158189 ELECTRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 

PADUCAH DIVISION 

CASE NO. 3:12-CV-244-CRS 

CONWAY FOR SENATE PLAINTIFF 

PLAINTIFF, CONWAY FOR SENATE’S, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION 

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

VS. IN REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO 

 PLAINTIFF’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION DEFENDANT 

Plaintiff Conway for Senate hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in opposition to the 

Defendant Federal Election Commission’s (hereinafter, “FEC”) Motion for Summary Judgment, and in 

Reply to the FEC’s opposition to Plaintiff’s own Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant’s 

memorandum to this Court all but confirms Conway for Senate’s position that the FEC’s assessment of a 

$4,950 fine for alleged failure to file a campaign finance report was arbitrary and capricious as the record 

before the FEC contains directly contradictory information rendering any conclusion against Plaintiff de 

facto arbitrary and capricious. The FEC states in the first paragraph of its brief, “The administrative 

record on which the [FEC] based its decision, however, shows that the report at issue was not included in 

the FedEx envelope—an envelope whose contents were extensively and contemporaneously documented 

upon receipt.” (Record Entry No. 16, p. 1). The FEC’s argument essentially boils down to this: the 

Secretary of the Senate’s Office could not possibly have committed any error when it contemporaneously 

documented the contents of the FedEx package it “received” from Conway for Senate on January 28, 

2011—a full two days after Federal Express actually delivered the package. Continuing: because of this 

infallibility, it is not arbitrary and capricious for the FEC to fine Conway for Senate even though the 

Conway campaign submitted multiple sworn affidavits indicating that the report in question was in fact 

sent to the Secretary of the Senate on January 25, 2011. This conclusion is untenable, and it should not 

stand as the basis of a civil fine of this magnitude in light of the entire administrative record. The FEC’s 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 263
2

Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied, and Plaintiff Conway for Senate’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment should be granted. 

BRIEF COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS 

 On February 17, 2011, the FEC sent a non-filer notice to Conway for Senate. AR001. The 

FEC’s Communication Log indicates that on March 10, 2011, at 10:28 a.m., Ms. Paula Paisley, an 

employee of the accounting firm employed by Conway for Senate for FEC reporting and compliance, 

contacted the FEC. AR037. The FEC’s notation states as follows: 

Ms. Paisley called regarding an RQ7 sent to the Committee for the 2010 YE Report. She 

said she filed the report and has a certified-mail receipt confirming delivery. I told her 

the report is not showing up and requested she re-send a copy of it. I also advised her to 

include a copy of the mail receipt she has from the first filing with a notice indicating this 

is the second filing of the 2010 YE report. She said that she will do as I requested. 

Id. 

The FEC admits in Section II of its Memorandum that the Conway for Senate campaign, after 

receiving the FEC’s non-filer notice and after Ms. Paisley’s call with the FEC on March 10, 2011, filed its 

year-end report on March 10, 2011. AR001; AR004. Because the report was filed more than 30 days 

after the due date the report was deemed “not filed” under the Commission’s regulations for non-election 

sensitive reports. 

On March 30, before undertaking any administrative inquiry or investigation with the Secretary 

of the Senate, but after Ms. Paisley’s March 10, 2011 call evidencing the Conway campaign’s belief that 

the document was timely filed, the FEC’s staff recommended that the Commission (1) find reason to 

believe that the Conway for Senate campaign and its treasurer had “not filed” its year-end report; and (2) 

assess an administrative fine of $4,950.00. AR002-007. On April 1, 2011, the full Commission 

approved this recommendation, and on April 4, 2011, the FEC notified the Conway for Senate campaign 

of its reason-to-believe finding via letter. AR017; AR024-027. 

On April 20, 2011, Mr. Stratton called the FEC in response to the April 4 letter. The notation in 

the FEC’s Communication Log is as follows: 

Mr. Stratton called regarding the RTB letter for AF 2414. He stated that they did not 

believe their 2010 YE report was late and they had provided tracking information from 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 264
3

FedEx that it had been delivered timely. I stated that the Senate is the office who actually 

receives the reports and they notify us as to whether or not the report has been filed. He 

stated that they sent in a copy of the 2010 YE report and a copy of the tracking info when 

they received the notice. I advised him that as of this date, the 2010 YE report they stated 

was originally sent was not received. I noted that the other reports were received on that 

day with the same tracking info as they referenced but there was no YE report. He stated 

they were sent separately. I gave him the contact number for the Secretary of the Senate 

and advised him that we are notified by them before we send notices of failure to file. I 

gave him my contact info. 

AR037. 

On May 4, 2011, R. Wayne Stratton, treasurer to the Conway for Senate campaign, submitted a 

written protest of the FEC’s reason to believe determination. AR028-033. Included within this protest 

submission were the FedEx receipts evidencing shipment from Marie Johnson of the accounting firm of 

Jones, Nale & Mattingly to the Senate Office of Public Records. AR031-034. In addition, Ms. Johnson 

submitted a sworn affidavit, dated May 5, 2011, in which she stated as follows: 

On January 25, 2011, I was given a set of reports on the campaign of Conway for Senate 

to be shipped to the Senate Office of Public Records. This included three responses to 

inquiries and amended report as well as one original year-end report of receipts and 

disbursements covering the period from November 23, 2010 through December 31, 2010. 

The reports and letters were packaged in a Federal Express envelope and shipped priority 

overnight to the Senate Office of Public Records on January 25, 2011. Tracking 

confirmation shows the package was delivered and signed for on January 26, 2011. 

Copies of the documents in question, Fed Ex shipping label, and delivery confirmation 

report and recipient signature are included with this statement. 

AR 029. 

 Thus, as of May 5, 2011, all that had occurred in the administrative inquiry into the alleged nonfiling on the Conway for Senate year-end report was that (1) the FEC realized it did not have a timely 

copy filed, but had yet to make any inquiry of the Secretary of the Senate; and (2) the Conway for Senate 

campaign submitted a sworn affidavit stating that it did in fact include said report in a January 25, 2011 

Fed Ex shipment to the Senate Office of Public Records. Id. As of May 5, 2011, the administrative 

record stood in the proverbial he-said, he-said posture: the FEC contended that the year-end report had 

not been filed and the Conway for Senate campaign submitted sworn statements and FedEx receipts in 

support of its position that the report had been filed. 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 265
4

 It wasn’t until June 20, 2011, approximately two and a half months after transmitting the notice of 

non-filer letter to the Conway for Senate Campaign on April 4, 2011, that the FEC’s Reviewing Officer, 

Ms. Dayna Brown, sent a letter to the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. AR050. So, some 75 days 

after putting the Conway campaign on notice that it did not file its alleged year-end report, the FEC 

actually made the effort to check in with the entity actually tasked under federal law with receiving said 

reports. Id.; 2 U.S.C. 432(g)(1). It is also noteworthy that on April 20, 2011, FEC analyst Sari Pickerall 

represented to Mr. Stratton, treasurer for Conway for Senate, that the FEC is “notified” by the Secretary 

of the Senate before sending notices of failure to file. AR037. This does not seem to be the case here, as 

Ms. Brown did not even make formal inquiry of the Senate until June 20, 2011, well after the failure to 

file notice was transmitted to the Conway campaign. Ms. McCallum’s June 22, 2011, response indicated 

that her office received the Conway campaign’s Fed Ex envelope on January 28, 2011, and the envelope 

contained five different reports, but not the year-end report. AR051. FedEx receipts indicate that the 

Senate received the Conway campaign’s envelope on January 26, 2011, yet the Senate’s representative 

indicated it was received on January 28, 2011. AR031; AR051. 

The FEC placed great weight on the Conway campaign’s alleged inconsistent statements made 

during the Commission’s “investigation” and the campaign’s failure to file supportive documentation, 

despite the fact that the campaign provided sworn affidavits and Fed Ex receipts: 

Given the Committee representative’s indication on March 10 that the Year End report 

was sent via certified mail; the Treasurer’s indication on April 20 that the Year end report 

was sent separately from the amendments filed via FedEx on January 25 and therefore 

separate from the tracking information provided in the challenge; and the Senate 

Superintendent’s confirmation that the January 25 FedEx receipt shipment did not 

include the Year End Report, the respondents failed to provide documentation supporting 

the timely filing of the Year End Reports. 

AR062. 

ARGUMENT 

The FEC’s Memorandum ultimately confirms Conway for Senate’s argument: the factual record 

is contradictory and muddled, and the FEC placed much emphasis on hearsay transcriptions of phone 

calls between its own staff and agents of the Conway campaign and a very strained assessment of the 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 266
5

Conway campaign’s “inconsistent” positions. Furthermore, the best efforts safe harbor is applicable if 

one considers Senate negligence as a reasonably unforeseen circumstance. The Conway for Senate 

campaign contends that this argument was not waived during the administrative review as it was 

constructively made again and again by repeated protestations of campaign agents that the year-end report 

had in fact been timely sent. The FEC’s finding and penalty assessment was arbitrary and capricious and 

based on a record containing facts in favor of both parties. The FEC chose to fine a campaign and a 

treasurer with no prior infractions, almost in spite of evidence indicating the Conway campaign had in 

fact sent in the required year-end report. 

Obviously, agency decisions are given deference by reviewing courts. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. 

Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S 837, 844 (1984). But agency decisions, like the FEC’s decision 

in the case at bar, can be overturned if they are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 

not in accordance with the law.” Id.; 5 U.S.C. s706(2)(A). In making an assessment of whether an 

agency decision was arbitrary or capricious, the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for 

that of the agency, but it should look at the underlying facts to see if there was a clear error in judgment. 

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Vople, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). The court’s evaluation of 

the record of an agency’s action should include an assessment of whether the agency decision is 

supported by substantial evidence. 5 U.S.C. s706(2)(E); T-Mobile Cent., LLC v. Charter Twp. Of W. 

Bloomfield, 691 F.3d 794, 798 (6th Cir. 2012). 

a. The FEC’s Administrative Finding is Not Supported by Substantial Evidence and is 

Arbitrary and Capricious. 

 The FEC’s determination in this case is not supported by substantial evidence. The record is split 

right down the middle in a proverbial he-said, he-said, and the FEC chose to side with itself to the 

detriment of the Conway for Senate campaign. The FEC places great weight on its own cursory notes of 

calls with agents for the Conway campaign—clearly unilateral descriptions of telephonic conversations in 

which the Conway campaign had no oversight. The fact that one FEC analysis colloquially noted that 

Ms. Paisley indicated the package was sent by certified-mail in the March 10, 2011 call note (AR037) 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 267
6

seems to have taken on a disproportionate magnitude of importance in the FEC’s assessment of the 

Conway campaign’s credibility. The empirical fact is that the campaign sent the reports via Federal 

Express and provided corroborating documentary evidence. The mere fact that an FEC staffer 

inaccurately reflected a discussion with Ms. Paisley does not negate the objective truth that Conway 

agents sent the documents by Fed Ex. This is but one example of the FEC arbitrarily and summarily 

brushing aside relevant facts. 

 What the FEC seems to want to avoid discussing, but is perhaps at the very crux of this dispute, is 

the possibility that agents of the U.S. Senate may have erroneously processed the contents of the envelope 

received from Conway for Senate. In fact, this conclusion is just as plausible as the FEC’s conclusion 

that the Conway campaign failed to file. On March 30, 2011, before undertaking any administrative 

inquiry or investigation with the Secretary of the Senate, but after Ms. Paisley’s March 10, 2011 call 

evidencing the Conway campaign’s belief that the document was timely filed, the FEC’s staff 

recommended that the Commission 1) find reason to believe that the Conway for Senate campaign and its 

treasurer had “not filed” its year-end report; and (2) assess an administrative fine of $4,950. AR002-007. 

Accordingly to the FEC, the Senate reported that it had not received the Conway campaign’s end-of-year 

filing on February 16, 2011. More specifically, the Senate Office of Public Records alleged: “Raymond 

Davis of our staff communicated with FEC employee Chris Ritchie on February 16, 2011 and indicated at 

that time that OPR had not received the Conway for Senate 2010 Year End Report.” AR051. But no 

objective document corroborating this alleged communication exists in the administrative record; this fact 

is in only the record via the June 22, 2011, letter statement of Superintendent of the Senate Secretary’s 

Office of Public Records Ms. Dana McCallum. 

But the Senate, as Plaintiff pointed out in its original briefing on this matter, is not infallible. See 

generally, Greenwood for Congress, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission, CIV.A. 03-0307 WL 

22096125 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2003). The Senate is on record indicating that it received the Conway for 

Senate Fed Ex delivery on January 28, 2011 when Fed Ex delivery receipts indicate it was delivered on 

January 26, 2011. AR051; AR032. Two full business days transpired before the envelope was 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 268
7

inventoried by the appropriate agency. Is it not possible in that two-day period, as the envelope traveled 

from the Senate Sergeant at Arms to the Senate Office of Public Records, a portion of contents may have 

been removed from the envelope in error and never replaced? The FEC did not seem interested enough to 

find out. But in lieu of a diligent investigation, the FEC prefers that the Conway for Senate campaign be 

tagged with a black-eye of non-compliance and a monetary fine, and the possibility that any one of three 

entities that handled the reports may have been it fault is simply a non-starter. In Greenwood, the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania found it of great weight that the FEC presented no evidence, including 

affidavits of any kind, to disprove the idea that its own personnel could have lost the report, yet in turn 

disregarded the sworn affidavits submitted by the campaign. Greenwood, at 3. The court held that 

because the FEC’s administrative finding was based on “apparently nothing more than a belief in the 

infallibility of their procedures and employees,” the FEC’s finding was arbitrary and capricious. Id. It’s 

difficult to see how the Greenwood court’s prescient analysis does not apply to the instant case. The 

Senate submitted no sworn affidavits addressing the custody and control of the Conway for Senate Fed 

Ex envelope over the course of two-day delay in inventorying the delivery. On the other hand, the 

Conway for Senate campaign submitted significant evidence in support of its position which the FEC 

arbitrarily ignored: Stratton mailed three separate letters to the FEC insisting the report had been mailed 

timely; both he and Ms. Paisley held phone calls with FEC staff, contemporaneous to the time of the 

dispute, insisting that the report had been filed; the office manager and a secretary submitted sworn 

affidavits confirming they had printed out and overnighted the year-end report; the office manager 

confirmed this in a logged phone conversation; the campaign produced an email from a campaign staffer 

showing that the year-end report was transmitted to Jones, Nale and Mattingly for filing with the FEC; 

and the campaign provided the FedEx tracking receipts. 

The Commission’s finding that the Conway campaign failed to timely file its 2010 year-end 

report is simply not a reasonable determination based on the administrative record. The Reviewing 

Officer’s recommendations omitted certain key facts. Furthermore, she placed disproportionate emphasis 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 269
8

on hearsay statements of witnesses and little weight on the sworn affidavits submitted by the Conway for 

Senate campaign. 

In its Memorandum, the FEC argues that its Reviewing Officer took reasonable steps to 

investigate whether the Senate received Conway’s year-end report in January 2011. This assertion is 

laughable. The FEC Reviewing Officer admits to contacting the Senate representatives after a “reason to 

believe” letter was sent to the Conway for Senate campaign. A fine was assessed and a letter transmitted 

to Mr. Stratton on April 4, 2011 asking for remittance of that fine. To be clear: absolutely no 

investigation took place with respect to the Senate before this letter was mailed to Conway for Senate. 

Ms. Brown submitted her affidavit on June 29, 2011, a full three months after the FEC assessed the fine 

on the campaign. AR085. The FEC’s representation that an investigation preceded its determination to 

assess a fine is flat out false, and, according to the FEC, this non-investigation is the “primary piece” of 

evidence on which the Reviewing Officer relied to establish that the Commission’s determination was 

reasonable. (Record Entry #16, at 11). 

The FEC argues that its second reason for affirming its finding of a non-filing was that the 

Conway campaign gave “shifting and inconsistent explanations about the mailing of the year-end report.” 

(Record Entry No. 16-1, p. 11). The FEC credits its own analyst’s ad hoc description of a phone call on 

March 10, 2011 in reaching its conclusion. The analyst on the call noted that Ms. Paisley represented she 

sent the documents via certified mail. But that is an unverifiable description of a conversation between 

two parties; it’s not a sworn statement. This is hearsay—and the record is indisputable that the 

documents were sent via Federal Express. The FEC then states that Mr. Stratton claimed the year-end 

report was sent “separately,” again citing an FEC analyst’s ad hoc description of a phone call with Mr. 

Stratton on April 20, 2011—another unsworn, hearsay statement which Mr. Stratton denies ever making. 

AR113. Next the FEC argues that the sworn affidavit of Ms. Johnson should be discounted because she 

stated that the reports “were packaged,” and that this verb tense does not confirm that she in fact 

personally packaged the reports herself into the FedEx envelope. AR064. This is just silliness: Ms. 

Johnson’s affidavit starts out: “I was given a set of reports...to be shipped [...],” and the FedEx receipt 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 270
9

bears her name. Id. The FEC is really grasping here. This verb tense parsing and out-of-context excerpt 

is what it cites as the third most critical fact in assessing the credibility of the Conway campaign. The 

FEC hangs it hat on two hearsay statements recollected by its own employees informally summarizing 

phone conversations, and a verb tense “gotcha” taken out of context from the sworn affidavit of a Conway 

campaign agent. These “facts” serve as the basis for a $4,950 fine against a campaign with no prior 

record of non-compliance and ample evidence that the year-end report was in fact sent is arbitrary and 

capricious. 

This administrative “finding” is a sham and unreasonably ignores facts in the record supportive of 

the Conway for Senate campaign. The factual record in this case is mixed, with ample evidence 

submitted in support of Conway’s position. For the FEC to ignore this evidence is de facto arbitrary and 

capricious. The FEC is doubling down now that the Conway campaign has brought suit to clear its 

reputation. 

b. Conway for Senate’s Best Efforts Argument is Not New and Sustains Relief from this 

Administrative Finding and Fine. 

 In Plaintiff’s initial brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, it raised the argument 

of the “best efforts” defense housed in Section 432(i) of the Federal Election Campaign Act: 

When the treasurer of a political committee shows that the best efforts have been used to 

obtain, maintain, and submit the information required by this Act for the political 

committee, any report or records of such committee shall be considered in compliance 

with this Act. 

 

2 U.S.C. s 432(i); see also 11 C.F.R. s 104.7(a). 

 According to the FEC’s own “Statement of Policy Regarding Treasurers Best Efforts to Obtain, 

Maintain, and Submit Information as Required by the Federal Election Campaign Act,” in order to show 

that the campaign made best efforts, the campaign must demonstrate it took relevant precautions, that the 

campaign had trained employees who knew how to submit information in accordance with the Act and 

that the failure was the result of reasonably unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the 

committee, and that after discovering the failure the campaign filed the relevant reports as soon as 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 271
10

possible. 72 FR 31438-01. Inexperience or negligence of the campaign staff, failure of computers, or a 

lack of knowledge of filing deadlines do not qualify under the best efforts standard. Id. 

 The FEC responds to Conway’s attempt to defend on best efforts grounds that the campaign in 

essence waived this defense because the campaign did not make it at the time appropriate under its 

practice, citing the case of Cunningham v. FEC. Civ. No. IP-01-0897-C-B/S, 2002 WL 31431557, at p. 4 

(S.D. Ind. Oct. 28, 2002). Conway for Senate replies that it constructively made a best efforts argument 

throughout its interaction with the FEC during the review of its assessed fine. The campaign submitted 

sufficient evidence that it prepared the year-end report on time, including affidavits from Ms. Paisley and 

Ms. Johnson, and an email from campaign employee Nick Braden. AR116-117. This evidence also 

confirms that the campaign took precautions to maintain compliance with federal reporting obligations. 

Mr. Stratton indicated in his communications with the FEC that he had significant experience as a 

campaign treasurer and had never been found non-compliant prior, and in fact the FEC well knows that 

the Conway for Senate campaign had no prior incident of non-compliance. The Conway for Senate 

campaign was, in all of its communications with the FEC, essentially saying that this failure occurred due 

to unforeseen circumstances beyond its control: it prepared and sent the year-end report timely via FedEx, 

and for some reasonably unforeseen reason—somewhere in the chain of custody—it was not received by 

the Senate or the FEC. The campaign sent the report. The FEC did not receive the report. Res ispa 

loquitor—the thing speaks for itself: something unforeseen occurred that prevented a proper filing of the 

report after the campaign shipped it via Fed Ex. And as soon as the campaign learned that the report was 

not received, it re-sent it on March 10, 2011. 

 The FEC notes that reasonably unforeseen safe harbors include the systemic failures of a 

breakdown of its computer system or software, widespread internet outages or severe weather incidents. 

And indeed, 11 C.F.R. s 111.35(d) expressly excludes negligence as a reasonably unforeseen 

circumstance to which a safe harbor would apply. But the negligence this regulation refers to is the 

committee’s negligence—i.e., Conway for Senate’s negligence. In all of the communications with the 

FEC, and in the administrative record as a whole, it is readily apparent that the Conway campaign was not 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 272
11

negligent in its effort to file this report timely. What the Conway for Senate campaign has been arguing, 

first impliedly in its interactions with the FEC, and now directly in this very memo, is that the possible 

negligence of a third party that resulted in this error: at some point after the Conway for Senate campaign 

sent the report via Fed Ex, someone in the chain of custody was negligence and caused the report to not 

be filed. 

 Conway for Senate never waived its best efforts defense, as it protested throughout its 

interactions with the FEC that it had in fact sent the report timely—i.e., made its best efforts—and that 

something occurred beyond the control of Conway for Senate that prevented the formal filing. As soon as 

Conway for Senate learned that the FEC had not received the report, it re-sent the year-end report that it 

had already prepared immediately (which was therefore able to be sent immediately). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the FEC’s administrative finding should be determined by this Court to 

be arbitrary and capricious. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and the 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DENTON & KEULER, LLP 

P.O. Box 929 

Paducah, KY 42002-0929 

Tel. No.: (270) 443-8253 

Fax No.: (270) 442-6000 

 

By: /s/ Glenn D. Denton ______________________ 

Glenn D. Denton 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 273
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using 

the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of March, 2013, which will send a notice of electronic filing of the 

above to all counsel of record as follows: 

ANTHONY HERMAN 

DAVID KOLKER 

LISA STEVENSON 

ADAV NOTI 

BENJAMIN A STREETER III 

999 E STREET NW 

WASHINGTON DC 20463 

Attorneys for Defendant

By: /s/ Glenn D. Denton 

 Glenn D. Denton 

Case 3:12-cv-00244-CRS-JDM Document 18 Filed 03/15/13 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 274