*1 480 spent a million from the Borrower.” This off-
Bаnk of the West not collected against apply, Technical does not million litigating dollars claim set because $1.14 underwriter, dropped Chubb, then it Equities’ Eq- from not Technical was collected receiving Valley National penny. without uities. this as argues split it not have that should Valley conclude that National We “extraordinary expense,” pursu because not to an was entitled offset for the $1.14 ing litigation dropping then it was liability million in This falls with insurance. was not But there no evidence “reasonable.” general principal indemnitors vigorously pur After of unreasonableness. pay legal its expenses must all the of indem claim, suing lawyers Bank of the West’s nitee, if al even the indemnitеe’s insurer thought dropping They ease. advised ready paid expenses. Long for the See They problematic. the case was feared Keller, 318, 163 312, Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 104 on the underwriter would tend to attack (1980); Tillman v. Rec. Wheaton-Haven against weaken the defense the Technical Ass’n, Inc., 1222, F.2d Cir. Equities investors. The would underwriter 1978). subrogated An to the insurer be pay anything in not settlement. Bank of indemnity from policyholder’s right to a third best, at lawyers thought West’s the bank Lesmark, Pryce, party. See Inc. v. F.2d attorneys’ of fees “spending
would be a dollar (D.C.Cir.1964). so, If that is there (Ex every expected recovery.” dollar anyone. if the is no windfall to Even insurer 382). any There was no of this evidence subrogation, cаlling not is entitled analysis wrong, Bank or that of the West insurance windfall misstates the somewhat attorneys. overspent on is noth There case. Bank of the West chose bear the ing inherently dropping unreasonable about insurance, expense liability of purchasing the appears case it to be a Rea because loser. Valley National did not contract to share throwing money good son not does command must so in the benefit. We remand after bad. There was no reason to submit judgment by district court can correct the question jury. eliminating against this offset Bank claim. West’s Against Extraordinary D. Insurance Offset part, part Expenses AFFIRMED in REVERSED in and REMANDED. Bank the West succeeded in hav insurеr, Chubb, liability its pay $1.14 million toward loss. Chubb insured liability against
Bank of the West lenders’
claims of the sort which Bank the West spent defending settling. million $11 ¶ (See 106). 4; Supp Ex 703 Ex district The America, UNITED STATES of money court subtracted this from “extraordi Plaintiff-Appellee, nary Valley thereby got expenses.” National liability half of Bank West’s insurance recovery. SANDERS, argues Bank the West Joshua William have Defendant-Appellant. should not had to share the benefit liability itself, paid insurance it for its No. 93-10780. protection. own Appeals, United States Court of participation agreement Ninth Circuit. say anything about the collateral source applies “expenses rule. It incurred Argued May and Submitted 1994. only by Lender.” The sustained reference Nov. Decided agreement against to offsets extraordi nary expenses are the statement that by Valley only
to be “to reimbursed National Extraordinary Expenses
the extent such *2 GOODWIN, POOLE, and
Before: REINHARDT, Judges. Circuit GOODWIN; by Judge Partial Opinion *3 by Judge REINHARDT. Dissent GOODWIN, Judge: Circuit appeals his convic- William Sanders Joshua mailing a on two counts of tion and sentence threatening communication. 18 U.S.C. argues that the district court § He (1) concluding that his offense did erred: instance not constitute deliberation,” U.S.S.G. little (2) 2A6.1(b)(2); failing notify him that § reject presentence report’s it intended (3) 2A6.1(b)(2); on add- recommendation history score ing points to his criminal (4) offenses; juvenile inadequately consequences chang- informing him of the plea. We affirm. I. April,
In Sanders wrote two “letters” entirely consisting epithets of raciаl almost language. derogatory He addressed first of these letters to “N.I.G.G.E.R.S.” chapter it to the Fairfield mailed the Advancement of National Association for NAACP”). (“the People On the en- Colored might out this velope, Sanders wrote ‘Watch b_,” “die,” Africa,” “go back to be letter derogatory letter and other remarks. itself, an Afri- drew a caricature of person variety and wrote a can-American racial slurs. the second letter
Sanders addressed Pussy’s” and mailed [sic] “Jewish Congregation in Fair- B’Nai Avraham Jewish (“the Congregation”). He deco- field Jewish envelope and letter with various rated the threats, drawings, and offensive anti-Semitic phrases. address, the return Both letters bore McClintock, Ann Asst. Federal Public C. (i.e. Aryan “Fairfield W.A.R.” White Resis-
Defender, Sacramento, CA, for defendant- tance), post regis- and a Fairfield office box appellant. handwriting matched tered Sanders. agents After FBI confronted Sanders’. Atty., Miguel Rodriguez, Sacra- Asst. U.S. match, Sanders admitted Sanders with mento, CA, plaintiff-appellee. letters, explaining that sending he both early mailed both letters one written and morning while drunk. reduction, resulting charged guidelines two counts of level in a with communication, threatening
mailing range twenty-one felo- of fifteen months. The count of inter- ny, 18 and one U.S.C. court sentenced two concurrent misdemeanor, fering housing rights, a prison fifteen-month terms followed three 3631(a). The misdemeanor U.S.C. years supervised release. charge alleged that the NAACP office which communication was
received Sanders’
first
II.
A
REDUCTION FOR
chapter president’s
home.
also
SINGLE INSTANCE EVIDENCING
LITTLE OR NO DELIBERATION
I,
initially pled guilty to
Count
mailing a
communication to the
challenges
Sanders first
the district court’s
III,
congregation, and
interfer-
Jewish
Count
*4
to award him a
refusal
four-level reduction
plea,
housing rights.1
with
Based on this
2A6.1(b)(2).
§
under U.S.S.G.
We review
report
presentence
calculated a sentence
interpretation
the district court’s
of the rele
range of
to sixteen months and recom-
ten
novo,
guidelines
accepting
vant
de
its under
custody,
mended a sentence of five months
lying
findings
clearly
factual
unless
errone
confinement,
community
five months
McAninch,
ous. United States v.
994 F.2d
However,
years
supervised
release.
three
—
denied,
(9th
1380,
Cir.),
cert.
U.S.
that,
report
expressed
opinion
also
—,
394,
(1993).
114 S.Ct.
would have been six to twelve months and
The district court found that
con-
eligible
straight
would have been
duct
“single
did not constitute a
instance”
probation.
meaning
§
within the
because
Sanders therefore moved to withdraw his
“enough distinguishes
prepara-
[the letters’]
guilty plea
guilty plea and substitute a new
mailing
they
tion and
cannot bе de-
II,
I felony
the two
counts of
Counts
”
comprising
scribed as
one ‘instance.’
Sen-
mailing
a
communication. The
(Dec. 2,1993).
tencing Memorandum at 5
government opposed this motion.
particular,
the court noted that
the letters
the district court
to with-
allowed Sanders
were
plea, expressing
draw his
concern about the
groups
two
addressed to
different
of vic-
noting
misdemeanor’s factual basis and
locations,
tims, they were sent to different
government
presented any
had not
evi-
deposited
were
in different mail box-
dence that Sanders knew that
the NAACP
es,
the contents of each letter differed
private
a
office was
residence. Sanders then
significantly,
specifically
both were
tailored
pled guilty to the two felonies.
religious
to the different racial or
charac-
presentenee report
A revised
calculated a
victims,
groups
teristics of the
of intended
guidelines range of six to twelve months and
and each letter contained a different threat
recommended
serve
of violence.
imprisonment,
community
months
six months
Id. at 5-6.
confinement,
years supervised
and three
re-
report
argues
lease. The revised
also recommended
that the district court mis
Guidelines,
interpreted
construing “single
receive a
four-level reduction in
“single
offense level because his offense
a
instance” as
threat” rather than “sin
“involv[ed]
on United
single
evidencing
gle episode.”
primarily
instance
little or no deliber-
He relies
Pacione,
2A6.1(b)(2).
States
ation.”
After
full
950 F.2d
U.S.S.G.
—
denied,
issue, however, Cir.1991),
—,
cert.
briefing
hearing
and a
on the
U.S.
(1992),
the district court denied Sanders the four-
S.Ct.
tached and the OF TO REJECT THE drop two letters in mail box- PRESENTENCE two different REPORT es. These actions show a deliberate thought than process impulsive rather an Sanders also contends that the court action. notify depart failed to him it intended to Sentencing (citing at 7 Bell- Memorandum presentenee report’s from the recommenda 265). richard, at F.Supp. 801 2A6.1(b)(2). notes, concerning § tion As he alleges Sanders that the district court in- 6A1.3(a), requires § p.s. sentencing U.S.S.G. ordinary ferred deliberation from the and give parties adequate opportu courts to “an steps mailing essential involved a letter. nity present regarding “any information” Sanders, According to under the district important sentencing factor determi deliberation, interpretation court’s of a de- reasonably in dispute.” nation [which] § fendant 18 convicted of a U.S.C. 876 viola- Moreover, 6A1.3(b), requires § courts p.s. 2A6.1(b)(2) § tion a could never receive re- sentencing disputed “resolve factors in accor duction, mailing as a communiсa- 32(a)(1), dance with Rule Fed.R.Crim.Pro necessarily addressing tion an envel- involves ..., notify parties of its tentative find ope, and affixing postage, mailing a letter. ings provide opportunity and a reasonable objections agree mailing
We mere act of for submission of oral written itself, not, necessarily imposition letter of before of sentence.” See also 844, require agree Brady, We also that the United States v. 928 F.2d 847 deliberation. (9th Cir.1991) (defendant contents of letters do not evidence must have notice Sanders’ depart intelligent “deliberation” in sense of the court from the intends contrary, recommendation); thought presentence report’s Sanders’ offensive —on Nuno-Para, 1409, epithets racial and caricatures demonstrate United States v. 877 F.2d (9th Cir.1989). thoughtful an 1415 obvious lack of consideration.
486 adjudged guilty). that he not learn of fendant must have been contends did reject government proving intention to bears burden the district court’s prior of a until the fact conviction. United States report recommendation presentence Newman, 1119, (9th sentencing.” Appellant’s Br. at 912 F.2d 1122 Cir. “the close 1990). ques- However, first the district court 13. 2A6.1(b)(2) § at applicability tioned juve argues, As California plea hearing, more than change of Sanders’ adjudication 10, nile is not a “conviction.” See sentencing. 1993 Tr. Nov. month before D., 467, Cal.App.4th In re Asean 14 17 Cal. government specif- hearing, at 8. At (1998). 572, However, a Rptr.2d 577 n. 11 ically oppose it would a reduc- indicated may 2A6.1(b)(2) be a ward of the court as child declared argued both tion based on only government a “law violator” after the sepa- constituted “two that Sanders’ conduct “beyond shows a reasonable doubt” that the great was a rate and that “there instances” has a criminal child violated law. Cal.Welf. thought to make threats.” deal of taken these Thus, ju & Inst.Code 701. Sanders’ first parties sentencing, Id. at Before both adjudication, 2A6.1(b)(2) in which de venile the court relevance of filed briefs on the court, him a an clared ward of involved argued to the court. the issue adjudication guilt and used be Thus, failed to even if the district court Booten, history. calculating his criminal sentencing, findings” before issue “tentative F.2d at 1355. opportunity ample notice an litigate Unit- issue. Cf. juvenile a California court Palmer, 946 F.2d ed States may modify wardship order without a sub Cir.1991). Any was harmless. error J., adjudication sequent guilt. In re Glen Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. IV. CRIMINAL HISTORY POINTS (1979). Thus, juvenile adju Sanders’ second OFFENSES FOR JUVENILE dication, in which the California court “con challenges his criminal histo- Sanders next wardship, tinued” did not necessari score, ry contending that court the district ly guilt. adjudication involve Absent juvenile of- adding points erred proof juvenile that the California court found pre- accepted doubt, fenses. The district court guilty beyond a reasonable *7 report’s that sentence recommendation Sand- adjudication may not be increase used to a point ers receive one for 1987 California history criminal Sanders’ score. juvenile declaring him a ward court decision court, for point resentencing
of the one a 1988 decision We un must remand whole, “continuing” wardship.4 review de his We less “the record as a [reveals] harmless, a novo a district court’s determination that not error was i.e. the error did adjudication prior scope falls within the affect the district court’s selection of the imposed.” Sentencing United States sentence Williams v. Guidelines. United Cir.1992). (9th Robinson, 287, States, 193, -, 1112, 292 967 F.2d 503 112 U.S. S.Ct. (1992) 1121, 117 (interpreting L.Ed.2d 341 18 dispute not the fact 3742(f)(1)); see also U.S.C. Unitеd States juvenile adjudications, but contends that his 1418, Rodriguez-Razo, F.2d 1423-25 meaning not convictions within the Cir.1992) (9th (noting im that this standard notes, As he under of the Guidelines. “exacting poses party burden” on the 4A1.2(a)(l), prior a sentence U.S.S.G. sentence). defending the history only if purposes “counts” criminal adjudication “imposed upon guilt, Subtracting point it was one from Sanders’ crimi- trial, by plea, plea history of nolo guilty change whether or nal score will not Sanders’ history category applicable contendere.” v. Boo criminal or See also United States (9th (de- Cir.1990) ten, 1352, previous guidelines range: 914 F.2d score Sanders’ knife,” “DUI, According presentence report, the first involved Viola- 4. the latter a ¶ 1128, “petty possession of incident theft tion of Probation.” PSI I at 29. [and] involved Maree, 196, Category III five5 and includes scores States v. 934 F.2d Cir. 1991). though Pt. A. four six. U.S.S.G. Ch. disappointment While Sanders’ is un- Thus, point, with or without the contested derstandable, plain he has not shown error. sentencing range is fifteen twen- Sanders’ AFFIRMED. ty-one district court sentenced months. The months, to fifteen the minimum un- Nothing in the record der the Guidelines. REINHARDT, Judge, Circuit dissenting (or suggests that the court would have could part: have) imposed lighter sentence absent the Pacione, the defendant in Unlike Joshua Thus, error. the error was harmless and a present particularly sym- Sanders fails unnecessary. remand is United States v. Cf. pathetic figure. His threats were not the (9th Cir.1994). Rutledge, 28 F.3d illness, fаmily of traumatic and his PLEA agent. V. GUILTY victim was not an insensitive IRS Rather, Sanders was drunk and motivated Finally, contends that animosity. Although racial Sanders’ conduct him district court failed to warn of the conse considerably compassion evoke less pleading guilty quences of to the two felonies. defendant, pity than that of the Pacione he is 11(c)(1). not Fed.R.Crim.P. He does chal equally deserving of a lawful sentence for his convictions, lenge factual basis of his application fair sentencing crime and a of the specifically that both con concedes letters guidelines to his criminal conduct. meaning tained “threat” within of 18 Rather, emphasizes he U.S.C. disagree majority’s I with the and thе dis- presentence report led him to believe trict court’s conclusion that Sanders was changing plea would reduce his sent entitled to a four-level reduction in offense ence.6 sentencing. my opinion, level at the de- accepting before Sanders’ illegal termination acts did not change plea, specifically the district court constitute a instance little advised that “there are no assur- misinterpre- deliberation” based on a as to what the will be on the ances Guidelines Sentencing tation of two felonies.” Tr. Nov. 1993 at 17-18. Guidelines. “might that it The court also warned even point preliminarily
find for some reason that because there are I would out thаt our felonies, higher disagreement proper interpretation the Guidelines are than over the they would have been for the misdemeanor Sentencing in this Guidelines case felony.” and the Id. complexity apply- exemplifies inherent in Guidelines, predicament and the challenge validity Sanders did not *8 complexity poses this for defendants. The plea in court his the district and has thus presentence report originally government’s any objections except those fall waived which suggested pled guilty if Sanders to two exceptions within narrow one of the the felonies, felony than a and a rather misde- plain or constitute waiver rule error. United meanor, would a lowеr level he have offense Flores-Payon, F.2d States v. 558-60 light In of the Cir.1991). and thus lower sentence. Sanders has shown neither. counsel, report, and on of the advice Sanders presentence report pre- Because the is not guilty plea withdrew his to the misdemeanor pared pleads guilty, until after the defendant felony, pled guilty and to the second believ- [a] a court cannot “inform defendant of the ing by doing so he could reduce his guide- minimum sentence available under the time proba- accepting plea. imprisonment lines” his from five months to before United of points original plea agreement, the 5. Sanders received three for adult of 6. Under Sanders' fenses, including driving а 1989 government promised applica- conviction not to contest the (one suspended point) with a license and a 1990 2A6.1(b)(2). bility §of Sanders lost the benefit deadly weapon conviction of assault with a not a changed plea. agreement of this when he (two points). firearm Single to A Instance only.1 up being ended sentenced tion He only This be- 15 months instead. occurred declining “single to extend Sanders the sentencing hearing, no original at cause the reduction, appar- the district instance” court judge, nor either counsel— one—not the “instance,” interpreted ently the word as predict any accuracy what would could with “threat,” meaning “episode.” than Al- rathеr consequence of Sanders’ the ultimate be though majority the concedes that change plea. in too com- The Guidelines are may enough instance” be broad to include ex- plicated for As the district court that. single episode encompassing of conduct more Sanders, plained to both with candor and threat, it than one discrete concludes prescience, “I degree some of wouldn’t with must be term evaluated reference you expect [the Guidelines] to understand of as well time motivation the threats as the lawyers judges argue and about because span in which occurred. It then en- all them the time.”2 appellate fact-finding in a bit gages of artful Although separate in enacted and determines that motiva- the Guidelines were arbitrary underlay By doing un- supposedly tions actions. reaction the so, majority predictable prior unregulated of the the cheese thin results the shoes far too sentencing I regime, the of the de- as far as am concerned. Sanders’ two treatment by application clearly are linked as fendant here shows letters motivation time, view, and, easily produce my in Guidelines can results that well as constitute arbitrary unpredictable. single as Cer- incident. at least tainly, suggest few would that the manner drunk, returning at night After home proceedings the here which were handled wrote the twо hate at the letters candor, equitable. fair or I was Nor in all time, trip them on the same mailed same add, is must such a state of affairs unusual town, asleep by and was 3 or 4 All a.m. the era. Guidelines very occurred the relevant conduct within a Moreover, majority period. phrase
The finds that “a sin- the the the brief letters were gle single impulse feelings instance little or no delibera- of a vent tion,” 2A6.1(b)(2), bigotry. as broad Both used is not letters contained swastikas slurs, enough envelopes equal- to cover a drunken writ- individual’s the contained remarkably ly simplistic derogatory phrases. puer- of two short and similar hate drawings time I dis- during period. letters a brief ile and stick-like inside could each agree. grader. same have been drawn the third empha- Attorney guidelines veiy complicated presumed the were 1. As Assistant United States argument, surely sized at oral trial counsel appellate right. Sanders' that Thus, court it had that, given parties’ disagreement 2A6.1(b)(2), knew over he Sanders because released application there was originally end of the sentenced the minimum guarantee change plea that Sanders’ would then-applicable range, appel- and under the new result in sentence. advice to lower Counsel’s formulation, already late served change plea may Sanders to have hazard ten minimum months. (as clearly retrospect). been mistaken was in Subsequently, government papers A review some of Sanders' trial filed a motion other that, issue, this "typographical” disposi- indicates aside from error correct legal not have benefited from most effective government’s granted sep- tion. Because we Nonetheless, situation, with assistance. in this disposition, publish arate motion to for- *9 factors, lawyers these even variable the best present motion addressed. mer was not In the given than an could have Sanders more disposition, published this "erroneous” footnote guess regarding educated his under the sentence Presumably majority been has eliminated. the Guidelines. appli- now feels confident that months is the sentencing range cable minimum for the under a sentencing saga 2. The in Sanders' were twists reading sentencing guidelines. correct of the by unpublished complicated original our further not, way or dealt Correct the courts have disposition remanding resentenc- in this case sentencing in this does not with the issue case footnote, ing. majority erroneously In a stat- the sentencing promote either the re- confidence in history ed that calcula- under revised criminal justice system. gime the or tion, applicable guidelines range to the was 10 remand, magistrate months. the said the On synagogue trived intellectual exercises is to sustain a of a Fairfield choice result, sentence, closely just relat- plain Fairfield NAACP was and a and the representatives of a they were both ed: wrong. Although “Aryan supremacy.” to
threat Significant Deliberation distinct African-Americans are two Jews and artificial, highly well as groups, it is as social The district court examined the defen- suppositious, suggest to that Sanders’ dero- letters, sending dant’s conduct in the and groups was “based on gation of these two conduct into all of dissected that its constitu- sep- prejudices, and two separate sets of so, steps. Having having ent done and found Maj. op. at 14353. arate sets of motives.” letter, steps respect several to each the hardly sophisticated enough tо “significant court found deliberation” as to thoughts. Howev- separate sets of have two scrutiny, each. under the er, of his ignore if we wish to the content any mailing letter would be the in- pitiful writings pretend and that he was Any significant requires deliberation. letter sophisticated being, then we must deed a addressee, writing something, selecting the recognize groups of the involved that both address, finding attaching the addressee’s non-Aryan, being link of share the common stamp, putting it in a and mailbox. Because by were motivated and that Sanders’ letters prohibits mailing 18 U.S.C. the of a animosity singular express desire communication, threatening non-Aryan steps the enu- peoples. towards “inferior” merely merated the district court are majority attempts to minimize the The ordinary essential and ones for a violation of by emphasiz- commonality of Sanders’ letters the statute. “tailoring .... to ing that the letters show a particular religious or racial characteris- Recognizing argu- that the district court’s group.” “tailoring” tics of the The term much, proves majority attempts ment too crafting, an atten- connotes a kind of careful finding by the deliberation dissect- bolster majority Again, fit. tion to detail and steps delivering any constituent dealing thinking writes as if we were with a threat, steps and declares these demon- person pair and a rational of letters. That is every and attention.” For strate “timе and careful far from the case.3 abstract communication, defendant analysis majority purports apply must “select” a victim and make some state- messages, and the rationali- to the two idiotic designed upset and elicit fear from ment ty imputes and intellectual conduct that it clear, therefore, recipients. It seems defendant, nothing have to do with what purposes that at a minimum deliberation for actually plain occurred. The facts are 2A6.1(b)(2) requires showing some be- simple. A unth- drunken boor sat down and yond any the deliberation inherent inten- inkingly wrote two hate letters that delivered threat, ugly message. engaged majority’s in no the same He tional and that the rational- “tailoring.” analysis performed subtle izations do not cure the district court’s error. him, To African-Americans Jews were Moreover, there is no reasonable basis for say To these unfortunate same. concluding any element of Sanders’ be- messages racial or reli- were tailored havior satisfied even the erroneous definition gious recipients not characteristics of the majority. by the of “deliberation” established only ignores the nature of the defendant’s hardly in angry, Sanders was drunk engage in ramblings, requires but us to hand- a deliberative state. The letters were parsing ambiguous abstract and cum- short, written, extremely misspellings,4 full of All bersome sentences of the Guidelines. еpithets typical of outbursts of accomplished by that is these futile and con- and contained higher degree reproduction nary would evidence a of delibera- 3. A of the letters can be found in *10 appendix. the attached here. tion than shown irrelevant, misspellings might 4. The seem but looking up even the act of words in the dictio- clearly surely They no there must be better uses for our
bigotry.
were
already
prisons, which are
more than filled to
deliberation at all.5
capacity
verge
exacerbating
on the
as the district court did
To
the law
stretch
local, state,
governments’
our
and federal
majority
case,
now
in this
and as
point.
breaking
economic
distress
also,
practical
sense. We send a
makes
part
In
in
ease lies in the
error
this
young
person
prison
15 months for
judge’s
district
construction of the Guide-
and,
his
getting
stupor,
in
drunken
drunk
part
my
in
lines —in
it lies
the refusal of
hate
mailing two irrational
letters. The de-
his
colleagues
treat
error in the manner
at
of mind
the time he com-
fendant’s state
required by
law.
most fundamental
may best
mitted the offense
be demonstrated
all, however,
problem of
lies with the Sen-
the fact
he affixed his return address
Guidelines,
attempt
tencing
and their
to set
Surely,
missives.
there are
both
more
rigid
produce
in
standards that
the end
far
society
ways for
sensible
deal
confusion and
than
more
unfairness
existed
conduct;
young
surely,
defendant’s
there are
prior
adoption.
Congress
Only
to their
can
try
ways
try
to rehabilitate him
better
problem,
correct
fundamental
and re-
citizen; surely,
him useful
make of
we
grettably there is little reason to
believe
that,
try to
him
if
should at least first
teach
will.
cured,
bigotry
not soon
will be
cause
of his own destruction rather than
part
the de-
I
therefore
dissent
concur
despises;
groups
stupidly
part.
he
struction
contrast,
Pacione,
her,
agent,
gathered
the defendant's
the IRS
conduct
called
threatened
out,
granted,
help
together
which
four-level reduction was
a friend to
him
drove to
office,
Pacione,
significantly
conveyed
evidences
There,
more
deliberation.
IRS
new threat.
hours,
during working
the defendant
APPENDIX