Opinion ID: 2960573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Halimi v. Ridge

Text: In Halimi, DeMell conceded that he failed to file the FOnTI CIA, which is a pre-argument statement in an administrative matter. Hearing Tr. 24·27. The Committee asked DeMell why he did not file the statement even though the Clerk of the Court asked him to submit it, and he responded: I wish I could be very specific but overworked, it fell through the cracks, and I believe at the time I thought the case was, as we say, going south. I should have filed it. There was some question as to whether I had responsibility or the Assistant U.S. Attorney, because it was a referral based on their request, but I should have filed it. Hearing Tr. 26; 18-25. c. Filing of Untimely Briefs or Papers The Court also noted that DeMell filed late briefs or other documents in Bugayong v. Ashcrosft (03-4204-ag), Gray v. Gonzales (05-6088-ag), Khoma v. Gonzalez (06-0326-ag), Matadin v. Gonzales (06-4742-ag), and Torres v. Gonzalez (07~ I 185-ag). In Bugayong. DeMell filed a brief, along with a motion to accept the late brief, nearly five months late. The Court granted the motion to file the late brief. DeMeU stated that the brief was initially rejected as a result of improper fonnatting, and that he ~'didn't realize [the brief] was that late. Hearing Tr. 28 :22·23; 29: 1· 7. In Gra~. DeMell filed a supplemental brief, along with a motion to accept the late supplemental brief, nearly one week late. The Court granted the motion to file the late brief. DeMell stated that the briefwas late as the result of a recent Supreme Court decision that could 7 have had some impact on case strategy and that he was overworked. Hearing Tr. 30:20-23. In Khom~ DeMell did not file a brief, but he explained that there were difficulties in obtaining the BIA record, which is supported by the docket entries in the case, and that the client disappeared. In Matadin, DeMell filed a brief approximately ten days late. DeMell filed a motion for extension of time the day after the brief was due, which was subsequently approved by the Court. On November 13,2008, DeMeU infonned the Committee that the Second Circuit ruJed favorably for his client in the Matadin case. Finally, in Torres, DeMelI filed a brief, along with a motion to accept the late brief, approximately two weeks late. The Court granted the motion to file the late brief. DeMell could not recaJl why he filed the brief late. Hearing Tr. 34: 18-21.