PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 15-1264

_______________

IN RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE GRAND

JURY EMPANELED ON MAY 9, 2014

John Doe; ABC Entity,

 

Appellants

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil No. 2-14-mc-00062)

District Judge: Hon. Esther Salas

_______________

Argued April 21, 2015

BEFORE: FISHER, CHAGARES AND COWEN, Circuit 

Judges

(Filed: May 15, 2015)

_______________

OPINION

_______________
2

Damian P. Conforti, Esq. (Argued)

Podvey, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner,

Cocoziello & Chattman

One Riverfront Plaza

Suite 800

Newark, NJ 07102

Nancy A. Del Pizzo, Esq.

Rivkin Radler

21 Main Street, Court Plaza South

First Floor – West Wing, Suite 158

Hackensack, NJ 07601

Counsel for Appellants

Mark E. Coyne, Esq.

John F. Romano, Esq. (Argued)

Office of the United States Attorney

970 Broad Street

Room 700

Newark, NJ 07102

Counsel for Appellee

COWEN, Circuit Judge.

John Doe, D.O., a medical doctor, and ABC Entity, (the 

“Corporation” or “Medical Practice”), (together, 

“Appellants”), appeal the District Court’s order holding the 

Corporation in contempt for noncompliance with a grand jury 
3

subpoena directing its custodian of records to produce certain 

documents. Doe claims that despite serving as the 

Corporation’s custodian, as the sole owner and employee, he is 

entitled to refuse to comply with the subpoena in accordance 

with his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 

Appellants also argue that compliance is unnecessary because 

the subpoena is impermissibly overbroad and should be 

quashed. For the reasons discussed below, we will affirm the 

District Court’s order.

I.

In 1973, Doe, the only medical practitioner in his 

practice, organized his medical practice as ABC Entity, a 

“professional association,” which is a type of corporation 

doctors are permitted to form under New Jersey law. Since its 

creation, Doe has operated his practice through that corporate 

entity. As of October 2011, the Corporation employed a staff 

of six.

The original target entity (the “OTE”) was a clinical 

blood laboratory in New Jersey. From 2006 through 2013, 

this entity used various methods to bribe numerous physicians 

to refer their patients to it for blood testing. The Government 

alleges that Doe entered into an illicit agreement with the 

OTE, whereby it paid him monetary bribes in exchange for 

referring his patients to it for blood testing.

In April 2013, a grand jury subpoena was served on the 

custodian of records for the Corporation, directing it to turn 

over various documents, including records of patients referred 
4

to the OTE, lease and consulting agreements, checks received 

by it for reasons other than patient treatment, correspondence 

regarding its use of the OTE as a blood-testing provider, 

correspondence with specified individuals and entities, and 

basic corporate records. In December of 2013, Doe, as 

custodian, moved to quash the subpoena. The Government 

opposed the motion, and the District Court denied the motion 

to quash, concluding (1) that Supreme Court precedent 

indicated that corporations may not assert a Fifth Amendment 

privilege, and (2) that the subpoena was not overbroad in 

violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Following the District Court’s denial of his request to 

quash, Doe refused to let his corporation comply and the 

Government moved to compel it to do so. The District Court

granted that motion. The Corporation persisted in its refusal to 

comply and the District Court found it in civil contempt and 

ordered it to pay a $2,000 per day sanction. The Court, 

however, agreed to stay execution of the fine pending an 

expedited appeal before this court.

Just days before filing their opening brief, Appellants 

informed the Government that the Corporation had fallen on 

hard financial times and fired all of its employees other than 

Doe. In their place, it hired independent contractors to assist 

Doe in operating his medical practice. Among other duties, 

the independent contractors were tasked with “[m]aint[aining] 

accurate and complete medical records, kept in accordance 

with HIPAA and Patient Privacy standards,” and assisting with 

billing practices. However, before the Government filed its 

response, due to its discovery of a potential procedural defect, 
5

we summarily vacated the contempt order and remanded the 

matter to the District Court.

The Government then filed a new subpoena that 

repeated the demands made in the first subpoena. As the 

government indicates, the “new subpoena was intended to 

place the parties in the same position as the previous 

subpoena,” and the request in the new subpoena was limited to 

documents that had been subject to the initial subpoena. 

(Gov’t Br. at 9.) The Government filed a motion to compel, 

Appellants opposed, and the District Court held another 

hearing, albeit a less extensive one given that the parties 

agreed not to rehash the arguments they had made prior. The 

District Court did, however, address Appellants’ new 

submission regarding the fact that the Corporation no longer 

employed anyone other than Doe and was now operated by 

independent contractors.

Despite this factual development, the District Court 

granted the Government’s motion to compel and found the 

Corporation to be in contempt, concluding (1) that even a oneperson corporation cannot assert a Fifth Amendment privilege 

regarding corporate documents, and (2) the subpoena was not 

overbroad in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court 

found the Corporation to be in civil contempt, and entered a 

sanction of $2,000 per day, which it ordered stayed pending 

the outcome of this appeal.

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 
6

U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s decision to 

quash a grand jury subpoena for abuse of discretion. In re 

Impounded, 241 F.3d 308, 312 (3d Cir. 2001). In so doing, we 

exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal rulings 

and clear error review of its factual determinations. In re 

Grand Jury, 286 F.3d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 2002).

III.

A. The Subpoena Does Not Violate Doe’s Fifth 

Amendment Rights

The subpoena requires Doe, in his capacity as custodian 

for his Medical Practice, to produce potentially incriminating 

information. There is no dispute that, ordinarily, corporations 

like the Medical Practice are not entitled to invoke the Fifth 

Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. Nor is 

there any dispute that custodians of records for corporate 

entities are, typically, not entitled to invoke the privilege. 

Nonetheless, Appellants emphasize that, as a sole practitioner 

in a corporation with no other employees, Doe alone has 

control over the content and location of business records. 

They argue that, as a result, a jury will inevitably conclude that 

he produced any incriminating documents, and that the 

subpoena therefore violates his Fifth Amendment rights. 

Because we disagree, we conclude that the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion by refusing to quash the subpoena on 

this ground.

Supreme Court Precedent

Appellants’ argument primarily hinges on two Supreme 
7

Court cases: Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85 (1974), and 

Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988). In Bellis, the 

Supreme Court held that a partner in a law firm could not 

invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination to avoid a subpoena seeking partnership records. 

417 U.S. at 87. In so holding, the Court noted its “long line of 

cases” adhering to the collective entity doctrine, which states 

that “an individual cannot rely on the [Fifth Amendment] 

privilege to avoid producing the records of a collective entity 

which are in his possession in a representative capacity, even 

if these records might incriminate him personally.” Id. at 88. 

“Since no artificial organization may utilize the personal 

privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the Court 

found that it follows that an individual acting in his official 

capacity on behalf of the organization may likewise not take 

advantage of his personal privilege.” Id. at 90. The Court 

noted its “consistent view that the privilege against 

compulsory self-incrimination should be ‘limited to its historic 

function of protecting only the natural individual from 

compulsory incrimination through his own testimony or 

personal records.” Id. (quoting United States v. White, 322 

U.S. 694, 701 (1944)).

Despite the Court's holding in Bellis, Appellants 

emphasize a particular paragraph from the decision, stating 

that the “[Fifth Amendment] privilege applies to the business 

records of the sole proprietor or sole practitioner as well as to 

personal documents containing more intimate information 

about the individual’s private life.” Id. at 87-88. They assert 

that the Court intended to distinguish between a partnership 

involving multiple individuals, and a solo practice such as the 
8

Corporation, where Doe, alone, has control over the content 

and location of the business records. This is incorrect.

In fact, as the Government argues, and as the remainder 

of the opinion makes clear, the Court, in the paragraph in 

question, is referring to unincorporated solo practitioners and 

sole proprietors. After noting that individuals such as sole 

practitioners may claim the privilege, the Court states, “on the 

other hand,” that custodians of records of a collective entity 

may not rely on the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid 

production they are required to make in their representative 

capacity of that entity. Id. at 88. As the Court explained, “In 

view of the inescapable fact that an artificial entity can only 

act to produce its records through its individual officers or 

agents, recognition of the individual’s claim of privilege with 

respect to the financial records of the organization would 

substantially undermine the unchallenged rule that the 

organization itself is not entitled to claim any Fifth 

Amendment privilege.” Id. at 90. Thus, the Court drew a line 

between incorporated and unincorporated persons, not 

between solo practitioners and multi-member corporations.

Nor is there merit to Doe’s argument that, as a sole 

practitioner, the Corporation is merely his alter ego. The 

petitioner in Bellis had also asserted that due to the modest 

size of his partnership, it was unrealistic to consider the firm 

as an entity independent of its three partners. Soundly 

rejecting this argument, the Court emphasized that the size of 

the organization was immaterial, noting that “we do not 

believe the Court’s formulation . . . can be reduced to a simple 

proposition based solely on the size of the organization. It is 
9

well settled that no privilege can be claimed by the custodian 

of corporate records, regardless of how small the corporation 

may be.” Id. at 100 (emphasis added).

Somewhat presciently, the Court largely dismissed the 

distinction between professional associations and partnerships 

for Fifth Amendment purposes, noting that 

[e]very state has now adopted laws permitting 

incorporation of professional associations, and 

increasing numbers of lawyers, doctors, and 

other professionals are choosing to conduct 

their business affairs in the corporate form 

rather than the more traditional partnership. 

Whether corporation or partnership, many of 

these firms will be independent entities whose 

financial records are held by a member of the 

firm in a representative capacity. In these 

circumstances, the applicability of the privilege 

should not turn on an insubstantial difference in 

the form of the business enterprise. 

Id. at 100-01. In so doing, the Court placed professional 

associations and partnerships on equal footing and took for 

granted that, assuming aspects of the corporate form were 

respected, the Fifth Amendment privilege would be 

unavailable to custodians of such entities.

It is therefore clear that, in applying the collective entity 

doctrine, it is not the size or the type of corporation that 

matters. Rather, as the Supreme Court has explained, to 
10

determine whether an individual is entitled to invoke his or her 

Fifth Amendment privilege, courts must determine whether 

the entity in question is “an established institutional identity 

independent of its individual partners,” and not merely a loose 

informal association or some temporary arrangement. Id. at 

95-96. The corporation must “maintain a distinct set of 

organizational records, and recognize rights in its members of 

control and access to them.” Id. at 93. And finally, “the 

records subpoenaed must in fact be organizational records held 

in a representative capacity,” such that it is “fair to say that the 

records demanded are the records of the organization rather 

than those of the individual.” Id. Here, there is no serious 

dispute that the Medical Practice, established as a professional 

association in 1973 and operating as such for over forty-one 

years, possesses an institutional identity independent of Doe 

and maintains business records that, in no way, constitute 

Doe’s personal papers. Bellis, therefore, undermines rather 

than supports Appellants’ position.

Appellants next rely on Braswell v. United States, 487 

U.S. 99 (1988). There, the petitioner, Braswell, was president 

and sole shareholder of two corporations. He also served as 

those corporations’ custodian of records. The corporations 

each had only three directors, and Braswell argued that they 

were so small, they constituted nothing more than his alter 

egos. Applying this logic, he attempted to resist a subpoena 

by invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. Specifically, Braswell relied on the Supreme 

Court’s decisions in Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 

(1976), and United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984), in 

which the Court had seemingly strayed from the collective 
11

entity rule and recognized that the “act of producing evidence 

in response to a subpoena has communicative aspects of its 

own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. 

Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence 

of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the 

[individual producing them].” Braswell, 487 U.S. at 103 

(quoting Fisher, 425 U.S. at 410).

Unlike the collective entity doctrine, which states that 

the contents of the subpoenaed business records are not 

privileged, the so called act-of-production doctrine is less 

concerned with the nature of the entity that owns the 

documents, and more concerned with the communicative or 

non-communicative nature of the disclosures sought to be 

compelled. Id. at 102, 109; see also United States v. Hubbell, 

530 U.S. 27, 49 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring) (act-ofproduction doctrine “provides that persons compelled to turn 

over incriminating papers or other physical evidence pursuant 

to a subpoena duces tecum or a summons may invoke the Fifth 

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as a bar to 

production only where the act of producing the evidence 

would contain ‘testimonial’ features.”). Braswell argued, as 

Appellants do here, that because only he had any authority 

over the business affairs of the corporations, the very act of 

producing documents contained testimonial aspects regarding 

the existence and authenticity of the documents produced. 

Braswell, 487 U.S. at 101-02.

The Supreme Court rejected Braswell’s arguments in 

favor of a robust application of the collective entity rule, and 

again declined to carve out an exception to the rule based on 
12

the size of the corporation. As it had done in Bellis, the Court 

noted the collective entity rule’s “lengthy and distinguished 

pedigree.” Id. at 104. “[P]etitioner has operated his business 

through the corporate form, and we have long recognized that, 

for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, corporations and other 

collective entities are treated differently from individuals.” Id. 

After conducting a brief survey of cases in this area, the Court 

reaffirmed that the “plain mandate of these decisions is that 

without regard to whether the subpoena is addressed to the 

corporation, or as here, to the individual in his capacity as a 

custodian, a corporate custodian such as petitioner may not 

resist a subpoena for corporate records on Fifth Amendment 

grounds.” Id. at 109.

The Court in Braswell did, however, caution that 

“certain consequences flow from the fact that the custodian’s 

act of production is one in his representative rather than 

personal capacity.” Id. at 117. The Government is therefore 

prohibited from making any evidentiary use of the “individual 

act” against the custodian. This is because when the custodian 

produces documents pursuant to a subpoena issued to the 

corporation, he or she acts as a representative, and the act is 

deemed one of the corporation, not the individual. Id. at 118. 

It is permitted, however, to use the corporation’s act of 

production against the custodian. Id.

As evidenced by its opinions in Bellis and Braswell, the 

Court has been steadfast in its conclusion that the Fifth 

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is unavailable 
13

to corporate custodians.1 Having taken advantage of the 

benefits of incorporation for over forty years, Doe may not 

discard the corporate form simply because he now finds it 

desirable to do so. See Bellis, 417 U.S. at 88 (noting that it is 

of no import that the custodian, in producing corporate records 

that are in his possession in a representative capacity, may also 

personally incriminate himself).

Despite the Supreme Court’s broad, and largely 

unqualified, ruling in Braswell that corporate custodians may 

not claim a Fifth Amendment privilege, it did, in a footnote, 

leave open the question of “whether the agency rationale 

supports compelling a custodian to produce corporate records 

when the custodian is able to establish, by showing for 

example that he is the sole employee and officer of the 

corporation, that the jury would inevitably conclude that he 

produced the records.” Braswell, 487 U.S. at 118 n.11. But 

whatever circumstances were contemplated by the Court, this 

 

1 Appellants argue that the Supreme Court has 

demonstrated an increasing proclivity to extend a greater 

degree of protection to corporate entities. See, e.g., Citizens 

United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 365 (2010); 

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). 

Whatever merit there may be to Appellants’ general 

observation, we discern nothing in Supreme Court 

jurisprudence that suggests the Court has, in any way, 

signaled its readiness to depart from its longstanding 

precedent regarding corporate custodians’ inability to invoke 

the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 
14

footnote in no way detracts from its holding that a custodian 

may not resist a subpoena for corporate records on the ground 

that the act of production might incriminate him. Id. at 119.

Moreover, we express serious doubt as to whether 

footnote 11 in Braswell even applies to Doe’s situation. It is 

hard to imagine a jury “inevitably” concluding that he 

produced the records when the records were created while the 

Corporation employed other staff besides Doe and while he 

utilizes the services of independent contractors whose 

responsibilities include “[m]aint[aining] accurate and complete 

medical records, kept in accordance with HIPAA and Patient 

Privacy standards” and assisting with billing practices. (App. 

187.)

Third Circuit Precedent

Appellants further rely on our decisions in In re Grand 

Jury Matter (Brown), 768 F.2d 525 (3d Cir. 1985) (en banc) 

and Matter of Special Federal Grand Jury Empanelled 

October 31, 1985 Impounded, 819 F.2d 56 (3d Cir. 1987). But 

these decisions predate the Supreme Court’s ruling in Braswell 

and do not adequately consider the collective entity rule’s 

application.

In In re Grand Jury Matter (Brown), we interpreted the 

Supreme Court’s decisions in Fisher and Doe as “mak[ing] the 

significant factor, for the privilege against self-incrimination, 

neither the nature of the entity which owns the documents, nor 

the contents of the documents, but rather the communicative 

or noncomunicative nature of the arguably incriminating 
15

disclosures sought to be compelled.” Braswell, 487 U.S. at 

109 (quoting In re Grand Jury Matter (Brown), 768 F.2d at 

528)). Our decision in Matter of Special Federal Grand Jury 

Empanelled October 31, 1985 Impounded relied on our Brown

decision and similarly applied this reasoning. 819 F.2d at 58.

The Supreme Court disagreed. While acknowledging 

that Fisher and Doe “embarked upon a new course of Fifth 

Amendment analysis,” it rejected the notion suggested by our 

precedent that such analysis “rendered the collective entity 

rule obsolete.” Braswell, 487 U.S. at 109. Rather, it 

concluded that “the agency rationale undergirding the 

collective entity decisions, in which custodians asserted that 

production of entity records would incriminate them 

personally, survives.” Id. As a result, to the extent our 

precedents suggest that the act-of-production doctrine 

somehow rendered the collective entity rule inferior or 

obsolete, they were overruled by the Court’s decision in 

Braswell.

Precedent From Other Circuits

Our conclusion today comports with precedent from 

several other circuits that have considered the issue, all of 

which have agreed that a corporate custodian may not refuse to 

comply with a subpoena on Fifth Amendment grounds merely 

because he or she is also that corporation’s sole owner and 

employee. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 

2009, 593 F.3d 155, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2010); Amato v. United 

States, 450 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Stone, 

976 F.2d 909, 912 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1029 
16

(1993).

As the Second Circuit aptly explained, this result is the 

“sensible” one.

First, it prevents the erosion of the unchallenged 

rule that the [corporation] itself is not entitled to 

claim any Fifth Amendment privilege. Second, 

it recognizes that the decision to incorporate is 

freely made and generates benefits, such as 

limited liability, and burdens, such as the need 

to respond to subpoenas for corporate records. 

Third, it avoids creating a category of 

organizations effectively immune from 

regulation by virtue of being beyond the reach 

of the Government's subpoena power.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Issued June 18, 2009, 593 

F.3d at 158-59 (quotation marks and internal citation omitted) 

(alteration in original). Indeed, as the Fourth Circuit noted, a 

one-person operation “is still a corporation, a state lawregulated entity that has a separate legal existence from [the 

target of the subpoena] shielding him from its liabilities. The 

business could have been formed as an unincorporated sole 

proprietorship and production of its business records protected 

by the privilege against self-incrimination.” Stone, 976 F.2d at 

912. But the individual, like Doe here, instead “chose the 

corporate form and gained its attendant benefits, and we hold . 

. . that he cannot now disregard the corporate form to shield 

his business records from production.” Id. Given that we find 

Appellants have advanced no persuasive rationale as to why 
17

the reasoning of Bellis and Braswell does not apply to oneperson corporations like that operated by Doe, we hold that the 

collective entity doctrine applies to the Medical Practice, such 

that Doe may not rely on the Fifth Amendment to avoid 

compliance with the subpoena.2 

 

2 Appellants argue that, in accordance with the 

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hubbell, 530 

U.S. 27 (2000), they do not have to comply with the subpoena 

because Hubbell recognized that compelled production of 

documents can be testimonial to the extent the production 

communicates statements of fact. See Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 

36. Appellants assert that because the Government’s 

document requests require him, as custodian, to identify 

sources of information, the document requests are more akin 

to an interrogatory or oral deposition. Such production, they 

continue, violates Doe’s Fifth Amendment. This 

misconstrues the Court’s decision. First, there is no reason to 

suspect that Hubbell altered, in any way, the analysis set forth 

in Braswell. The Supreme Court did not mention, much less 

revisit, the collective entity rule and cited Braswell only in a 

footnote for the proposition that the act of producing 

subpoenaed documents may have some protected testimonial 

aspects.
18

B. The Subpoena is Not Overbroad in Violation of the 

Fourth Amendment

Appellants also argue that the subpoena was overbroad 

and lacked particularity, in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment. The Fourth Amendment “provides protection 

 

Second, Hubbell’s recognition that a custodian’s act of 

production may contain protected testimonial aspects is not 

necessarily at odds with Braswell. The Braswell Court 

recognized the testimonial aspect of the act of production, but 

found it an insufficient basis to override the longstanding 

principle that corporate custodians are not entitled to resist a 

subpoena for corporate records on Fifth Amendment grounds. 

See Braswell, 487 U.S. at 112 (concluding that although 

Bellis did not focus on the testimonial aspect of the act of 

production, “such a focus would not have affected the results 

reached” because it is “well settled that no privilege can be 

claimed by the custodian of records.”) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). And, in an effort to safeguard 

the these protected testimonial aspects, the Court placed 

certain evidentiary limitations on the Government to prevent 

it from using the custodian’s act in a subsequent criminal 

proceeding against him or her. See id. at 117-18. 

Accordingly, we conclude that Hubbell does not provide a 

justification for Doe’s refusal to comply with the subpoena. 

See also Armstrong v. Guccione, 470 F.3d 89, 98 (2d Cir. 

2006) (rejecting “any suggestion that Hubbell so undermined 

Braswell that we are no longer compelled to follow its 

holding.”). 
19

against a grand jury subpoena duces tecum too sweeping in its 

terms to be regarded as reasonable.” United States v. Dionisio, 

410 U.S. 1, 11 (1973). However, the Supreme Court, in 

remarking on the “unique role in our criminal justice system” 

that the grand jury occupies, has noted that as a “necessary 

consequence of its investigatory function, the grand jury paints 

with a broad brush.” United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 

U.S. 292, 297 (1991). Moreover, grand juries’ powers must be 

broad, given that “the Government cannot be required to 

justify the issuance of a grand jury subpoena by presenting 

evidence sufficient to establish probable cause because the 

very purpose of requesting the information is to ascertain 

whether probable cause exists. Id.

Here, citing no case law, Appellants seek to cast the 

subpoena as overly broad because it “sweeps within its 

purview documents and information with no possible nexus to 

the stated investigation.” (App. Br. at 34.) They argue that its 

request for information relative to third parties having nothing 

to do with the OTE is impermissible. We disagree. The 

Supreme Court has cautioned that “the law presumes, absent a 

strong showing to the contrary, that a grand jury acts within 

the legitimate scope of its authority.” R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 

U.S. at 300-01. And, where a subpoena is challenged on 

relevancy grounds, as Appellants do here, “the motion to 

quash must be denied unless the district court determines that 

there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials 

the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the 

general subject of the grand jury's investigation.” Id. at 301. 

As the District Court noted, arrangements between the 

professional association and third parties could be disguised 
20

kickbacks and patients’ records might reflect that blood 

specimens had been impermissibly ordered or taken. Under 

these circumstances, the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that the category of materials 

identified in the subpoena could reasonably produce 

information relevant to the Government’s investigation.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District 

Court’s order entered on November 20, 2014.