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

77–159 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–648 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT D. OKUN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT D. OKUN TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

NOVEMBER 20, 2012 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

CHRISTINE K. WEST, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 

the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 9 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 1 

Robert D. Okun to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 11 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF ROBERT D. OKUN 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will now come to order. 

Aloha and welcome to everyone here today. The Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs meets to consider 

the nomination of Robert Okun to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. 

I am always happy to see my good friend from the District of Columbia who is here to introduce our nominee. I would like to welcome her with much aloha to this Committee. I tell you, Congresswoman Norton, it has really been a great pleasure to work with 

you. You have helped D.C. so much over the years. It is not a bad 

word, but she is a legend in D.C. 

So, Congresswoman Norton, will you please proceed with your introduction. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you, Senator Akaka. It is you who 

have done so much for the District of Columbia and for our country 

over the years, and I cannot thank you enough for that, as I do 

every time when I come, but especially this year. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Today, I am here to introduce Robert Okun for a 

seat on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

Now, Mr. Okun is particularly well qualified for that seat, in my 

judgment. He has a very well-rounded legal career, much of it 

spent in the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in the District of Columbia. 

He currently is the Chief of the Special Proceedings Division of 

that office, where he oversees all post-conviction motions. That is 

like the motion to vacate sentences, for example, and many other 

similar motions. He has been Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney for 

Operations, and that post gave him oversight over all the litigating 

divisions of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

2 

Mr. Okun has spent 21 years in criminal litigation, including 14 

years as a supervisor for other attorneys in criminal litigation. He 

has many years in civil litigation. He was a trial attorney in the 

Fraud Section of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. 

He has served for 6 years, in addition, as a hearing officer for 

our own District of Columbia Board of Professional Responsibilities, which hears allegations against members of the District of 

Columbia Bar. 

Now, Mr. Okun should know the Superior Court well, for he 

clerked on that court for Associate Judge Frank Schwelb. 

Mr. Okun is a graduate of Harvard Law School, Cum Laude, and 

the University of Pennsylvania, Magna Cum Laude. 

I am very pleased to recommend him highly to you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate your hearing him today. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman 

Norton. As I said, I have thought of you as the one who has done 

so much for the District of Columbia. You know that I am retiring 

in a few weeks, so this will be our last nomination hearing together. You have been a great partner in our work to improve the 

District and have been, what else can I say, a zealous advocate for 

its residents for 22 years, and I am still counting. I want to thank 

you for all you have done and wish you well in the work that is 

ahead of you. 

We understand that you have a busy schedule, and I appreciate 

your being here today. But I want to reach out and say, God bless 

you and your family and wish you well in all you do. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you, Mr. Akaka, and your decision to 

leave your service here in the Senate leaves for the District of Columbia a hole in our heart and a big hole in the chair where you 

sit. Thank you very much. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. I wish you well. 

After hearing Congresswoman Norton and reading about him, I 

believe that our nominee is well-qualified and will join the others 

who have appeared before us in making valuable contributions to 

the D.C. bench. I recognize some of you here today. 

Mr. Okun is Chief of the Special Proceedings Division of the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, and he is a dedicated 

public servant with years of criminal and civil law experience. 

Mr. Okun, I understand that, and looking at the number of people here, your family and friends are here. I would like to give you 

an opportunity to introduce them at this time to the Committee. 

Mr. OKUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to introduce the members of my family who are here 

today: My father-in-law, Irving Korostoff; my mother-in-law, Ethel 

Korostoff; my cousin, David Okun, and his wife, Sheila Reiser 

Okun, and their son, Justin Okun; my sister, Ellen Okun, and my 

brother-in-law, Donald Zack; my niece, Elizabeth Zack, and my 

nephew, Andrew Zack; my son, Eli, and my daughter, Julia; and 

last but not least, my wife, Sue, who has been my biggest source 

of support and guidance during the entire judicial nomination process. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I know we have 

other judges here, and I look upon them as supporters of your nomination. 

3 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Okun appears in the Appendix on page 10. 

Without question, I know that your loved ones are very proud of 

your accomplishments and your nomination to the D.C. Superior 

Court. I am sure that they will continue to be a source of support 

as you embark on this new chapter of your career. 

Our nominee has filed responses to a biographical and financial 

questionnaire submitted to him by the Committee. Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with 

the exception of the financial data, which will be kept on file and 

made available for public inspection in the Committee office. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath. Therefore, at this time, 

I ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. OKUN. I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Please note for the record that the 

witness answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Okun, it is great to have you here. We would like to hear 

from you, so please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. OKUN 1 TO BE AN ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. OKUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

appear before you today as you consider my nomination to be an 

Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

I would like to thank the Judicial Nomination Commission and 

its Chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the 

White House, and I would like to thank President Obama for nominating me. I also would like to thank Congresswoman Norton for 

taking the time out of her busy schedule to introduce me at the 

hearing today. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation 

to the Committee Members and to the Committee staff for their 

hard work and for considering my nomination so expeditiously. 

I have already introduced the members of my family who are 

here today, and I am grateful that they could be here with me on 

this occasion. But I also would like to recognize two people who are 

not here with me today, and that is my late parents, Bill and Judy 

Okun, who would be very pleased to see me sitting here today and 

without whom I would not be sitting here. 

Finally, I would like to acknowledge Chief Judge Lee Satterfield 

of the Superior Court, Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court, and my many friends and colleagues, some of whom are 

here today, and to thank them for all their support and kindness 

over the years. 

My entire career has been devoted to public service, and the majority of my career has been specifically dedicated to serving the 

people of the District of Columbia. In fact, I started my legal career 

as a judicial law clerk in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, serving as a law clerk for the Hon. Frank E. Schwelb, who, 

I am happy to say, is in attendance at today’s hearing. 

4 

I also spent a significant portion of my career as a consumer protection attorney, first at the Federal Trade Commission, and then 

at the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Last but not least, I have served as a prosecutor for almost 19 

years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, litigating a wide variety of cases in both Superior Court and the U.S. 

District Court. 

It would be a privilege and an honor for me to continue my public service and my commitment to the citizens of the District of Columbia as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court. 

Thank you again for considering my nomination, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Okun. 

I will begin with the standard questions this Committee asks of 

all nominees, and I would like you to answer each question. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. OKUN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, 

that would prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the 

responsibilities of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. OKUN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. OKUN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for those answers. 

I have a few questions. First, I want to commend you for seeking 

this nomination to continue a life of public service, which you said 

you are committed to. Why would you like to become an Associate 

Judge at this point in your career, and what contributions do you 

hope to make if you are confirmed? 

Mr. OKUN. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons I would 

like to become an Associate Judge at this point in my career, but 

the main one is that it would give me the opportunity to make a 

difference in people’s lives on a daily basis. And there are many careers that give you that sort of opportunity, including my current 

career as a prosecutor. But I think the opportunities I would have 

as a judge are so much broader and so much more extensive because a judge makes so many decisions each and every day that affect people’s lives, and not just in the criminal law context, but in 

the civil context and in probate and tax cases and in the Family 

Court, where a judge is often called upon to decide what is in the 

best interest of a child. 

So I think the main reason that I would like to become an Associate Judge of the Superior Court at this stage in my career is that 

it would give me a broader range of opportunities to make a difference in people’s lives on a daily basis, and that is a challenge 

I am very much looking forward to. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I think that is a great challenge. 

Mr. Okun, as an Associate Judge, you would be challenged to 

rule on complex issues, both quickly and correctly. Please describe 

how your experience qualifies you to confront this challenge. 

5 

Mr. OKUN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a challenge 

to rule on issues quickly and correctly, given the volume of the 

caseload in the Superior Court. But I think there are a number of 

things in my background that would help me meet that challenge. 

First, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, 

I have spent a lot of time in the courtroom, and I am used to making decisions quickly and thinking on my feet, and I think that 

those traits would help me if I were a trial judge in the Superior 

Court. 

Second, as the Chief of the Special Proceedings Division, I supervise a division that receives over 1,000 motions every year, so I am 

very used to the high-volume practice that many Superior Court 

judges have to handle, as well. 

And third, I have had experience as an impartial decision maker 

based on my tenure as a member of a hearing committee for the 

Board on Professional Responsibility, where I presided over hearings involving alleged attorney misconduct, ruled on motions, ruled 

on evidentiary objections, and ultimately wrote reports and recommendations concerning the attorneys’ liability and recommended 

sanctions. And I think that that experience would translate very 

well into some of the tasks that I would have to deal with if I were 

appointed and confirmed as a Superior Court Judge. 

So I think even though it would be a challenge to rule on issues 

both quickly and correctly, given the volume of cases I might see, 

that my experience would help me meet that challenge. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Okun, as you mentioned, judges must often 

handle heavy caseloads. Please describe how you would balance the 

need to move efficiently through cases while ensuring that all cases 

receive thoughtful consideration. 

Mr. OKUN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I agree that it is a challenge to 

balance the interest in moving your caseload efficiently with the interest in making sure that you are resolving cases carefully and 

thoroughly. And I think that there are a number of things that a 

judge should do to balance those competing interests. 

Ultimately, a judge’s job is to get it right, no matter how long 

it takes. But at the same time, there are a number of things a 

judge can do in making decisions that can increase the efficiency 

of the decision without adversely affecting the accuracy of the decision, and I think the primary thing that a judge can do to balance 

those competing interests is to be prepared—to be prepared before 

you go to court, to know the case before you go to court—because 

if the judge is prepared and the parties are prepared, I think it is 

much more likely that you will be able to manage your caseload efficiently and reach the right result. 

Senator AKAKA. Mr. Okun, as a judge, people who do not fully 

understand the law or procedure may appear before you. How has 

your experience prepared you to deal with these types of litigants? 

Mr. OKUN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that the challenge of 

dealing with pro se litigants is one of the biggest challenges that 

the Superior Court faces because there are many pro se litigants 

in Superior Court. Fortunately, I do have a good deal of experience 

in dealing with pro se litigants because in the division that I supervise, the majority of motions that we receive are filed by pro se litiVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:54 Dec 13, 2012 Jkt 77159 PO 00000 Frm 000009 Fmt 06633 Sfmt 06633 P:\DOCS\77159.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

gants. So I am very familiar with both the claims and the concerns 

that are often raised by pro se litigants. 

At the same time, I recognize that there is a big difference between the challenge that I currently face as an attorney and the 

challenge that I would face if I were a Superior Court judge, and 

again, the challenge is balancing competing interests. It is balancing the interest in making sure that a pro se litigant is not unfairly taken advantage of by an opposing party who has a lawyer 

and at the same time making sure that you are not giving an unfair advantage to a pro se litigant. And that is a difficult balancing 

act. 

And I think that the way a judge can try to address those competing interests is by, first, patiently and carefully explaining both 

the rules and the procedures that a pro se litigant has to follow before any proceeding, by explaining any rulings that I would make 

in terms that a pro se litigant could understand, and ultimately by 

presiding over the trial or the hearing in a fair and impartial manner. 

Now, I know that is easier said than done, but I think my experience in dealing with pro se litigants would give me something of 

a head start in meeting that challenge. 

And finally, I do want to point out that the Superior Court has 

many resource centers that are designed to provide help to pro se 

litigants who bring cases to court, and I would certainly encourage 

pro se litigants to utilize those resource centers, as well. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Mr. Okun, I want to thank you so much for your responses. This 

will be my final question. You have appeared before a number of 

judges and have no doubt learned a great deal by observing different styles and temperaments. Please describe how you would 

manage a courtroom, including things you want to emulate and 

avoid. 

Mr. OKUN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I served as the Chair of the Judicial Evaluation Committee for the D.C. Bar, which is a committee 

that solicits input from attorneys and solicits their input on various 

judges in both Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals and 

asks them their opinions about the judges on various traits and 

qualities. And the quality that I think stands out more than any 

other and that attorneys seem to care about more than any other 

is a judge’s temperament, is whether the judge treats people fairly 

and with dignity and respect. And I agree that one of the most important things that a good judge can do is to be fair, even-handed, 

and to treat parties with dignity and respect. 

The other thing that I think is very important for any judge who 

wants to have a successful career is to be prepared and to be prepared not only in the courtroom, but before you get to the courtroom, so that the parties and the witnesses are not wasting time 

while you try to get up to speed in the courtroom. 

So I think both a judge’s temperament and a judge’s hard work 

and preparation are the two most important characteristics of a 

good judge and are qualities that I would try to emulate if I were 

to be appointed as a Superior Court judge. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

7 

There are no further questions at this time. There may be, however, additional questions for the record, which will be submitted 

to you in writing. The hearing record will remain open until the 

close of business tomorrow for members of this Committee to submit additional statements or questions. 

I want to say a special thank you or mahalo to your family and 

friends who are with us today. As you know, the love and support 

of those around us enables us to accomplish great things, so we 

should be thankful for all that they do for us and with us. 

I want you to know that I hope this Committee and the Senate 

will be able to act quickly on your nomination. 

I want to wish all of you well, and because this is a special time 

of the year, I want to say happy Thanksgiving to you, your family, 

and your friends. Ours is a great country, and for us to take time 

off to give thanks is important to our spirit, so I am glad we take 

the time to do so. 

Again, our families are important. After the hearing, I want to 

come and say hello to you directly. 

Mr. OKUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. So thank you. I believe you will do the best you 

can, once confirmed. I have, of course, had some discussions about 

you, including with the White House, so we want to move you 

along as quickly as possible so you can get to work. 

Mr. OKUN. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and happy 

holidays. This is a great time of the year. 

We look forward to continuing to help in our own ways to keep 

our country great and our people just. This can be done better in 

partnership and in working together. We need individuals who, like 

you, can work hard to address specific challenges. 

So, again, thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(9) 

A P P E N D I X 


77159.001

Statement of Senator Daniel K. Akaka 

Nomination Hearing/or Robert Okun 

to be an Associate Judge 

o/the District o/Columbia Superior Court 

November 20, 2012 

This hearing will now come to order. Aloha and welcome. Today, the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs meets to consider the nomination of Robert Okun to be an 

Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. 

I would like to welcome my good friend from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Norton, to 

the Committee. As you know, I am retiring in a few weeks so this will be our last nomination 

hearing together. She has been a great partner in our work to improve the District and has been a 

zealous advocate for its residents for 22 years and counting. I want to thank her for all she has done 

and wish her well in the work ahead. 

I believe that our nominee is well-qualified and will join the others who have appeared before us in 

making valuable contributions to the D.C. bench. Mr. Okun is chief of the Special Proceedings 

Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. He is a dedicated 

public servant with years of criminal and civil law experience. 

I want to say a special thank you, or "mahalo," to Mr. Okun's family and friends who are with us 

today. The love and support of those around us enables us to accomplish great things so we should 

be thankful for all that they do. 

I hope that the Committee and the Senate can act quickly to contirm the nominee. 
10 


77159.002

Opening Statement of Robert D. Okun 

Nominee to be an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court 

November 20, 2012 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity 

to appear before you as you consider my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. [would like to thank the Judicial Nomination Commission 

for recommending me to the White House and President Obama for nominating me, and I also 

would like to thank Congresswoman Norton for taking the time out of her busy schedule to 

introduce me at this hearing today. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation to the 

Committee members and staff for considering my nomination so expeditiously. 

I would like to begin by introducing the members of my family who are here today: my 

father-in-law, Irving Korostoff, my mother-in-law, Ethel Korostoff, my sister, Ellen Okun, my 

brother-in-law, Donald Zack, my daughter, Julia, my son, Eli, and last but not least, my wife, 

Sue, who has been my source of support and guidance throughout the entire judicial nomination 

process. I also would like to recognize my late parents, Bill and Judy Okun, who would be very 

pleased to see me sitting here today, and without whom I would not be sitting here. Finally, I 

would like to acknowledge my many friends and colleagues, some of whom are here today, and 

to thank them for all their support and kindness over the years. 

My entire career has been devoted to public service and the majority of my career has 

been specifically dedicated to serving the people of the District of Columbia. In fact, I started 

my legal career as a judicial law clerk in the District of Columbia Superior Court, serving as a 

law clerk for the Honorable Frank E. Schwelb. I also spent a significant portion of my career as 

a consumer protection attorney, first at the Federal Trade Commission and then at the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Last, but not least, I have served as a prosecutor for almost 19 years in 

the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, litigating a wide variety of cases in both 

Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It would be a privilege 

and an honor for me to continue my public service, and my commitment to the citizens of the 

District of Columbia, as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court. 

Thank you again for considering my nomination and I look forward to answering any 

questions you might have. 
11 


77159.003

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NOMINEES TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

I. BIOGRAPHICAL AND PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION 

1. Full name (include any former names used). 

Robert Daniel Okun 

2. Citizenship (if you are a naturalized U.S. citizen, please provide proof of your 

naturalization). 

I am a citizen of the United States. 

3. Current office address and telephone number. 

United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 

555 Fourth Street, NW 

Room 10-435 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

202-252-6603 

4. Date and place of birth. 

January 6,1960; Great Neck, New York. 

5. Marital status (if married, include maiden name of wife, or husband's name). List 

spouse's occupation, employer's name and business addressees). 

I am married to Susan Joy Okun (nee Korostoft). She is an Assistant Professor at the 

George Washington University, 2100 West Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 

20037. 

6. Names and ages of children. List occupation and employer's name if appropriate. 

Eli Madison Okun, age 18. 

REDACTED 

7. Education. List secondary school(s), college(s), law school(s), and any other 

institutions of higher education attended; list dates of attendance, degree received, 

and date each degree was received. Please list dating back from most recent to 

earliest. 

Harvard Law School (Cambridge, Massachusetts); Attended 1981 - 1984; Received Juris 

Doctor, cum laude, 1984. 
12 


77159.004

University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Attended 1979 - 1981; Received 

Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, 1981. 

State University of New York at Binghamton (Binghamton, New York); Attended 1977-

1979; No degree received. 

John F. Kennedy High School (Plainview, New York); Attended 1974 - 1977; Received 

High School Diploma, 1977. 

8. Employment record. List all jobs held since college, other than legal experience 

covered in question 16, including the dates of employment, job title or description of 

job, and name and address of employer. Please list dating back from most recent to 

earliest. If you have served in the US military, please list dates of service, rank or 

rate, serial number, and type of discharge received. 

1992 - 1993 

Freelance Scriptwriter 

Summer 1983 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

100 I Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Summer Associate 

Summer 1982 

New York Civil Liberties Union 

125 Broad Street 

New York, New York 10004 

Law Clerk 

Summer 1981 

International Policy Institute (now defunct) 

Persimmon Tree Road 

Potomac, Maryland 20854 

Assistant Director 

9. Honors and awards. List any scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, academic 

or professional honors, honorary society memberships, military awards, and any 

other special recognition for outstanding service or achievement. 

In 2008, I received the United States Department of Justice John Marshall Award, the 

department's highest award offered to attorneys, for my work in developing written 

guidance and sample pleadings concerning the retroactive application of the amended 

crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. 
13 


77159.005

I also received numerous other awards for my service at the United States Attorney's 

Office and the Department of Justice, including Special Achievement Awards in 2010, 

2009,2008,2007, 1995, and 1990. 

10. Business relationships. List all positions currently or formerly held as an officer, 

director, trustee, partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any 

corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise, or 

educational or other institution. 

None. 

II. Bar associations. List all bar associations, legal or judicial-related committees, 

conferences, or organizations of which you are or have ever been a member, and 

provide titles and dates of any offices which you have held in such groups. 

Council for Court Excellence (2005 - present) 

Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (2007 - present) 

Expungement Subcommittee (2005 - 2006) 

District of Columbia Bar (1998 - present) 

Member, Board of Governors (2010 - 2012) 

Board on Professional Responsibility Hearing Committee (2004 - 20 I 0) 

Chair, Committee Number Five (2006 - 20 I 0) 

Judicial Evaluation Committee (2004 - 20 I 0) 

Chair (2008 - 20 I 0) 

Criminal Law and Individual Rights Section 

Chair, Criminal Rules and Legislation Committee (1999 - 2002) 

Rules of Professional Conduct Review Committee (2008 - present) 

District of Columbia Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission (2008 - 2009) 

District of Columbia Superior Court 

Ad Hoc Committee to Consider Formation of a Criminal Justice Reform 

Commission (20 II - present) 

Criminal Rules Advisory Committee (2009 - present) 

Criminal Rules Advisory Committee, Subcommittee on Proposed Rules Governing 

Section 23-1 10 Proceedings (1998 1999) 

Pre-Trial Mental Examination Committee (1998 - present) 

12. Other memberships. List all memberships and offices currently and formerly held in 

professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, public, charitable, or other 

organizations, other than those listed in response to Question It. Please indicate 

whether any of these organizations formerly discriminated or currently 

discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or religion. 

I have been an instructor in Project LEAD since 1999, where I have co-taught a course on 

civic responsibility for fifth-grade students at Amidon Elementary School and 

Walker-Jones Elementary School, both located in Washington, D.C. I also have been a 

member of the Children's Hemiplegia and Stroke Association since 2001, an organization 
14 


77159.006

devoted to providing support to children who have suffered strokes and to increasing 

public awareness of pediatric stroke. In 1992, I was a member of the Montgomery County 

Playhouse, where I acted in a production of "Look Homeward Angel," and I currently am a 

member of the Runnymede Singers, a volunteer singing group that performs in nursing 

homes and churches. To the best of my knowledge, none of these organizations currently 

discriminates or formerly discriminated on the basis of race, sex, or religion. 

13. Court admissions. List all courts in which you have been admitted to practice, with 

dates of admission and lapses in admission ifany such memberships have lapsed. 

Please explain the reason for any lapse in membership. Please provide the same 

information for any administrative bodies which require special admission to 

practice. 

State of New York, 1985 

District of Columbia, 1998 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1991 

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1997 

In 200 I, [ resigned from the bar for the State of New York. Otherwise, there have been no 

lapses in membership. 

14. Published writings. List the titles, publishers, and dates of books, articles, reports, or 

other published material you have written or edited. 

Character and Credibility: A Proposal to Realign Federal Rules of Evidence 608 and 609, 

37 ViII. L. Rev. 553 (1992). 

Co-author, Post-Conviction Proceedings, Criminal Practice Institute, Trial Manual (1991). 

15. Speeches. List the titles of any formal speeches you have delivered during the last five 

(5) years and the date and place where they were delivered. Please provide the 

Committee with four (4) copies of any of these speeches. 

None. 

16. Legal career. 

A. Describe chronologically your law practice and experience after graduation 

from law school, including: 

(1) Whether you served as a law clerk to a judge, and if so, the name of the 

judge, the court, and the dates of your clerkship; 

I served as a law clerk to the Honorable Frank E. Schwelb, then an 

Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, from 

September 1984 to September 1985. 
15 


77159.007

(2) Whether you practiced alone, and if so, the addresses and dates; 

I have never practiced alone. 

(3) The dates, names, and address oflaw firms, companies, or 

governmental agencies with which you have been employed. 

1985 -1987 

Federal Trade Commission 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of Policy and Evaluation 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Attorney 

1986 1987 

American University, School of Justice 

4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20016 

Professorial Lecturer 

1987 -1989 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section 

550 11th Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20044 

Trial Attorney 

1989 1992 

United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 

555 Fourth Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Assistant United States Attorney 

1993 - 1997 

United States Department of Justice 

Civil Division, Office of Consumer Litigation 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Trial Attorney 

1997 - present 

United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 

555 Fourth Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Assistant United States Attorney 
16 


77159.008

Spring 1997 & Spring 1998 

American University Washington College of Law 

4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20016 

Professorial Lecturer 

B. Describe the general character of your law practice, dividing it into periods 

with dates if its character has changed over the years. 

For one year, from September 1984 to September 1985, I served as a judicial law 

clerk for the Honorable Frank E. Schwelb of the D.C. Superior Court. As a law 

clerk, I assisted Judge Schwelb primarily with criminal and domestic relations 

cases. 

From 1985 to 1987, I was an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, where I 

evaluated consumer protection investigations and litigation by staff attorneys in the 

Bureau of Consumer Protection. 

While serving as a trial attorney in the Fraud Section of the Civil Division in the 

United States Department of Justice from 1987 to 1989, I prosecuted fraud against 

the federal government, primarily under the civil False Claims Act. 

From 1989 to 1992, I served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United 

States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where I investigated and 

prosecuted a wide range of criminal offenses in both the Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia and the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia. 

In 1993, I joined the Office of Consumer Litigation in the Civil Division of the 

United States Department of Justice, where, for four years, I prosecuted both civil 

and criminal violations of a variety of consumer protection statutes, including the 

Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, and Consumer 

Product Safety Act, as well as related criminal violations under Title 18 of the 

United States Code. 

In 1997, I rejoined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 

as an Assistant United States Attorney. I initially served in the Appellate Division 

and Sex Offense Section. Since August 1997, I have been the Chief of the Special 

Proceedings Division, where I oversee the division that responds to all 

post-conviction motions filed in D.C. Superior Court and the United States District 

Court in the District of Columbia. From 2008 to 2009, I served on a detail as 

Special Counsel to the United States Attorney for Professional Development and 

Legal Policy, where I oversaw the office's rotational moves, consulted with 

Assistant United States Attorneys on issues of professional development, and 

worked on a variety oflegislative and policy matters, including drafting proposed 

legislation, testifying before the Council of the District of Columbia, and serving 
17 


77159.009

on the District of Columbia Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission. 

Additionally, I served on another detail from 2010 to 2011 as Executive Assistant 

United States Attorney for Operations, where 1 oversaw the office's litigating 

divisions and victim-witness unit, acted as a liaison to the United States 

Department of Justice and area law enforcement agencies, and acted as one of the 

principal advisors to the United States Attorney. 

C. Deseribe your typical former clients and describe the areas of practice, if any, 

in which you have specialized. 

Because I have been an attorney for the federal government throughout my legal 

career, the United States has always been my client. In addition, I have represented 

numerous federal agencies during my years of practice. Specifically, I represented 

the Food and Drug Administration during my tenure at the Office of Consumer 

Litigation and, while working in the Special Proceeding Division of the United 

States Attorney's Office, have represented the United States Parole Commission, 

the Bureau of Prisons, and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 

D. Describe tbe general nature of your litigation experience, including: 

(1) Whether you have appeared in court frequently, occasionally, or not at 

all. If tbe frequency of your court appearances has varied over time, 

please describe in detail each such variance and give applicable dates. 

From 1985 to 1987, while working at the Federal Trade Commission, I did 

not appear in court at all. While working as an attorney at the Fraud Section 

of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice, from 1987 

to 1989, I appeared in court approximately once or twice a year. I appeared 

in court most frequently during my tenure as an Assistant United States 

Attorney from 1989 to 1992. During most of that time period, I appeared in 

court on almost a daily basis. As an attorney at the Office of Consumer 

Litigation from 1993 to J 997, I appeared in court three or four times a year. 

Since returning to the United States Attorney's Office in 1997, I have 

appeared in court approximately three to four times a year, handling both 

evidentiary hearings and oral arguments. 

(2) What percentage of these appearances was in: 

(a) Federal courts (including Federal courts in D.C.); 

(b) State courts of record (excluding D.C. courts); 

(c) D.C. courts (Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals only); 

(d) other courts and administrative bodies. 

I estimate that approximately 40% of my court appearances have been in 

federal court and 60% have been in D.C. courts. I have never appeared in a 
18 


77159.010

state court of record outside the District of Columbia, nor have I appeared 

before any other court or administrative body. 

(3) What percentage of your litigation has been: 

(a) civil; 

(b) criminal. 

I estimate that approximately 25% of my litigation has been civil and 75% 

has been criminaL 

(4) What is the total number of cases in courts of record you tried to 

verdict or judgment (rather than settled or resolved, but may include 

cases deeided on motion if they are tabulated separately). Indicate 

whether you were sole counsel, lead counsel, or associate counsel in 

these cases. 

I have tried 21 cases to verdict. I served as lead counsel in one trial and sole 

counsel in all of the remaining trials. 

(5) What percentage of these trials was to 

(a) a jury; 

(b) the court (include cases decided on motion but tabulate them 

separately). 

Approximately 75% of my trials were to a jury and 25% were to the court. 

17. Describe the five (5) most significant litigated matters which you personally handled. 

Provide citations, if the cases were reported, or the docket number and date if 

unreported. Give a capsule summary ofthe substance of each case and a succinct 

statement of what you believe was of particular significance about the case. Identify 

the party/parties you represented and describe in detail the nature of your 

participation in the litigation and the final disposition of the case. Also state as to 

each case, (a) the date of representation; (b) the court and the name of the judge or 

judges before whom the case was litigated; and (c) the name(s) and addressees) and, 

telephone number(s) of co-counsel and of the principal counsel for the other parties. 

1. United States v. Pollard, No. 86-207 (D. D.C}. The defendant in this case was convicted 

of conspiring to deliver national defense information to a foreign government, in violation 

of 18 U .S.c. § 794. After he was sentenced, he filed a motion claiming he was entitled to a 

new sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel at his sentencing hearing. He 

further claimed that his motion was timely, even though it was filed more than thirteen 

years after his conviction became final, because the statute of limitations did not accrue 

until he learned the legal significance of his attorney's actions. I represented the United 

States as sole counsel in opposing this motion. Then-Chief Judge Norma Holloway 
19 


77159.011

Johnson rejected the defendant's arguments. See United States v. Pollard, 161 F. Supp. 2d 

I (D.D.C. 2001). The defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that Judge 

Johnson had erred in dismissing his motion without an evidentiary hearing. After hearing 

oral argument, then-Chief Judge Hogan denied the motion for reconsideration. See United 

States v. Pollard, 290 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D.D.C. 2003). The D.C. Circuit upheld both 

decisions. See United States v. Pollard, 416 F.3d 48 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 

U.S. 1021 (2006). This case was important both because the underlying prosecution was a 

case of national significance and because the defendant's motion raised an issue of first 

impression in the D.C. Circuit. 

Defendant's Counsel 

Jacques Semmelman 

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & MosIe LLP 

101 Park A venue 

New York, New York 10178 

212-696-6067 

2. Noble v. U.S. Parole Commission, No. 95-188 (D.D.C.). I represented the United 

States as sole counsel in responding to a habeas petition filed by the petitioner that 

challenged the forfeiture of the time he served on parole ("street time") upon the revocation 

of his parole by the United States Parole Commission. The petitioner argued that the 

forfeiture of his street time violated his rights under the equal protection component of the 

Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, because he was being treated differently than 

parolees under the supervision of the District of Columbia Board of Parole. Judge Stanley 

Sporkin denied petitioner's habeas petition, ~ Noble v. U.S. Parole Commission, 32 F. 

Supp.2d II (D.D.C. I 998), and his decision was upheld by the D.C. Circuit. See Noble v. 

U.S. Parole Commission, 194 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1999). This litigation was significant 

because it resolved a dispute between the U.S. Parole Commission and the D.C. Board of 

Parole about the proper interpretation of the parole laws of the District of Columbia and 

ultimately led to the uniform treatment of all District of Columbia parolees by the two 

parole agencies. 

Defendant's Counsel 

Beverly Dyer 

Federal Public Defender's Office 

625 Indiana A venue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

202-208-7500 

Amicus Counsel for the D.C. Public Defender Service 

David Reiser (formerly of the D.C. Public Defender Service) 

Zuckerman, Spaeder LLP 

1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

202-778-1854 
20 


77159.012

Amicus Counsel for the U.S. Parole Commission 

Mary Wilson 

Office ofthe Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Appellate Division 

441 Fourth Street, NW, 6th Floor South 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

202-724-5693 

3. United States v. Mathis, No. 97-334 (D.D.C). I represented the United States as 

principal counsel in responding to the defendants' motions to vacate their sentences, 

pursuant to 28 U.s.c. Section 2255. The defendants argued that their sentences should be 

vacated based on the Supreme Court's decision in Blakeley v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 

(2004), which held that a court could not impose a sentence above the otherwise applicable 

statutory maximum sentence based on facts found by the judge. Importantly, the 

defendants' convictions became final before the Supreme Court decided Blakeley. Judge 

Kollar-Kotelly denied the defendants' motions and held that Blakeley did not apply 

retroactively. Her rulings were upheld by the D.C. Circuit. See United States v. Mathis, 

503 F.3d J 50 (D.C. Cir. 2007); 2006 WL 158266 (D.C. Cir. 2006). This case was 

significant because it involved an issue of first impression in the district and because it had 

the potential to open the doors to hundreds, if not thousands, of similar collateral attacks if 

Blakeley had been held to apply retroactively. 

Counsel for Defendant Walter Mathis 

Edward C. Sussman, Esq. 

601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900-South Building 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

202-737-7110 

Counsel for Defendant Eddie Mathis 

Jenifer Wicks, Esq. 

400 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 202 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

202-393-3004 

4. United States v. Holland, Nos. 96-3045, 96-3065 (D.C. Cir.). I represented the United 

States as sole counsel in the above-captioned case, which involved the defendants' appeals 

from the denial of their motions to withdraw their gUilty pleas on the grounds that their 

pleas were not voluntarily made and were the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

The D.C. Circuit affirmed Judge Lamberth's denial of the defendants' motions to withdraw 

their guilty pleas, holding that a defendant must establish a "fair and just reason" to 

withdraw a plea after the judge has accepted his plea, but before the judge has accepted the 

underlying plea agreement and sentenced the defendant. See United States v. Holland, 117 

F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1997). This case was significant because it involved an issue of first 

impression in the D.C. Circuit. 
21 


77159.013

Defendant's Counsel 

Professor Adam Kurland 

Howard University Law School 

2900 Van Ness Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20008 

202-806-8063. 

5. United States v. Turner, No. 97-CO-276 (D.C. Court of Appeals). I represented the 

United States as sale counsel in the above-captioned case, which involved a government 

appeal of the trial court's granting ofa motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the 

police did not have sufficient particularized suspicion to stop and detain the defendant. 

The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and rejected the defendant's 

argument that the police lacked particularized suspicion to stop the defendant simply 

because the police had stopped another person who also matched the description. Rather, 

the Court of Appeals held that the police did have particularized suspicion justifYing a stop 

of the defendant based on the close spatial and temporal proximity between the police 

broadcast and the stop of the defendant, together with the similarities between the 

defendant's appearance and the description of the defendant contained in the broadcast. 

See United States v. Turner, 699 A.2d 1125 (D.C. 1997). This case was significant because 

the Court of Appeals clarified that the police may stop and detain a person based on a 

police broadcast describing the person, even if they stop another person who also matched 

the description provided in the broadcast. 

Defendant's Counsel 

Henry Escoto, Esq. 

806 Seventh Street, NW, Suite 301 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

202-898-4700 

18. Deseribe the most significant legal activities you have pursued, including significant 

litigation which did not proceed to trial or legal matters that did not involve 

litigation. Describe the nature oryour participation in each instance described, but 

you may omit any information protected by attorney-client privilege (unless the 

privilege has been waived). 

Investigation of Detective Johnny St. Valentine Brown 

I helped coordinate and supervise the government's response to allegations that one of its 

most frequently used narcotics experts, Detective Johnny St. Valentine Brown, had lied 

about his credentials in hundreds of cases during the 1 980s and 1990s. Further 

investigation revealed that Detective Brown testified falsely in many cases that he had 

received college degrees from Howard University andlor that he was a registered 

pharmacist. Upon learning of Brown's false testimony, I undertook extensive efforts to 

identify the cases in which Brown testified, notified defense counsel in those cases of the 

allegations that the office had received. and also notified the D.C. Public Defender Service, 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia, and the director of the Criminal 

Justice Act office. I also published a notice in the Daily Washington Law Reporter in an 

effort to provide notice to all those who may have been affected by Detective Brown's 
22 


77159.014

testimony. I then supervised the office's response to approximately fifty motions seeking 

new trials flied by defendants against whom Detective Brown had testified. The United 

States conceded or settled six cases in which Brown had testified falsely and his testimony 

appeared to be an important part of the government's case. The office litigated the 

remaining cases, obtaining favorable results in all but one of these cases. The D.C. Court 

of Appeals and the D.C. Circuit have upheld the denial of these new trial motions in four 

reported cases. See Benton v. United States, 815 A.2d 371 (D.C. 2003); United States v. 

Gale, 314 F.3d I (D.C. Cir. 2003); Whitley v. United States, 783 A.2d 629 (D.C. 2002); 

United States v. Williams, 233 F.3d 592 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

Retroactive application of the revised crack cocaine guidelines 

I helped coordinate and supervise the government's response to the retroactive application 

of the revised crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. More specifically, in December 2007, 

the United States Sentencing Commission voted to apply Amendment 706 of the United 

States Sentencing Guidelines, which lowered the offense levels for many crack cocaine 

convictions, retroactively to defendants who were convicted prior to the effective date of 

the amendment. The Sentencing Commission estimated that retroactive application of this 

amendment would affect approximately 300 defendants convicted of crack cocaine 

offenses in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In June 2011, the 

Sentencing Commission gave retroactive effect to another sentencing guideline 

amendment that lowered the offense levels for many crack cocaine convictions. The 

Commission estimated that retroactive application of this amendment would affect 

approximately 140 defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia. I worked closely with the Federal Public Defender's 

Office, the United States Probation Office, and the judges of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia to establish a process to identify those defendants who might be 

eligible for immediate release under the revised guidelines, promptly reviewed requests 

from the Federal Public Defender's Office for reductions in sentences based on the revised 

guidelines. worked with the United States Probation Office to ensure that services were in 

place for those defendants who were eligible for immediate release. and provided training 

to both Criminal Justice Act attorneys and the District Court judges on this issue. I also 

participated in a working group that developed written guidance and sample pleadings to 

be used by United States Attorney's Offices across the country when responding to 

motions for reduction of sentence based on the revised crack cocaine sentencing 

guidelines. I received the Attorney General's John Marshall Award for Providing Legal 

Advice based on my participation in the working group's efforts. 

Drafting and Implementing the Criminal Record Sealing Act of 2006 

I was a member of a Council for Court Excellence committee that submitted both a report 

and proposed legislation to the Council of the District of Columbia seeking to establish the 

District's first comprehensive expungement statute. The final product was a result of much 

discussion among the various stakeholders on the Committee, including representatives 

from theD.C. Superior Court, the defense bar, and the prosecution. The final product 

included a detailed report describing the need for an expungement statute and the 

parameters of such a statute, and also included draft legislation. The draft legislation was 

subsequently enacted, with minor changes, by the Council of the District of Columbia. 
23 


77159.015

Both before and after the statute was enacted, I helped conduct training sessions 

concerning the Act for the judges of the Superior Court, and subsequently worked with 

members of the Court, the defense bar, and several other criminal justice agencies to 

develop written procedures implementing the Act in cases where a motion for relief is 

granted. 

Drafting the Equitable Street Time Credit Amendment Act of 2008 

I worked with representatives from the Council of the District of Columbia, prisoners' 

rights advocates, the Public Defender Service, and numerous criminal justice agencies to 

revise the parole laws of the District of Columbia so that District of Columbia parolees 

would be treated in the same manner as federal parolees. More specifically, I helped draft 

the Equitable Street Time Credit Amendment Act of2008, which modified the parole laws 

governing the forfeiture of street time and the termination of parole. After this legislation 

was drafted, I also drafted a concurrence letter for the Attorney General of the United 

States, indicating that he concurred in the legislation, a prerequisite to any change in the 

parole laws of the District of Columbia. See D.C. Code § 24-131(c). 

19. Have you ever held judicial office? If so, please give the details of such service, 

including the court(s) on which you served, whether you were elected or appointed, 

the dates of your service, and a description of the jurisdiction of the court. Please 

provide four (4) copies of all opinions you wrote during such service as a judge. 

I have never held judicial office. 

A. List all court decisions you have made which were reversed or otherwise 

criticized on appeal. 

20. Have you ever been a candidate for elective, judicial, or any other public office? If so, 

please give the details, including the date(s) of the election, tbe office(s) sought, and 

the results of the election(s). 

I submitted three previous applications to become a D.C. Superior Court judge, in October 

2009, September 2010, and March 2011. I have not otherwise been a candidate for 

elective, judicial, or other public office. 

21. Political activities and affiliations. 

• List all public offices, either elected or appointed, which you have held or sought as a 

candidate or applicant. 

None. 

• List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to any political party 

or election committee during the last ten (10) years. 

None. 
24 


77159.016

• Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization, political 

party, political action committee, or similar entity during the last five (S) years of$SO 

or more. 

In 2011, I contributed $250.00 to Peter Shapiro's unsuccessful campaign to become a 

member of the D.C. City Council. 

22. To your knowledge, have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or convicted 

(include pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) by federal, State, local, or other law 

enforeement authorities for violations of any federal, State, county, or municipal law, 

other than for a minor traffic offense? If so, please provide details. 

No. 

23. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer, director or owner ever 

been a party or otherwise involved as a party in any other legal or administrative 

proceedings? If so, give the particulars. Do not list any proceedings in which you 

were merely a guardian ad litem or stakeholder. Include all proceedings in which you 

were a party in interest, a material witness, were named as a co-conspirator or 

co-respondent, and list any grand jury investigation in which you appeared as a 

witness. 

I havc been named as a respondent in a handful of petitions for writs of habeas corpus 

during the time I have been Chief of the Special Proceedings Division. To the best of my 

knowledge, these cases have all been dismissed. J also was a plaintiff in a class action 

brought by certain current and former Department of Justice attorneys in which the 

plaintiffs sought compensation for overtime hours worked pursuant to the Federal 

Employees Pay Act. The suit eventually was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Doe v. 

United States, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

24. Have you cver been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional 

conduct by, or been the subject ofa complaint to any court, administrative agency, 

bar or professional association, disciplinary committee, or other professional group? 

If so, please provide the details. 

I have never been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics or unprofessional conduct by, 

or been the subject of a complaint to, any court, administrative agency, bar association, 

disciplinary committee, or other professional group. In 2010, I became one of the subjects 

of an investigation being conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 

concerning the United States Attorney's Office decision not to disclose certain 

irregularities in laboratory reports prepared by an FBI examiner in the case of United States 

v. Gates, Crim. No. 1981 FEL 6602. On March 9, 2011, I received a letter from OPR 

indicating that they had completed their investigation and "concluded that no finding of 

professional misconduct or poor judgment by you is warranted in this matter." 
25 


77159.017

II. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 

1. Will you sever all eonnectlons with your present employer(s), business firm(s), 

business association(s), or business organization(s) if you are confirmed? 

Yes. 

2. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation agreements, or other 

continuing dealings with your law firm, business associates, or clients. 

None. 

3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other relationships which could 

involve potential conflicts of interest. 

None. 

4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you have 

had in the last ten (10) years, whether for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as 

an agent, that could in any way constitnte or result in a possible conflict of interest 

other than while in a federal government capacity. 

None. 

5. Describe any activity during the last ten (10) years in which you have engaged for the 

purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification of 

legislation or affecting the administration and execution oflaw or public policy other 

than while as a federal government employee. 

None. 

6. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside employment, 

with or without compensation, during your service as a judge? If so, explain. 

No. 

7. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflicts of interest, including any tbat 

may have been disclosed by your responses to the above items. Please provide three 

(3) copies of any trust or other relevant agreements. 

If any conflict of interest arises, r will resolve it pursuant to the District ofCoJumbia Code 

of Judicial Conduct. 

8. If confirmed, do you expect to serve out your full term? 

Yes. 

III. FINANCIAL DATA - REDACTED 

All information requested under this heading must be provided for yourself, your spouse, 

and your dependents. (This information will not be published in the record of the bearing on 

your nomination, but it will be retained in the Committee's files and will be available for 

public inspection.) 
26 


77159.018

IV. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REQUIREMENTS 

Supplemental questions concerning specific statutory qualifications for service as a judge in 

the courts of the District of Columbia pursuant to the District of Columbia Court Reform 

and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, D.C. Code Section I I - 150 1 (b), as amended. 

1. Are you a citizen ofthe United States? 

Yes. 

2. Are you a member of the bar ofthe District of Columbia? 

Yes. 

3. Have you been a member of the bar of the District of Columbia for at least five (5) 

years? Please provide the date you were admitted to practice in the District of 

Columbia. 

Yes. I was admitted to the bar of the District of Columbia on January 5, 1998. 

4. If the answer to Question 3 is "no" --

A. Are you a professor of law in a law school in the District of Columbia? 

B. Are you a lawyer employed in the District of Columbia by the United States or 

the District of Columbia? 

C. Have you been eligible for membership in the bar of the District of Columbia 

for at least five (5) years? 

D. Upon what grounds is that eligibility based? 

5. Are you a bona fide resident of the District of Columbia? 

Yes. 

6. Have you maintained an actual place of abode in the greater Washington, D.C. area 

for at least five (5) years? Please list the addresses of your actual places of abode 

(including temporary residences) with dates of occupancy for the last five (5) years. 

Yes. Since December 2008, I have resided at REDACTED 

D.C. 20015. From July 1996 to December 2008, I resided at REDACTED 
27 

Æ 


77159.019

7. Are you a member of the District of Columbia Commission on Judicial Disabilities 

and Tenure or the District of Columbia Judicial Nominating Commission? 

No. 

8. Have you been a member of either of these Commissions within the last 12 months? 

No. 

9. Please provide the committee with four (4) copics of your District ofCoJumbia 

Judicial Nomination commission questionnaire. 

Four copies are attached. 

AFFIDAVIT 

Robert Daniel Okun, being duly sworn, hereby states that he has read and signed the foregoing 

Statement on Biographical and Pinancial Information and that the information provided therein is, 

"'h' b,",fhi, ",wlodg, wm"":3~:z== . CO 

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN TO before me this 2012.