Thomas E. Trent v. United States

Appellant, TRENT, E. Thomas America,

UNITED STATES Appellee. No. 15545. Appeals Court United States Circuit. of Columbia District May Argued 20, 1960. Decided Oct. Rehearing Banc Denied En for Petition 21, 1960. Dec. (appointed Arthur G. Lambert Mr. C., Court), D. Fitzgerald with whom Richard Mr. court), Washington, (appointed brief, appellant. C.,

D. was Atty., Smith, Mr. Asst. U. S. Donald S. Gasch, Oliver U. S. whom Messrs. Belcher, Atty., and Carl Asst. U. S. W. brief, appellee. Atty., were J., Bazelon, dissented. Burger, Bazelon, Bastían Before Judges. Circuit Judge. BURGER, Circuit was convict-

After count all counts a six indictment ed on laws.1 He was for violation of narcotics imprisonment periods sentenced ranging maxi- from minimum to a running years, con- mum of 5 sentences currently. appeal allowed expense appoint- government with court ably briefed ed counsel argued points in this court. all available 174; 4704(a), 4705(a) (1958). 1. 21 § U.S.C.A. §§ U.S.C.

mation led to that the lant rests. as its contended that the dence on which (a) The the defense of which, directed a verdict witness an principal points The record discloses: government police turn, informant appellant’s conviction entrapment, it surveillance of developed urged required to call Court should guilty; here are: (1) that infor- being evi- (b) I went some that? A. Several times. money presence when he went out to obtain incident, ^[******] “Q. “Q. “Q. Q. money. Would How Were Yes. shoplifting as to what purchase frequently A. you you Heroin. drugs describe with him to ever in Trent’s happened? did ? A. Yes. any you one get A. do police appellant known to the “Q. employment Did Trent have arresting police addict; offi (2) you while he lived with ? A. Not to engaged previously him cer had observed my knowledge. in the use narcotics with others “Q. get Where would he ap paraphernalia; (3) that the narcotics money supply with, from to his habit pellant sales of narcotics made you do know? A. me From most separate officer on two occasions. the time. just depicts appellant an dissent “Q. Mostly you. you from Were “mere addicts” other one of the working? A. No. “present statutes” whom the “Q. get you your Where did impact.” The rec have an “unfortunate money Shoplifting. from? A. argument support ord does not from government agents officers had received this appellant any is a information which the “mere addict.” or the Apart en man ^[******] “Q. right? you In saw A. He wasn’t a words, get narcotics; he was the dealer, gaged you traffic, if that drug is what mean.

with mer record: pellant episode closed when she lived friend of quently.” You mean what Trent bought drugs for me. him some him Same or “Q. ^[******] “Q. Now, “Q. “Q. Frequently? A. Yes. “Q. supply 1959 and her kind had. with have; What would that be? What kind Did government, them? A. She testified that supplied you following excerpt the “mere addict” is dis Trent with then, do who had no connection stuff, type buy you did drugs drugs? description of a No, testified that drugs you that’s know? A. I to her “fre habit did just in the sum ever A. all. occurred gave pay you one ap It those is a far ods are true stratagem may illegal brokerage demned and himself girl’s S.Ct. showed Trent not In right? A. Yes.” drugs “Q. No, taking entrapment procedures. illicit engaged well great him universally proscribed. habit generally by cry from so States, 1958, 77 L.Ed. 413. But this settled that money earnings procured. courts have L.Ed.2d penalized specificity by procuring but I “compensation” in the form of criminal Sorrells. Sherman or meant, you but also get 848; this unfortunate 356 U.S. to be enforcement “[ajrtifice it; regularly drugs enterprises.” isn’t that Such meth Sorrells v. supporting supporting to catch Sherman for that part for con ppg¡e used? 287 U.S. at 53 S.Ct. Sept. 434-60, applied son, D.D.C. discussing Crim.No. as it rule disturbing is that factor said: the Court to Sorrells occur can cases as Johnson Sherman the defendant act for “The plainly a case. at all. not such But this is instigated by the prosecuted was was question * * can rea * it The sonably here is whether agent, it was prohibition Trent, * * * that be this record said on purpose the creature who in narcotics behalf trafficked disposi- previous no defendant had Terry with the under as well as Delores crime] tion to commit [the officer, “inno the test of an cover meets citizen, law-abiding industrious, by police person” into crimes cent lured * * * innocent.” otherwise and not have “which attempted.” otherwise [he] “innocent” the distinction between again empha- “predisposed” was the and “subjected appellant here is When the supra: United sized Sherman v. searching in- ‘appropriate and to [the] entrap ’ “To determine whether * * * quiry into his own conduct established, line a ment has been bearing innocence” on his claim of trap for between must be drawn (Sherman, at 78 S.Ct. 356 U.S. unwary trap for and a innocent the 821), claim, page of the dis- as that ”* * * unwary criminal. addict,” sent, that he was a “mere added.) (Emphasis 356 U.S. at by into crime was “innocent” until lured government page 821.2 apart. agents, simply falls by emphasized distinction engage predisposition Appellant’s Judge Washington in Guarro trafficking not, narcotics man, as in Sher- States, 1956, U.S.App.D.C.97, 101,237 by point remote in of time several 582: years, un- active as but current and Terry many disputed testimony where- dis- are situations Delores “There decoys permissible, that closes. It not overlooked police should be in use necessity. perhaps practical the whole of showed her and Drug friendly if peddlers hard to catch and hostile to the are government, though policeman was called even she undercover * * * - government purchase. And as a witness. make a * * may lead to a conviction entrapment properly The issue of challenge propo seriously jury appropriate submitted to the under No one can not aid or should show that the courts This record does not sition instructions. law, by ap- as a matter of as contended (cid:127)even tolerate criminal pellant dissent, police by otherwise “which and accused] acts [the attempted.” any police meth Such or informant “had would not convinced ought unwilling person and tend to foster crime an otherwise to commit ods will govern Quite contrary on behalf criminal act.” not be bring evidence that al- ment to about convictions. Such shows “was ought ready predisposed be and con to commit the act and methods often are hesitancy appel courts as exhibited the natural demned well as acquainted one United with the narcotics trade.” late courts. See States v. John opportunity pointed “commit, Justice Frank- whenever As Mr. arise, concurrence, should crimes kind furter in his Sherman solicited * * police police agent. particular to an or their sale officer or always police pur- agent “This not mean that one induced does may not act so as to detect en To find whether the accused is those chaser. ready gaged “predisposed” in criminal conduct and to commit kind of that willing requires answering, to commit further crimes the basis crime record, occasion arise. Such should the indeed whole whether the conduct obligation.” per- Sherman v. has been such as is their United the accused beyond 78 S. men doubt suade reasonable person who would Ct. accused is indeed States, supra; accept Sorrels true nor to mony true Trent’s testi United Sherman v. supra. jury first On the refused to believe. ignore police reject officer But the dissent transaction with the elects to kept capsules Terry two and of lant received $6 Agent Coursey accept capsules for This afforded and to as true the two himself. reasonably contradictory serving equivocal on which a could a basis self suggestion this transaction was conclude that Washington pattern of his transactions with induced same him to abandon his pure state where and return to habit.3 witness Delores “profit” recognize taken transaction was dissent seems to Supreme cash. the form of narcotics rather than Moreover, Sherman the Court did conflicting when the record shows that choose between or witnesses pass approached plainclothes credibility, first officer but rather reached its because, undisputed refused to sell to him conclusion “from the testi according testimony, mony prosecution’s “he to the officer’s witnesses.” [appellant] 373, page didn’t know who was. He I 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. at policeman bridge didn’t attempts whether was a But the know dissent to great approach very who.” On a second officer difference in the facts of Sher by appellant by drawing told to a while and “wait man and the facts here infer you.” sequence I will prose talk to This ences in favor Trent from events, appellant argues, Washing Dorothy now shows that cution’s to failure call he, entrapped witness; say “innocent mind” ton as a he would have us wrong. However, jury do could reason- a because the failed to call ably showing compelled reject view this conduct in- not as this witness we are disposition, undisputed testimony a nocence of criminal but as of Delores Terry Agent Coursey manifestation of the caution and wari- and of and believe knowledgeable ness one seasoned and Trent. ways traffic, and sus- Because defense free counsel was picious police lest customer be officer his argue “missing point witness” or informant. jury because was free to infer draw jury would, No doubt also and reason- prosecution, ences unfavorable to the it ably so, pat- be influenced whole very does that at this date follow late tern of activities and mode compulsion, we are under a as the dissent willingness life, his to live off the illicit be, appellant. seems to to believe Deaver earnings activity of Delores his States, 148, U.S.App.D.C. United v. 81 procuring taking for her 740, denied, 1946, F.2d 155 certiorari 329 “pay” caps, wary re- 766, 121, 659; 67 91 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. agent’s buy. sponses to the efforts to Davis, Cir., 1959, v. States 7 262 Perhaps, too, jury may have taken 871; States, F.2d Cir., Ferrari v. United 9 Agent into account the fact that while 132, denied, 244 F.2d certiorari Dar Coursey Terry’s aware S., 1957, 873, neille v. U. 355 U.S. weaknesses and need for narcotics he 125, 78; 2 L.Ed.2d cf. Masciale v. United get drugs never tried to induce her to for States, 1957, 386, 827, 78 2 him. Indeed, appellate L.Ed.2d 859. we as an posture accept are not even At this court free his testi case we are not reject jury accepted mony, jury free to what the must be deemed to get you significance 3. “Q. Now how did she back not have been without on? give A. She would me stuff. She which listened to give stand, would me narcotics when his conduct on we —she and saw them, just dissenting venturing they, colleague, and I started unlike our did back into it.” not believe a word he said. Appellant’s “slip-of-the-tongue” refer- “we,” quickly ence to amended to “she” have us do— as the dissent would testi- free rejected. accept Trent’s To have mony judicially reject vindicated with his conduct require other us to jury. appear will will to him—there believed credible earnings Terrys, Delores shoplifting, Assuming, arguendo, the evi prostitution crimes or other missing in witness warranted dence exploited Trent. will be respect Wash struction Affirmed. it, requested ington if the defense had (but cf. Richards v. United Judge BAZELON, (dissent- Circuit 655; see F.2d ing). Cir., Jackson, 3 United States v. example of presents 41; This case another United States 580) present Cir., impact nar Beekman, unfortunate 155 F.2d my request addicts, see cotics statutes mere failure it without concurring opinion 52(b) Fed. Rule in Hawkins error” under R.Crim.P., instruction U.S.C.A. That No. evidentiary again very - U.S.App.D.C. -, F.2d -; and once raises one is but instructions; of multitude regarding denying questions the methods the instruction serious for, by might the Bureau of Nar Federal error had it been asked be enforcing indispensable in to fair these statutes.1 it was not a cotics by pointed up the on this record. This is Although are, in the laws narcotics carefully calculated that it is often a fact designed Congress’ primarily view, own in defense tactic to for such ask punish narcotics professional deter and to leaving in the a close case thus struction upon prey who traffickers the weak press upon free to the the defense venge defenseless,2they their stiff wreak alleged prosecution’s failure to call an upon their leeches and ance both these having “missing witness.” There been Congress “Drug recognized that victims. requested, instruction to no failure * * * symptom of a addiction a it error.” * * ."3 psychiatric mental or disorder appear follow that perhaps think it would from which would Some problem answer appropriate of addiction to extend more for courts a judicial sympathy lies in medical and rehabilitative treat modicum of Terry to Delores severe, prison potential and not ment mechanical and the victims other procuring activities, sentences frustrate rather than Trent’s varied rath- surely But until Con facilitate rehabilitation.4 than Trent. For if he is er set According 4. instances, to the James V. 1. Honorable For see v. Sherman Bennett, 369, Director Bureau of the Federal United 78 (discussed 819, 2 of Prisons: L.Ed.2d infra); “Prisons, federal, Silva, both in state and and United v. D.C. States years immediately S.D.N.Y.1959, F.Supp. 557, reported ahead will be faced inevitably problems Times, 5, 1959, p. 53, with of narcotic in N. March Y. offenders, alike, Judge acquitted addict and non-addict where Weinfeld an ac weighed hope- upon finding who are down narcotics violator cused futility paid and the bitter of sen- lessness informer in of the Bureau seemingly drug stretch into in- tences troduced to the habit finity. can institution What offer turned and then him over to a Bureau serving years (see 30, agent “illegal” my man 50 or 80 made who sale prospect parole hope no in with v. statement Jones United mitigation U.S.App.D.C. 16, 1959, 326, [“A his sentence?” 330 n. Today’s 16). Administrator Views Prison 928 n. p. Problem,” 3/27-28/58, Narcotics H.R.Rep. Cong., 2388, 84th 2. See No. 2d History Symposium Narcotic quoted my (1956), in concur Sess. ring Problems, Drug In- National Addiction opinion in Hawkins Maryland, Bethesda, Health, stitutes - - -, No. Judge quoted in Statement of Circuit F.2d. Edgerton Henry on Sentences W. Cases, of Columbia at 54. Id. Narcotics findings, an ad- recognition reau.5 Miss herself its own gress, judi by prostitution. dict, situation, remedy her “habit” financed fit to sees sorry utility Coursey lay grind Her machinery its must cial grist rooming-house traffickers, operated addicts fact she by convicting with, place “pad” which was used as a of, possession or transactions —a gather bring take their ambit where addicts would them within narcotics company of heroin in well shots control narcotics laws. —as a brothel. self-restraint, judicial The cloth Appellant shield first became addicted however, stretched cannot be drugs years addict whose 1954when he was about 18 narcotics conviction “tragic drugs” paid was cre- old. He he used upon dependency selling stealing clothes, by agents of the Government ated lived, grandmother, to induce whom he preyed this weakness then shop-lifting. petty shop-lifting suf- led to procure His narcotics fellow him larceny Ac- convictions in is this case. 1954 and 1958. need. That ferers discharged April 1959, appellant be re- cordingly, should the conviction from the District of Columbia General versed. Hospital Rehabilitation where Clinic Cour- one John shows that record had been committed as a “narcotics va- two-year training sey, course after a grant.” (Supp. D.C.Code 33-416a VIII § Pennsylvania of Criminol- Institute 1960). According unchallenged to his Treasury ogy, as a commissioned testimony, he time cured of agent on March regular addiction. He obtained assigned field office New York employment grand- and lived with his immediately de- thereafter and almost mother. Washington field office. Un- to the tailed agents, stage life, It at this other of his when direction of three der the drugs peddled assigned he had in never and no work under-cover he was longer agents using them, centering around one of the group of addicts a Dorothy Narcotics an under-cover Bureau fixed their attention Bu- him and “special employee” Narcotics instituted course of con- prosecution p. 2, Sentencing, under in the narcotics Circuit Institute laws cooperation return for continued in re 1900.] Feb. porting (See other portion Judge Edgerton’s offenders trial tran Another script in quoted my concurring Willis v. United in statement is - U.S.App.D.C.-, F.2d where the opinion States, No. in Hawkins v. United - - testified he was offered im -, munity prosecution making from for sales suspected presence in offenders agent employee” Agent Coursey’s “Special a narcotics and was himself framed 5. Dorothy description repeated he Wash when refused continue this co ; (3) payment relationship operation) ington’s in narcotics the Government. (See Oops appear Deutsch, Washington at The Trouble With did not Miss (2d 1955); ed. and Senate record does not disclose the Committee and the Columbia, Investiga compensation. From assertions mode of appear cases, and of Crime Law Enforcement in it would that nar tion in other Columbia, compensated S.Rep.No.1989, employees in the District of are vari cotics Cong., (1952)). payments ways: (1) 2d cash 82d Sess. actual ous in use of informers narcotics offender turned The cases narcotics over each for prosecution (See in well described documented J. for note Bureau to the Goldstein, concerning supra In- Police Discretion Not To the case from the York, report Low the Criminal Process: Visibil- District of New voke Southern ity Times, in Administration N. Y. March Decisions in the ed employee Justice, (1960). special p. 69 Yale L.J. 562-73 there was suggests prac- forty sixty paid there that the immunity for each The author dollars trading $1,- for some information and had earned tice of “made” he illegal. reported eighteen Id. at cases over a from for 200 three-year immunity period); (2) from drugs. Appellant’s source culminating present convic- lant with duct shop- regular fairly “special employee” May of income was lifting expeditions tion. Washington, undertook, friend had been give began help Miss Wash- years, him with sometimes ington. stay drugs at him to to invite working rooming-house. Agent Coursey, The circumstances who had been among detailed center- are Trent’s readdiction for some time ing the wretches testimony: “pad,” following employee’s uncontradicted about the appellant re-addic- shox*tly met after you “Q. [of came Now when special employee led tion. longer you no were C. General] D. boy Coursey was her to believe that No, A. sir. addict? Coursey “she friend and may conceded you “Q. to Nar- back And went [Cour- told that “he have” May. May A. cotics June? alright.” sey] them, Between ? “Q. heroin And the narcotic was urge agents began ap- two under-cover Yes, sir. A. and, drugs procure pellant to for them got you “Q. on nar- back Who weeks, oc- the two transactions few mentioned cotics? A. Informer this case arises. curred telling kept tome She case. first transaction consisted of procuring come— capsules of heroin four “Q. A. Who was it? capsule, price per with standard $1.50 Washington. Agent Coursey. supplied money agent gave capsules girl “Q. your friend? two sheWas Appellant retained two for himself. agreed mine friend of had been a A. She only after years. to obtain these Coursey’s repeated pleas needed that he get you “Q. did she Now how girl In the friend.6 heroin his sick give me back on? She acting transaction, appellant, second me She would stuff. when we—she Washingtoxx’srequest, four procured Miss just them, and capsules and to her but delivered them venturing it. back into started Agent Coursey. are paid These living “Q. you her? Were appellant was the two “sales” which stay asked come and A. She me to drug peddler. convicted as with her. My immediate brethren that the hold you? “Q. Did A. Yes. of not sales do circumstances the two stay “Q. you actually Did entrapment of law. amount to as a matter me to asked her or— No. She Finding question. reach do not that I stay. room had a She come through agents, Government, that the its could in the basement that I down appellant dependency on lured drugs, into his [Empha- stay if there I would like.” hold would that the Government supplied.]. sis prosecute that not him for offenses directly spring from his addiction. month later—he By of 1959—one June again in the throes of addiction and In a most one be- was similar to the living of us, Supreme rent-free the basement was fore Court reversed Washington’s another house with conviction because Miss it found the defendant addict, young named had, entrapped woman law, as a matter of been supported selling her “habit” who into agent undercover narcotics to an pro- profits of her preyed sympathies With prostitution. helped supply fession, also explained she addict.7 a fellow The Court thought testified that 6. Trent The facts were that the defendant met Washington. Dorothy “gii-1 friend” was Government at a informer doctor’s undergoing while both cures office were 7. Sherman acquaint- addiction. Their accidental 78 S.Ct. 819. however, “Congress only jus- intended not have not could circumstances by tify any enforced require to be but were of that its statutes a resolution persons into viola- tempting doubts in appellant. favor innocent equally clear tions.” I think essentially Trent’s con- was Congress intended could not have Agent sistent Coursey with that by tempting narcotics laws be enforced many respects by corroborated in de- addiction, and persons into weak-willed fense prosecution witnesses. intro- convicting for violations then them challenge duced no evidence to his testi- but committed not have been would mony hospital that he came out of the Supreme said Court such addiction. The cured of his addiction. If in Sherman: false, were presumably hospital’s rec- an evil “The case illustrates ords its bar staff would been members have entrapment available which the defense of it. such evi- contradict No designed govern- produced. dence Appellant’s overcome. testi- mony at- ment someone informer entices that he was lured into addic- back only tempting not tion to avoid narcotics special illegal carrying employee sale but Bureau, into out an Narcotics returning to the habit likewise into could uncontradieted. It too * * * have refuted, untrue, use. Thus the Govern- been simply if plays calling special ment weaknesses of employee to the wit- beguiles party him into ness innocent committing prosecution stand. But the not failed witness, he other- call her crimes as a it failed attempted. cooperate wise Law any way with the earnest require meth- enforcement does efforts of to locate her for the purpose calling ods such as U.S. at [Id. page this.” her as his witness to testimony. Appellant’s 822.] 78 S.Ct. at corroborate his subpoena special employee efforts to I do not leave out consideration rooming-house the address of her Supreme fact that in Court Sherman proved unavailing when the marshal re- judging problem avoided the credi- ported that she had moved from that ad- bility resting its conclusion that Appellant’s dress. grandmother testified entrapped as matter that she had seen and talked solely upon testimony law employee days city ten before case, witnesses. instant the evi- trial, that, when she tried to reach agents dence that the drew Government her at the which Miss address to Wash- back addiction comes into ington was said to have moved in- credibility may, proved course, prosecu- formation questioned. my The opinion, be In false. concurring opinion grew informer, claiming In a anee Justice Frank- until the joined furter, by responding Douglas, treatment, he was Justices Har- not to re- quested Brennan, lan and took issue with the defendant to this ra- secure narcotics argued refused, tionale. for him. that “The The re- courts became entrapped evasive, capitulated defendant, finally fuse to but convict to recur- pleas. Although not because rent his conduct falls the outside the Government at- proscription tempted statute, because, of the to show that the defendant’s prior guilt admitted, if even be the methods convictions demonstrated (cid:127) ready compliance, on behalf of the Government the Court found this bring predisposition. to about conviction cannot be coun- insufficient to demonstrate page pointed 380, The tenanced.” Id. 356 U.S. Court that 78 there was “no petitioner S.Ct. 825. This view covers this evidence that himself in was “police Id., case. The conduct [narcotics] [here] the revealed trade.” 356 U.S. at page page standards, 375, falls below to common 78 S.Ct. at 822. feelings proper respond, for the use of page governmental power.” 356 U.S. at 78 S.Ct. at Id. 356 U.S. at 382, page 825. 78 S.Ct. at 294 I should add the the search that even issue to if tion’s contribution entrapment object grandmother’s were not resolved favor

to employee the had as a matter of I think concerning law the what conviction should case be the told reversed and her. remanded for a of the new trial because Washington’s Considering em- Miss . instruction, missing absence of a witness Government, ployment crucial the the ground supra, see note 9 and also on the making the Govern- played role she that, contrary my to brethren’s conclu- importance case, the obvious ment’s sion, entrapment was not sub- issue give, an atti- she could jury appropriate in- mitted to the under neutrality dis- did not tude malevolent to structions. Court failed Having charge prosecution’s burden. separate the which the element defend- produce to failed to make the effort least inducement) (i. e., ant must establish this facilitate critical witness or to from that prosecution must her, lant’s search prove e., beyond (i. a reasonable doubt challenge permitted should not predisposition). necessity for draw- presumption would have that witness ing jury’s testimony.9 distinction to the atten- corroborated Judge fully tion is Concluding discussed Learned the circum- do that as I Cir., Sherman, Hand in United States v. 2 stances disclosed record constitute 1952, 880, law, entrapment 200 F.2d need not be elabo- a matter of I would as agree Judge rated here. Hand conviction and remand the reverse the that failure to instructions entry the District Court judgment acquittal. 52(b). error.” Fed.R.Crim.P. very least, prosecution’s pro At the I think 9. The failure either to ground special employee, entitled to a duce her new trial reveal given missing that name she had new address and the new unavailability explain assumed, witness The rule instruction. party peculiarly appellant, process grounds, “[I]f his within has it entitles on due power produce and, witnesses whose to a new trial does if the Government required testimony would elucidate the transac- forward with the not come tion, acquit explanation, the fact that he does do it to an information or tal. Roviaro v. United presumption creates the mony, testi- 623, produced, 53, if be unfavor- 1 L.Ed.2d 639. U.S. 77 S.Ct. 1893, Supreme Roviaro, orable.” Graves v. United reversed a Court 118, 40, 121, 41, U.S. because of the Government’s conviction employee” “special identity 1021. A in L.Ed. refusal to disclose the “peculiarly allegedly witness the Government is a to whom accused former sold that the defendant power produce.” notwithstanding narcotics, au- within [its] the fact See my dissenting opin- likely very collected in knew thorities ion in Richards v. United reach him name and how to informer’s 655, opinion dissenting (see 275 F.2d of Mr. Justice denied, 1960, special employee Clark). in certiorari role, put surely played 1155. To central a L.Ed.2d as stant case especially Washington entrapment special employee alleged mildly, played position transaction, “to the transac- elucidate second If “the in Roviaro. tion.” informer request requirements fairness,” Although did not the defendant fundamental instruction, I think its omission * ** affecting required sub- informant’s error disclosure required rights.” 52(b). they Roviaro, the dis Fed.R.Crim.P. stantial name closure Dorothy Washington’s new address here. name and

Case Details

Case Name: Thomas E. Trent v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Dec 21, 1960

Citation: 284 F.2d 286

Docket Number: 15545_1

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.