U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANTHONY J. BRASS (CASBN. 173302)
Attorney at Law
3223 Webster Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Telephone: (415) 922-5462
Facsimile: (415) 346-8987
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL LEBOUEF,
Defendant.
__________________________________
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: CR 19-00209 PJH DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM Date: November 27, 2019 Time: 11:00 a.m. Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 4, 2019, defendant Michael LeBeouf pled guilty to Counts One through
Three in the Indictment, charging him with two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(a)(2)
and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(b)(1). This plea was made pursuant to a Rule
11(c)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Procedure. In that plea agreement, the
parties agreed that the total adjusted offense level for this conduct is 28, and there is no dispute
that Mr. LeBoeuf’s Criminal History Category is I.
II. OFFENSE CONDUCT
The offense conduct in this case is captured accurately in the Pre-Sentence Report ("PSR")
authored by United States Probation Officer John Woods, and bears no repetition here, except to
highlight several features which impact which guideline should be applied. Mr. Lebouef will
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rely on the recitation of facts as presented in the PSR itself for his position with respect to the
guidelines. Paragraph 8 and 9 of the PSR contain a description of the interactions between Mr.
Lebouef and two17-year-old minors that occurred in 2012, and 2013 respectively. At that time,
Mr. Lebouef, “asked for pictures of the minor’s penis.” (P.8) In Paragraph 9, “Lebouef also
asked Minor Victim 2 to send Lebouef nude photos of himself, and Minor 2 sent at least two
pictures of his penis to Lebouef.” Both of these interactions occurred via an application called
Grinder, which is a dating app that actually provides a placeholder for the subscriber to save
nude pictures and pictures of their genitalia in a file that the subscriber can choose to share at
will. The reason this distinction is important is that there is no evidence that Mr. Lebouef
instructed the 17-year-olds to produce pornography, rather, it stands to reason that he was asking
for pictures that had already been produced when the minors made the choice to participate in the
experience offered by the Grinder app. There is no evidence that Mr. Lebouef asked the minors
to produce the pornography, and no evidence that Mr. Lebouef was “causing, transporting,
permitting, or offering or seeking by notice or advertisement” this or any other pornography.
The facts of the case indicate that Mr. Lebouef was in possession of old lap top
computers that were stored in a closet. The images described above were from interactions that
took place in 2012, and 2013, and were found on computers that were stored in a closet and no
longer in current use. These old laptops also contained child pornography images which form
the basis for Count Three, possession of child pornography.
III. GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS
There is a dispute in which guideline calculations apply. The parties are in agreement
that the appropriate guideline section to be applied in this case is U.S.S.G. section 2G2.2. The
Pre-Sentence Report, however, applies U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(6) (this section is miscited as U.S.S.G.
2G1.1(b)(6) in the PSR) to increase the offense level by 2 points. This section has no application
to this conduct, as it is meant to punish more severe conduct than that which occurred here. The
difference between the two guidelines is explained in U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(c)(1) which reads as
follows under section (c) Cross Reference:
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(1) If the offense involved causing, transporting, permitting, or offering or seeking by
notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the
purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of
transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, apply 2G2.1(Sexually Exploiting
a Minor by the Production of Sexually Explicit Visual or Printed Material; Custodian
Permitting Minor to Engage in Sexually Explicit Conduct; Advertisement for Minors
to Engage in Sexually Explicit Conduct; Advertisement for Minors to Engage in
Production), if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.
The PSR has applied this section to achieve an offense level of 32, rather than 22 as
contemplated by the parties in the written Plea Agreement. In a letter, dated November 1, 2019,
Assistant United States Attorney Jonathan Lee defended the calculations put forward in the plea
agreement by distinguishing the cases in which the cross reference is applied from the instant
case:
“Cases applying the cross-reference are factually distinguishable. See, e.g., United States
v. Burch, 809 F.3d 1041, 1048 (8th Cir. 2016)(defendant requested and directed 14-year
old victim to set up email account to facilitate the transmission of nude photos of herself
to defendant; defendant paid the victim for images and told victim the photos were sold
to others on the internet); United States v. Zagorski, 807 F.3d 291, 293(D.C. Cir. 2015)
(defendant transmitted pornographic videos in exchange for live, sexually explicit
conduct by 12-year old victim recorded on webcam); United States v. Nicoson, 793 F.3d
761, 763 (7th Cir.2015)(defendant used webcam to record live obscene performance by
young girls that was also transmitted to his computer); United States v. Miller, 166 F.3d
1153, 1156 (11th Cir. 1999) (defendant posted information on internet newsgroups aimed
at young teens, inviting them to create sexually explicit images, and offering to pay
them.”
(November 1, 2019 letter of AUSA Jonathan Lee)
On this point, Mr. Lebouef agrees with the Government that the conduct in the instant
case is readily distinguishable, and that the calculations in the plea agreement should be applied
here. Specifically:
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Counts One and Two
a. Base Offense Level, U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(a)(2) 22
b. Specific offense characteristics under U.S.S.G. Chapter 2
2G2.2(b)(5)* Pattern of sexual exploitation +5
*plea agreement erroneously notes this as 2G2.2(b)(4)
2G2.2(b)(6) Use of Computer +2
2G2.2(b)(7) 10-150 images +2
c. Acceptance of Responsibility -3
d. Adjusted Offense Level 28
Count Three
a. Base Offense Level, U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(a)(1) 18
b. Specific offense characteristics under U.S.S.G. Chapter 2
2G2.2(b)(5)* Pattern of sexual exploitation +5
*plea agreement erroneously notes this as 2G2.2(b)(4)
2G2.2(b)(6) Use of Computer +2
2G2.2(b)(7) 10-150 images +2
c. Acceptance of Responsibility -3
d. Adjusted Offense Level 24
Highest offense level of multiple counts is applied pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3D1.1(a)(2), for a
Total Adjusted Offense level: 28
IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS
Naturally, Mr. Lebouef concedes that the adjustments for “Use of Computer” pursuant to
U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(6) and “10-150 images” pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(6) can be applied to
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
his offense conduct. However, these adjustments seem to ignore the state of technology in which
virtually all human interaction occurs via a computer or cell phone. These adjustments also seem
unevolved in the sense that they ignore the fact that the internet is a superhighway of densely
compressed information that makes the number of images an unfair reflection of the severity of
the behavior. Clearly, if a person was acquiring printed photographs one at a time, or even a
dozen at a time, the severity of their criminality could be measured by the number of images.
But today, one keystroke can yield thousands of images in a matter of seconds, and such
enhancements are not an accurate picture of the defendant’s level of offense. It is, in fact,
common for courts to not apply these adjustments due to these reasons and Mr. LeBeouf
respectfully asks that this court not apply these adjustments in his case.
Ordinarily, the United States Sentencing Guidelines are entitled to deference because
they are the product of years of statistical study. When a particular guideline is not the result of
careful study or empirical analysis, by contrast, such deference is unfounded. See Kimbrough v.
United States, 552 U.S. 85, 108-09 (2007). The Ninth Circuit has reached the same conclusion
regarding Guideline 2G2.2. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2011). Not
only does the Henderson decision recognize that “district courts may vary from the child
pornography Guidelines, § 2G2.2, based on policy disagreement with them, and not simply
based on an individualized determination that they yield an excessive sentence in a particular
case,” Id. at 963, but it holds that a district court “commits procedural error when it fails to
appreciate its Kimbrough discretion to vary from the child pornography Guidelines based on a
categorical policy disagreement with them,” Id. at 964.
The Guidelines for child pornography offenses have increased dramatically over the
years, and in nearly every instance, these increases were mandated by Congress, often over the
objection of the Sentencing Commission. See Henderson, 649 F.3d at 960-62. The original
child pornography Guidelines created a base offense level of 13 for the crime of transporting,
receiving, or trafficking in child pornography. Id. at 960. When possession of child
pornography was criminalized in 1990, the Sentencing Commission created a new guideline for
that offense, with a base offense level of 10 and a 2-level enhancement for material involving a
prepubescent minor. Id. (citations omitted). Congress was not satisfied, however, and has,
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
several times over several years, directed the Commission to increase penalties for child
pornography offenses. Id. at 960. Congress made direct amendments to the Guidelines with the
enactment of the 2003 PROTECT Act, adding image number and sadistic image enhancements
that are now present in virtually every case. Id. at 961. In sum, the child pornography
Guidelines have been substantively revised nine times during their 23 years of existence. Most
of the revisions were Congressionally mandated and not the result of an empirical study. As the
Commission itself has explained, “The frequent mandatory minimum legislation and specific
directives to the Commission to amend the [G]uidelines make it difficult to gauge the
effectiveness of any particular policy change, or to disentangle the influences of the Commission
from those of Congress.” Id. (citation omitted). The result is that many of the individuals
sentenced under § 2G2.2 face sentences that are excessive and unwarranted.
The escalating Guideline ranges in child pornography cases have caused “widespread
dissatisfaction” among district court judges. United States v. Apodaca, 641 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th
Cir. 2011) (citing U.S.S.C., Results of Survey of United States District Judges January 2010
through March 2010 (2010) (“Judicial Survey”). The judiciary’s discomfort with the child
pornography guidelines is reflected in the sentences imposed. In fiscal year 2017, more than
seventy percent of the sentences imposed were below the advisory § 2G2.2 guideline range. See
U.S.S.C, 2017 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (2017) at Table 28. Specifically, of
the 1,403 total cases sentenced under § 2G2.2, only 35 were above the range, 376 were within
the range, and the remaining 992 were below the range. Id.
Indeed, the “enhancements” for use of a computer and number of images are particularly
meaningless because nearly every case involves a computer, and with a computer the number of
accessible images is astronomical. See, e.g., United States v. Carrie Myles, 16-CR-409 HSG
(N.D. Cal. 2017) (granting variance because “use of a computer” enhancement applies in every
case and is not a useful indicator of criminal activity); United States v. Carignan, 15-CR-0003
VC (N.D. Cal. 2016) (varying from advisory range because of “problems” with the “use of a
computer” enhancement and the enhancement for the number of images possessed). As one
district court judge has observed:
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[T]he enhancements for use of a computer and images containing children under age
twelve are typical of this crime. Further, given the unfortunate ease of access to this type
of material in the computer age, compiling a collection with hundreds of images is all too
easy, yet carries a 5-level enhancement . . .. The other large enhancement defendant
received—4 levels for portrayal of sadistic conduct — applies whether or not the person
specifically intended to possess such material, see U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 cmt. n.2, which
seems an odd way of measuring culpability.
United States v. Hanson, 561 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (E.D. Wis. 2008) (emphasis supplied).
These concerns are borne out by the fact that at least one specific offense characteristic applied
in 99.9% of the cases sentenced under § 2G2.2 in fiscal year 2017 (the year applicable here as
the present offense occurred in 2017). See U.S.S.C, Use of Guidelines and Specific Offense
Characteristics for Fiscal Year 2017.
In summary, the Guidelines usually are considered a cornerstone of reasonableness, but
only because it is assumed that each section was “the product of years of careful study.” United
States v. Claiborne, 439 F.3d 479, 481 (8th Cir. 2006). Where, as here, it has been established
that the Guidelines were not a product of careful study or empirical analysis, any presumption
that the child pornography Guidelines are reasonable is unfounded. Accordingly, the advisory
range articulated under § 2G2.2 should be afforded little or no weight.
V. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
The government submits that Mr. Lebouef obstructed justice when he failed to present
the Homeland Security agents with his cell phone, and falsely claimed the phone was lost as they
were in the midst of conducting a search of his home pursuant to a search warrant. Mr. Lebouef
disagrees. At the time the search warrant was executed, Mr. Lebouef was not at home as he was
at a restaurant with his partner, John Tucker. They received a call informing them that agents
were searching the residence, and they voluntarily returned home. At the time, that Mr. Lebouef
received the call, he did not have a copy of the warrant, he did not now the nature of the
investigation, and he did not know what the agents were searching for. He was also quite
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
intoxicated. Before reporting to his home, he gave his cell phone to a person in order to avoid
having the phone seized, but he did not at that point know that the agents were seeking his
phone. When he showed up at the residence, the agents asked for his phone, and Mr. Lebouef
indicated that he had lost his phone. On March 4, 2019, Mr. Lebouef contacted undersigned
counsel and brought the cell phone to his office. The phone remained there for several weeks, at
least until mid-May of 2019, and during that time both Mr. Lebouef and his counsel formed the
belief, based on conversations with the HSI agents, that HSI was investigating the sexual
molestation of Minor (the 12-year old brother of John Tucker). In the days following,
undersigned counsel spoke with the investigating agents regarding the case and those
conversations were focused exclusively on the investigation of Minor having been victimized.
Specifically, the agents were asking for help obtaining authorization from Minor’s mother to
conduct a multi-disciplinary forensic interview of Minor in order to determine if he in fact had
been victimized. Undersigned counsel consulted with Minor’s mother and Minor’s brother, as
well as Mr. Lebouef and all agreed to give permission to the HSI agents to have the interview
conducted. (The interview was conducted on May 15, 2018 at 11:30 a.m..) During the
interactions between undersigned counsel and HIS, the Agents did not at any time mention the
cell phone, or its significance. After the forensic interview was conducted, neither Mr. Lebouef
nor undersigned counsel received any information regarding the interview. However, Minor’s
mother did receive notice that the interview was conducted, and instead of being given
information that her son had been victimized, and needed to be protected from the perpetrator, as
would be required by law if the interview had revealed that minor had been victimized in some
way, she was not given any information, and therefore logically assumed that the matter was
closed. Mr. Lebouef and his counsel also assumed the matter was closed. At that point, Mr.
Lebouef collected his cell phone.
The lie Mr. Lebouef is alleged to have told the agents is that his phone was lost whereas
the truth was that he had handed his phone to someone else so as to not have it seized. He made
that decision while intoxicated and disoriented by the execution of the search warrant by HSI
agents. Once sober, he did not destroy or hide the phone, instead, he sought legal counsel and
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
turned the phone over to his attorney, well-understanding that the phone would be preserved and
turned over to the government upon their request.
Undersigned counsel, with the authority of Mr. Lebouef, proactively contacted the HSI
Special Agent in charge of the investigation and informed her that Mr. Lebouef was prepared to
cooperate in the investigation. The agents interacted with undersigned counsel, never
mentioning the phone or its significance. The focus of the entire interaction was obtaining
permission from Minor’s mother to conduct the forensic multi-disciplinary interview. Minor’s
mother is close to Mr. Lebouef as she is also the mother of Mr. LeBeouf’s husband. She firmly
believed that Mr. Lebouef was innocent of having victimized Minor and was not inclined to
grant permission for any interview. However, Mr. Lebouef encouraged Minor’s mother to grant
the authorization needed, and she reluctantly agreed. To date, there is no evidence that Mr.
Lebouef victimized Minor in any way. Furthermore, Mr. Lebouef, once sober, and within just
hours of the execution of the search warrant sought legal advice and followed that advice in the
way he processed the phone. He did not destroy or alter the phone, instead he preserved it, fully
understanding that it would be turned over upon request. The agents could have asked for the
phone and did not due so. The cooperation they sought was given in short order. Obviously, the
agents did not believe that Mr. Lebouef had actually lost his phone, and later proved that by
pinging the phone and locating it at undersigned counsel’s office. The agents were in touch with
undersigned counsel, and yet never asked for the phone. Obstruction of justice requires actions
that obstruct or impede the administration of justice, and Mr. LeBeouf’s actions here simply too
short lived to rise to the level of obstruction. Because of Mr. Lebouef, the phone was preserved
and available to the HSI agents, by being placed in the custody of his attorney, whom he
authorized to proactively contact and cooperate in the investigation.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Lebouef asks the Court to impose a sentence of
60 months. The plea agreement specifically allows Mr. Lebouef to argue for a sentence as low
as 60 months. In considering the more current application of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, Counts One and Two which drive the guidelines would, actually yield an offense
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
level of 24, (28 less the 4 if use of a computer and number of images are not applied) 51 to 63
months. Given the age of the conduct in Counts One and Two which took place in 2012 and
2013 respectively, a sentence of 60 months accounts for the conduct and addresses even the most
pressing purposes of sentencing in cases with offenses of this nature, specific deterrence and
general deterrence.
Dated: November 20, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,
__/s/ Anthony Brass
ANTHONY J. BRASS
Attorney for Defendant
Michael Lebouef
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY J. BRASS
I, Anthony J. Brass, Declare the following:
1. I am an attorney qualified to practice law in the State of California and admitted to practice in
United States District Court in the Northern District of California.
2. I represent Michael Lebouef in Case Number, CR 19-00209PJH.
3. Mr. Lebouef contacted me via John Tucker in connection with this case on March 4, 2019.
4. On or about March 4, 2019, and no later than March 9, 2019, Mr. Lebouef placed his cell phone
in my possession.
5. I retained Mr. LeBoeuf’s cell phone in my law office at 3223 Webster Street, San Francisco, CA
94123.
6. During the month of March 2019, I was authorized by Mr. Lebouef to contact Homeland Security
Agent Christine Brital and offer his cooperation with the investigation.
7. I personally spoke with Special Agent Brital and offered to cooperate in the investigation, at some
point between March 4, 2019 and early April 2019.
8. Special Agent Brital specifically asked me for help in obtaining permission from John Tucker’s
mother to conduct a multi-disciplinary forensic interview with Mr. Tucker’s 12-year-old brother,
indicating that Mr. Lebouef was suspected of participating in molesting the minor.
9. After consulting with Mr. Lebouef, his husband John Tucker and Mr. Tucker’s mother, I was able
to secure permission for Agent Brital to have the interview conducted.
10. I was informed by John Tucker that the interview was scheduled on May 15, 2019 at 11:30 a.m..
11. In late May of 2019, Mr. Tucker’s mother informed me that she was told the interview was done
and that one of the agencies that conducted the interview contacted her and did not place any
restriction between the minor and Mr. Lebouef.
12. At some point after the forensic interview was conducted and no restriction was placed on Mr.
Lebouef on visiting the minor, Mr. Lebouef collected his phone from my office.
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 12
U.S. v. Michael Lebouef, CR 19-00209 PJH Sentencing Memorandum 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above statement is true and correct to the best of my ability,
except for those matters declared based on information and belief. Executed this 20th day of November
2019 at San Francisco, California.
Respectfully Submitted,
__/s/ Anthony Brass
ANTHONY J. BRASS
Attorney for Defendant
Michael Lebouef
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 12
ANTHONY J. BRASS (CASBN. 173302)
Attorney at Law
3223 Webster Street
San Francisco, California 94123
Telephone: (415) 922-5462
Facsimile: (415) 346-8987
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL LEBOUEF,
Defendant.
__________________________________
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: CR 19-00209 PJH LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM Date: November 27, 2019 Time: 11:00 a.m. Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 6 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 7 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 8 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 9 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 10 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 11 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 12 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 13 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 14 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 15 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 16 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 17 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 18 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 19 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 20 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 21 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 22 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 23 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 24 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 25 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 26 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 27 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 28 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 29 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 30 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 31 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 32 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 33 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 34 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 35 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 36 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 37 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 38 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 39 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 40 of 41
Case 4:19-cr-00209-PJH Document 26-1 Filed 11/20/19 Page 41 of 41
Top Related