14-15 2(L)

Unite d Sta tes v . Rut iglia no, L esnie wski, Bara n



### U N I TED S TATE S COURT O F AP PEA L S FOR T HE S E CO

ND C I R CU I T



## S UM M ARY ORD E R

R UL I NGS BY SU

M M A R Y OR DER DO NOT H

A V E PR E CEDENT IA

L E FFE C T

. C I T

A T I O N TO A S U

M M A R Y OR DER F I LED ON OR AFTER J

A N U A R Y 1, 2007, I S PER MI T TED A

N D I S GO

V ER NED BY FEDER

A L R ULE OF AP PE LL

A TE PR OCEDUR E 32. 1 AND TH IS CO UR T ’ S L OC

A L R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN C I T I NG A S U M M A R Y OR DER I N A

DOCU M ENT F I LED WI TH TH I S COUR T , A P

A R TY M U S T C I TE E I THER THE FEDER A L AP PEN

D I X OR A

N

E LE C TR O N I C DA T A B AS E ( WI TH THE NOT

A T I O N “ S U M M A R Y OR DER ”). A P

A R TY C I T I NG A SU

M M A R Y OR DER M US T S ER V E A CO PY OF I T O

N A NY P A R TY NOT R

E PR E S ENTED BY COU

NS E L

.

1 At a state d term of the United Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for the Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all United 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in the Ci ty ofNew York, 4 on th e 22 day of Ju ne, two th ousan d fif teen. nd 5 6 PRESENT: DENNI S JAC OBS, 7 DENNYCHIN , 8 Circu it Ju dges, 9 ELIZA BETH A. WO LFORD , 10 Distr ict Judge. * 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X UNITE D STATES O F AME RICA, 13 14 Appel lee, 15 16 -v.- 14-15 2(L), 14-7 59, 14-13 39 17 18 JOSEP H RUT IGLIA NO, PETER J. 19 LESNI EWSKI , MAR IE BARAN, 20 Defen dants -Appe llant s. * * 21 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 22

The Honor able Eliza beth A. Wo lford , of the U nited * State s Dis trict Cour t for the Weste rn Di stric t of New Y ork, sitti ng bydesi gnati on.

The Clerkof C ourt is re spect fullydire cted to am end * * the o ffici al ca ption as s et fo rth a bove.1 FOR APPELLANT R UTIGL IANO: JOSEP H W. RYAN, JR., Melv ille, 2 New Y ork. 3 4 FOR APPELLANT L ESNIEWSKI: JOHN D. CL INE, San F ranci sco, 5 Calif ornia

. 6 7 FOR APPELLANT BARAN: ANNE J. D’ ELIA, Kew Garde ns, N ew 8 York. 9 10 FOR APPELL EE: DANIE L B. TEHRANI (w ith N icole 11 Fried lande r andMich ael A . Lev y, 12 on th e bri ef), for P reet 13 Bhara ra, U nitedStat es At torne y 14 for t he So uther n Dis trict of N ew 15 York. 16 17 Appea l fro m jud gment s of the U nitedStat es Di stric t 18 Court for the S outhe rn Di stric t of New Y ork ( Marre ro, J .). 19 20 UPON DUE C ONSID ERATI ON, I T IS HEREB Y ORD ERED, ADJUDGED 21 AND D ECREE D that the judgm ents of th e dis trict cour t be 22 AFFIR

MED

. 23 24 Josep h Rut iglia no, P eter J. Le sniew ski, and M arie Baran 25 appea l fro m jud gment s of convi ction ente red, follo wing a 26 jury trial , in the U nitedStat es Di stric t Cou rt fo r the 27 South ern D istri ct of New York (Marr ero, J.). A se parat e 28 opini on is sued simul taneo usly with this summa ry or der 29 decid es ch allen ges p remis ed on venu e, th e sta tute of 30 limit ation s, an d ins truct ions given to t he ju ry. We as sume 31 the p artie s’ fa milia rity with the u nderl ying facts , the 32 proce dural hist ory, and t he is sues prese nted for r eview

. 33 34 The d efend ants were convi cted of (v ariou sly) consp iracy 35 to co mmit mail fraud , wir e fra ud, a nd he alth care fraud , as 36 well as su bstan tive count s of these offe nses, and makin g 37 false stat ement s, in this case of a deca des-l ong s cheme to 38 defra ud th e Uni ted S tates Rail road Retir ement Boar d (“R RB”) 39 into award ing f raudu lent disab ilityannu ity p aymen ts to Long 40 Islan d Rai lroad(“LI RR”) retir ees. 41 42 A. Evide ntiar y Cha llenges 43 Defen dants rais e num erous evid entia ry ch allen ges. 44 Speci fical ly th ey ar gue t hat t he co urt a busedits discr etion 45 by: ( i) li mitin g the test imonyof L esnie wski’ s pro posed 46 exper t, Dr . Jul ian F reema n; (i i) al lowin g the gove rnmen t’s

21 exper t to testi fy ab out L esnie wski’ s dia gnosi s of Rutig liano 2 and t o pro vide his o pinio n tha t if Rutig liano suff ered 3 disab ling condi tions as d iagno sed, he wo uld n ot ha ve be en 4 able to pl ay go lf; ( iii) precl udingLesn iewsk i fro m off ering 5 state ments he a rguedwere admi ssibl e pur suant to F ed. R

. 6 Evid. 106; (iv) perm ittin g the gove rnmen t to intro duce 7 chart s comparin g dis abili ty ap plica tions prep ared by 8 Rutig liano for himse lf an d oth ers, and c harts show ing t he 9 dispa rity in di sabil ity r ates at th e LIR R andMetr o-Nor th 10 Railr oad; (v) p ermit ting evide nce o f Rut iglia no’s post11 retir ement golf ing; and ( vi) a dmitt ing e viden ce th at 12 Rutig liano fail ed to repo rt hi s “co nsult ing” incom e. 13 14 We re view the d istri ct co urt’s evid entia ry ru lings for 15 abuse of d iscre tion, and find none. See Unit ed St ates v. 16 Persi co, 6 45 F. 3d 85 , 99 (2d C ir. 2 011). 17 18 1. Limit ation s on Lesni ewski ’s Expert’ s Tes timon y 19 The d istri ct co urt’s limi tatio ns on Dr. Freem an’s 20 testi mony were a pro per e xerci se of its gatek eepin g 21 funct ion, Amorg ianos v. N at’l R.R. Passe nger Corp. , 303 F.3d 22 256, 266 ( 2d Ci r. 20 02), and c ertai nly n ot an abus e of 23 discr etion , Uni ted S tates v. C ruz, 363 F .3d 1 87, 1 92 (2 d 24 Cir. 2004) . Se e Uni ted S tates v. D upre, 462 F.3d 131, 137 25 (2d C ir. 2 006) (“[T] he admissi on of expe rt te stimo ny is not 26 an ab use o f dis creti on un less it is mani festl y err oneou s.” 27 (inte rnal quota tion mark omitt ed)). Andthe court prop erly 28 exclu ded t estim ony t hat w ould have requi red o r per mitte d Dr. 29 Freem an to opin e on legal ques tions . Se e Uni ted S tates v. 30 Bilze rian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1295 (2d Cir. 1991)

. 31 32 2. The G overnment’ s Exp ert W itnes s 33 The d istri ct co urt d id no t abu se di scret ion i n 34 admit ting the g overn ment’ s exp ert t estim ony, or in deny ing a 35 separ ate h earin g pur suant to D auber t v. Merre ll Do w Pha rms., 36 Inc., 509 U.S. 579 ( 1993) . Se e Uni ted S tates v. W illia ms, 37 506 F .3d 1 51, 1 61-62 (2d Cir. 2007) (con cludi ng co urt 38 engag ed in rele vant inqui ry in admi ttingevid ence and 39 decis ion n ot to holdsepa rate, form al Da ubert hear ing w as 40 not a n abu se of disc retio n). As th e dis trict cour t 41 obser ved, the f act t hat t he go vernm ent’s expe rt di d not 42 exami ne Ru tigli ano g oes o nly t o the weig ht th e exp ert’s 43 testi mony shoul d be affor ded, not t o its admi ssibi lity. See 44 Bouch er v. U.S. Suzu ki Mo tor C orp., 73 F .3d 1 8, 21 (2d Cir. 45 1996) (per curi am) ( “[C]o ntent ions that the [ exper t’s] 46 assumption s are unfo undedgo t o the weig ht, n ot th e

31 admis sibil ity, of th e tes timon y” (i ntern al qu otati on ma rks 2 omitt ed)). 3 4 3. The Rule o f Com plete ness Chall enge 5 The d istri ct co urt c ommit ted n o abu se of disc retio n in 6 rulin g tha t por tions of L esnie wski’ s pri or st ateme nts h e 7 sough t to intro duce, “as offer ed byhim, [wer e] in admis sible 8 hears ay.” Unit ed St ates v. Ja ckson , 180 F.3d55, 73 (2 d 9 Cir. 1999) . “[ A]n o mitte d por tion of a state ment must be 10 place d in evide nce i f nec essar y to expla in th e adm itted 11 porti on, t o pla ce th e adm ittedport ion i n con text, to a void 12 misle adingthe jury, or t o ens ure f air a nd imparti al 13 under stand ing o f the admi tted porti on.” Id. (inte rnal 14 quota tion marks omit ted). The stat ement s at issue were not 15 neces sary “to a void misle adingthe trier of f act.” Uni ted 16 State s v. Marin , 669 F.2d73, 84 (2 d Cir . 198 2). The 17 exclu sion of th e dis putedstat ement s as post- hoc 18 expla natio ns fo r Les niews ki’s condu ct wa s the refor e a 19 permi ssibl e exe rcise of d iscre tion. See Unit ed St ates v. 20 Kozen y, 66 7 F.3 d 122 , 139 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[T ]he r ule o f 21 compl etene ss do es no t req uire that the e ntire memo be 22 admit ted b ecaus e [af ter-t he-fa ct] l egal analy sis, 23 recol lecti on an d und ersta nding s are not relev ant.” ). 24 25 4. Rutig liano ’s Ch allen ge tothe Gover nment ’s Ch arts 26 The d istri ct co urt a llowe d the gove rnmen t to intro duce 27 chart s comparin g dis abili ty ra tes a t the LIRRand Metro

28 North , andchar ts sh owingsimi larit ies i n dis abili ty 29 appli catio ns pr epare d by Rutig liano . “T his c ourt has l ong 30 appro ved t he us e of chart s in compl ex tr ials. ” Un ited 31 State s v. Casam ento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1151 (2d Cir. 1989) ; see 32 also Unite d Sta tes v . Pin to, 8 50 F. 2d 92 7, 93 5-36 (2d C ir. 33 1988) (app rovin g gov ernme nt’s use o f summary chart s at 34 trial ). A nd th e cha rts a t iss ue cl earedthe low b ar fo r 35 relev ance. See Unit ed St ates v. Al -Moay ad, 5 45 F. 3d 13 9, 36 176 ( 2d Ci r. 20 08). Disp ariti es be tween disa bilit y rat es at 37 the t wo ra ilroa ds an d the cook ie-cu tter natur e of the 38 disab ilityclai ms bo th te nded to su pport the gover nment ’s 39 theor y at trial . Se e Uni ted S tates v. Abu-Ji haad, 630 F.3d 40 102, 132 ( 2d Ci r. 20 10). As t he di stric t cou rt ob serve d, 41 the c harts were “str aight forwa rd co mpila tion[ s]” b ased on 42 recor ds pr ovide d to the d efens e. T rial Tr. a t 150 3, Un ited 43 State s v. Rutig liano , No. 11-c r-109 1, (S .D.N. Y. 20 13). 44

41 5. The G olf E viden ce 2 The d istri ct co urt a dmitt ed ev idenc e tha t Rut iglia no 3 routi nely playe d gol f aft er hi s ret ireme nt, w hen h e was 4 suppo sedlyperm anent ly di sable d. R utigl iano argue s tha t 5 this evide nce w as su bstan tiall y mor e pre judic ial t han 6 proba tive. Fed . R. Evid. 403. The dist rict court comm itted 7 no ab use o f dis creti on: T he go lf ev idenc e was high ly 8 proba tive of Ru tigli ano’s frau d, an d the cour t cou ld 9 reaso nablyhave conc ludedthat it w ould not t end t o “lu re 10 the f actfi nder into decla ring guilt on a grou nd di ffere nt 11 from proof spec ific to th e off ense charg ed.” Unit ed St ates 12 v. Ma ssino , 546 F.3d123, 132 (2d C ir. 2 008) (per curia m) 13 (inte rnal quota tion mark omitt ed); see a lso U nitedStat es v. 14 Gelze r, 50 F.3d1133 , 113 9 (2dCir. 1995 ) (“G enera lly 15 speak ing, any p roof highl y pro bativ e of guilt is p rejud icial 16 to th e int erest s of that defen dant. ”). 17 18 6. Rutig liano ’s “C onsul ting” Income 19 The d istri ct co urt a dmitt ed ev idenc e tha t Rut iglia no 20 faile d to repor t inc ome f rom h is “c onsul ting” serv ices. The 21 gover nment argu ed th at th is ev idenc e was admi ssibl e as 22 “inex trica bly i ntert wined ” wit h the evid ence regar ding the 23 charg ed of fense . De cisio n andOrde r, Un ited State s v. 24 Lesni ewski , 11- cr-01 091, Dkt. No. 4 62, a t 19 (S.D. N.Y. July 25 12, 2 013) (quot ing U nitedStat es v. Quin ones, 511 F.3d 289, 26 309 ( 2d Ci r. 20 07) ( inter nal q uotat ion m arks omitt ed)). The 27 court agre ed, e xplai ning that Rutig liano ’s fa ilure to r eport 28 his i ncome “hel ps co mplet e the stor y” of his fraud“bec ause 29 any r ecord(or lack there of) o f [hi s con sulti ng] i ncome is 30 argua bly i ntert winedwith his claim ed ‘t otal and p erman ent’ 31 disab ilityand his s tatem ents that he ha d not in f act 32 worke d.” Id. a t 19- 20. The c ourt addedthat the evide nce 33 was a dmiss ible as pr obati ve of “int ent, plan, know ledge , and 34 absen ce of mist ake o r acc ident .” I d. at 21. Fina lly, the 35 court reje cted Rutig liano ’s Ru le 40 3 cha lleng e to the 36 evide nce “ [g]iv en th e hig h deg ree o f rel evanc e of the 37 mater ial i n que stion .” I d. T he co urt’s reas oningsupp orts 38 its e xerci se of disc retio n. 39 40 B. The B rutonChal lenge 41 Rutig liano asse rts t hat t he co urt v iolat ed hi s rig hts 42 under Unit ed St ates v. Br uton, 391 U.S. 123 ( 1968) , by 43 admit ting an in culpa tory state ment made by Le sniew ski t o law 44 enfor cemen t age nts. “We revie w all eged viola tions of t he 45 Confr ontat ion C lause de n ovo, subje ct to harm less error 46 analy sis.” Uni ted S tates v. J ass, 569 F .3d 4 7, 55 (2d Cir. 47 2009) (int ernal quot ation mark s andalte ratio ns om itted ).

51 2 Rutig liano conc edes Lesni ewski ’s in culpa tory state ment 3 made no me ntion of h im. Becau se th e “ju ry wo uld h ave h ad to 4 rely on ot her t rial evide nce” (rath er th an Le sniew ski’s 5 state ment by it self) to c onnec t it to Ru tigli ano, there was 6 no Br uton viola tion. Id. at 6 2; se e als o Uni ted S tates v. 7 Lee, 549 F .3d 8 4, 97 n.1 (2d C ir. 2 008). 1 8 9 C. The Joinde r Cha llenge 10 Rutig liano argu es th at hi s mot ion f or se veran ce sh ould 11 have been grant ed be cause ther e was no t empor al li nk or 12 commo n pla n amo ng th e cod efend ants. He cites as p rejud ice 13 his s ubjec tion to a lengt hy tr ial r ather than the short , 14 strai ghtfo rwardone that (he s pecul ates) he w ould have had 15 absen t joi nder. “We revi ew th e pro priet y of joind er de novo 16

. . . and where join der s houldnot have been permi tted, a 17 convi ction must be r evers ed un less failu re to seve r was 18 harml ess e rror. ” Un ited State s v. Rittw eger, 524 F.3d 171, 19 177 ( 2d Ci r. 20 08) ( inter nal q uotat ion m arks omitt ed). 20 21 Feder al Ru le of Crim inal Proce dure 8(b) allow s joi nder 22 of de fenda nts “ if th ey ar e all eged to ha ve pa rtici patedin 23 the s ame a ct or tran sacti on, o r in the s ame s eries of a cts 24 or tr ansac tions , con stitu ting an of fense or o ffens es.” Fed. 25 R. Cr im. P . 8(b ). “ We ha ve in terpr eted the ‘ same serie s of 26 acts or tr ansac tions ’ lan guage of R ule 8 (b) t o mea n tha t 27 joind er is prop er wh ere t wo or more pers ons’ crimi nal a cts 28 are u nifie d by some subst antia l ide ntityof f acts or 29 parti cipan ts, o r ari se ou t of a common p lan o r sch eme.” 30 Rittw eger, 524 F.3d 177 ( some inter nal q uotat ion m arks 31 omitt ed). “[W] e als o app ly a commo nsens e rul e to decid e 32 wheth er, i n lig ht of the factu al ov erlap amon g cha rges, 33 joint proc eedin gs wo uld p roduc e suf ficie nt ef ficie ncies such 34 that joind er is prop er no twith stand ing t he po ssibi lity of 35 preju dice. ” Id . (in terna l quo tatio n mar ks om itted ). T his 36 stand ard w as cl earlysati sfiedhere

. 37

To t he ex tent Rutig liano argu es th at th e adm issio n of 1 Lesni ewski ’s st ateme nt re quire d sev eranc e, th is is not so. See U nitedStat es v. Yous ef, 3 27 F. 3d 56 , 150 (2d Cir. 2003) (find ing “ admis sion of th e red actedstat ement did not viola te th e Bru ton d octri ne” a nd af firmi ng de nial of

sever ance)

.

61 D. The S uffic iencyof the Ev idenc e 2 Rutig liano chal lenge s the suff icien cy of evid ence that 3 he co nspir ed wi th: ( i) Le sniew ski t o cre ate h is fr audul ent 4 claimfor benef its; (ii) James Mahe r or Chris tophe r 5 Parla nte, retir ed LI RR employe es wh o tes tifie d for the 6 prose cutio n, to fals ify t heir claim s; or (iii ) Mah er or 7 Parla nte t o sub mit f alse re-ce rtifi catio ns of thei r cla imed 8 disab iliti es. Rutig liano cann ot su stain his “heav y bur den” 9 becau se, v iewin g the evid ence in th e lig ht mo st fa vorab le to 10 the g overn ment, Koze ny, 6 67 F. 3d at 139- 40, i t was 11 suffi cient for a rat ional juryto c onclu de th at th ere w as a 12 consp iracyto d efrau d the RRB, and that Rutig liano 13 parti cipat ed in the consp iracyboth as a clai mant and a s a 14 “faci litat or” o f oth er employe es’ f raudu lent claim s. T o the 15 exten t Rut iglia no ar gues that there was no ev idenc e of 16 expre ss ag reeme nts a mong the c odefe ndant s, no such proo f is 17 requi red. See Unite d Sta tes v . Ami el, 9 5 F.3 d 135 , 144 (2d 18 Cir. 1996)

. 19 20 E. The S enten cing Chall enges 21 Rutig liano argu es th at th e dis trict cour t err ed in 22 denyi ng hi s req uest for a hear ing p ursua nt to Unit ed St ates 23 v. Fa tico, 603 F.2d 1053 (2d C ir. 1 979), to c halle nge t he 24 loss attri butab le to him, whic h imp actedhis term of 25 incar cerat ion a nd th e res titut ion i mpose d. H e als o 26 chall enges the proce dural reas onabl eness of h is se ntenc e. 27 Baran chal lenge s the loss attr ibute d to her, and t he 28 subst antiv e rea sonab lenes s of her s enten ce. 29 30 There is n o per se r ight to a Fatic o hea ring, and trial 31 court s enj oy br oad d iscre tion in de termi ning what proce dures 32 to employ at se ntenc ing. See Unite d Sta tes v . Pre scott , 920 33 F.2d 139, 144 ( 2d Ci r. 19 90). We r eviewthe sente nces for 34 reaso nable ness, unde r a d efere ntial abus e-of- discr etion 35 stand ard. Unit ed St ates v. Gi lliar d, 67 1 F.3 d 255 , 258 (2d 36 Cir. 2012)

. 37 38 After a co nfere nce, the c ourt prope rly d enied 39 Rutig liano ’s re quest for a Fat ico h earin g. T he co urt 40 concl uded that Rutig liano was “rais ing i ssues liti gatedat 41 the t rial and s ome o f the m det ermin ed bythe court in 42 prepa ratio n for the trial , and[Rut iglia no wa s] as king 43 essen tiall y for [the cour t] to have anot her t rial on so me of 44 these issu es, a nd [t he co urt w as] n ot go ing t o do that. ” 45 Gov’t Supp lemen tal App. a t 37- 37. 46 47

71 The S enten cing Guide lines base the offen se le vel i n 2 part on th e amo unt o f los s cau sed b y the offe nse; and l oss 3 is de finedgene rallyas “ the g reate r of actua l los s or 4 inten ded l oss.” U.S .S.G. § 2B 1.1(b )(1) & cmt . n.3 (A). As 5 recog nizedby t he di stric t cou rt, a sent encin g jud ge ne ed 6 only make a “re asona ble e stima te” i n cal culat ing t he lo ss 7 amoun t. I d. cm t. n. 3(c). And , the loss needonlybe 8 deter minedby a prep onder ance of th e evi dence . Se e Uni ted 9 State s v. Norma n, 77 6 F.3 d 67, 76-7 7 (2dCir. 2015 ). 10 11 The c ourt commi tted no pr ocedu ral e rror in de termi ning 12 the l oss a ttrib utabl e to the d efend ants. Cf. Unit ed St ates 13 v. Br yant, 128 F.3d 74, 7 6 (2dCir. 1997 ) (“[ I]t i s 14 permi ssibl e for the sente ncingcour t, in calc ulati ng a 15 defen dant’ s off ense level , to estim ate t he lo ss re sulti ng 16 from his o ffens es byextr apola ting the a verag e amo unt o f 17 loss from known data and apply ing t hat a verag e to 18 trans actio ns wh ere t he ex act a mount of l oss i s unk nown. ”). 19 20 Rutig liano ’s ch allen ge to the resti tutio n ord er--b ased 21 on a findi ng of actu al lo ss--i s als o wit hout merit , as it is 22 premi sed o n his erro neous theo ry th at th e RRB made 23 indep enden t det ermin ation s wit h res pect to di sabil ity 24 appli catio ns. 25 26 Baran ’s ch allen ge to the subst antiv e rea sonab lenes s of 27 her 6 0-mon th se ntenc e is witho ut me rit. The sente nce w as 48 28 month s bel ow th e low -end of th e Gui delin es an d can not b e 29 said to be “sho cking ly hi gh” o r “ot herwi se un suppo rtabl e as 30 a mat ter o f law .” U nitedStat es v. Dorv ee, 6 16 F. 3d 17 4, 31 183 ( 2d Ci r. 20 10) ( inter nal q uotat ion m arks omitt ed). 32 33 F. Ineff ective Ass istan ce ofCoun sel 34 Baran argu es th at sh e is entit led t o a n ew tr ial 35 becau se sh e was affo rded const ituti onall y ine ffect ive 36 assis tance of c ounse l. A s in most cases , “a motio n bro ught 37 under [28 U.S.C .] § 2255 is pr efera ble t o dir ect a ppeal for 38 decid ing [ Baran ’s] c laims of i neffe ctive assi stanc e.” 39 Massa ro v. Unit ed St ates, 538 U.S. 500, 504 ( 2003) ; see also 40 Unite d Sta tes v . Gas kin, 364 F .3d 4 38, 4 68 (2 d Cir . 200 4) 41 (stat ing d istri ct co urt “ best suite d” to deve lopin g fac ts 42 neces sary to de termi ning adequ acy o f rep resen tatio n 43 (inte rnal quota tion marks omit ted))

. 44

81 * * * 2 3 For t he fo regoi ng re asons and for t hose state d in the 4 opini on is sued simul taneo usly with this summa ry or der, and 5 findi ng no meri t in appel lants ’ oth er ar gumen ts, w e her eby 6 AFFIR

M the j udgme nts o f the dist rict court

. 7 8 FOR T HE CO URT: 9 CATHE RINE O’HAG AN WO LFE, CLERK 10 11

9