345.686
700 


62345.687
701 


62345.688
702 


62345.689
703 


62345.690
704 


62345.691
705 


62345.692
706 


62345.693
707 


62345.694
708 


62345.695
709 


62345.696
710 


62345.697
711 


62345.698
712 


62345.699
(713) 

NOMINATIONS OF JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, 

NOMINEE TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT 

JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT; ROBERTO 

A. LANGE, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA; IRENE CORNELIA BERGER, NOMINEE 

TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; 

CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA; IGNACIA S. 

MORENO, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND NATIONAL RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., Room 226, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Franken, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The hearing will come to order. 

Today we will consider four nominations to the Federal bench. 

Judge Joseph Greenaway has been nominated to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; Roberto Lange has been 

nominated to the United States District Court for the District of 

South Dakota; Judge Irene Berger has been nominated to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia; and Judge Charlene Honeywell has been nominated to the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. We 

also will consider the nomination of Ignacia S. Moreno, to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. 

714 

I understand that the Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, is on 

his way here and will be joining us shortly, but I would like to take 

this moment to welcome each of the nominees, and their families, 

and their friends to the U.S. Senate. 

I also, of course, would like to welcome those of my colleagues 

who are here to introduce the nominees. This Committee is graced 

by the presence of such a distinguished array of my colleagues. 

In the interest of efficiency, let me outline how this hearing will 

proceed. If the Ranking Member arrives and wishes to make remarks, we will accommodate him at this point. At the conclusion 

of my remarks, if he is not here, I will allow the introductions by 

the home State Senators to begin. Their introductions will proceed 

in order of seniority, and each will have the chance to introduce the 

nominees for their States. 

We then will have two panels. The first panel will be Judge 

Greenaway, and the second will be all the remaining nominees. 

Senators on the Committee will have 5-minute rounds in which to 

question each panel. 

Without the Ranking Member here, I ask unanimous consent 

that the remainder of my opening statement be put into the record 

so that I do not delay my colleagues any longer, and we will begin 

with the introduction of Judge Berger by the distinguished Senator 

from the State of West Virginia, the Honorable Jay Rockefeller. 

Senator Rockefeller. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

PRESENTATION OF IRENE CORNELIA BERGER, NOMINEE TO 

BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

WEST VIRGINIA, BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, IV, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I 

would point out to Judge Berger, who I am about to talk about, 

that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is one of the people that you 

need to know. He’s brilliant. He’s a wonderful lawyer, he’s a wonderful person. He gives great advice on what books to read, and 

he’s somebody you can trust. 

And that, I would say to the distinguished Chairman, is what 

Judge Irene Berger is all about. Yes, she is being nominated to 

the—has been nominated to serve in the U.S. District Court of 

Southern West Virginia, but you can’t leave that statement alone. 

She comes from a very large family, and her husband David and 

a lot of her relatives are here, scattered behind me. David is right 

here. She comes from a family, a large family, in one of the four 

poorest counties in the United States of America. 

Rather than coming up, going through law school, serving for 30 

years for the people of West Virginia in a calm, deliberate, marvelous way and being kind of proud about just everything she is 

and talking about a lot, no. She is the ultimately quiet, fair, dispassionate, rational judge. 

I have to say that I had the honor to present Judge Pierre 

Lavalle, and that was one of the happiest days of my life. This is 

also one of the happiest days of my life because I think Judge Irene 

Berger is unmatched in her professionalism, in her experience. 

715 

And above all, in this question of temperament, I’ve never heard 

her—I’ve seen her—over many years I’ve known her, I’ve seen her 

in all kinds of situations. She’s always the same. She’s always 

smart. She has—all the Circuit Court judges from West Virginia 

who are on the Fourth Circuit and elsewhere, et cetera, rave about 

her. And she’s been waiting, but she’s not been promoting herself. 

She simply does her job in a classic, stoic, strong, heartfelt, and ultimately brilliant Southern West Virginia way. 

It’s not easy, always, to be from West Virginia. It’s not always 

easy to be a judge from Southern West Virginia, or other parts of 

West Virginia. It’s a very active, aggressive, sometimes angry 

State. But nothing seems to affect Judge Irene Berger except superb judgment, confidence in herself, pride in what she’s done, but 

all quiet, all measured. She is a superb person. 

Go to her for counsel on anything. She doesn’t play like, I’m a 

judge, or I’m about to be a judge at a higher level. She doesn’t play 

that at all. She’s just who she is and who she’s always been. And 

you don’t run into that often. People in this business, when it 

comes to judgeships, often want them, grasp for them, work for 

them, plot for them, and often get them. That’s not her way. She 

is thrilled to have this opportunity, and I just want her to know 

how happy I am to be able to be a part in helping her to become 

the judgeship that she seeks. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are honored to have you here. We very much appreciate your remarks on 

behalf of Judge Berger. 

Senator ROCKEFELLER. Oh. Also, I want—Senator Byrd couldn’t 

be here today and he has a very strong statement about Judge 

Berger, and I ask—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It will be accepted into the record without 

objection. I thank the Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Byrd appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Next in order of seniority is Senator Tim 

Johnson, who is here to speak on behalf of Roberto Lange. 

Senator Johnson. 

PRESENTATION OF ROBERTO A. LANGE, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. 

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA, BY 

HON. TIM JOHNSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and members of the Committee. It is my good pleasure to be here 

this afternoon to introduce Roberto Lange to the Committee. President Obama has nominated Bob to be a Federal judge for our home 

State of South Dakota. 

Bob attended the University of South Dakota, my alma mater, 

and attended Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. 

He was an editor of the Law Review and graduated Order of the 

Coif. 

We are very fortunate to have such a distinguished member of 

the South Dakota legal community nominated to this post. After 

716 

more than 20 years of practicing law, Bob is well-qualified for the 

position of U.S. District Judge for South Dakota. 

Ironically, Bob has clerked for the very same judgeship that he 

is now the nominee for. While there are many rewards for public 

service, there are also many challenges. Thus, I would like to thank 

Bob for his past and future service for the people of South Dakota. 

Thank you for your consideration of this nominee. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Johnson. I appreciate 

very much that you have been here to speak on behalf of Mr. 

Lange. 

Our next speaker is Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, speaking on 

behalf of Judge Honeywell. 

Senator Nelson. 

PRESENTATION OF CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTICT 

OF FLORIDA, BY HON. BILL NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Senator NELSON. You know, Mr. Chairman, this seniority thing 

is quite interesting because Senator Lautenberg retired for a little 

over a year and a half, and he gets bumped to the bottom. Now 

Senator Menendez is the senior Senator from New Jersey. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The other way around. 

Senator NELSON. I see. 

Well, I’m here on behalf of Judge Charlene Honeywell of Tampa, 

and it’s for a judgeship in the Middle District of Florida. 

She graduated from Howard University and then from the University of Florida College of Law. Mr. Chairman, that’s the University of Florida. They happen to be the national champion, Florida 

Gators. 

Judge Honeywell has had a distinguished record. And it’s obvious 

that we select our judges by going through a panel that Senator 

Martinez and I nominate, called a Judicial Nominating Commission, made up of very prominent people throughout Florida. They 

do all of the hard work, the investigation, receiving the applications 

and the interviews. For as many qualified candidates as we get, 

they boil it down to three and send those three to Senator Martinez 

and me, and we do our interviews in the process then. We consult 

with the White House. All of that process of winnowing, vetting, 

narrowing has produced the cream to the top, and that’s Judge 

Honeywell. 

After she had graduated from law school, she was first a public 

defender in two different judicial circuits in Florida. She’s been an 

assistant city attorney. She’s been in private practice with one of 

Tampa’s most distinguished law firms and then she has kept all of 

that career with being one of our State court judges in what we call 

our Circuit Court in Florida. 

So it is Senator Martinez and my privilege to be here, and I 

speak on his behalf. I don’t know if he has actually officially resigned. He just gave his farewell speech. I think, as of this moment, he is still Senator. So I can tell you, he certainly speaks 

through me today and the two of us encourage the Committee to 

approve Judge Honeywell. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

717 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson. 

And our last speakers, in order of seniority: Senator Lautenberg, 

and then Senator Menendez of New Jersey, speaking on behalf of 

Judge Greenaway. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

PRESENTATION OF JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, NOMINEE TO BE 

U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Sessions, members 

of the Committee, for the opportunity to be here today to present 

a fellow Columbia University graduate—obviously not in the same 

class year. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Why is there such a snicker going 

through? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. One of New Jersey’s most distinguished 

public servants, Judge Joseph Greenaway. 

On the District Court in Newark, Judge Greenaway has demonstrated his core values of integrity and fairness, the same values 

that will make him a success on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Through his impressive career, I’ve been fortunate enough to 

watch Judge Greenaway at work for our State and our people. 

Judge Greenaway became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Newark 

in 1985. He first served in the Criminal Division, where he worked 

on bank fraud and white collar crime investigations. In 1989, he 

was promoted to head the division dedicated to prosecuting narcotics cases. From 1990 to 1996, Judge Greenaway served as an inhouse counsel for Johnson & Johnson, a prominent pharmaceutical 

company in New Brunswick, one of New Jersey’s great companies. 

Then in 1996, Judge Greenaway was appointed by President Clinton to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where he has since served. 

Now, I introduced him to this Committee at that time, as I am 

today, and I do it with great enthusiasm. The best thing about 

Judge Greenaway is that, despite his critical and time-consuming 

responsibilities in the court, he still finds time to give back to the 

community. He teaches criminal law, criminal trial practice classes 

at Cardozo Law School, where I sit now as an honorary board 

member, as I was on that board for some time. He helps train the 

next generation of legal thinkers and leaders. 

Judge Greenaway also teaches a course about Supreme Court at 

both Cardozo Law School and Columbia University. He spent his 

career protecting New Jerseyans and their rights, and I know that 

we can depend on him to do the same for our Nation as an Appeals 

Court judge. 

I am pleased that President Obama has selected Judge 

Greenaway for this post and I urge my colleagues to support his 

confirmation. 

Before introducing his family, I want to say that I was honored 

to have a courthouse carry my name during my absence from the 

718 

Senate, and I authored something to be posted on the plaque that 

carries the name. I said on that plaque, ‘‘The full measure of a democracy is its dispensation of justice’’, and I can’t think of anyone 

who fills that obligation better than Judge Joe Greenaway. 

Now I want to recognize Judge Greenaway’s wife, Veronica Blake 

Greenaway, his son Joseph, his daughter Samantha, and his parents as well. We all know that he would not be here today without 

your love and support. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 

time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Menendez. 

PRESENTATION OF JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, NOMINEE TO BE 

U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT, BY 

HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished Ranking Member, to all the distinguished members of the 

Committee. I am pleased to join my colleague in the Senate, Senator Lautenberg, and to have the pleasure and honor to come before the Committee today to introduce a man from New Jersey who 

fully embodies the qualities of respect for justice and the rule of 

law we demand of all of our judges. 

At the age of 40, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr. was appointed by 

President Clinton to the Federal bench and he has served for over 

a dozen years with distinction. He earned a bachelor of arts from 

Columbia University, where he was honored in 1997 with the Columbia University Medal of Excellence and with the John Jay. 

Award in 2003. 

He was an Earl Warren Legal Scholar at Harvard University, 

where he received his J.D. and served as a member of the Harvard 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review. He clerked for the 

late Honorable Vincent L. Broderick in the U.S. District Court for 

the Southern District of New York before he became an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney in Newark and received a promotion to become chief 

of the Narcotics Bureau. 

In the private sector, he was an associate with the firm of Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, and served at Johnson & 

Johnson, as Senator Lautenberg said, as their in-house counsel. 

He is chair emeritus of the Columbia College Black Alumni 

Council. He has been an adjunct professor at my alma mater, Rutgers Law School. He is an adjunct professor at the Cardozo School 

of Law, where he teaches a course on trial practice and a seminar 

on the Supreme Court. He is also an adjunct at Columbia College, 

where he teaches a seminar on the Supreme Court. 

But that is Judge Greenaway’s resume. It is a distinguished resume, to say the least. It also is one that I’m sure, through your 

questions, you will find a judge who has the demeanor, the intellect, the integrity, the deference to the rule of law as well as to 

precedent, and you’ll get those from your questions. But it does not 

do justice to Judge Greenaway the man. 

There is an inscription, Mr. Chairman, over the Tenth Street entrance to the U.S. Department of Justice, just a few blocks from 

719 

here. That inscription says, ‘‘Justice in the life and conduct of the 

state is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of 

men.’’ 

So, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you, those true qualities of justice 

do indeed reside in the heart and soul of Judge Greenaway. He was 

born in London, grew up in Harlem, in the northeast Bronx, not 

far from where Justice Sotomayor grew up, and just across the 

river from where I grew up. 

He is accomplished and successful, but he’s given a lot back. In 

2006, when he spoke at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law Yeshiva, Dean David Rudenstein said then, ‘‘Judge Greenaway has 

been a generous teacher and mentor to Cardozo students throughout the years and has touched many of their lives in meaningful 

ways. I’m delighted that our graduates will have the opportunity 

to hear his insights, witness his humaneness, and be inspired by 

his example.’’ 

Judge Greenaway, who long taught master classes at Yeshiva, 

has always been instrumental in mentoring students and graduates, often taking them under his wing as law clerks or fellows. 

He has said, ‘‘I tell my students to work hard and work smart. 

Our profession requires a drive to search for perfection. Without 

that goal, mediocrity becomes the norm.’’ Well, mediocrity has 

never, and never will be, the norm for Judge Greenaway. He has 

always strived for excellence and he’s always taught young lawyers 

to do the same. 

So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, 

when we look to our courts to dispense justice fairly, honorably, 

equally under the law, we look to those among us who have worked 

hard not only for themselves, but for the betterment of the community as a whole. We look to those who have achieved much, but 

whose humility allows them to take the long view, to see the whole 

board, and act accordingly. Judge Joseph Greenaway is that kind 

of judge, the kind of person we look to when we think of the notion 

of equal dispensation of justice under law. 

It is my pleasure to join Senator Lautenberg in introducing him 

to the Committee and thank him for his service to New Jersey. I 

know that I join with all of you in wishing him and his wife 

Veronica, his son Joseph, and his daughter Samantha good luck 

and godspeed on this next journey in life. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your opportunity to make this presentation. I urge the Committee to recommend favorable action and 

a speedy confirmation to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank you, Senator Menendez. I thank 

all of my colleagues who have taken the trouble, from extremely 

busy schedules, to come here today and speak on behalf of these 

candidates. The constitutional prerogative of advice and consent 

and the Senate tradition requiring the approval of the home State 

Senators for judicial appointments, I think, lead to wonderful consequences for America in the caliber of the appointees who are 

brought forward and the requirement that they meet the confidence of their home State Senators in order to achieve these lifetime appointments. So in coming before us as you have, you are, 

I believe, acting in the finest traditions of the U.S. Senate, and I 

appreciate that you took the trouble to do so. The panel is excused. 

720 

If the distinguished Ranking Member would like to make an 

opening statement, I would invite him to do so when the situation 

settles down in a moment. After that, we will call up Judge 

Greenaway first. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. It is a part of our congressional responsibility, a senatorial 

constitutional requirement that we examine nominees for the 

bench. We hope and look forward to a good group of nominations 

from this administration. 

I think the Senators that just testified being strong in their support for these nominees is always most meaningful to me, and I 

think the other Senators—to the nominees, I think that will stand 

you in good stead to have their firm and vigorous support. I think 

it will definitely make a difference in how those confirmation hearings go. 

We do have some disagreements, I think, about the role of courts 

and how they should conduct themselves in America today, sort of 

a national discussion about, to what extent judges are bound by the 

law and to what extent they feel that they are empowered to allow 

their personal feelings or approaches to law affect how they decide 

cases. So I think that’s something that is very important to me and 

we’ll ask about it, but all in all, I think the nominees that we’re 

seeing here today that will be before us have good records, and I 

look forward to examining them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the very distinguished Ranking 

Member. 

I would now ask the Honorable Joseph Greenaway to come forward. 

[Whereupon, the nominee was duly sworn.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Please be seated, and welcome. 

Do you have an opening statement? If you would be good enough 

to turn on your microphone, that would help. You are most welcome to introduce your family who are here with you in addition 

to making some opening remarks, if you would care to do so. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH A. GREENAWAY, TO BE U.S. 

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Judge GREENAWAY. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

The first remark I’d like to make is to thank God for his grace 

and countenance that I’m here today. I’d like to thank President 

Obama for his confidence in me with regard to this nomination. I’d 

like to thank Senators Lautenberg and Menendez, Congressman 

Payne, and others. I’d like to thank my family and friends for being 

here today. I’d also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

Ranking Member and the Committee members who are present as 

well. 

I’d also like to take this opportunity to introduce my family. I’m 

not going to turn around, because I’m told that that would mean 

you can’t hear me. So behind me is my father, Joseph Greenaway. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Welcome, sir. We’re glad to have you with 

us. Congratulations on your son’s accomplishments. 

721 

Judge GREENAWAY. My wife, Veronica Greenaway. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Wonderful to have you with us. 

Judge GREENAWAY. My son, for his second visit. He was six the 

last time. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge GREENAWAY. He’s a little older now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. He has grown handsomely since then, 

Your Honor. 

Judge GREENAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My daughter Samantha, who was not here the last time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Welcome. 

Judge GREENAWAY. My two sisters, Rosemary and Sonia, my 

brother-in-law Rodney, and Charlotte Rosen, my son’s special 

friend. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge GREENAWAY. And Mr. Chairman, I’m graced with the presence of many friends, lifelong friends, law clerks and interns who 

are here for today’s proceedings. 

Thank you so very much. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You are most welcome, and we are delighted to have you here. I congratulate you on the quality and extent of your public service to date and hope that a speedy and uneventful confirmation awaits you here. 

I would like to ask you the same question that I asked now-Justice Sotomayor when she was before our Committee for confirmation, and that is whether, in your role as an appellate judge, you 

will respect the role of Congress as representatives of the American 

people, decide cases based on the law and the facts, not prejudge 

any case, but listen to every party that comes before the court, respect precedent, and limit yourself to the issues that the court 

must decide? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Let me give you my unequivocal assurance, 

Mr. Chairman, that with regard to each of those items, that that 

is exactly what I have been doing and what, if I am confirmed— 

fortunate enough to be confirmed, I intend to do in the future. 

The role of stare decisis in our legal system is critical. I believe 

in it and I have adhered to it as a District Court judge. I believe 

that the only basis that cases can be decided on are the law and 

the facts and not some predetermined notion of what the outcome 

should be. Clearly, in my work as a District Judge, I have respected the role of Congress in our tripartheid system. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the context of your pledge to listen to 

every party that comes before the court, clearly not every party 

comes before the court with similar resources. Sometimes parties 

are represented by enormous law firms, sometimes they’re represented by considerable numbers of enormous law firms. Sometimes a party comes before the court with a new lawyer, a solo 

practitioner, perhaps even a lawyer who is simply having a bad 

day. What is your view of the judge’s role in ensuring that those 

differences of resources do not interfere with each party’s right to 

a fair trial before the court? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the 

role of the judge, when there’s an inequity in resources, an inequity 

in legal talent, as you’ve alluded to in your question, is frankly conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 062345 PO 00000 Frm 00731 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\62345.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
722 

fined. I don’t believe that the role of a district judge or a circuit 

judge is to sort of try to even things out. I’ve had cases where a 

solo practitioner is up against a massive law firm and, frankly, 

outdoes them quite nicely. 

I know in our own district, some of our CJA counsel are among 

the best lawyers available in the State. I think that if a judge were 

to say, you know, I’m not sure things are evened out so I’m going 

to call this one this way to kind of even things out, I think that 

that kind of interference or intrusion into the system is one that 

is ill-advised. 

I haven’t followed that, and I would not want to in the future. 

I do believe that all people who appear before me, those with limited resources and those with unlimited resources, deserve fair 

treatment. I have done that. If confirmed, I would continue to do 

that. I believe that is the only role that a judge can play, to play 

it down the middle and call it as you see it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Finally, Your Honor, the Constitution embodies eternal principles that may be at odds with popular conventions or passions of the time and substantial societal expectations 

may have grown around those conventions or passions by the time 

a matter comes before the court. 

You may find yourself in a situation in which you find that the 

eternal principles of the Constitution, if applied properly, are actually disruptive of certain expectations and certain settled practices, 

and perhaps even certain interests. Do you feel any hesitancy, 

when the facts and the law and the principles of the Constitution 

so direct, to disrupt those conventions or practices that have settled 

around those popular passions? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the beauty of the Constitution is its enduring quality. I also believe that the 

prescience of the Founding Fathers was in giving Federal judges 

lifetime tenure so that in those instances that you’ve alluded to, 

those times when difficult decisions have to be made so that judges 

act in conformity with the Constitution rather than public opinion, 

those decisions can be made without fear of retribution. 

I do believe that the Constitution of the United States is a wonderfully constructed document. It is one that I enjoy reading. I believe that it is important to apply. I think that public opinion on 

particular issues comes and goes, but I think that the fact that that 

endures and that it is difficult, under our constitutional system of 

government, for amendments to be made speaks to the fact that 

the Constitution, for whatever foibles people may have with or see 

in it, should be followed. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank you. My time has expired. 

I’d call on the distinguished Ranking Member. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Greenaway, it’s a pleasure to be with you. I think you 

showed some admirable humility in your opening statement, 

thanking the President and God for your opportunity to serve in 

this august position. Some people get on the bench and they think 

they are anointed rather than appointed, as they say. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge GREENAWAY. Not I, sir. 

723 

Senator SESSIONS. A little humility doesn’t hurt for somebody 

who’s got a lifetime appointment and we can’t vote you out of office. 

But you have a lot of good friends, a lot of firm recommendations, 

and both of your Senators are very supportive. 

I remember, really before I came here, my staff has found a 

statement you made last time, when you were up for confirmation, 

that ‘‘judicial activism is a practice that goes beyond the bounds of 

permissible jurisprudence, as set forth in the Constitution. In my 

view, engaging in such activism requires a jurist to begin the journey down the proverbial slippery slope. Once down that path, stare 

decisis and the Constitution fall prey to that judge’s perceptions, 

prejudices, and predilections. This approach is antithetical to the 

intent of the framers of the Constitution and results in haphazard 

decisionmaking.’’ 

You go on to say, ‘‘A Federal judge cannot impose his or her own 

views on what the law should be as if sitting as a super-legislature. 

In theory and practice, judicial opinions must be measured and 

guided by precedent and the Constitution. Judges must limit themselves to the parameters permissible within the larger constitutional scheme.’’ 

So I guess I like that. 

Judge GREENAWAY. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Do you still believe that? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. You made a speech, a lecture entitled, ‘‘Judicial Decision-Making in the External Environment’’. You said that 

‘‘the external environment consists of the political, social, intellectual, and other forces that influence and affect our judiciary and 

its decisionmaking. Although the public may believe that judges 

make their ruling in a vacuum, they clearly do not. Not only does 

each member of the judiciary come to the bench with a different 

set of experiences, but our environment affects each judge differently as well.’’ 

Then you note that Justice Black, who ruled in the Japanese detention case, the Koramatsu case, was ‘‘undoubtedly influenced by 

several factors outside the record, such as his own military career, 

the fact that his sons were in World War II, and his friendship 

with General DeWitt.’’ I guess I think, as I read those remarks, you 

seemed to criticize Black for allowing those things to cause him to 

not be sensitive to the constitutional rights of the people, the Japanese citizens, who were interned. Is that correct? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Well, Senator, I think that—well, first of all, 

you quoted me absolutely accurately. I think that my point in that 

article was that, No. 1, we had suspect classifications involved. No. 

2, we were talking about probably one of the most egregious violations of an entire subgroup of Americans in our Nation’s history. 

No. 3, there was a real lack of evidence brought before the President before he acted, and the court before it acted. 

In looking at Koramatsu critically, my view was, if we’re going 

to—if we as a society, and the court in particular, is going to take 

that kind of action, that we’d better have a good reason to do it and 

there should be some evidence to support it. Now, I think what you 

quoted with regard to Justice Black and his background is part of 

it, certainly not the only thing. But I think that was my point. 

724 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, sort of to follow up on Senator 

Whitehouse’s question about taking clear stands sometimes on important issues, even if not popular, I think there is a danger—do 

you not agree, that in a judge allowing such things, extra-judicial 

matters that you’ve cited that possibly could have influenced Black, 

there is a danger in allowing that to happen and could indeed 

weaken certain constitutional protections? 

Judge GREENAWAY. That is certainly possible, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. Some people seem to think that feelings and 

experiences are necessarily good and are always going to lead a 

judge in the right way. Sometimes feelings could lead you in the 

wrong way in your experiences. 

Judge GREENAWAY. That is also certainly possible, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. President Obama described, once, the kind of 

judges he would look for on the bench as follows: ‘‘We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy to recognize what it’s like 

to be a young teenaged mom, the empathy to understand what it’s 

like to be a poor African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old, and 

that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.’’ 

Now, Justice Sotomayor declined to endorse that as her philosophy of service on the bench. Do you have any comments about 

that and how you would approach the difficult task of judging? 

Judge GREENAWAY. Well, Senator, I know a little bit about being 

African-American. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge GREENAWAY. I think we might not have had a lot of money 

growing up, but I didn’t think we were poor. We were really rich 

in a lot of the more important things in life, my sisters and I. You 

know, I think my father and mother prepared us for life in the best 

way they could, and that is giving us the principles to be productive members of society. 

I am not in the President’s position with regard to what makes 

a good judge. The only thing I can tell you is that, in my years of 

experience, I’ve tried to be fair to folks, I’ve tried to treat them 

with the utmost respect and to deal with their—address their cases 

as best I could, applying the facts to the law. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I thank you for saying that. We haven’t 

done an exhaustive search of your record like what gets done for 

the Supreme Court nominees. Every word that they say gets researched. But it does appear that you have a good record and broad 

support in the community. Thank you. 

Judge GREENAWAY. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

As I said, Judge Greenaway, we hope very much for a speedy 

and uneventful confirmation. I thank you for your testimony here 

today. The record of the proceedings for you and for the other candidates will remain open for a week from the conclusion of this 

hearing, so if there are other comments anybody cares to make 

about your candidacy, they have that final week to make them before the record of these proceedings closes. But I welcome you here. 

I congratulate your family on this achievement and I wish you godspeed. 

Judge GREENAWAY. Thank you so much, Senator. Both Senators. 

I appreciate it very much. Have a good day. 

725 

[The biographical information of Joseph A. Greenaway follows.] 

726 


62345.700
727 


62345.701
728 


62345.702
729 


62345.703
730 


62345.704
731 


62345.705
732 


62345.706
733 


62345.707
734 


62345.708
735 


62345.709
736 


62345.710
737 


62345.711
738 


62345.712
739 


62345.713
740 


62345.714
741 


62345.715
742 


62345.716
743 


62345.717
744 


62345.718
745 


62345.719
746 


62345.720
747 


62345.721
748 


62345.722
749 


62345.723
750 


62345.724
751 


62345.725
752 


62345.726
753 


62345.727
754 


62345.728
755 


62345.729
756 


62345.730
757 


62345.731
758 


62345.732
759 


62345.733
760 


62345.734
761 


62345.735
762 


62345.736
763 


62345.737
764 


62345.738
765 


62345.739
766 


62345.740
767 


62345.741
768 


62345.742
769 


62345.743
770 


62345.744
771 


62345.745
772 


62345.746
773 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We will take a 5-minute recess—and I do 

mean 5 minutes—while the table gets turned over for the next 

panel and people have a chance to assemble themselves. 

[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m. the hearing was recessed.] 

AFTER RECESS [3:21 p.m.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The Committee will come back to order. 

I would ask if the nominees would please stand to be sworn. 

[Whereupon, the nominees were duly sworn.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. Please be seated. 

I think I will proceed in the order of the introductions, which 

would put Judge Berger at the front of the line. 

Welcome, Your Honor. Delighted to have you here. 

Judge BERGER. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I call on you for any opening remarks or 

introductions that you would care to make. I understand that you 

have family and friends here on this day. 

STATEMENT OF IRENE CORNELIA BERGER, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Judge BERGER. I do. Thank you, Chairman. 

First, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to President 

Obama for the honor of the nomination. I also would like to extend 

my gratitude and appreciation to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller for 

their recommendation, and also their comments here today. 

I thank you and Senator Sessions for being here today and affording us this opportunity. I also would like to thank Senator 

Leahy for scheduling our hearing. 

It is with great pleasure that I introduce to you my brother, 

Charles Berger, my sister-in-law, Janet Berger, my niece, Charlene 

Berger, my niece, Michelle Berger, my administrative assistant and 

best friend, Karen Sword, and her husband, David Sword. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are delighted that you’re all here 

today and we welcome you to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Judge BERGER. My family and I are honored to be here. Thank 

you. 

[The biographical information of Irene Cornelia Berger follows.] 

774 


62345.747
775 


62345.748
776 


62345.749
777 


62345.750
778 


62345.751
779 


62345.752
780 


62345.753
781 


62345.754
782 


62345.755
783 


62345.756
784 


62345.757
785 


62345.758
786 


62345.759
787 


62345.760
788 


62345.761
789 


62345.762
790 


62345.763
791 


62345.764
792 


62345.765
793 


62345.766
794 


62345.767
795 


62345.768
796 


62345.769
797 


62345.770
798 


62345.771
799 


62345.772
800 


62345.773
801 


62345.774
802 


62345.775
803 


62345.776
804 


62345.777
805 


62345.778
806 


62345.779
807 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We’re delighted to have you, and congratulations to you on your nomination. 

Next, is Bob Lange. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERTO A. LANGE, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Judge LANGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

to join Judge Greenaway in thanking God. I feel very blessed in my 

life. Also, thank you to the Committee for the hearing, for Senator 

Johnson for his introduction of me, and to the President for the 

nomination. 

I’m delighted to be joined here by my wife, Lisa Lange, my 

youngest sister, Heidi Logelin, and her nine-year-old twins, Madison and Alec Logelin, my dear friends from law school, Tom and 

Tish Pahl, and by surprise, a raft of my cousins who happened to 

work in Washington, DC, David Hubbuch, Eleanor Hubbuck, and 

Mary Lange. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are delighted that they are all here, 

particularly Madison and Alec, who I think will probably find this 

a memorable day as they grow older as their uncle came to this 

great day. I applaud you on your nomination and welcome you 

here. 

Judge LANGE. Thank you. 

[The biographical information of Roberto A. Lange follows.] 

808 


62345.780
809 


62345.781
810 


62345.782
811 


62345.783
812 


62345.784
813 


62345.785
814 


62345.786
815 


62345.787
816 


62345.788
817 


62345.789
818 


62345.790
819 


62345.791
820 


62345.792
821 


62345.793
822 


62345.794
823 


62345.795
824 


62345.796
825 


62345.797
826 


62345.798
827 


62345.799
828 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Next, is Judge Honeywell. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, TO BE 

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Judge HONEYWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, must join 

Judge Greenaway in thanking God for making this possible. 

I am delighted to have present with me at these proceedings a 

number of family members and friends, but I must first, in addition to thanking God, thank the President for nominating me, 

thank the members of the Federal Judicial Nominating Commission in our State for sending my name to Senators Martinez and 

Nelson, thanking them for their support of my nomination, and 

then thank the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank Senator Leahy 

for scheduling this, and thank you all for your presence in affording us the opportunity to address you this afternoon. 

Traveling with me from Florida are my husband of 18 years, 

Major Gerald Honeywell. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Welcome, Major. Glad to have you with 

us. 

Judge HONEYWELL. My 16-year-old son, Brenton Honeywell, my 

13-year-old daughter, Brianna Honeywell, and my mother, who is 

terrified of flying, but made the trip regardless. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Good for her. Good for her. 

Judge HONEYWELL. I also have some very dear friends who traveled with me from Florida: my good friend from law school, Willye 

Dent; a very dear friend, Bettye Johnson; two other very dear 

friends, Reverend Arthur T. Jones and Mrs. Doris Jones. 

I also have present with me this afternoon members of my sorority and college friends from Howard University, many of whom live 

in the Washington, DC area. I’d just ask if they would stand. I 

won’t introduce them individually, but I do have a number of 

friends present from college here in support of me today. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There seems to be a color theme. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge HONEYWELL. It is: red. That was our sorority color, red 

and white. 

[The biographical information of Charlene Honeywell follows.] 

829 


62345.800
830 


62345.801
831 


62345.802
832 


62345.803
833 


62345.804
834 


62345.805
835 


62345.806
836 


62345.807
837 


62345.808
838 


62345.809
839 


62345.810
840 


62345.811
841 


62345.812
842 


62345.813
843 


62345.814
844 


62345.815
845 


62345.816
846 


62345.817
847 


62345.818
848 


62345.819
849 


62345.820
850 


62345.821
851 


62345.822
852 


62345.823
853 


62345.824
854 


62345.825
855 


62345.826
856 


62345.827
857 


62345.828
858 


62345.829
859 


62345.830
860 


62345.831
861 


62345.832
862 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I’m delighted that your lovely family 

and your friends are here, and I thank them for joining us. 

The final member of our panel has not been introduced. She is 

not a candidate for a judgeship, but rather has been nominated to 

serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. 

I have served in that Department as a U.S. Attorney. I am keenly sensitive to what an important role she will play. I am delighted 

that Ignacia Moreno is here. She, too, is a veteran of the Justice 

Department, having served during the Clinton administration as 

Special Assistant, and then as Counsel and Principal Counsel to 

the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural 

Resources Division. So, this will be something of a homecoming. 

After serving at the Department of Justice, Ms. Moreno joined 

Spriggs & Hollingsworth in Washington, DC, where she became a 

partner, specializing in environmental and mass tort litigation, 

with an emphasis on science-based advocacy. She is currently counsel for corporate environmental programs at the General Electric 

Company and serves pro bono as general counsel to the Hispanic 

National Bar Association. 

We welcome Ms. Moreno and invite her to make any statement 

she cares, or any introductions she cares. 

STATEMENT OF IGNACIA S. MORENO, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. MORENO. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse, for 

those kind remarks and the kind introduction. Thank you and 

Ranking Member Sessions for holding this hearing. I would also 

like to thank the President, as have my other panelists, for nominating me for this very important position. I am grateful to the 

President and to the Attorney General for their confidence in me. 

I’d like to briefly introduce my family who is with me today: my 

mother, Zenith Morena. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Welcome. 

Ms. MORENO. Sisters, Patricia Moreno and Veronica Acosta; 

brother, Carlos Moreno; my niece and nephew, Francesca and Alexander Moreno; and it gives me special pleasure to introduce my 

husband and son, Robert and Nicholas Begotka. My father, Carlos 

Moreno, was unable to be here today, but is certainly with me in 

spirit. I wouldn’t be here without my family’s inspiration, their encouragement, and their support. In particular, I wish to thank my 

mother for her many and sustained sacrifices. She is my hero. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

[The biographical information of Ignacia Moreno follows.] 

863 


62345.833
864 


62345.834
865 


62345.835
866 


62345.836
867 


62345.837
868 


62345.838
869 


62345.839
870 


62345.840
871 


62345.841
872 


62345.842
873 


62345.843
874 


62345.844
875 


62345.845
876 


62345.846
877 


62345.847
878 


62345.848
879 


62345.849
880 


62345.850
881 


62345.851
882 


62345.852
883 


62345.853
884 


62345.854
885 


62345.855
886 


62345.856
887 


62345.857
888 


62345.858
889 


62345.859
890 


62345.860
891 


62345.861
892 


62345.862
893 


62345.863
894 


62345.864
895 


62345.865
896 


62345.866
897 


62345.867
898 


62345.868
899 


62345.869
900 


62345.870
901 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, and welcome. 

I would begin by asking each of the judicial nominees the same 

question that I asked Judge Greenaway, which is whether you are 

prepared, in embarking on these judicial duties, to respect the role 

of Congress as the representatives of the American people, to decide cases based on the law and the facts, to not prejudge any case, 

but listen to every party that comes before the court, to respect the 

precedent of law that has been established in your district, and to 

limit yourself to the issues that your court must decide. 

Are you prepared to undertake your duties under that set of 

strictures? 

Judge LANGE. Mr. Chairman, my answer is, unequivocally, yes. 

Judge BERGER. Mr. Chairman, my answer to all facets of your 

question is an unequivocal yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Judge Honeywell? 

Judge HONEYWELL. And Mr. Chairman, I join with the other 

panelists. My response is also an unequivocal yes. I have endeavored to do that for the eight and a half years that I’ve already 

served as a judge in Florida, although not Congress as much as the 

Florida legislature. So, I absolutely agree and give you an unequivocal yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that. 

The other question I asked is also one that is important to me. 

There may very well come a time when the requirements of the law 

or the requirements of the Constitution, as you with your very best 

conscience and judgment read it to say, may very well cross either 

expectations or conventions of society. In those circumstances, can 

we be assured that you will follow the law and the Constitution, 

even if the consequences may be disruptive for settled interests? 

Judge LANGE. My answer, Mr. Chairman, is yes. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land that must be followed, even if 

it is a difficult result. 

Judge BERGER. I agree with Mr. Lange. In all instances, the Constitution and the law controls, given the particular factual scenario, 

without giving consideration to the other issues which might come 

to bear at the time. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Judge HONEYWELL. And Mr. Chairman, I, too, agree with the responses of my colleagues. I absolutely agree that the Constitution 

and the controlling law are to be followed by the judge in rendering 

decisions without giving attention to any other extraneous matters. 

It is my responsibility as a judicial officer to be faithful to the law. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank you all. 

Ms. Moreno, you have been on both sides of the aisle, so to 

speak. You have served before in the Environment and Natural Resources Division and been an enforcer of our environmental laws. 

You have also represented the private sector in matters of compliance with those environmental laws. Can you assure me that you 

are prepared to pursue full and fair enforcement of our environmental laws, and elaborate a little bit on what your experience on 

the defense side has taught you that you would bring to your duties, should you be confirmed? 

Ms. MORENO. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for that question. 

I’m being advised to turn the mike on. Thank you, Senator. 

902 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Always wise to obey a judge. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MORENO. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator, for giving me the 

opportunity to answer that question. I am—I can tell you, unequivocally, the answer is: yes, I will absolutely be a defender of 

the Nation’s environmental law. I am fully committed to the core 

mission of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, which 

includes a strong enforcement of laws enacted by Congress to protect human health and the environment, and to ensure clean air, 

clean water, and clean land for all Americans. That core mission 

also includes the defense of the laws enacted by Congress in the 

defense of agency programs and actions, as well as stewardship responsibilities and mindful management of our trust obligations to 

Native American tribes. 

My experience in the Division will serve me well if I am confirmed to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment Division. I both work on affirmative enforcement matters, on criminal 

prosecutions, as well as in defense of the Nation’s laws and programs. My private sector experience will only serve to make me a 

more effective Assistant Attorney General, if I should be confirmed, 

because I have, as you said, seen how it all works on both sides 

and would be mindful of our obligations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

My time has expired and I call on our distinguished Ranking 

Member. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. I will just ask one thing of all of 

you, which is it’s pretty obvious to me, having spent a good number 

of years practicing before Federal judges, that it’s a challenge and 

a difficult task and requires a lot of work. 

So I guess I would ask you, Mr. Lange, are you committed to 

managing your courtroom, to reaching—doing justice as best you’re 

able, but also managing the courtroom, disposing of cases in a 

timely fashion and not causing unnecessary expense to the litigants? 

Judge LANGE. I certainly am, Senator Sessions. I’m from a family 

farm background. I’ve worked very hard throughout my life and I 

intend to commit myself to diligent and timely handling of the 

cases that come before me in a fair and impartial manner. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

And do you agree? 

Judge BERGER. Yes, Senator, I absolutely agree. I think it’s exactly what I’ve made an effort to do over the course of the last 15 

years as a State court judge, to employ whatever tools necessary 

in keeping with trying to ensure that every party was heard fairly 

and equally to try to be responsive in a timely manner. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Judge Honeywell. 

Judge HONEYWELL. Yes, Senator Sessions. I, too, agree. I first 

learned a little bit about managing a heavy caseload as an assistant public defender. That experience has kept me well in my experience now as a State court judge, where I preside over a docket 

of approximately 4,300 cases. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think it is important. I hear, on occasion, lawyers and litigants complain about unnecessary delays. It 

903 

can be very costly to them in terms of lawyers and business decisions that are in limbo, and that kind of thing. 

Mr. Lange, I like the fact that you’re an active practitioner in 

your State for a number of years, and I like the fact that you’ve 

been active politically. I think that’s a good thing. You’ve been active in a number of campaigns for Democratic nominees, as the 

Governor’s race, Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson, both of 

which are honorable things to do. 

Are you confident that you can make the transition to a judge 

who puts aside those political views and can decide the case objectively, even though the person before you might be of a different 

political party? 

Judge LANGE. Certainly, Senator Sessions. Many of my friends 

are of a different political party; I’m from South Dakota, after all. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge LANGE. Many of my partners are from a different political 

party. I have no question about my ability to treat people fairly, 

regardless of what background they come from or what their political affiliation may be. My role in those campaigns was to make 

sure that the candidate was well-represented and the campaign 

laws were followed, and those proved to be campaigns that went 

fairly smoothly in terms of no great issues arising. That’s the way 

it should be. Elections should be fair and square. That was what 

my responsibility, I felt, was in those settings. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I remember when President Bush chose 

Ted Olson to be his Solicitor General and some were unhappy because he had defended him in Florida. But I figured that proved 

that he thought highly of him, if he chose to defend him out of the 

whole—of all the lawyers in the United States of America, he told 

Ted Olson to be the one that defended his campaign. 

So, no. I think that’s very true. I believe, particularly in smaller 

States where you deal on a regular basis with judges of different 

parties, you’ve practiced before them with lawyers of different political views, I think you can move past that. Some people can’t, but 

most people who have actually been good practicing lawyers have 

no difficulty in that. 

Let’s see. Judge Berger, 3 years ago, in a speech to the Legal 

Services Corporation in Charleston, West Virginia, you closed with 

the following quote from a former Canadian Attorney General: 

‘‘Substantive and procedural law benefits and protects landlords 

over tenants, creditors over debtors, lenders over borrowers, and 

the poor are seldom among the favored parties.’’ Now, I think those 

were remarks made some 40 years ago by a Canadian. 

The oath that you take says that you will do equal justice to the 

poor and the rich alike. Are you committed to that oath, and does 

this suggest that you feel that contracts and mortgages shouldn’t 

be enforced as written? Would that not impact the willingness of, 

let’s say, a bank to loan somebody $100,000 to pay it back over 30 

years at 6 percent if they felt like the terms of the contract 

wouldn’t be honored if the borrower got into default? 

Judge BERGER. Thank you, Senator, for an opportunity to clarify 

that comment. First of all, I want to say very strongly that I will, 

if confirmed, ensure that all parties are treated fairly and equally. 

They will be heard equally, be they rich or be they poor. In making 

904 

that speech and quoting that, I simply wanted to impress upon the 

Legal Services Board that there was work to do in terms of equaling, from their perspective, the playing field among various constituencies. 

As a judge in a courtroom, I do not have that luxury. I think the 

Legal Services Board, however, does have the luxury for working 

to trying to see that people have access to the courts, and that was 

my intention in adding that to that particular speech. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think there is a danger that poor people with 

less education have difficulties understanding the full ramifications 

of a contract. But I do believe that the entire economic system and 

the ability of a poor person to get a loan could be reduced if the 

fundamental principles of the contract are not enforced. 

With regard to sentencing, you made a comment in 2000 that 

you never knew prison to improve a person, and that in borderline 

cases you would prefer 2 or 3 years probation. As you know, the 

sentencing guidelines in Federal court are pretty restrictive on a 

judge. State judges often chafe at that narrow window of ability to 

sentence. People who have gone straight on the Federal bench, I 

don’t think, have any trouble. They find it pretty—somewhat relieving to be able to say, well, this objective panel has said this is 

the kind of range I should utilize when I sentence. But a judge who 

allows their personal views to impact sentencing can cause quite a 

bit of turmoil, appeals, and uncertainty in the system. 

So I guess I would ask you, are you generally familiar with the 

requirements of the sentencing guideline, and are you willing to 

follow them even if that would not be your choice for an appropriate sentence in a case? 

Judge BERGER. Thank you, Senator. The answer to your question 

is yes. I am familiar with the sentencing guidelines. I would agree 

with you that oftentimes in State court there is discretion that is 

not presented by the operation of those sentencing guidelines. 

There are also, however, in State court, some mandatory sentences 

where judges don’t have any leeway and I have, over the course of 

the 15 years that I have sat as a State court judge, applied those 

when it was appropriate. If confirmed by this body, I will continue 

to do that. I see it no differently than applying the law in any other 

area, which I am very committed to do, if confirmed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. It’s a remarkable thing, what the 

Federal Government did with regard to the sentencing guidelines. 

Judge Honeywell, a number of years ago you were representing 

the City of Ft. Lauderdale. St. Petersburg. No, Ft. Lauderdale. 

Judge HONEYWELL. Tampa. city of Tampa. 

Senator SESSIONS. Tampa. OK. A Ft. Lauderdale gun show—reported in the St. Petersburg Times about Tampa. I guess that’s 

right, Tampa. They had banned gun show sales. You were the attorney for the city, correct? 

Judge HONEYWELL. That’s correct. I was, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Which is your duty to defend the city’s statutes. 

Judge HONEYWELL. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you stated, ‘‘Our position is that if speech 

is involved it’s commercial speech, which is not entitled to the same 

protection under the law as political speech.’’ I guess, have you had 

905 

any thoughts about that statement in light of more recent Supreme 

Court authority, and even the Heller case in the District of Columbia? 

Judge HONEYWELL. Thank you, Senator. I have not had any additional thought with regard to that statement because that statement occurred, gosh, over 12 years ago. I can assure you that as 

a judge, though, I would be required to, and absolutely would, follow the law of our land. So as the law has changed and evolved 

since that statement was made, I, as a judge, would follow that law 

based upon precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think there has been some recognition that 

there’s not much difference between commercial speech and personal speech, but at one time there was some case authority that 

went along that way. 

Likewise, on the sentencing guidelines, are you committed to following those? 

Judge HONEYWELL. I am committed to following the sentencing 

guidelines. I believe that establishing the guidelines is the role of 

Congress. It would be my job, if confirmed by this body, to apply 

that law to the facts of the cases before me, but Congress certainly 

has the authority and has acted by establishing the sentencing 

guidelines. I am also familiar with the sentencing guidelines because in Florida we do have sentencing guidelines, too. 

Senator SESSIONS. I think it was a major step that the Congress 

took before I came here. I think Senator Kennedy and Senator 

Thurmond both supported it and it brought some objectivity to sentencing. We had this spectacle in the same courthouse, two people 

being convicted of the same crime, and one judge giving probation 

and another 20 years, and it was difficult to justify that. So it does 

bring some consistency and gives you a range within which to sentence. But people who are not that familiar with guidelines often 

feel some of our State judges who become Federal judges get anxious about it, I’ll just say it that way. They’re used to doing it the 

way they’ve done it. 

Ms. Moreno, yours is an important position. You’ve had a position with an environmental group, the Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, before. They have to take some tough cases. 

Some of them are quite technical. Some of them have been criticized as being unnecessary, unnecessary enforcement actions that 

don’t make sense. But the Department has been proud of its strict 

enforcement of the law, which I don’t disagree with. 

So I guess, you’ve been in the Department, you’ve been in the 

private sector. Do you think you can enforce the law fairly and adequately based on the law and the facts as you make the final decision on what cases to bring and recommend for prosecution? 

Ms. MORENO. Absolutely, Senator. You have my commitment to 

that. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think there’s nothing wrong with you 

having been with a major corporation and you have the other side 

experience, too, in the Department. So, I thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, each one of these nominees has strong support 

and we’ll be continuing to look at their records, but I’m impressed 

with them. 

906 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the very distinguished Ranking 

Member. 

I want to thank all of you for your presence here today. This is 

a very distinguished panel. Each one of you is an extraordinarily 

accomplished individual. The process that has led to today of FBI 

background checks and innumerable forms to fill out, and so forth, 

has been—I know from firsthand experience—a long ordeal, but it 

is essentially concluded at this point. I think you have both of our 

hopes for a speedy and uneventful confirmation. 

But as you think back on this day, I want you to be aware that 

both the Ranking Member and I are aware that you bring extraordinary life experience, talent, and dedication to this day. Two of 

you bring substantial judicial experience as well, Judge Berger and 

Judge Honeywell. You bring before us the confidence of your communities, you bring before us the confidence of your home State 

Senators, and you carry with you the confidence of the President 

of the United States of America that you will do well as you assume the responsibilities that, upon confirmation, will be yours. 

You are embarking, each of you, in somewhat different ways on 

a career of public service that will entail a lot of hard work, a lot 

of late hours. Nothing particularly great in the way of pay, but a 

lot of great moments, a lot of great opportunities, and the greatest 

opportunity of all, which is to serve your country, the United States 

of America. 

So I salute you on being here today. I hope that you and your 

families enjoy this day and I wish you godspeed. 

Do you have anything else you’d like to add? 

Senator SESSIONS. Just briefly. 

Congratulations to each of you for your nomination. I’m happy 

for you and your families. This should, indeed, be a special occasion. I may submit some questions for the record that I hope that 

you would respond to. I know you understand fully that a Federal 

judge is given a lifetime appointment. Even though the salary may 

not be the greatest compared to what some private lawyers make, 

you don’t have to worry about maintaining your position in the law 

firm and you don’t have to keep a time sheet. 

So, it’s a fabulous job and most judges that I’ve known have thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a great honor that you’ve been given to be 

nominated and I expect things should go forward in a timely manner. I don’t believe that any of you need to be held up based on 

what I know at this time. So, we’d like to see you get your vote 

as soon as reasonably possible. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I thank the Ranking Member very much 

for that. We have already, without objection, put my complete 

opening statement into the record. We have already, without objection, put the remarks by Senator Robert C. Byrd in favor of the 

nomination of Judge Berger, at the request of Senator Rockefeller, 

into the record. 

I would also ask unanimous consent that the statement of the 

distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, Patrick Leahy, be 

added to the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

907 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The full statement of Ignacia Moreno. I 

appreciate very much that she shortened her statement, but we 

would like to have her full statement be a matter of record in these 

proceedings. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Moreno appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And finally, we have a file folder full of 

letters of support for Ms. Moreno from a great number of people. 

I will not read them all off, but they include: Lois Schiffer, who was 

a previous occupant of that position; Steven Solau, who’s the 

former Chief of the Environment Crimes section at the NRD; and 

the Center for International and Environmental Law; OCEANA, 

Protecting the World’s Oceans; the Hispanic National Bar Association; the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda; the National Council of La Raza; the current and past chairs of the American Bar Association, Section of Environment, Energy and Resources; and I 

promised I would not read them all so I will not. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But there is a hefty file of support. Without objection, they will be made a part of the record. 

[The letters appear as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As I said earlier, the hearing will remain 

open for an additional week for the responses and for any other 

materials that anybody should seek to add to the record, and then 

we will proceed through the remainder of the nomination process. 

But I wish you all well. I congratulate you on the achievements 

that have brought you here today. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submission for the record follow.] 

908 


62345.871
909 


62345.872
910 


62345.873
911 


62345.874
912 


62345.875
913 


62345.876
914 


62345.877
915 


62345.878
916 


62345.879
917 


62345.880
918 


62345.881
919 


62345.882
920 


62345.883
921 


62345.884
922 


62345.885
923 


62345.886
924 


62345.887
925 


62345.888
926 


62345.889
927 


62345.890
928 


62345.891
929 


62345.892
930 


62345.893
931 


62345.894
932 


62345.895
933 


62345.896
934 


62345.897
935 


62345.898
936 


62345.899
937 


62345.900
938 


62345.901
939 


62345.902
940 


62345.903
941 


62345.904
942 


62345.905
943 


62345.906
944 


62345.907
945 


62345.908
946 


62345.909
947 


62345.910
948 


62345.911
949 


62345.912
950 


62345.913
951 


62345.914
952 


62345.915
953 


62345.916
954 


62345.917
955 


62345.918
956 


62345.919
957 


62345.920
958 


62345.921
959 


62345.922
960 


62345.923
961 


62345.924
962 


62345.925
963 


62345.926
964 


62345.927
965 


62345.928
966 


62345.929
967 


62345.930
968 


62345.931
969 


62345.932
970 


62345.933
(971) 

NOMINATION OF JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, OF 

CALIFORNIA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; 

EDWARD MILTON CHEN, OF CALIFORNIA, 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; DOLLY M. 

GEE, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA; AND RICHARD SEEBORG, OF 

CALIFORNIA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, Pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Al Franken, presiding. 

Present: Senators Franken, Feinstein, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Good afternoon. The hearing will come to 

order. 

I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Today we will hear from four nominees. All four 

nominees are for the Federal district courts in California, so I 

would like to extend a special welcome to my distinguished colleague Senator Boxer, who I believe will be here in just a few moments to introduce each of our nominees, and perhaps Senator 

Feinstein will also be able to make it. Unfortunately, she is on the 

floor right now managing the interior appropriations bill, and if she 

cannot make it, she sends her apologies. 

The nominees being considered are: California Superior Court 

Judge Jacqueline Nguyen to sit on the U.S. District Court in Los 

Angeles; U.S. Magistrate Judge Edward Chen to sit on the U.S. 

District Court in San Francisco; Dolly Gee to sit on the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles; and U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard 

Seeborg to sit on the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. 

972 

Although I have only been here a short time—there is Senator 

Boxer. Welcome. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Although I have only been here a short time, 

I was able to participate in the historic nomination of the first 

Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Today’s hearing is also a 

historic one both for the Federal courts and for the Asian American 

Community. As the Congressional Asian-Pacific American Caucus 

recently pointed out in a letter to the Committee, Asian Americans 

and Pacific Islanders are among the fastest-growing racial groups 

in the United States. Yet of the Nation’s 875 active Article III 

judges, only eight are Asian American or Pacific Islander. Should 

today’s nominees be confirmed, that number would rise to 11. 

In addition, we would be confirming the first Asian American 

judge ever to sit on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which includes San Francisco and the Bay Area, 

the first Vietnamese American woman to serve as a U.S. district 

judge and the first Chinese American to sit as a U.S. district judge. 

So this is an important hearing, and I want to thank representatives from the National Asian and Pacific American Bar Association, the Asian Pacific Bar of California, and the Asian American 

Justice Center for being in attendance today. 

I would also like to briefly point out something about two of the 

nominees today. Both Judge Seeborg and Judge Nguyen have experience in prosecuting cases of fraud—in particular, Ponzi schemes. 

These corrupt business practices have recently come to light across 

the country. Unfortunately, in my home State of Minnesota, with 

the case of Tom Petters and his alleged $3.5 billion scheme, it is 

extremely important that we have judges equipped with the financial experience to handle these cases, and I look forward to hearing 

from both of them on their experience with these cases. 

In closing, I would like to outline how the hearing will proceed. 

After the Ranking Member Senator Sessions makes his introductory remarks, the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, will introduce the nominees and I believe also will Senator Feinstein, who 

is now here sitting to my left. And then each Senator on the Committee will have a 5-minute round with the panel. 

Now I will turn it over to my distinguished Ranking Member 

Senator Sessions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think we 

should note the meteoric rise you have achieved here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. It gives new meaning to the words ‘‘meteoric 

rise.’’ Thank you. You are an active, participating member of this 

Committee, and I hope you enjoy it. And I think you are from our 

conversations. 

We welcome these nominees and look forward to hearing from— 

I see Senator Boxer. I know she is ready to talk. Each has an impressive resume and fine credentials, and I look forward to participating in the discussion. 

973 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Feinstein, would you like me to go to Senator Boxer. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, please. 

Senator FRANKEN. Senator Boxer, I would like to welcome you 

again. 

Senator BOXER. I think it would be wonderful if Senator Feinstein went first. She has so many more to introduce, and I would 

defer to her since she is on the Committee. And, by the way, I just 

want to say thanks for her hard work on the floor. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, in that case, since I am the Chairman, 

I will make the decision. Let me see. 

[Laughter.] 

Well, I will defer to Senator Boxer’s judgment and recognize Senator Feinstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to 

my colleague, I would only say so far, so good down on the floor. 

But thank you very much, and thank you for being here. 

I would like to begin by introducing Judge Jacqueline Nguyen. 

She has been a judge of the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County since 2002 when she was appointed by Governor Gray 

Davis. Before becoming a judge, she served as a Federal prosecutor 

in the Los Angeles United States Attorney’s Office for 7 years. She 

began in the Public Corruption and Government Fraud Section and 

was promoted to be Deputy Chief for General Crime in 2000. 

During her time as a prosecutor, Judge Nguyen led a 2–3 year 

undercover investigation into the filing of false applications for 

United States visas. In this case, Judge Nguyen secured the first 

ever conviction of a defendant for providing material support to a 

designated foreign terrorist group. 

Judge Nguyen also handled an important wiretap investigation 

of a Russian organized crime group that was smuggling sex slaves 

into the United States from the Ukraine. She received an impressive list of accolades for her work as a prosecutor. In 2002, she was 

awarded the Director’s Award for Superior Performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 2000, she received a special commendation from FBI Director Louis Freeh for her work on the material 

support of terrorism case. And in 1996 and 1997, she received two 

commendations for sustained superior performance as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney. Judge Nguyen has also experienced working 2 years 

on commercial cases at a private law firm. 

I want to mention one other thing. Judge Nguyen’s personal 

story is one that to me, and I believe to Senator Boxer, really 

shows how fortunate we all are to live in the United States. Judge 

Nguyen and her family came to California in 1975 from South Vietnam. They lived initially at Camp Pendleton before moving to Los 

Angeles where her parents worked in and later owned a series of 

doughnut shops. Judge Nguyen helped her parents in their shop 

during her high school years, and she continued working with them 

while she went on to graduate from Occidental College and the 

University of California Los Angeles School of Law. 

974 

Judge Nguyen will be the first Vietnamese American woman to 

serve as a United States district judge. My selection Committee in 

California highly recommended Judge Nguyen to me for the district 

court, and I was proud to recommend her to the President. She has 

been rated well qualified by the American Bar Association. 

So I would just like to recognize that and say how welcome she 

is here today. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Boxer. 

PRESENTATION OF DOLLY M. GEE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, BY 

HON. BARBARA BOXER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I am honored 

to be here today to introduce Dolly Gee and welcome all of our 

California nominees and their families, and I want to add my congratulations to them all. Each of them comes to you so well qualified and well suited for the responsibilities that we hope they will 

take on. 

Senator Feinstein and I share the responsibility in California for 

providing advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations. I am very proud of the way we do it. Our bipartisan judicial 

advisory committees have vetted all of these nominees, and they 

have given them their highest recommendation. We are united in 

our admiration for the nominees, all of whom are respected by 

their colleagues in the California legal community, and they will all 

make outstanding additions to the Federal bench. 

I do want to say a few words about the nominee whom I had the 

pleasure of recommending to the President, Dolly Gee. And, Dolly, 

would you stand, please? 

Dolly is the daughter of parents who came to the United States 

from a small farming village in southern China. Her father was a 

World War II veteran, and he worked as an aerospace engineer on 

projects such as the Space Shuttle and the Apollo mission. Dolly’s 

mother, who is with us today—and I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if 

it is OK with you and Senator Sessions, if I may ask her to stand, 

Dolly’s mother. Is that all right? 

Senator FRANKEN. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Where is she? She will just show you who she 

is. 

Senator FRANKEN. Welcome. 

Senator BOXER. And she was a garment worker who never 

taught Dolly to sew because she did not want her daughter to have 

to stitch clothes for a living. And this touches us all, I think. Her 

mom’s experience as a seamstress helped inspire Dolly to pursue 

a career in employment law, to seek equal and fair treatment for 

workers. 

Dolly graduated summa cum laude from UCLA in 1981, and then 

she received her law degree from the same university in 1984. 

After a Federal clerkship in the Eastern District of California, she 

began her career in private practice at the firm of Schwartz & 

Steinsapir in Los Angeles. In 1994, President Clinton appointed 

Dolly to a 5-year term on the Federal Service Impasses Panel, actVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 062345 PO 00000 Frm 00984 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\62345.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
975 

ing as a mediator and arbitrator in hundreds of disputes between 

Federal agencies and the workers. She has also served as an arbitrator for Kaiser Permanente, helping to resolve medical and contract claims. 

In these roles—and I think this is so important—she has learned 

to listen to all sides and dispassionately apply the law to the facts, 

skills that are so essential as a judge. 

Dolly has been widely praised for her work promoting racial tolerance in Los Angeles by building diverse coalitions among various 

bar associations. She is a co-founder of the Asian Pacific American 

Bar Association of Los Angeles county and the Multicultural Bar 

Alliance and served as president of the Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association. 

As with Ms. Nguyen, Dolly’s nomination is historic. If confirmed, 

she would be the very first Chinese American woman in U.S. history to serve as a Federal district court judge. Her nomination is 

a source of pride to so many people, not just to her family—to her 

Mom, who is here today, and to the Asian American Community— 

but to everyone who believes that our Federal courts should reflect 

the diversity of this, the greatest country in the world. 

And I have to say it is such an extraordinary moment, and I 

would say to our Chairman, Senator Franken, it is a great day to 

be sitting in that chair because here is who is making history 

today. We heard of the two women. If confirmed, Judge Edward 

Chen, a respected former civil rights lawyer and the first Asian 

American magistrate judge in the Northern District, would take 

another historic step as the first ever Asian American district court 

judge for the Northern District. 

So we have all of this making history today, and here is the important thing. Senator Feinstein and I have one direction to our 

committees: Send us the best. That is all we want. Send us the 

best. It is not partisan. I, frankly, have never known one person 

that I have recommended. It just so happens I never have known 

them personally. They have come through this wonderful system 

that we have created here. And so, clearly, I am very proud today. 

And I am so hopeful that the Committee will act to confirm these 

nominees quickly. 

Federal judges across the country, and particularly in California, 

are carrying a large caseload, backlogs, due to the fact that we 

have not updated the number of Federal judgeships in 20 years. 

And I know Senator Feinstein has been working long and hard on 

this. One of our districts, the Eastern District of California, carries 

the highest number of case filings per judge in this country, an astounding 1,106 per judge. And I say to Senator Sessions, who 

knows what that kind of a caseload is, this is quite an extraordinary number of cases to be carrying-1,106 in the Eastern District 

of California. And two more districts, I say to my friends, the Central and the Northern Districts, are also among the top ten in the 

country in terms of these caseloads. 

Our courts need help now. This is a momentous day, and I am 

very happy to be with you, and I am looking forward to your swift 

action. And thank you very much for your allowing me to speak 

today. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator. 

976 

Senator Feinstein, would you also introduce Judge Chen and 

Judge Seeborg. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I would be happy to, and let me thank my 

friend and colleague for being here, and let me also thank you for 

bringing to the attention of both Senator Franken and Ranking 

Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Sessions, the fact 

that we are really under-judged in California, and particularly in 

the Eastern District. So I very much appreciate your comments. 

Thank you. 

I would like to now introduce Judge Edward Chen. Judge, would 

you stand, please? Right there. And, Judge Nguyen, would you 

stand, please? I did not do that. Thank you very much. 

Judge Chen has served as a United States magistrate judge in 

the Northern District of California for the last 8 years. He was appointed to that position by a merit-based selection Committee and 

was recently reappointed to serve a second 8-year term after a 

thorough review of his work, detailed confidential feedback from 

litigants, and insights from district judges. 

Before he was appointed to the Federal magistrate bench, Judge 

Chen worked as a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation of Northern California and as a litigation associate at the law firm of Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer. Judge 

Chen was part of the legal team that successfully represented Fred 

Korematsu in a suit to have his conviction removed for failing to 

report to an internment camp during World War II. Judge Chen 

worked as a law clerk to United States District Judge Charles 

Renfrew and to Judge James R. Browning on the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and he is an Order of the 

Coif graduate of the University of California-Berkeley Boalt School 

of Law. 

Judge Chen has served as a master of the Edward J. McFetridge 

American Inn of Court, which is a new association for me, and as 

Chair of the Federal Courts Committee of the California Commission on Access to Justice and as an appointee to various Ninth Circuit committees. In 2007, he was named the Judge of the Year by 

the Barristers Club of San Francisco. 

Judge Chen was unanimously recommended to me by my bipartisan selection Committee in California, and I recommended him to 

the President. He has been rated well qualified by the American 

Bar Association. Judge Chen was the first Asian American appointed to be a magistrate judge in Northern California, and as has 

been said about others, he would be the first to sit—Asian male, 

that is, to sit as a United States district judge in the district, if confirmed. 

I would also like to introduce Judge Richard Seeborg. Would you 

stand, please? Thank you very much. Like Judge Chen, Judge 

Seeborg has been a United States magistrate judge in the Northern 

District of California since 2001. He was recently reappointed to a 

second term after a lengthy review process. He sits in San Jose, 

California, where he has presided over many intellectual property 

cases coming out of Silicon Valley. He has a special expertise in 

this area and has made speeches in places as far away as Chile 

and India about intellectual property rights enforcement. 

977 

Before stepping onto the Federal bench, Judge Seeborg worked 

as a Federal prosecutor and as a partner at a private law firm. 

From 1991 to 1998, he prosecuted white-collar crime cases as Assistant U.S. Attorney in San Jose. He brought charges of wire 

fraud, high-tech crime, tax evasion, and money laundering, and he 

was co-lead counsel in a case involving money swindling by a mortgage loan company. He also successfully prosecuted a manufacturer 

of GPS devices for exporting goods from the UAE to Iran without 

a valid customs license. 

For 12 years, Judge Seeborg litigated complex civil cases as an 

associate and then a partner at the law firm of Morrison and 

Foerster. His work at the law firm gave him experience ranging 

from contract law to intellectual property law to antitrust. He is a 

summa cum laude graduate of Yale and a Harlan Fiske Stone 

Scholar at Columbia University School of Law. He was also unanimously recommended to me by my judicial screening Committee in 

California, and I have subsequently recommended him to the President, and he finds himself here today. 

So welcome, Judge Seeborg, and thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein, and thank you 

coming from the floor where I know you are busy managing the interior appropriations bill. 

Now I would like all the nominees to please stand and take the 

oath. Raise your right hand. Do you confirm that the testimony you 

are about to give the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 

and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Judge NGUYEN. I do. 

Judge CHEN. I do. 

Ms. GEE. I do. 

Judge SEEBORG. I do. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you and please be seated. 

Judge Nguyen—do I have the pronunciation right? Because I 

said ‘‘Noo-in.’’ 

Judge NGUYEN. I pronounce it ‘‘nwin.’’ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Sorry. You are now free to give any opening 

remarks and also to introduce any family members who might be 

here today. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Judge NGUYEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor and 

privilege to appear before you this afternoon. I would like to thank 

President Obama for nominating me. I would like to thank Senator 

Feinstein for recommending me and for that very kind introduction, and Senator Boxer for her support as well. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for presiding over the hearing today and Senator Leahy 

for scheduling this hearing. I also would like to thank the Ranking 

Member, Senator Sessions, and the other Committee members as 

well. 

I am very proud to introduce my family members who are 

present to support me this afternoon: my husband, Pio Kim; my 

children, 10-year-old Nolan and 7-year-old Avery; my mother-inVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:16 Dec 28, 2010 Jkt 062345 PO 00000 Frm 00987 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\62345.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
978 

law, Hyo Soon Kim; and my mother, Hoa Nguyen. I also have other 

supporters—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I would just like to say welcome to your family. 

Judge NGUYEN. Thank you. I have other supporters present, and 

I would like to acknowledge and thank them as well. 

At home, I have many, many family members and friends watching the live webcast, and I want to acknowledge them and, in particular, acknowledge my father-in-law, Mr. Suh Chang Kim, and 

my other father, Binh Nguyen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Nguyen appears as a submission for the record.] 

[The biographical information of Judge Nguyen follows.] 

979 


62345.934
980 


62345.935
981 


62345.936
982 


62345.937
983 


62345.938
984 


62345.939
985 


62345.940
986 


62345.941
987 


62345.942
988 


62345.943
989 


62345.944
990 


62345.945
991 


62345.946
992 


62345.947
993 


62345.948
994 


62345.949
995 


62345.950
996 


62345.951
997 


62345.952
998 


62345.953
999 


62345.954
1000 


62345.955
1001 


62345.956
1002 


62345.957
1003 


62345.958
1004 


62345.959
1005 


62345.960
1006 


62345.961
1007 


62345.962
1008 


62345.963
1009 


62345.964
1010 


62345.965
1011 


62345.966
1012 

Senator FRANKEN. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Judge Chen, please make an opening statement, if you would 

like, and also introduce your family members who are here. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MILTON CHEN, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Judge CHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not have a formal 

opening statement, but I, too, would join in thanking, first of all, 

both of my home-State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator 

Boxer, for their support and kind words, and particularly Senator 

Feinstein for making the recommendation to the President. And, of 

course, I want to thank President Obama for placing his trust and 

confidence in me in making that nomination, and to you, Mr. 

Chairman, in chairing this meeting and to Ranking Member Sessions for participating in today’s session. So thank you very much. 

I am joined by a portion of my family today. With me from California is my wife of 29 years, Janet; my daughter of 18 years, Tara; 

my brother-in-law, Laurence Lee; my aunt and uncle who have 

traveled all this way to be with me, Robert and Ellen Wong. And 

I am especially proud and privileged to have with me my staff who 

decided to come here, knowing that I am completely useless without them, so they decided to support me, and I appreciate that: 

Leni Doyle, my judicial secretary; Betty Lee, my courtroom deputy; 

and Shao-Bai Wu, my law clerk. 

And if I may, I just want to say a brief word about three people 

who are not here today. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I want to welcome your family, and I 

know exactly how you feel about your staff. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge CHEN. Thank you. I want to mention my son, Luke, who, 

because of his special needs, is not able to make the cross-country 

trip. But he is here in spirit, and I want to state for the record that 

today is his birthday, and so I want to—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Happy birthday, Luke. 

Judge CHEN. Thank you. And I also finally would like to pay 

tribute to my parents. My father came to this country in the 1920’s 

on a visa with nothing more than $20 in his pocket and a suitcase 

full of consigned goods, looking to pursue the American dream. My 

mother came in 1939 from war-torn China to be reunited with her 

family in San Antonio, Texas, from whom she had been separated 

for nearly 20 years. My father worked very hard to provide financial security for my family, and when he became ill and passed 

away when I was very young, my mother was tasked with the burden of raising four boys and running the family business. And although neither of them lived to see this day, their courage, their 

perseverance, their dedication to family, and commitment to the 

community resides with me and continues to inspire me. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Chen appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

[The biographical information of Judge Chen follows.] 

1013 


62345.967
1014 


62345.968
1015 


62345.969
1016 


62345.970
1017 


62345.971
1018 


62345.972
1019 


62345.973
1020 


62345.974
1021 


62345.975
1022 


62345.976
1023 


62345.977
1024 


62345.978
1025 


62345.979
1026 


62345.980
1027 


62345.981
1028 


62345.982
1029 


62345.983
1030 


62345.984
1031 


62345.985
1032 


62345.986
1033 


62345.987
1034 


62345.988
1035 


62345.989
1036 


62345.990
1037 


62345.991
1038 


62345.992
1039 


62345.993
1040 


62345.994
1041 


62345.995
1042 


62345.996
1043 


62345.997
1044 


62345.998
1045 


62345.999
1046 


623451.000
1047 


623451.001
1048 


623451.002
1049 


623451.003
1050 


623451.004
1051 


623451.005
1052 


623451.006
1053 


623451.007
1054 


623451.008
1055 


623451.009
1056 


623451.010
1057 


623451.011
1058 


623451.012
1059 


623451.013
1060 


623451.014
1061 


623451.015
1062 


623451.016
1063 


623451.017
1064 


623451.018
1065 


623451.019
1066 


623451.020
1067 


623451.021
1068 


623451.022
1069 


623451.023
1070 


623451.024
1071 


623451.025
1072 


623451.026
1073 


623451.027
1074 


623451.028
1075 


623451.029
1076 


623451.030
1077 


623451.031
1078 


623451.032
1079 


623451.033
1080 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Judge Chen. 

Ms. Gee, we have met your Mom, but I want to say welcome once 

again and thank you for coming. And any opening statements you 

would like to make, please, now would be a good time. 

STATEMENT OF DOLLY M. GEE, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. GEE. Thank you, Chairman Franken. I would like to thank 

President Obama for nominating me to the Central District court 

bench. I would also like to thank Senators Feinstein and Boxer for 

their support, and Senator Boxer for her kind and gracious introduction. I would also like to thank you, Chairman Franken, and 

Ranking Member Sessions and all of the other members of the Judiciary Committee for considering my application. 

At this time, I would like to introduce once again my mother, 

Helen Gee, who I am blessed to have here with me to experience 

this occasion. 

Senator FRANKEN. Welcome. 

Ms. GEE. And I also would like to introduce other people who 

have come to support me at this hearing from afar: my cousin, Lily 

Lee; three friends of mine who are like sisters to me: Margo 

Feinberg, a partner of mine in my law firm; Kathryn Hirano, from 

Los Angeles; and Betty Bolden. 

Senator FRANKEN. Welcome to you all. 

Ms. GEE. If I may, I would like to also acknowledge some people 

who would like to have been here but could not be here: my husband, Albert Wong, who is watching the live webcast; as well as 

my brother Kelvin and my sister-in-law Kay; and all of my nieces 

and nephews; and members of my law firm who are also watching. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gee appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

[The biographical information of Ms. Gee follows.] 

1081 


623451.034
1082 


623451.035
1083 


623451.036
1084 


623451.037
1085 


623451.038
1086 


623451.039
1087 


623451.040
1088 


623451.041
1089 


623451.042
1090 


623451.043
1091 


623451.044
1092 


623451.045
1093 


623451.046
1094 


623451.047
1095 


623451.048
1096 


623451.049
1097 


623451.050
1098 


623451.051
1099 


623451.052
1100 


623451.053
1101 


623451.054
1102 


623451.055
1103 


623451.056
1104 


623451.057
1105 


623451.058
1106 


623451.059
1107 


623451.060
1108 


623451.061
1109 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Ms. Gee. 

Judge Seeborg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD SEEBORG, TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Judge SEEBORG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also will 

forego an opening statement, but would like to join in some of the 

thank-you’s. 

First of all, I would very much like to thank my home-State Senators, Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and also thank Senator Feinstein for her very kind words, which I appreciate very 

much. 

I would like to express my profound gratitude to President 

Obama for nominating me to this position of very high public trust. 

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for presiding today and 

Senator Sessions also for participating in the hearings and all the 

members of the Judiciary Committee. 

I would like to acknowledge, as have some of my co-nominees, 

some people who are not here: my parents, Ken and Jane Seeborg, 

and my grandparents, Ken and Vivian Sartori. All of them would 

so much have enjoyed being here, but they are with me in spirit. 

I would like to introduce some people who have come with me 

today, several former colleagues and wonderful friends from my 

days in the U.S. Attorney’s Office: Marcia Jensen, Leo 

Cunningham, and their daughter, Alexandra, who is a freshman at 

GW here in Washington. I would also like to introduce my college 

roommate who has come down from Boston, Jonathan Kaufman, 

and his son, Nick Kaufman. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Seeborg appears as a submission for the record.] 

[The biographical information of Judge Seeborg follows.] 

1110 


623451.062
1111 


623451.063
1112 


623451.064
1113 


623451.065
1114 


623451.066
1115 


623451.067
1116 


623451.068
1117 


623451.069
1118 


623451.070
1119 


623451.071
1120 


623451.072
1121 


623451.073
1122 


623451.074
1123 


623451.075
1124 


623451.076
1125 


623451.077
1126 


623451.078
1127 


623451.079
1128 


623451.080
1129 


623451.081
1130 


623451.082
1131 


623451.083
1132 


623451.084
1133 


623451.085
1134 


623451.086
1135 


623451.087
1136 


623451.088
1137 


623451.089
1138 


623451.090
1139 


623451.091
1140 


623451.092
1141 


623451.093
1142 


623451.094
1143 


623451.095
1144 


623451.096
1145 


623451.097
1146 


623451.098
1147 


623451.099
1148 


623451.100
1149 


623451.101
1150 


623451.102
1151 

Senator FRANKEN. Welcome to you all. We will start the questioning now, and I guess I get to start. 

Judge Nguyen, we got to confirm Judge Sotomayor, the first 

Latina Justice of the Supreme Court, and now you are going to be 

the first Vietnamese American woman to be a Federal district court 

judge in the United States, if confirmed. How has this experience 

affected you, being a first? And how does—or has it affected your 

judging? And if so, how has it? 

Judge NGUYEN. When I was fortunate enough to be appointed to 

the State court bench by Governor Gray Davis, I was the first Vietnamese American judge ever appointed to that position, and being 

a first of anything is both a privilege, but also carries with it certain responsibilities. And I take that responsibility very seriously. 

I know and appreciate the fact that I am a role model for so 

many people, not only from the Vietnamese American community 

but also from other communities as well. And in my years as a 

State court judge, I have done what I could in order to mentor and 

guide young people who look to me for guidance and career advice 

and encourage them to participate in the community and to try to 

give back to the community. 

But the process of judging does not change merely by my ethnicity. The law remains the same, and my task as a judge is to 

apply the law to the facts of each case. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Judge Chen, I see that you are part of the pro bono team that 

successfully represented Fred Korematsu in his effort to overturn 

his conviction for failing to report to an internment camp. Can you 

tell us more? It seems like a fascinating case. Can you tell us more 

about the case? 

Judge CHEN. Yes. Well, as you probably know, 110 Japanese 

Americans were interned during World War II out of fear that they 

would commit sabotage or espionage along the West Coast, and 

they were evacuated pursuant to military orders. 

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld in a series of cases both 

the curfew that was imposed on Japanese Americans as well as 

their ultimate internment, even though two-thirds of those were 

American citizens and included children, women, and the elderly, 

none of whom were ever accused of disloyalty, none of whom ever 

were given a hearing. 

Those cases I think live in infamy for many Americans as decisions that were wrongly decided. The coram nobis case in which I 

participated added some new information to that, and that is, what 

was discovered some 40 years after the fact through researchers 

going through the archives was that the United States Justice Department had in its possession a number of documents which contradicted its assertion that the order was necessitated by military 

necessity; that there were, in fact, reports from the FBI, from the 

Office of Naval Intelligence, from the FCC that showed that there 

was not a threat and that the rumors that had been circulated of 

signaling and this sort of thing, in fact, had been investigated and 

found to be unfounded. 

And so once those documents were uncovered, the legal team of 

which I was a part went back to court and petitioned for a writ of 

coram nobis, a little-known writ, to essentially allege that the 

1152 

United States Justice Department had withheld critical evidence, 

material evidence from the court. And it was on that basis that the 

conviction of Mr. Korematsu was overturned. And I think the lesson that we learned from that is the importance of having checks 

and balances and having meaningful judicial review. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Your Honor. 

Ms. Gee, I saw that you currently serve as an arbiter for Kaiser 

Permanente for the independent arbitration system that they 

have—an arbitrator. The job you are about to take is very different. 

Can you speak to how serving as an arbitrator is different than 

serving as a judge? 

Ms. GEE. Serving as an arbitrator is somewhat different in that 

the rules of evidence that would apply in a Federal proceeding 

would not necessarily be applicable. There are certain rules of evidence, but more relaxed with regard to hearsay and other types of 

rules. 

In many respects, however, it is similar. The ability to listen and 

to learn, to dispassionately listen to the parties present the facts 

of their case, and to apply whether it is negligence principles or 

contract interpretation principles to the situation at hand. 

Those are skills that I believe are transferable to a position as 

a U.S. district court judge, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I have used up my time, so I 

apologize to Judge Seeborg. 

Judge SEEBORG. That is quite all right, Senator. 

Senator FRANKEN. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Judge Seeborg, good luck. 

[Laughter.] 

Judge SEEBORG. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. There is some advantage being at the end of 

the table there. 

Judge Nguyen, I have an appreciation for Assistant United 

States Attorneys, having been one before, and I was impressed that 

you headed a 21⁄2-year investigation that led to the arrest of 35 individuals in several countries. That is a big effort when you do 

those kinds of cases. It led to the first successful prosecution in the 

United States for providing material support and resources to a 

designated foreign terrorist in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339. 

Do you believe that material support provision remains an important tool for prosecutors? 

Judge NGUYEN. Well, it is up to the legislature to make the law, 

and whatever the state of the law is, if I am fortunate enough to 

be confirmed, I will faithfully apply it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I certainly agree with that, but as you 

having worked with that statute, did you find it helpful in your 

case to render justice? 

Judge NGUYEN. Well, certainly, when I handled that prosecution, 

given the facts of that case, I obviously thought that it was justified. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I thank you for that good work and believe it is something that you can take pride in. 

1153 

Tell me about your understanding of precedents. Are you committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and 

giving them full force and effect even if you personally were to disagree with those precedents? 

Judge NGUYEN. Absolutely yes, Senator Sessions. That is how I 

have conducted myself as a State trial court judge and how I intend to conduct myself as a United States district court judge, if 

I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. 

Judge Chen, I will ask you the same question. Are you committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and 

giving them full force and effect, even if you personally disagree 

with the precedents or, I will add, the policy results that may occur 

from your ruling? 

Judge CHEN. Absolutely, Senator Sessions. That requirement, of 

course, is part of the rule of law which I respect and which I have 

endeavored to apply. And I think that has particular force with respect to the district court because we are the subordinate court 

within the system, and we take our commands from the circuit 

courts and from the Supreme Court. 

Senator SESSIONS. As a magistrate judge, how did the—is that 

the right word now? 

Judge CHEN. Yes, it is. The magistrate judge is fine. 

Senator SESSIONS. I remember one magistrate judge, I wrote him 

a letter and said, ‘‘Dear Magistrate Judge,’’ he thought that was 

funny. I thought that was the right name. But how are you allowed—various district judges give more or less power and responsibility to magistrate judges. I am of the view generally that they 

should be given responsibility that the law allows for the most 

part. What kind of responsibilities were you given in your court? 

Judge CHEN. Well, I am very fortunate, as Judge Seeborg, my 

colleague, is, to be in the Northern District of California where the 

judges have decided to give the full range of responsibility permissible under Article III of the Constitution to magistrate judges. So 

not only do we hear matters that are assigned to us by the district 

judges, but we have our own caseload. We are on the wheel, and 

our names are drawn when cases are filed. And so long as the parties consent, we have full jurisdiction over the case through disposition. And so it is common for magistrate judges to rule on motions 

to dismiss, summary judgment, to hold trials, and have those matters appeal directly to the Ninth Circuit. 

Senator SESSIONS. In the California Law Review, you wrote this: 

‘‘Diversity enhances the quality of decisionmaking. In addition to 

analyzing and applying the law, judges have to make determinations that draw not so much upon the legal acumen but on the understanding of people and human experiences. Such experiences inform assumptions that affect legal decisions. At trial and in evidentiary hearings, judges have to assess credibility of witnesses. A 

witness’ testimony may seem more credible if it is consistent with 

the judge’s knowledge or experience and, conversely, less credible 

if it remains outside the judge’s experience. Simply put, a judge’s 

lifetime experiences affect the willingness to credit testimony or 

understand the human impact of legal rules upon which the judge 

must decide. These determinations require a judge to draw upon 

1154 

something that is not found in the case, reports that line the walls 

of our chambers; rather, judges draw upon the breadth and depth 

of their own life experiences, upon the knowledge and understanding of people and of human nature, and inevitably one’s ethnic and racial background contribute to those life experiences.’’ 

Does that statement accurately reflect your judicial philosophy? 

Judge CHEN. Well, let me put that in context, if I can, Senator. 

The point I was trying to make in that law review piece was that 

there is a benefit to having a diverse judiciary; that the judgments 

we make, some of those are based on deductive reasoning and analysis of law, and sometimes they are based on more intuitive analysis—judging the witness’ credibility, making a decision with respect to bail or sentencing. That requires an understanding of 

human factors in different—in various contexts. 

And the point I was trying to make is that the broader the 

breadth of experience both for an individual judge and collectively 

as a court, I think the better the ability of judges to make those 

assessments. And I tried to give some illustrations in that piece 

about how the collegiality amongst judges, whether it is a formal 

exchange amongst the members of the Supreme Court or the court 

of appeals or the informal exchange that often happens in the district court, in the hallways and the dining rooms, that we learn 

from each other about various perspectives, different perspectives, 

and life experiences. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you know, the average litigant would be 

nervous if he thought a decision was being made on what you 

judges talked about in the dining hall or in the hallways. I mean, 

the case should be decided, should it not, on the evidence introduced and the law properly applied to that evidence? 

Judge CHEN. No, and I agree with that fully, and I did not mean 

to suggest that cases are decided in a hallway. But—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I am just raising this point because it 

is something we have talked about before. I suppose your experience might help you have insight into a witness’ credibility. Everybody has different experiences, and it might. But I was a little concerned that you say you might understand the human impact of 

legal rules upon which a judge must decide. 

You know, the oath says that a judge should do equal justice to 

the poor and the rich. I assume you would take that oath and intend to follow that. 

Judge CHEN. Absolutely, and I did take that oath when I was 

sworn in as a magistrate judge. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that you would be impartial. 

Judge CHEN. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. I know you served—what—18 years as counsel for the American Civil Liberties—— 

Judge CHEN. Sixteen years, actually. 

Senator SESSIONS. Sixteen. Now, you were on their payroll as 

a—— 

Judge CHEN. As a staff attorney. 

Senator SESSIONS. A staff attorney. Well, you know, the ACLU 

has filed some excellent cases. They have filed some I am not comfortable with. 

Is my time up? 

1155 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, you are right, but I was giving you—in 

my role as Chairman, I was giving you leeway because you are the 

distinguished Ranking Member, and I was torn, frankly. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. But I guess your time is up, and I would—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, one thing Senator Franken always has 

tremendous skill at: timing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I know where Senator Sessions is going, and let me say 

this to him: Judge Chen has been a very fair magistrate judge for 

8 years. I have tested this, because I also am aware he has been 

a fierce advocate prior to that time. And I might have some differences of opinion with some of the things, and I am going to raise 

one in a moment. But, nonetheless, he has been examined by a Republican screening Committee and by a Democratic screening committee for the position of magistrate judge, and everybody has 

found he is fair. 

I would like to just read on this subject one comment of the Coalition of Northern California Asian American Bar Associations, and 

it is this: ‘‘He has made a successful transition from a zealous advocate to a balanced and conscientious adjudicator who is committed to the impartial and active administration of justice. Judge 

Chen has earned a reputation as an even-handed jurist who is constantly mindful of the role that judges fulfill in our society.’’ 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think a person can be a zealous advocate and be a great judge. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. So let me ask a question that takes you back 

a ways, because it was of some concern to me. In 1988, you filed 

a brief challenging Federal railroad regulations that require that 

certain employees be tested for drug use at random. You made 

similar arguments in a series of articles about the same time. As 

I understand it, the Supreme Court disagreed with your position 

and held that these drug tests were, in fact, constitutional. 

So here is the problem—or here is the question, I should say. I 

do not really believe there is a problem. Will you have a problem 

as a district court judge following the Supreme Court’s law in this 

regard or any other? 

Judge CHEN. Absolutely not, Senator. The Supreme Court has 

now ruled in a series of cases on that particular topic, the permissibility or not of drug testing, and the law has now evolved to a 

much clearer point than it was back in 1988. And I take the decisions of the Supreme Court as my command, and I would follow 

those. 

And I would add that in my position as a magistrate judge it is 

common, indeed routine, for us to impose mandatory drug testing 

on pre-trial releasees, on probationers. And I have not had a problem at all, even though one might think that it could be at odds 

with my former advocacy. 

I understand my role as a judge now is entirely different, and my 

task is to apply the law as it is given to us and to the facts of the 

case. 

1156 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, you come very well regarded, and by a 

whole host of varying authorities. And I think you did make that 

transition as advocate to judge. And I think you have 8 years under 

your belt to show that. 

So with this in mind was the reason that I recommended you 

and that your performance as a magistrate judge has been sterling. 

Judge CHEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. And I think you are to be complimented on 

that. 

You know, let me quickly ask this of all of the panelists. I think 

the Ranking Member, Senator Sessions, essentially referred to this. 

We hold precedent as very important and the ability of a judge to 

be cognizant of precedent and to follow it. I would like a comment 

from each of you as to whether you would see yourself as bound 

by legal precedent. Judge Nguyen. 

Judge NGUYEN. Yes, I would absolutely be bound by precedent. 

Sitting as a lower-court judge, that is my obligation. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Judge Chen. 

Judge CHEN. I would, Senator, and I have a fairly lengthy record 

of published opinions now as a magistrate judge. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, you do. 

Judge CHEN. And I think you would see that I adhere to precedent and try to read the precedent as best I can. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Judge Gee. 

Ms. GEE. Not quite ‘‘Judge Gee’’ yet, but—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Oh, I am sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Almost. 

Ms. GEE. If confirmed as a judge, I would most definitely take 

very seriously my obligation to apply the precedent of the circuit 

as well as of the United States Supreme Court. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Judge Seeborg. 

Judge SEEBORG. Senator, I believe I have done that in my tenure 

as a magistrate judge, and I can give you that assurance that, if 

confirmed, I will continue to follow precedent. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Those are my questions. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Sessions. 

Before I adjourn, the Committee has received a number of letters 

from individuals and organizations who are supporting the nominees before us today. Just to name a few, we have a letter from 

the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus in support of 

Judge Nguyen, Judge Chen, and Ms. Gee; testimony from the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association and Asian American 

Justice Center in support of these three nominees; a letter from the 

Asian Pacific Bar of California; and a letter from six Northern California Asian American Bar Associations in support of Judge Chen. 

So, without objection, I would like to submit all these letters and 

testimony for the record. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. I would also like to introduce Chairman Leahy’s opening statement into the record. 

1157 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, briefly, could I ask one more 

question? 

Senator FRANKEN. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. A lot of people have firm views about the 

death penalty. I do not believe a judge should be disqualified or a 

nominee disqualified if they do not support the death penalty but 

if the—it is a lawfully applied penalty. My question is: Do you have 

any personal views such that you would be unwilling to carry out 

a death penalty if it was properly imposed? 

Judge NGUYEN. No, I do not, Senator Sessions. 

Judge CHEN. I do not, Senator Sessions. 

Ms. GEE. I do not, Senator Sessions. 

Judge SEEBORG. I do not, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. Judge Chen, according to the website of the 

ACLU, it believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment and guarantees 

of due process and equal protection. Do you agree with that? 

Judge CHEN. Well, those views are not the views of the Supreme 

Court, and I abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court. And I will 

tell you that I had one death penalty case that I handled as a lawyer. In that case, we did not bring a broad challenge, a sweeping 

challenge. It was very fact specific about the case, the ineffective 

assistance of counsel that this individual had and mistakes that 

were made by the trial judge. So it was a very narrowly focused 

case, and we brought that case to ensure that the person had fair 

process. It was not a broad challenge. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, great attention is provided on those 

cases by the courts, and that is legitimate. But I guess my question 

is: Do you agree with this position of the organization you worked 

for 16 years? 

Judge CHEN. Well, other than that one case, I have never been 

involved in any of the policymaker or any of the broader efforts of 

the ACLU on that issue. And I would affirm again that as a district 

judge I see my role very differently today than as an advocate some 

15 years ago. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. Gee, you were a member, I believe, of the 

ACLU for years, 8 years. Do you agree with that legal position that 

is on their website? 

Ms. GEE. Ranking Member Sessions, I have never been in a policy position or had any active role in the ACLU other than to be 

a member. I take very strongly the position that as a district court 

I would have the obligation to apply the law and that I would set 

aside any personal opinions whatsoever in my faithful adherence to 

the law. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, you know, you voluntarily joined an organization. I usually do not join one I do not agree with. But I 

think it is legitimate to ask those questions. We will submit some 

more questions for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, these are able nominees who I believe have good 

integrity, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask these questions. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Feinstein, any more questions? 

1158 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, in that case, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and the distinguished Ranking Member. I also want 

to thank each of you for your testimony today. You are all very impressive, and I will hold the hearing opening for 1 week for submission of questions for the nominees and other materials. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

1159 


623451.103
1160 


623451.104
1161 


623451.105
1162 


623451.106
1163 


623451.107
1164 


623451.108
1165 


623451.109
1166 


623451.110
1167 


623451.111
1168 


623451.112
1169 


623451.113
1170 


623451.114
1171 


623451.115
1172 


623451.116
1173 


623451.117
1174 


623451.118
1175 


623451.119
1176 


623451.120
1177 


623451.121
1178 


623451.122
1179 


623451.123
1180 


623451.124
1181 


623451.125
1182 


623451.126
1183 


623451.239
1184 


623451.127
1185 


623451.128
1186 


623451.129
1187 


623451.130
1188 


623451.131
1189 


623451.132
1190 


623451.133
1191 


623451.134
1192 


623451.135
1193 


623451.136
1194 


623451.137
1195 


623451.138
1196 


623451.139
1197 


623451.140
1198 


623451.141
1199 


623451.142
1200 


623451.143
1201 


623451.144
1202 


623451.145
1203 


623451.146
1204 


623451.147
1205 


623451.148
1206 


623451.149
1207 


623451.150
1208 


623451.151
1209 


623451.152
1210 


623451.153
1211 


623451.154
1212 


623451.155
1213 


623451.156
1214 


623451.157
1215 


623451.158
1216 


623451.159
1217 


623451.160
1218 


623451.161
1219 


623451.162
1220 


623451.163
1221 


623451.164
1222 


623451.165
1223 


623451.166
1224 


623451.167
1225 


623451.168
1226 


623451.169
1227 


623451.170
1228 


623451.171
1229 


623451.172
1230 


623451.173
1231 


623451.174
1232 


623451.175
1233 


623451.176
1234 


623451.177
1235 


623451.178
1236 


623451.179
1237 


623451.180
1238 


623451.181
1239 


623451.182
1240 


623451.183
1241 


623451.184
1242 


623451.185
1243 


623451.186
1244 


623451.187
1245 


623451.188
1246 


623451.189
1247 


623451.190
1248 


623451.191
1249 


623451.192
1250 


623451.193
1251 


623451.194
1252 


623451.195
1253 


623451.196
1254 


623451.197
1255 


623451.198
1256 


623451.199
1257 


623451.200
1258 


623451.201
1259 


623451.202
1260 


623451.203
1261 


623451.204
1262 


623451.205
1263 


623451.206
1264 


623451.207
1265 


623451.208
1266 


623451.209
1267 


623451.210
1268 


623451.211
1269 


623451.212
1270 


623451.213
1271 


623451.214
1272 


623451.215
1273 


623451.216
1274 


623451.217
1275 


623451.218
1276 


623451.219
1277 


623451.220
1278 


623451.221
1279 


623451.222
1280 


623451.223
1281 


623451.224
1282 


623451.225
1283 


623451.226
1284 


623451.227
1285 


623451.228
1286 


623451.229
1287 


623451.230
1288 


623451.231
1289 


623451.232
1290 


623451.233
1291 


623451.234
1292 


623451.235
1293 


623451.236
1294 


623451.237
1295 

Æ 


623451.238