Court Opinion

ID: 9407683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 22:01:21.779514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.639094
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-98

         UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 KG DONGBU STEEL CO., LTD.,
 DONGBU STEEL CO., LTD., AND
 DONGBU INCHEON STEEL CO.,
 LTD.,

       Plaintiffs,

 v.
                                          Before: Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge
 UNITED STATES,
                                          Court No. 22-00047
       Defendant,

 and

 NUCOR CORPORATION AND
 STEEL DYNAMICS, INC.,

       Defendant-Intervenors.

                            OPINION AND ORDER

[Remanding the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the
countervailing duty review of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from the
Republic of Korea.]

                                                                Dated: July 7, 2023

Brady W. Mills, Donald B. Cameron, Julie C. Mendoza, R. Will Planert, Mary S.
Hodgins, Eugene Degnan, Edward J. Thomas, III, Jordan L. Fleischer, and
Nicholas C. Duffey, Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for
Plaintiffs KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., and Dongbu
Incheon Steel Co., Ltd.
Court No. 22-00047                                                             Page 2

Claudia Burke, Assistant Director, Elizabeth Speck, Senior Trial Counsel,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of
Washington, D.C. With them on the brief were Brian M. Boynton, Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Patricia M. McCarthy, Director. Of
Counsel on the brief was Ayat Mujais, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel for
Trade Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of
Washington, D.C.

Alan H. Price, Christopher B. Weld, Tessa V. Capeloto, and Adam M. Teslik,
Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Nucor
Corporation.

Jeffrey D. Gerrish, Roger B. Schagrin, and Saad Y. Chalchal, Schagrin Associates,
of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor Steel Dynamics, Inc.

      Choe-Groves, Judge: Plaintiffs KG Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd., Dongbu Steel

Co., Ltd., and Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd. (collectively, “KG Dongbu” or

“Plaintiffs”) challenge the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) Certain

Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2019. Compl.,

ECF No. 12; Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of

Korea (“Final Results”), 87 Fed. Reg. 2759 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 19, 2022)

(final results and partial rescission of countervailing duty administrative review;

2019); see also Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results and Partial

Rescission of the 2019 Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order
Court No. 22-00047                                                             Page 3

on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea (“Final

IDM”), PR 213.1

      KG Dongbu challenges: (1) Commerce’s determination that the first through

third debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable subsidy;

(2) Commerce’s determination that the benefits from KG Dongbu’s debt-to-equity

restructurings that Commerce first found countervailable in Certain Corrosion-

Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea (“Preliminary Results”), 86

Fed. Reg. 37,740 (Dep’t of Commerce July 16, 2021) (preliminary results of

countervailing duty administrative review, 2019) passed through to KG Dongbu

despite the change in ownership during the 2019 period of review; (3) Commerce’s

calculation of the uncreditworthiness benchmark for purposes of measuring the

benefit from KG Dongbu’s restructured long term loans and bonds; and

(4) Commerce’s calculation of the unequityworthy discount rate for purposes of

measuring the benefits from the equity infusions from government-controlled

creditors. Pls.’ Mot. J. Agency R. and Mem. Supp. (“Pls.’ Br.”), ECF Nos. 33, 34;

Pls.’ Reply Br. Supp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“Pls.’ Reply Br.”), ECF Nos. 40, 41.

Defendant United States (“Defendant”) and Defendant-Intervenor Nucor

Corporation (“Nucor”) argue that the Court should sustain the Final Results.

1
  Citations to the administrative record reflect the public administrative record
(“PR”) document numbers. ECF No. 44.
Court No. 22-00047                                                          Page 4

Def.’s Resp. Br. Pl.’s Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.’s Resp. Br.”), ECF Nos. 35, 36;

Def.-Interv.’s Resp. Mot. J. Agency R. (“Def.-Interv.’s Resp. Br.”), ECF Nos. 37,

38, 39. For the reasons discussed below, the Court remands Commerce’s Final

Results.

                             ISSUES PRESENTED

      The Court reviews the following issues:

            1. Whether Commerce’s determination that the first through third

               debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable benefit to

               KG Dongbu is supported by substantial evidence and in

               accordance with the law;

            2. Whether Commerce’s determination that the benefits from the

               debt-to-equity restructurings passed through to KG Dongbu despite

               the change in ownership is supported by substantial evidence;

            3. Whether Commerce’s calculations of the uncreditworthy

               benchmark rate are supported by substantial evidence; and

            4. Whether Commerce’s calculations of the unequityworthy discount

               rate are supported by substantial evidence.

                          PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      Commerce published its countervailing duty order in the Federal Register.

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, Republic of Korea
Court No. 22-00047                                                             Page 5

and the People’s Republic of China, 81 Fed. Reg. 48,387 (Dep’t of Commerce July

25, 2016) (countervailing duty order). Commerce initiated an administrative

review of the countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products

from Korea for the period of January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, selecting KG

Dongbu and Hyundai Steel Company (“Hyundai Steel”) as mandatory respondents.

Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 85

Fed. Reg. 54,983, 54,990–91 (Dep’t of Commerce Sept. 3, 2020).

      Commerce issued the Preliminary Results of the administrative review.

Preliminary Results, 86 Fed. Reg. 37,740; Decision Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2019:

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea,” (June 12,

2021), PR 173. Commerce issued the Final Results of the administrative review.

Final Results, 87 Fed. Reg. 2759; Final IDM.

               JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

      The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction pursuant to 19 U.S.C.

§ 1516a(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c), which grant the Court authority to

review actions contesting the final results of an administrative review of a

countervailing duty order. The Court shall hold unlawful any determination found

to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record or otherwise not in

accordance with the law. 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(b)(1)(B)(i).
Court No. 22-00047                                                                Page 6

                                   DISCUSSION

      I.     Countervailable Subsidy Overview

      A countervailable subsidy exists when a foreign government provides a

financial contribution to a specific industry that confers a benefit upon a recipient

within the industry. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5); see also Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd.

v. United States, 748 F.3d 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For equity infusions, a

benefit is conferred if “the investment decision is inconsistent with the usual

investment practice of private investors, including the practice regarding the

provision of risk capital, in the country in which the equity infusion is made.” 19

U.S.C. § 1677(5)(E)(i); see also 19 C.F.R. § 351.507(a)(1) (defining a benefit for

equity infusions).

      Commerce considers an equity infusion to be inconsistent with usual

investment practice if the price paid by the government for newly issued shares is

greater than the price paid by private investors for the same (or similar form of)

newly issued shares. 19 C.F.R. § 351.507(a)(2)(i). Commerce does not consider

private sector investor prices if Commerce concludes that private investor

purchases of newly issued shares are not significant. Id. § 351.507(a)(2)(iii).

When significant private sector participation does not exist, Commerce determines

whether the firm funded by the government-provided equity is equityworthy or

unequityworthy at the time of the equity infusion. Id. § 351.507(a)(3). A
Court No. 22-00047                                                              Page 7

determination that the firm is unequityworthy constitutes a determination that the

equity infusion is inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private

investors, and therefore, that a benefit to the firm exists in the amount of the equity

infusion. Id.; see also id. § 351.507(a)(6).

      Commerce considers a firm to be equityworthy if Commerce determines

that, from the perspective of a reasonable private investor examining the firm at the

time the government-provided equity infusion took place, the firm showed an

ability to generate a reasonable rate of return within a reasonable period of time.

Id. § 351.507(a)(4)(i). In making this determination, Commerce considers the

following factors: (A) an objective analysis of the future financial prospects of the

recipient firm, (B) current and past indicators of the recipient firm’s financial

health, (C) rates of return on equity in the three years prior to the government

equity infusion, and (D) private investor equity investment into the recipient firm.

Id. § 351.507(a)(4)(i)(A)–(D). Commerce may focus on the equityworthiness of a

specific project, in appropriate circumstances, rather than the company as a whole.

Id. § 305.507(a)(4)(i).
Court No. 22-00047                                                                    Page 8

       II.    First Through Third Debt-to-Equity Restructurings

              A.     Whether Commerce’s Determination is in Accordance with
                     the Law

       Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s determination that the first through third

debt-to-equity restructurings provided a countervailable subsidy to KG Dongbu is

not in accordance with the law because Commerce has an established practice for

determining whether debt-to-equity restructurings provide a countervailable

subsidy, but Commerce ignored that practice and failed to provide a reasonable

explanation for departing from its established practice. Pls.’ Br. at 15–20.

Defendant defends Commerce’s determination and argues that “the majority of

Commerce’s argument in [the case cited by Plaintiffs to establish Commerce’s

alleged established practice] turned on the fact that the plaintiff . . . failed to

exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to whether the private investors’

participation and share were significant.” Def.’s Resp. Br. at 16.

       If Commerce has a routine practice for addressing similar situations, it must

either apply that practice or provide a reasonable explanation regarding why

Commerce has deviated from that practice. See SKF USA, Inc. v. United States,

263 F.3d 1369, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“An agency action is arbitrary when the

agency offers insufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently.”); see

also M.M. & P. Mar. Advancement, Training, Educ. & Safety Program v. Dep’t of
Court No. 22-00047                                                               Page 9

Commerce, 729 F.2d 748, 755 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“An agency is obligated to follow

precedent, and if it chooses to change, it must explain why.”); see also Cinsa, S.A.

de C.V. v. United States, 21 CIT 341, 349, 966 F. Supp. 1230, 1238 (1997)

(“Commerce can reach different determinations in separate administrative reviews

but it must employ the same methodology or give reasons for changing its

practice.”).

      First, the Court finds that Commerce has a standard practice regarding not

reexamining the countervailability of Dongbu Steel’s equity infusions. There were

three separate debt-to-equity restructurings prior to the contested review, in

February 2015, May 2016, and April 2018. See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel

Products from the Republic of Korea, Case No. C-580-879: Dongbu’s Initial

Questionnaire Response (Dec. 3, 2020) (“KG Dongbu’s IQR”) at 40–46, PR 74–

78. Commerce determined previously that no countervailable subsidy existed in

each of the three previous debt-to-equity restructurings. Final IDM at 46–47. In

Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea (“CORE

2018 Final Results”), 86 Fed. Reg. 29,237 (Dep’t of Commerce June 1, 2021)

(final results and partial rescission of countervailing duty administrative review;

2018) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce

determined that the same debt-to-equity restructurings currently under review

provided no countervailable benefit. Id. at 29,238. As KG Dongbu highlights,
Court No. 22-00047                                                             Page 10

“the facts on the record regarding the first three [debt-to-equity restructurings]

were also on the record in the [CORE 2018 Final Results], except for documents

related to the third [debt-to-equity restructuring] that occurred in 2018, were also

on the record of the CORE 2015–2016 and 2017 Reviews.” Pls.’ Br. at 16.

      The Court notes that Commerce reviewed the same debt-to-equity

restructurings as in previous reviews, though resulting in a different outcome here.

Compare Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea,

84 Fed. Reg. 11,749, 11,750 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 28, 2019) (final results and

partial rescission of countervailing duty administrative review; 2015–2016) and

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, and Certain Corrosion-Resistant

Steel Products From the Republic of Korea, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,112, 15,113 (Dep’t of

Commerce Mar. 17, 2020) (final results of countervailing duty administrative

review; 2017) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, with Final

Results, 87 Fed. Reg. at 2760, and Final IDM at 54. Significantly, the Court

observes that Commerce’s standard countervailing duty questionnaire language

explicitly states that “[a]bsent new information warranting a program

reexamination, [Commerce] will not reevaluate prior determinations regarding the

countervailability of programs.” Administrative Review of Certain Corrosion-

Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Countervailing Duty

Questionnaire (Oct. 6, 2020) at II-1, PR 22–23 (emphasis added). Based on these
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 11

facts and the prior three debt-to-equity restructurings in February 2015, May 2016,

and April 2018, the Court concludes that Commerce has a standard practice of not

reexamining the countervailability of Plaintiffs’ equity infusions absent new

information.

      Second, in order to depart from Commerce’s routine practice, Commerce

must provide a reasonable explanation. SKF USA, Inc., 263 F.3d at 1382. The

Court observes that Commerce has neither provided a sufficient explanation nor

cited new information on the record that relates to whether the first three debt-to-

equity restructurings provided a countervailable benefit. Instead, as justification

for Commerce’s decision to evaluate the first three debt-to-equity restructurings

anew, Commerce cited evidence based on the fourth debt-to-equity restructuring,

treating each debt-to-equity restructuring as part of one ongoing transaction rather

than four separate, independent transactions. In the Final IDM, addressing KG

Dongbu’s argument that Commerce departed from its established practice by

reexamining its prior determinations with respect to the first three debt-to-equity

restructurings, Commerce reasoned that “Commerce’s benefit determinations in

each segment of a proceeding stand on their own and are made on a fact-specific

basis.” Final IDM at 46 (citing Hyundai Steel Co. v. United States, 42 CIT __, __,

319 F. Supp. 3d 1327, 1342 n.13 (2018)). Commerce explained that it reexamines

findings of financial contribution and specificity made in a prior segment of the
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 12

same proceeding when new evidence necessitates reexamination. Id. at 46. As

justification for Commerce’s decision to reevaluate its prior determinations,

Commerce noted that:

      While the record evidence shows that private creditors accounted for
      the same debt-to-equity conversion amounts as in the prior reviews, we
      cannot rely on this fact alone to assess whether KG Dongbu was
      equityworthy between 2014 and 2018. This is because in the instant
      review, unlike in the prior reviews, there were private investors
      independent from the creditors’ committee involved in the fourth equity
      infusion during the 2019 [period of review]. This inclusion of private
      investors was a factual change from prior reviews that led us to
      reconsider the role [Korean Development Bank] played in its control of
      the creditors’ committee.

Id. at 47. KG Dongbu argues, however, that the record evidence is not new, and is

the same evidence considered by Commerce in the first three debt-to-equity

restructuring determinations. Pls.’ Br. at 15–20. The Court notes that the record

evidence cited by Commerce as justification for its deviation from its past practice

does not deal directly with the first through third debt-to-equity restructurings and

is not a sufficient explanation to justify departing from its standard practice. See

Final IDM at 47 (citing KG Dongbu’s IQR at 44); see also KG Dongbu’s IQR at

44 (discussing new private investors involved in the fourth debt-to-equity

restructuring as a factual distinction from the first three debt-to-equity

restructurings). Instead, Defendant justifies Commerce’s determination by arguing

that Plaintiff seeks to “decontextualize the various rounds of the restructuring
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 13

program[,]” Def.-Interv.’s Resp. Br. at 16, not by citing new evidence about the

first through third debt-to-equity restructurings that came to light after Commerce

had made prior determinations regarding the first through third debt-to-equity

restructurings.

      Because Commerce failed to provide an adequate explanation for its

decision to deviate from its prior determinations, the Court concludes that

Commerce’s determination is arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. The

Court remands Commerce’s determination that the first through third debt-to-

equity restructurings provided a countervailable subsidy to KG Dongbu for

reconsideration or further explanation.

             B.    Whether Commerce’s Determination is Supported by
                   Substantial Evidence

      Plaintiffs argue that Commerce’s determination to treat the first through

third debt-to-equity restructurings as countervailable subsidies to KG Dongbu is

not supported by substantial evidence. Pls.’ Br. at 23–29. Because the Court is

remanding Commerce’s determination as not in accordance with the law, the Court

also remands the issue for consideration of whether Commerce’s determination is

supported by substantial evidence.
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 14

      III.   Whether Commerce’s Determination Regarding Debt-to-Equity
             Restructuring Benefits Pass Through is Supported by Substantial
             Evidence

      Plaintiffs argue that Dongbu properly declined to submit a response to

Commerce’s Change-in-Ownership Appendix with its initial questionnaire

response because Commerce had not found that any non-recurring subsidies

provided benefits to Dongbu at that time. Id. at 29. Plaintiffs contend that “record

evidence demonstrates that Dongbu’s change in ownership occurred at arm’s

length and for fair market value such that any alleged subsidies from the first

through third [debt-to-equity restructurings] were extinguished[,]” therefore, “even

if the Court finds that Commerce’s disregard of its prior practice is lawful, the

record shows that any benefits associated with the [debt-to-equity restructurings]

did not pass through to KG Dongbu Steel[,]” but were instead “extinguished by the

arm’s-length purchase of Dongbu by the KG Consortium.” Id. Defendant asserts

that Commerce presumes that a non-recurring subsidy benefits a recipient “over

the average useful life of the relevant assets[.]” Def.’s Resp. Br. at 19. Defendant

argues that a respondent may rebut this presumption by proving that a change in

ownership occurred in which the previous owner sold all or substantially all of a

company or its assets in an arm’s length sale for fair market value. Id. at 19–20.

      As noted above, the Court is remanding Commerce’s determination as not in

accordance with the law based on Commerce’s arbitrary departure from prior
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 15

practice without sufficient explanation. On remand, Commerce may reconsider the

record with respect to whether KG Dongbu received any countervailable subsidies;

therefore, the Court also remands this issue for Commerce to reconsider whether

substantial evidence supports a determination that any change in ownership

occurred at arm’s length and for fair market value that extinguished any alleged

subsidies from the first through third debt-to-equity restructurings to KG Dongbu.

      IV.    Whether Commerce’s Uncreditworthy Benchmark Rate
             Determination is Supported by Substantial Evidence

      Plaintiffs contend that Commerce incorrectly applied the formula for

calculating the uncreditworthy benchmark rate. Pls.’ Br. at 36. Plaintiffs assert

that KG Dongbu’s outstanding long-term loans and bonds were restructured during

the period of review, thus creating “new” loans and bonds with a term of six years.

Id. Plaintiffs argue, however, that Commerce’s calculation of the benefit from the

“new” loans that were restructured during the period of review used an incorrect

three-year interest rate to measure the countervailable loans and bonds. Id. at 36–

37.

      Defendant asserts that Commerce correctly applied its regulations regarding

the uncreditworthy discount rate and calculated the rate based upon evidence on

the record. Def.’s Resp. Br. at 23. Defendant argues that Commerce used a

correct three-year interest rate as the long-term interest rate paid because no other
Court No. 22-00047                                                            Page 16

interest rates were available. Id. at 24; see Final IDM at 58. Commerce

determined that it could not use the six-year interest rate paid by a credit-worthy

company because there was no information on the record regarding any six-year

interest rate paid by a credit-worthy company. Final IDM at 58. Plaintiffs contend

that Commerce had all the information necessary to calculate the benchmark rate

and that the term of the loan was six years, not three. Oral Arg. at 4:20–5:20, June

2, 2023, ECF No. 50 (citing KG Dongbu’s IQR at 45).

      In the case of a loan, a benefit exists to the extent that the amount a firm

pays on the government-provided loan is less than the amount the firm would have

paid on a comparable commercial loan that the firm could obtain on the market.

19 C.F.R. § 351.505(a)(1). Under normal circumstances, Commerce will rely on

effective interest rates. Id. However, when a firm is deemed uncreditworthy,

Commerce calculates the interest rate pursuant to a specific formula:

      ib=[(1-qn)(1+if)n/(1-pn)]1/n-1

      where:

      n = the term of the loan;

      ib = the benchmark interest rate for uncreditworthy companies;

      if = the long-term interest rate that would be paid by a creditworthy
      company;

      pn = the probability of default by an uncreditworthy company within n
      years; and
Court No. 22-00047                                                               Page 17

      qn = the probability of default by a creditworthy company within n
      years.

Id. The benefit conferred by an equity infusion shall be allocated over the same

period as a non-recurring subsidy. Id. § 351.507(c). Commerce determined that

KG Dongbu was uncreditworthy and thus used the uncreditworthy benchmark

formula in 19 C.F.R. § 351.505(a)(3)(iii). Final IDM at 58.

      Despite Commerce’s assertion that there was no information on the record

regarding any six-year interest rate, id. at 58, Plaintiffs cite potentially contrary

record evidence indicating that the “[r]epayment date of outstanding loans was

extended from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2025[.]” Oral Arg. at 4:20–

5:20, June 2, 2023, ECF No. 50 (citing KG Dongbu’s IQR at 45). Thus, the Court

observes that the record evidence seemingly indicates that the loan term might be

closer to six years and not three years, and Commerce should at least consider the

record evidence and further substantiate the loan term used in its redetermination.

The Court concludes that Commerce’s application of the relevant formula and

subsequent determination was not supported by substantial evidence because

Commerce should consider the potentially contrary evidence presented by

Plaintiffs. The Court remands this issue for Commerce to reconsider the

calculation of KG Dongbu’s interest rate.
Court No. 22-00047                                                                Page 18

      V.     Whether Commerce’s Unequityworthy Discount Rate
             Determination is Supported by Substantial Evidence

      Plaintiffs argue that Commerce incorrectly calculated the discount rates in

determining the amount of the benefit in each year of the fifteen-year allocation

periods for the average useful life of the relevant assets. Pl.’s Br. at 40–41.

Defendant contends that Commerce could not use a six-year creditworthy interest

rate because there was no information regarding a six-year interest rate paid by a

creditworthy company on the record. Def.’s Br. at 24.

      As noted above, the Court is remanding for Commerce to reconsider

whether the record evidence establishes a loan term of six years or three years.

The Court also remands Commerce’s calculation of discount rates in determining

the amount of the benefit in each year of the fifteen-year allocation periods for the

average useful life of the relevant assets based on Commerce’s reconsideration of

the record evidence.

                                  CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

      ORDERED that the Final Results, 87 Fed. Reg. 2759, are remanded to

Commerce for reconsideration consistent with this opinion; and it is further

      ORDERED that this case shall proceed according to the following schedule:

             (1)    Commerce shall file the remand determination on or before
Court No. 22-00047                                                       Page 19

                 October 5, 2023;

           (2)   Commerce shall file the administrative record on or before

                 October 18, 2023;

           (3)   Comments in opposition to the remand determination shall be

                 filed on or before November 20, 2023;

           (4)   Comments in support of the remand determination shall be filed

                 on or before December 20, 2023; and

           (5)   The joint appendix shall be filed on or before January 19, 2024.

                                                  /s/ Jennifer Choe-Groves
                                               Jennifer Choe-Groves, Judge

Dated: July 7, 2023
      New York, New York