IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CASE# 1:10CR00027-SPM

vs.

CARLINE CENEUS,

CABIOCH BONTEMPS, and

WILLY PAUL EDOUARD

 _____________________________/

GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EDOUARD’S MOTIONS

FOR PRODUCTION OF DEFENDANT’S INTERNAL REVENUE TAX RECORDS AND

FOR PRODUCTION OF REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION 

COMES NOW comes the Government, by and through the undersigned attorneys, and

responds to two motions filed by defendant Edouard. In his first motion, defendant requests

production of his own Internal Revenue Tax (IRS) records for the past 24 years - from 1987 to

the present. In the alternative, defendant requests assistance from the Court to procure 24 years

of tax returns. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 174. In his second motion, defendant requests the

government produce fifteen (15) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Reports of

Investigation (ROIs). Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 176. The government is not in possession of any of 1

the defendant’s tax return and therefore is under no obligation to produce or obtain them. 

Moreover, requesting this Court provide the financial means for defendant to obtain his own tax

returns for the past 24 years is irrelevant to the crimes charged and burdensome on the Court. 

 Defendant is requesting ROIs number 28-31, 35-43, 45, 46 and 48. 1

-1-
Defendant’s motion for production of fifteen ROIs is confusing because the government

had agreed to provide counsel with all the requested ROIs, except ROIs that contain statements

of government witnesses, which the government would provide at trial pursuant to Title 18

U.S.C. § 3500. Thus, the government respectfully requests that both of defendant’s motions be

denied in their entirety. 

I. Defendant’s Income Tax Returns from 1987 to Present

Defendant seeks production of his own income tax returns for the past 24 years from the

government, despite the government informing defense counsel on two occasions, December 15

and 20, 2011, that the government was not in possession of any of the defendant’s tax returns.2

Under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure the government is required to disclose

those items or portions thereof, which are in the possession, custody or control of the government

and which are material to the preparation of the defense, which the government intends to use in

its case-in-chief, or which were obtained from or belong to the defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16

(a)(1)(E) and N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 26.3(B)(3). Because the tax records sought by the defendant are

not within the possession, custody or control of the government, the government is under no

 In his motion, defendant fails to mention that on December 15, 2011, the undersigned informed 2

counsel that the government was not in possession of his client’s tax returns. Defense counsel

suggested the government obtain his tax returns so that he could avoid paying the fees to obtain

them. The government was also no aware that the time period defendant was seeking spanned 24

years. 

-2-
obligation to produce them. 

In the alternative, defendant seeks the Court’s financial assistance in the amount of

$1368.00 to obtain 24 years worth of his income tax returns (1987 to the present). Defendant 3

also proposes that the Court avoid the $1368.00 expense by having “the government providing

[sic] the requested IRS records. “ Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 174 at 2. Defendant fails to provide the

Court with any supporting case law for his proposition and instead, makes a blanket assertion

that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights will be violated if he is not given access to these

documents. Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 174 at 2-4. Defendant also alleges that he is “charged with a

crime that involves examination of his financial activity” and that “the government has placed

emphasis on the receiving [of] money from recruiting fees paid by H2A workers.” Def.’s Mot.,

ECF No. 174 at 3-4. Defendant is mistaken. 

Contrary to defendant’s belief, defendant is not charged with any financial or tax related

charges. In fact, none of the charged crimes require proof or contain an element financial in

nature. Further, defendant’s assertion that the government “has placed great emphasis on the

receiving [of] money from recruiting fees paid by the H2A workers” is irrelevant and misplaced. 

In the indictment, the government alleges that the recruitment fees collected by the defendants

were one of the manner and means defendants used furthered the forced labor conspiracy. It

would seem that the only possibly relevant tax returns in this case would be 2008, the time period

charged in the indictment. Defendant can obtain these tax returns without the Court’s assistance

 It is interesting that defendant is seeking the Court’s assistance in obtaining income tax returns 3

for 2011, which the government assumes the defendant has yet to file.

-3-
at a cost of $57 by visiting the IRS website. Thus, defendant’s motion to have the government

produce his income tax records for the past 24 years, which the government does not have in its

possession, or in the alternative have the Court pay the costs for him to obtain them should be

denied. 

II. Production of Reports of Investigation 

In his second motion, defendant requests the government to produce 15 ROIs that defendant

claims “contain relevant information, as they are interviews of the government’s witnesses and

alleged victims in this case.” The government is somewhat surprised by defendant’s request and

his allegation that the “government was not going to produce the reports.” Def.s Mot. ECF No. 176

at 2. Not only has the government complied with its discovery obligation and provided over 4000

pages of discovery, but the undersigned agreed to provide defendant with some of the requested

ROIs.

On December 15, 2011, the undersigned was contacted by defense counsel to discuss several

trial related issues, including the production of 15 ROIs which the government had not yet provided. 

During the conversation, the undersigned agreed to review the ROIs to determine whethertheywere

discoverable as well as counsel’s other requests. On December 20, 2011, the undersigned called

defense counsel and informed him, amongst other things, that the requested ROIs included “status

of investigation” reports, internal requests for assistance and statements of government witnesses,

including DR. The government reminded counsel that DR’s statement had recently been produced

to counsel as potential Brady. The undersigned also explained to counsel that the remaining ROIs

were not discoverable under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure, but would be

-4-
provided at trial pursuant to Title 18 USC § 3500. At no time did time did the undersign state that

the government was unwilling to provide all ROIs requested by counsel. Rather, the undersigned

acted in good faith and attempted to resolve the issues presented by counsel. The government

remains cognizant of its discovery, Brady, Giglio and Jencks obligations and the Court’s standing

discovery order. Defendant also requested an in camera review of the ROIs, but again cites no

case law or statute in support of its position. Thus, the government requests defendant’s motion to

produce all ROIs be denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the government respectfully requests that defendant’s

motions be denied in their entirety. 

Respectfully Submitted,

THOMAS E. PEREZ

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

 /s/ Adriana Vieco 

 ADRIANA VIECO

Trial Attorney, Civil Rights Division

 Criminal Section

U.S. Department of Justice

New York Bar No. 2687036

601 D Street NW, Room 5542

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 305-4116

 /s/ Roy Conn III 

 ROY CONN III

Trial Attorney, Civil Rights Division

-5-
 Criminal Section

U.S. Department of Justice

District of Columbia No. 388208

601 D Street NW, Room 5528

Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-4164

-6-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Clerk of

the Court by using the CM/ECF system on this 30 day of December 2011, which will send a th

notice of electronic filing to the following CM/ECF participants: Huntley Johnson, 226 SW 2nd

Street, Gainesville, FL 21601, Lloyd L. Vipperman, 15 SE 7 Street, Gainesville, FL 32601 and th

Darren Johnson, Federal Public Defender’s Office, 101 SE 2 Place, Gainesville, FL 32601. nd

 /s/ Adriana Vieco 

ADRIANA VIECO

Trial Attorney, Civil Rights Division

-7-