1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321

Joseph N. Roth, 025725

Sarah P. Lawson, 036436

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793

(602) 640-9000

teckstein@omlaw.com

jroth@omlaw.com

slawson@omlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF 

SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Defendant James Larkin submits this notice to inform the Court of the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States, __ F.4th __, No. 22-5105,

2023 WL 4376244 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2023). See Ex. A.

In Woodhull, the D.C. Circuit held that, as the “Government . . . contends,” 

“‘promote or facilitate’ should be read to mean aid or abet.” Slip. op. at 18. Like the 

Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. __ (2023)—the opinion 

prompting defendants’ motion for reconsideration, Doc. 1622—Woodhull strongly 

supports defendants’ contention that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” in the Travel 

Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a)(3), must be construed in a “traditional criminal law context” to 

mean aid and abet. Slip op. at 19. Indeed, in explaining its reasoning, the D.C. Circuit

cites as support the Travel Act’s use of “promote” and “facilitate,” and references a First 

Circuit case for the proposition that the “conduct underlying promotion of unlawful 

activity [under the Travel Act] was tantamount to aiding and abetting.” Woodhull, slip op. 

at 21-22 (citing Urena-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2003)). After Hansen and 

Woodhull, there is no room to argue that the terms “promote” and “facilitate” in the Travel 

Act mean something different than “aid and abet.”

Finally, as with Hansen, given that the D.C. Circuit has now adopted the 

government’s argument as to the meaning of “promote” and “facilitate,” the doctrine of 

judicial estoppel should bar the government from advancing contrary interpretations in 

this case. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). The government “should 

not be allowed to gain an advantage by litigation on one theory, and then seek an 

inconsistent advantage by pursuing an incompatible theory.” Id. (quoting 18B Fed. Prac. 

& Proc. Juris. § 4477). The government successfully pressed in Hansen and Woodhull for 

narrow “aiding-and-abetting” interpretations of “promote” and “facilitate.” The

government should not be allowed to “play[] fast and loose” with inconsistent 

interpretations of the same words in this case just because it suits a preferred outcome. Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 

DATED this 7th day of July, 2023. 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

By s/ Joseph N. Roth

Timothy J. Eckstein

Joseph N. Roth

Sarah P. Lawson

2929 North Central, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794

Attorneys for James Larkin

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1632 Filed 07/07/23 Page 3 of 3