Recall Roque Court Documents

1,377 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,377
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
634
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Recall Roque Court Documents

  1. 1. U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney District of New Jersey 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 (973)645-2700 Newark, New Jersey 07102 September 10, 2013 BY ECF FILING Hon. Kevin McNulty United States District Judge United States District Court for the District of New Jersey Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office & Courthouse Federal Square Newark, New Jersey, 07101 Re: United States v. Felix Roque, et al. Criminal No. 12-540 (KM) Dear Judge McNulty: The Government respectfully submits this letter in support of its motion in limine to admit evidence related to uncharged acts of the defendants. BACKGROUND Overview of the Defendants’ Offense Conduct This case involves a conspiracy between Felix Roque, the mayor of West New York, and his son, Joseph Roque, to disrupt a website devoted to comment and criticism of Felix’s administration of the town (the “Website”) and to harass individuals associated with the Website through computer hacking.1 1 This summary is based on the allegations contained in the Superseding Indictment and exhibits that the Government intends to offer into evidence at trial. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 403
  2. 2. 2 In furtherance of the conspiracy, Joseph hacked into an e-mail account that Victim 1, the website’s administrator, used to operate the Website. Once inside that account, Joseph obtained: (1) information about the domain name and web hosting services that Victim 1 used to operate the Website; and (2) information about individuals who contributed or offered assistance to the Website. Joseph also hacked into the social media account that Victim 1 used to promote the Website to obtain information about the people behind the Website. Finally, Joseph cancelled and deleted the domain name and web hosting accounts that enabled the Website to operate and, as a result, the Website was shut down (i.e., its content was rendered unavailable to the public). After Joseph identified the people involved (or believed by the defendants to be involved) with the Website, Felix contacted them in order to harass and intimidate them in retaliation for offering assistance to the Website. In a recorded meeting with Victim 1, Felix stated, in substance and in part, that: (1) “I have access, or should I say, somebody has access” to the Website; (2) he has seen documents showing who was involved; (3) he learned of Victim 5’s involvement with the Website from Victim 5’s communications with the Website, but “[l]ittle did [Victim 5] know that somebody else was communicating with him that works for me”; and (4) “What I am doing is not very kosher.” (Government Exhibit 604TR). The Charges On April 18, 2013, a grand jury sitting in Newark returned a two-count Superseding Indictment in this case. Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment charges that between on or about February 6, 2012 and on or about February 17, 2012, in Hudson Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 404
  3. 3. 3 County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants Felix Roque and Joseph Roque did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with each other to commit offenses against the United States, namely, to: (a) intentionally access a computer without authorization and exceed authorized access and thereby obtain information from a protected computer, that is, a Microsoft computer used in and affecting interstate commerce and communication to host the contents of an e-mail account: (i) in furtherance of criminal acts in violation of the laws of the United States, namely, knowingly causing the transmission of programs, information, codes, and commands, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causing damage without authorization to protected computers, that is, Go Daddy and Weebly computers used in and affecting interstate commerce to host the domain name and content for a website, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030(a)(5)(A); and (ii) in furtherance of criminal acts in violation of the laws of the State of New Jersey, namely, harassment, contrary to N.J.S.A. Sections 2C:33-4(a) and (c), all contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii); and (b) intentionally access a computer without authorization and exceed authorized access and thereby obtain information from a protected computer, (a Facebook computer) used in and affecting interstate commerce and communication to promote a website, in furtherance of criminal acts in violation of the laws of the State of New Jersey, namely, harassment, contrary to N.J.S.A. Sections 2C:33-4(a) and (c), all contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment charges that between on or about February 6, 2012 and on or about February 17, 2012, in Hudson County, in the District of New Jersey, and elsewhere, defendants Felix Roque and Joseph Roque, did knowingly and intentionally access a computer without authorization and exceed authorized access and Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 405
  4. 4. 4 thereby obtain information from a protected computer, that is, a Microsoft computer used in and affecting interstate commerce and communication to host the contents of an e-mail account: (i) in furtherance of criminal acts in violation of the laws of the United States, namely, knowingly causing the transmission of programs, information, codes, and commands, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causing damage without authorization to protected computers, that is, Go Daddy and Weebly computers used in and affecting interstate commerce to host the domain name and content for a website, contrary to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1030(a)(5)(A); and (ii) in furtherance of criminal acts in violation of the laws of the State of New Jersey, namely, harassment, contrary to N.J.S.A. Sections 2C:33-4(a) and (c), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii) and Section 2. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standards Governing the Admissibility of Evidence of a Defendant’s Uncharged Acts In United States v. Cross, 308 F.3d 308, 320 (3d Cir. 2002), the Third Circuit explained that evidence that is “intrinsic” to the charged offense is not subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). In United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233, 248-49 (3d Cir. 2010), the Circuit identified two “narrow” categories of evidence of uncharged acts that qualified as “intrinsic”: First, evidence is intrinsic if it “directly proves” the charged offense. This gives effect to Rule 404(b)’s applicability only to evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” If uncharged misconduct directly proves the charged offense, it is not evidence of some “other” crime. Second, uncharged acts Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 406
  5. 5. 5 performed contemporaneously with the charged crime may be termed intrinsic if they facilitate the commission of the charged crime. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted); see Cross, 308 F.3d at 320; United States v. Bowie, 232 F.3d 923, 929 (D.C.Cir.2000). If evidence is deemed “intrinsic” it may be admitted without providing advance notice or a limiting instruction. Id. at 249. For all other evidence of uncharged acts to be admitted, the proponent must satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b), which states, in part: “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[.]” FED. R. EVID. 404(b). “Rule 404(b) is a rule of inclusion rather than exclusion.” United States v. Cruz, 326 F.3d 392, 395 (3d Cir. 2003). Federal courts “favor the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts if such evidence is relevant for any purpose other than to show a mere propensity or disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 688-89 (1988) (“Congress was not nearly so concerned with the potential prejudicial effect of Rule 404(b) evidence as it was with ensuring that restrictions would not be placed on the admission of such evidence”). To satisfy Rule 404(b), other-acts evidence must (1) have a proper evidentiary purpose; (2) be relevant; (3) satisfy Rule 403; and (4) be accompanied by a limiting instruction (when one is requested) about the purpose for which the jury may consider it. Green, 617 F.3d at 249; see also United States v. Davis, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 4035547, at Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 407
  6. 6. 6 *5 (Aug. 9, 2013) (“All this [test] really means is that such evidence must have a nonpropensity purpose and satisfy the same relevancy requirements as any other evidence.”). Proponents of Rule 404(b) evidence “must do more than conjure up a proper purpose – they must also establish a chain of inferences no link of which is based on a propensity inference.” United States v. Smith, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 3985005, at * 4 (3d Cir. Aug. 6, 2013) (citing authorities). The Third Circuit recently recognized: all Rule 404(b) evidence is at least somewhat prejudicial to the party against whom it is admitted and will invite the jury to make inferences about his or her character. This alone cannot lead to exclusion. We resolve this inherent tension by requiring that the purpose of the Rule 404(b) evidence be established without an inference that the party against whom it is admitted acted in conformity with whatever the evidence of the prior act says about his or her character. We therefore do not exclude evidence simply if it invites character inferences, but only evidence that is used to prove a person's character and that invites the inference that the person acted in conformity with that character, and was therefore more likely to have committed the charged crime. Id. II. The Evidence of Uncharged Acts Is Admissible The Government respectfully requests an in limine ruling concerning the evidence of uncharged acts, as described below.2 While most of this evidence may not appear to be “classic” Rule 404(b) material, the Third Circuit’s precedential decision in Green and, more recently, those in Smith and Davis, prompt the Government’s broad disclosure of all anticipated evidence that might conceivably implicate the rule. 2 The Government provided written notice of this evidence to the defendants by a letter dated September 2, 2013. The letter followed a conference call with counsel on August 22, 2013, in which the Government verbally identified this evidence. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 408
  7. 7. 7 A. Content of the Website 1. The Proffered Evidence The Government seeks an in limine ruling as to Government Exhibit 601, which consists of print-outs reflecting the content of the Website. (See Attachment A, hereto, which includes a copy of Government Exhibit 601). Those pages contain “blog” postings authored by Victim 1 that refer to news articles and other public of sources of information about the administration of West New York under defendant Felix Roque and criticize the same. The content, while unflattering of Felix Roque and the West New York officials who reported to him, is neither vulgar nor debased. Rather, it focuses on what Victim 1 asserts to be the broken promises, self-enrichment, and unethical conduct of public officials who serve West New York. 2. The Proffered Evidence is Admissible under Rule 404(b) and Satisfies Rule 403 The Government does not seek to introduce the content of the Website to prove the truth of any matter asserted therein; rather, what is relevant is the fact that the Website existed and that its content was open to the public. More specifically, the Government will offer the content of the Website as proof (1) of Felix and Joseph’s motive to engage in the charged computer hacking crimes, and (2) that they committed the crimes with the requisite mens rea. These are matters of legitimate consequence to the jury’s determinations in this case. Moreover, the probative value of this evidence does not depend on an inference that Felix Roque has a propensity to commit bad or criminal acts. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 409
  8. 8. 8 First, the content of the Website answers the following question: Why would Felix and Joseph Roque commit the crimes alleged in the Superseding Indictment, which involved hacking into Victim 1’s password-protected e-mail and social media accounts? The Website content strongly suggests the answer: The defendants did so to silence critics of Felix’s administration and seek political advantage. Additionally, this evidence establishes that Joseph was motivated to commit the charged crimes (e.g., to help his father gain political advantage by shutting down the Website and silencing his critics) and it tends to prove that Joseph committed the computer hacking attributed to him in the Superseding Indictment. Second, the charges in the Superseding Indictment require the Government to prove a variety of mens rea elements to the jury unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Third Circuit Model Jury Instruction § 6.18.371E (conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires proof that the defendant joined the conspiracy knowing of its objectives and intending to help further or achieve those objectives); United States v. Moran -Toala, No. 08–CR–103 (FB), 2012 WL 748612, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2012) (instructing jury that “in furtherance” under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) means with “the intent to help, advance, move forward, promote, or facilitate” an offense), vacated and remanded on other grounds, Docket No. 12-2010-cr, 2013 WL 4046291, at *10 (2d Cir. Aug. 12, 2013). The content of the Website is circumstantial proof3 of these elements according to the following chain of logical inferences: (1) the site offered a source of 3 Third Circuit Model Jury Instruction § 6.18.371E provides that jurors may consider circumstantial evidence, including whether the defendant had “some stake in the achievement of the conspiracy’s objective” to prove the required intent. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 410
  9. 9. 9 public information and commentary dedicated to criticizing Felix Roque; (2) Felix and Joseph wanted to silence that criticism and for the site to be shut down; (3) they engaged in the acts alleged in the Superseding Indictment with the intent to achieve those goals. There is no propensity inference in this chain. 4 Finally, the significant probative value of the Website’s contents is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant Felix Roque. The charges in this case are much more serious than anything asserted in the Website. Moreover, in Green, the Third Circuit noted instances in which it found no error in reviewing the admission of highly prejudicial “other acts” evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 403. 617 F.3d at 252 (citing United States v. Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 748 (3d Cir. 1996) (evidence of uncharged rape) and United States v. Scarfo, 850 F.2d 1015, 1020 (3d Cir. 1988) (evidence of uncharged murders). Last, any risk of unfair prejudice will be eliminated by providing a limiting instruction when Government Exhibit 601 is introduced and once again at the end of trial. 4 Additionally, should the defendants or their counsel (1) characterize the content of the Website as tortious or unlawful, or (2) impugn the witnesses for their involvement with such an endeavor, the content would be offered for the legitimate purpose of responding to those claims. The Government anticipates that both are likely based on the statements of counsel and their arguments in pretrial motions. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 411
  10. 10. 10 B. Uncharged Acts of Social Engineering and Impersonation by Joseph Roque During and In Furtherance of the Conspiracy 1. The Proffered Evidence The Superseding Indictment charges that between on or about February 6, 2012, through on or about February 17, 2012, Joseph Roque engaged in numerous acts of impersonation and misrepresentation in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in Count 1. (See, e.g., Superseding Indictment, Count 1, ¶¶ 4.a., 4.b, 4.c., 4.e., 4.l., 4.n., 4.o., 4.s., 4.v.). At trial, the Government will introduce evidence not only of those acts but of certain other such acts that were (1) contemporaneous with the charged acts; (2) of a similar nature; (3) committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. (See Attachment B, hereto, which includes copies of the relevant exhibits). Specifically, the Government will offer evidence that on or about February 7, 2012, at approximately 1:40 p.m. (EST), Joseph Roque created an e-mail account – westnewyorknews2012@[Provider 1].com (hereinafter, the “WNYN2012 E-mail Account”) – in the name of Cosmo Cirillo, a politically-active person in West New York who had publicly criticized Felix Roque about his administration of the town. (Government Exhibits 500-50; 500-51). Just minutes after creating the account, using the “Contact Us” feature on the Website, Roque sent a message to the Website’s administrator, Victim 1. (Government Exhibit 500-115). That message went to Victim 1’s WNYN E-mail Account, the account that Roque later hacked, as alleged in Count 2. (Id.) In the message, Joseph Roque claimed to be Mr. Cirillo and wrote “please contact me[.] I have valuable info for your group[.]” (Id.) In a follow-up e-mail, Joseph Roque Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 412
  11. 11. 11 continued to impersonate Cirillo: “I’m sure you’ve heard of me[.] I’ve been battling Roque for a while now and whatever I can do to help please let me know.”5 (Government Exhibit 500-54). Additionally, the Government will offer evidence that on or about February 8, 2012, after hacking into the WNYN E-mail Account, Joseph Roque used it to contact Tom Bertoli – another politically-active person who had contacted Victim 1 through the Website and offered to help. (Government Exhibit 500-159). This time impersonating Victim 1, Roque used the WNYN E-mail Account to attempt to trick Mr. Bertoli into implicating himself as a contributor of leads for the Website.6 (Government Exhibits 500-159; 500-161; 500-162). 2. The Proffered Evidence Is “Intrinsic” The Government seeks an in limine ruling as to this evidence. These acts of social engineering and impersonation directly prove the instant charges and, therefore, are “intrinsic” to the instant charges. They show that Joseph Roque was working covertly 5 Joseph Roque’s creation and use of WNYN2012 E-mail Account is relevant for other reasons, as well. First, an e-mail from the WNYN 2012 E-mail Account reflects Joseph Roque’s attempt to elicit from Victim 1 the answer to a security question associated with the WNYN E-mail Account. Security questions are commonly used by computer service providers to validate requests they receive for access to online account where a user claims to have lost or forgotten his password. Second, another e-mail contained in the WNYN 2012 E-mail Account is consistent with Joseph Roque using that account to research Provider 1’s methodology for sending password links to alternative e-mail accounts. Finally, the relevance of the WNYN2012 E-mail Account is underscored by Joseph Roque’s statement to Felix Roque: “that’s my e-mail that I used against them.” (Government Exhibit 500-88). 6 Felix Roque referred to Mr. Bertoli in a recorded conversation that the Government will offer at trial. Thus, Joseph Roque’s attempt to probe Mr. Bertoli’s suspected involvement in the Website is relevant because it informs the content and significance of Felix Roque’s statements on the recording in which he boasts of uncovering Mr. Bertoli’s offer of assistance to the Website. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 413
  12. 12. 12 and purposefully to contact individuals who had contributed to the Website to identify them and determine the scope of their involvement in the Website. They are probative of Joseph Roque’s commitment to the object of the conspiracy, namely, to gather and provide information that his coconspirator, Felix Roque, could use to intimidate, harass, and retaliate against the Website’s contributors. These acts – which are contemporaneous with the others alleged in the Superseding Indictment – reveal a degree of sophistication and an intent to deceive others, which are probative of Joseph Roque’s mens rea at that time. Finally, notwithstanding that they are not charged these acts are overt acts in furtherance of the harassment object of the conspiracy charged in Count 1. See United States v. Schurr, 794 F.2d 903, 908 n.4 (3d Cir. 1986) (“It is well settled that the government can prove overt acts not listed in the indictment, so long as there is no prejudice to the defendants thereby”); United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 38-39 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 841 (1976). Accordingly, the Court should allow this evidence and make a finding on the record that the evidence is “intrinsic” under the formulation in Green. 3. Alternatively, the Proffered Evidence is Admissible under Rule 404(b) and Satisfies Rule 403 In the alternative, the Government asks the Court to admit this evidence consistent with Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and related Circuit precedent. As discussed above, the evidence is offered for proper purposes and is relevant. From this evidence the jury can logically infer that Joseph Roque’s hacking conduct was purposeful and methodical, not committed on a whim or absent-mindedly. No part of this depends on an inference that Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 414
  13. 13. 13 Joseph has a propensity for committing bad acts. Finally, the probative value, which is very high, is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant because, among other things, the other acts evidence in question is not more serious than the conduct charged in the Superseding Indictment. Further, the evidence can be introduced subject to a limiting instruction. C. Defendants’ Joint Activity to Shape Opinion of Felix Roque on the Internet 1. The Proffered Evidence On February 10, 2012, Felix Roque sent an e-mail to Joseph Roque directing him to post favorable comments about Felix’s administration of West New York that Felix had apparently written about himself. (Government Exhibit 500-84). In addition, on February 7, 2012, Joseph Roque sent an e-mail to Felix Roque stating, in sum and substance, that he (Joseph) would get to the bottom of who was posting comments under username “ROQUELIED.” (Government Exhibit 200-114). Those e-mails were exchanged during the conspiracy and “book-ended” the computer hacking activity charged in this case. 2. The Proffered Evidence is Admissible under Rule 404(b) and Satisfies Rule 403 The Government respectfully requests an in limine ruling as to this evidence. First, the evidence is probative of the relationship between Joseph and Felix at the time of the offense and, specifically, shows that (1) Felix directed Joseph to take action on the Internet to cast Felix and his administration of West New York in a positive light, and (2) that Joseph readily complied. See generally, United States v. Simmons, 679 F.2d 1042, Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 415
  14. 14. 14 1050 (3d Cir. 1982) (recognizing that other crimes evidence may be admissible if offered for any non-propensity purpose, and identifying the need “to provide necessary background information” about the relationships among the players as a proper purpose). The evidence also shows that at the time of the events alleged in the Superseding Indictment the defendants were working in concert on managing public perception of Felix’s administration of West New York on the Internet. In light of the charges of conspiracy (Count I) and aiding and abetting computer hacking (Count II), evidence that fleshes out their relationship and shows their shared objectives is particularly consequential here. Second, the relationship between the evidence and the purpose for which the Government offers it is fairly direct and no “propensity” inference is part of this equation. Third, the balancing test under Rule 403 favors the admission of the evidence. There is significant probative value to this evidence and the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendants, if there is any, is negligible given that nature of these “other acts.” D. Victim 1’s Motivation for Creating the Website and Related Use of an Alias 1. The Proffered Evidence The Government intends to elicit testimony from Victim 1 concerning his motivation for creating the Website. It is anticipated that Victim 1 will testify that he did so, among other things, to expose what he perceived to be the lies, corruption, and unethical behavior of Felix Roque’s administration of West New York. The Government will not seek to have Victim 1 elaborate further. Additionally, Victim 1 will be asked to Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 416
  15. 15. 15 explain his reason for setting up the Website anonymously and using an alias – Maria Pascuale – to promote and administer it. The Government anticipates Victim 1 will testify that he feared retribution from Felix Roque and his allies if his (Victim 1’s) involvement with the Website were revealed. The Government does not intend to elicit information about any specific acts. 2. The Proffered Evidence is Not Subject to But Nonetheless Satisfies Rule 404(b), as well as Rule 403 Because the Government intends to elicit only Victim 1’s motivation and will not inquire about specific instances of conduct by Felix Roque, there is no need to evaluate the proffered evidence under Rule 404(b). Should the Court conclude that it is prudent to do so, the Government easily satisfies the rule. Victim 1’s anticipated testimony regarding his motivation to create the Website and related use of an alias will be offered for the legitimate, non-propensity purpose of “completing the story” of the case and to offer background information about the relationship between Victim 1 and Felix Roque. Both have been recognized by the Third Circuit as legitimate purposes. See Green, 617 F.3d at 249 (“Thus, most, if not all, other crimes evidence currently admitted outside the framework of Rule 404(b) as “background” evidence will remain admissible under the approach we adopt today.”); Simmons, 679 F.2d at 1050; Cross, 308 F.3d at 320. The connection between this evidence and the non-propensity purpose for which it is offered is direct, not inferential – thus, there is no weak link. Finally, given that Victim 1 will not testify about particular events involving Felix Roque, the danger of unfair prejudice is Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 417
  16. 16. 16 reduced and, together with limiting instructions, does not substantially outweigh the probative value of this evidence. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Government respectfully requests that the Court admit the evidence described herein and place on the record the requisite findings under Fed. R. Evid. 401, 404(b), and 403. Respectfully submitted, PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney /s/ L. Judson Welle By: BARARA R. LLANES L. JUDSON WELLE Assistant United States Attorney Attachments Cc: John P. McDonald, Esq. (counsel for defendant Felix Roque) (by ECF & e-mail) John A. Azzarello, Esq. (counsel for defendant Joseph Roque) (by ECF & e-mail) Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54 Filed 09/11/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 418
  17. 17. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 29 PageID: 419
  18. 18. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 29 PageID: 420
  19. 19. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 29 PageID: 421
  20. 20. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 4 of 29 PageID: 422
  21. 21. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 5 of 29 PageID: 423
  22. 22. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 6 of 29 PageID: 424
  23. 23. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 7 of 29 PageID: 425
  24. 24. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 8 of 29 PageID: 426
  25. 25. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 9 of 29 PageID: 427
  26. 26. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 10 of 29 PageID: 428
  27. 27. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 11 of 29 PageID: 429
  28. 28. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 12 of 29 PageID: 430
  29. 29. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 13 of 29 PageID: 431
  30. 30. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 14 of 29 PageID: 432
  31. 31. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 15 of 29 PageID: 433
  32. 32. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 16 of 29 PageID: 434
  33. 33. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 17 of 29 PageID: 435
  34. 34. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 18 of 29 PageID: 436
  35. 35. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 19 of 29 PageID: 437
  36. 36. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 20 of 29 PageID: 438
  37. 37. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 21 of 29 PageID: 439
  38. 38. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 22 of 29 PageID: 440
  39. 39. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 23 of 29 PageID: 441
  40. 40. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 24 of 29 PageID: 442
  41. 41. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 25 of 29 PageID: 443
  42. 42. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 26 of 29 PageID: 444
  43. 43. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 27 of 29 PageID: 445
  44. 44. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 28 of 29 PageID: 446
  45. 45. Case 2:12-cr-00540-KM Document 54-1 Filed 09/11/13 Page 29 of 29 PageID: 447

×