Aleksei Sergeyevich Voronin v. William P. Barr

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 4, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-07019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:582

O 1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

11 ALEKSEI SERGEYEVICH VORONIN, Case № 2:20-cv-07019-ODW (AGRx)

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 13 v. RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR 14 MERRICK GARLAND, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT [42] AND 15 DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION Respondents. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [43] 16 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Petitioner Aleksei Sergeyevich Voronin filed a petition for review of a decision 20 by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 21 Services (“USCIS”) to deny Voronin’s Form I-485 Application for Permanent 22 Residence. (See Pet., ECF No. 1.) Voronin asserts claims for declaratory and 23 injunctive relief against Respondents Merrick B. Garland as U.S. Attorney General; 24 Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of the DHS; Tracy Renaud as the Senior Official 25 Performing the Duties of Director of USCIS; and Lory C. Torres as District Director 26 of USCIS, Los Angeles Field Office.1 (See Compl., ECF No. 7.) 27 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), Attorney General Merrick B. Garland was automatically 28 substituted for his predecessors, Jeffrey A. Rosen and William P. Barr; Alejandro Mayorkas was automatically substituted for his predecessor, Chad Wolf; Tracy Renaud was automatically Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:583

1 Each side now moves for summary judgment by way of cross-Motions with 2 intertwined briefing. (Resp’ts.’ Mot. Summ. J. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 42; Pet’r’s Opp’n 3 Resp’ts’ Mot. & Pet’r’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Opp’n”), ECF No. 43; Resp’ts’ Reply & 4 Opp’n Pet’r’s Mot. (“Reply”), ECF No. 46; Pet’r’s Reply, ECF No. 47 (“Sur-Reply”).) 5 After carefully considering the papers filed in connection with the Motions, the Court 6 deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; 7 C.D. Cal. L.R. 7–15. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Respondents’ 8 Motion and DENIES Voronin’s Motion. 9 II. BACKGROUND 10 Voronin stipulates that all the facts in Respondents’ Statement of 11 Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law are undisputed. (Sur-Reply 2.) Those 12 facts are as follows. 13 Voronin is a national of the Russian Federation and was last admitted to the 14 United States on April 17, 2013. (Resp’ts’ Statement of Uncontroverted Facts & 15 Conclusions of Law (“SUF”) 1, ECF No. 42-1.) On April 21, 2014, Voronin became 16 an asylee. (SUF 2.) On April 22, 2015, using Form I-485, Voronin applied to USCIS 17 for adjustment of his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. (SUF 3.) 18 In June or July 2015, Voronin began working at Los Angeles Wonderland 19 Caregivers, a cannabis cultivation collective. (SUF 4.) Under California law, 20 premises that cultivate or sell cannabis must have a digital video surveillance system, 21 and the system must adhere to certain standards. 4 Cal. Code Regs. § 15044 (2022). 22 Voronin’s job was at Wonderland to install and maintain a compliant video 23 surveillance system at Wonderland’s premises. (SUF 5.) 24 Under the cannabis laws in effect in California at the time, in order to work for 25 Wonderland, Voronin was required to become a member of Wonderland’s cannabis 26 collective, which he did by signing Wonderland’s collective agreement. (SUF 6.) 27

28 substituted for her predecessor, Kenneth Cuccinelli; and Lory C. Torres was automatically substituted for her predecessor, Corrina A. Luna.

2 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:584

1 Under the agreement, Voronin and other members of the collective received a 2 “reimbursement fee” for their contributions to the collective, and Voronin himself 3 received about $2,000 per month for his services. (SUF 7; Pet’r’s Statement of 4 Genuine Issues (“SGI”) 6, ECF No. 46-1.) The agreement advised signatories that: 5 Despite California’s medical cannabis laws and the terms and conditions 6 of this Agreement, California medical cannabis cultivators, transporters, distributors or possessors may still be subject to arrest by state or federal 7 officers and prosecuted under state or federal law. The Federal Controlled 8 Substance Act (21 U.S.C. § 801) prohibits the manufacture, distribution and possession of cannabis without any exemptions for medical use. 9 10 (SUF 10.) Although being a member of the collective afforded Voronin the 11 opportunity to receive cannabis plants to grow on his own, Voronin never received 12 any cannabis plants from Wonderland, and Voronin’s duties with Wonderland never 13 involved growing, selling, or processing cannabis. (Certified Administrative Record 14 (“CAR”) 93, ECF No. 35-1.) 15 Wonderland did not have a license under California law to grow cannabis at the 16 location where Voronin provided his services. (SUF 12.) Thus, in October 2015, the 17 police raided the Wonderland premises, arresting Voronin and others. (SUF 11.) 18 Voronin was charged with a violation of California Health and Safety Code section 19 11358, which imposes penalties for “[e]ach person who plants, cultivates, harvests, 20 dries, or processes cannabis plants, or any part thereof, except as otherwise provided 21 by law.” (SUF 13.) Eventually, in 2017, Voronin pleaded guilty to a violation of Los 22 Angeles Municipal Code section 12.21(A)(1)(a), a zoning ordinance, based on 23 Wonderland’s unlicensed use of the premises to grow cannabis. (SGI 18.) 24 During the pendency of these criminal proceedings, USCIS held Voronin’s 25 Form I-485 application in abeyance. (SUF 16.) On June 11, 2019, USCIS issued a 26 notice of intent to deny Voronin’s application for permanent residence (“NOID”), 27 citing Immigration Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(a)(2)(C) as the basis for the 28 intended denial. (SUF 17; CAR 92–97.) Voronin, represented by his present counsel,

3 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:585

1 filed a brief in response to the NOID, arguing that (1) USCIS’s finding that Voronin 2 assisted in the illicit trafficking of cannabis was incorrect as a matter of law; (2) INA 3 § 212(a)(2)(C) is void for vagueness; and (3) by denying his application, USCIS 4 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. (SUF 18; 5 CAR 103–23.) 6 On October 7, 2019, USCIS issued its decision denying Voronin’s I-485 7 application for permanent residence (“Decision”). (SUF 19.) USCIS found Voronin 8 had not overcome the basis for inadmissibility set forth in the NOID because 9 (1) USCIS is required to apply federal law in adjudicating eligibility for federal 10 immigration benefits, and under federal law, cannabis is a Schedule I controlled 11 substance; and (2) USCIS had reason to believe that Voronin had assisted in the 12 trafficking of cannabis, rendering him inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(2)(C). (SUF 13 19–20.) USCIS’s key reasoning in making this finding was as follows: 14 While you did not work at Wonderland on a full-time permanent basis, 15 and you personally did not sell marijuana, your work setting up the video 16 security system at Wonderland and training [Wonderland’s manager] and employees on how to use the surveillance system was necessary for the 17 operation of the business. The fact that you were paid cash and consider 18 yourself as having been an independent contractor, does not negate the 19 fact that your work was necessary for Wonderland’s operation. You were responsible for installing and maintaining the video security at a 20 marijuana grow house for an organization that grows, cultivates, sells, 21 and distributes a federally controlled substance. . . .

22 Because Wonderland engages in the trafficking of marijuana as defined 23 under federal law, and you spent several months working at Wonderland 24 installing video surveillance equipment, you have knowingly assisted in the trafficking of marijuana. 25 26 (CAR 55–56.) Voronin appealed the Decision to USCIS and lost. (SUF 22–23.) 27 Then, on April 14, 2020, Voronin filed a petition with the United States Court 28 of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of USCIS’s Decision. (Order Granting

4 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:586

1 Mot. Dismiss 4, ECF No. 23.) On June 28, 2020, the petition was transferred to this 2 Court. (Mot. 4; see Order from Ninth Circuit, ECF No. 2.) Post-transfer, on October 3 5, 2020, Voronin filed his Complaint, asserting three claims for declaratory and 4 injunctive relief based on his contentions that the Decision (1) is arbitrary and 5 capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq. 6 (“APA”); (2) is based on an unconstitutionally vague statute (namely, INA 7 §b212(a)(2)(C)); and (3) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 8 (See generally Compl.) USCIS moved to dismiss Voronin’s second and third claims, 9 and on April 20, 2021, the Court granted the motion, dismissing those claims with 10 prejudice. (See Order Granting Mot. Dismiss 9.) These cross-Motions followed. 11 III. LEGAL STANDARD 12 A. Administrative Procedure Act 13 The Administrative Procedure Act permits an individual desiring to challenge 14 the final decision of an administrative agency to seek review in a federal district court. 15 5 U.S.C. § 706. “Under the APA, the agency’s role is to resolve factual issues and 16 arrive at a decision supported by the administrative record, whereas “the function of 17 the district court is to determine whether or not as a matter of law the evidence in the 18 administrative record permitted the agency to make the decision it did.” Occidental 19 Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985). “[T]he district court acts like an 20 appellate court,” Tolowa Nation v. United States, 380 F. Supp. 3d 959, 963 (N.D Cal. 21 2019), and must “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions 22 found to be,” among others, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise 23 not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A). The reviewing court considers the 24 “final agency action,” Herrera v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 571 F.3d 25 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis removed), and review is confined to the 26 administrative record, Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008). 27 A court reviews the agency’s purely legal determinations de novo. Akiak 28 Native Cmty. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir. 2000). But when the

5 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:587

1 agency has made factual findings, the court may review those findings only for 2 substantial evidence; that is, the agency action is valid if a “reasonable basis exists” 3 for the agency’s factual findings. Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1112. An agency abuses its 4 discretion, and its decision is therefore subject to invalidation, “if there is no evidence 5 to support the decision or if the decision was based on an improper understanding of 6 the law.” Tongatapu Woodcraft Haw., Ltd. v. Feldman, 736 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 7 1984). 8 If the court determines that the agency is action is invalid, it generally must 9 remand to the agency for further proceedings. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 10 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985). 11 B. Summary Judgment 12 A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no 13 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 14 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Because judicial review under the APA is 15 confined to the administrative record, Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1112, courts routinely 16 resolve APA actions by way of summary judgment, Occidental Eng’g, 753 F.2d 17 at 770. See Tolowa Nation, 380 F. Supp. 3d at 963 (noting that, when a case is 18 brought under the APA, “the entire case is a question of law” (internal quotation 19 marks removed).) 20 IV. DISCUSSION 21 As a preliminary matter, Respondents object to Voronin having styled his 22 Opposition to Respondents’ Motion as Voronin’s own Cross-Motion for Summary 23 Judgment, citing procedural concerns and an insufficient conference of counsel, both 24 as to Voronin’s Motion in general and as to his defense of duress and coercion in 25 particular. (Reply 1.) 26 Respondents’ procedural concerns were largely mitigated by the Court’s June 7, 27 2022 Minute Order, in which the Court adjusted the briefing schedule on the Cross- 28 Motions. (Min. Order, ECF No. 45.) Otherwise, the Court declines to determine

6 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:588

1 whether the conference of counsel was sufficient to support Voronin moving for 2 summary judgment and instead denies Voronin’s Motion on substantive grounds as 3 discussed herein. 4 A. The Decision contains no error of law. 5 The INA controls the admission and status of individuals in the United States, 6 including by granting individuals political asylum and providing them with the 7 subsequent ability to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The 8 statute that governs eligibility for permanent resident status is INA § 209, 8 U.S.C. 9 § 1159, which requires that, among other things, the alien applicant not be subject to 10 certain grounds of inadmissibility as detailed at INA § 212(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1182. 11 Among those grounds of inadmissibility is INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), which provides in 12 relevant part that: 13 (C) Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows 14 or has reason to believe— 15 (i) is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 802 of 16 title 21), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, 17 conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or 18 endeavored to do so; . . . 19 is inadmissible. 20 21 INA § 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C). 22 Respondents now move for summary judgment on the grounds that Voronin 23 participated in a cannabis cultivation collective that was illegal under federal law, and 24 USCIS was neither arbitrary nor capricious in deciding that Voronin failed to establish 25 that he was eligible to have his status adjusted. (Mot. 1.) Voronin opposes 26 Respondents’ Motion and moves for summary judgment in his favor on the grounds 27 that the Decision was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. (Opp’n 2.) 28 To begin, Voronin’s argument that USCIS did not have “reason to believe” he

7 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:589

1 trafficked cannabis is largely irrelevant in the context of these Motions. The case law 2 interpreting the “reason to believe” provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) indicates 3 that the “reason to believe” component of the statute relates to the sufficiency of the 4 evidence the applicant places before USCIS. See Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 5 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (associating whether USCIS has “reason to believe” with 6 whether USCIS supported its conclusion with “reasonable, substantial and probative 7 evidence”); see Garces v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 611 F.3d 1337, 1349 (11th Cir. 2010) 8 (considering whether USCIS had “reason to believe” applicant had assisted drug 9 trafficking, where evidence showed only that (1) he made contact with a person who 10 had recently handed cocaine to an undercover agent and (2) he tried to drive away 11 when undercover officers approached his car). In the present matter, the sufficiency of 12 the evidence is not at issue. The parties agree on the facts. Voronin testified and 13 admitted before USCIS that he took a job maintaining the video surveillance system at 14 a cannabis collective. USCIS therefore had “reason to believe” that Voronin worked a 15 job maintaining the surveillance system at a cannabis collective. The question is 16 whether USCIS committed legal error in determining that Voronin had assisted in the 17 trafficking of cannabis by maintaining Wonderland’s surveillance system. 18 The answer to this question is “no.” The key language in INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i) 19 is “knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit 20 trafficking” of controlled substances. In construing this language, the Court must 21 “strive to give meaning to every word in a statute and to avoid constructions that 22 render words, phrases, or clauses superfluous.” United States v. Tan, 16 F.4th 1346, 23 1350 (9th Cir. 2021). 24 Applying this principle, the Court first observes that listing aiding, abetting, and 25 assisting as three separate bases for inadmissibility indicates that Congress intended 26 that the statute cover conduct broader than that which criminal law recognizes as 27 “aiding and abetting.” Aiding and abetting is a theory of liability under which a third 28 party commits a crime and the accused intentionally acts in a way that facilitates the

8 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:590

1 crime’s commission. See Rosemond v. U.S., 572 U.S. 65, 76 (2014). The fact that 2 Congress chose (1) to use “aider [or] abettor” instead of “aider and abettor,” and (2) to 3 include “assister” next to these two terms, clearly indicates Congress meant to include 4 a wide range of assistive conduct within the scope of the statute, beyond the 5 traditional, more narrow concept of “aiding and abetting.” That Congress also 6 included “colluder” along with “conspirator” mirrors and confirms this analysis: to 7 “collude” has a different meaning than to “conspire,” and by employing both words in 8 the statute, Congress expressed its intent to cover a wider range of conduct than 9 “conspiracy” as that term is defined by criminal law. In light of this observation, and 10 under the common meaning of the word “assist,” USCIS did not err in determining 11 that Voronin assisted Wonderland in trafficking cannabis. 12 Voronin also advances a policy argument in support of his contentions. (See 13 Sur-Reply 8–9 (“Plaintiff is simply asking this Court to review the relevant factors not 14 from an agency driven ‘strict liability’ approach but from a reasonable person 15 approach [and] to decide whether USCIS’s heavy handed interpretation finding 16 Plaintiff an aider, abettor or assistor really is a ‘rational’ policy . . . .” (citing Mot.)) 17 But Voronin presents no law suggesting that district courts reviewing agency decisions 18 are free to substitute their own policy judgments for black-letter law. Currently, 19 cannabis is a federal Schedule I controlled substance, and USCIS is bound by federal 20 law in adjudicating immigration applications. These points of law are beyond dispute. 21 Voronin also does not dispute that he entered into an ongoing services contract with a 22 cannabis collective under which he was to install and maintain a video surveillance 23 system on the cannabis collective’s premises. He therefore does not dispute that he 24 took a job maintaining a surveillance system at a company involved in what federal 25 law considers to be drug trafficking. The fact that Voronin’s relationship with 26 Wonderland was ongoing, and that he was responsible for maintaining the surveillance 27 system and training other Wonderland employees on how to use it, makes Voronin’s 28 work unlike that of a plumber who might fix Wonderland’s pipes or an Uber driver

9 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:591

1 hailed to transport Wonderland’s personnel from one work location to another. These 2 types of contractors provide services on a one-off basis without establishing any 3 deeper or ongoing relationship with the hiring entity, and they differ materially from 4 Voronin’s position in these aspects. USCIS applied the law to these facts and found 5 that Voronin assisted in the trafficking of cannabis. It did not err in reaching its 6 Decision. 7 B. Voronin’s arguments regarding duress and coercion do not merit 8 reversing the Decision. 9 Voronin’s remaining argument is that his job at Wonderland was the product of 10 duress and coercion and that, as a result, he did not knowingly assist in trafficking 11 cannabis under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i). (Opp’n 16–19.) There are two problems with 12 this argument. 13 First, upon review of the Administrative Record, the Court remains 14 unconvinced that Voronin raised this argument, or anything like it, during the 15 proceedings before USCIS. Voronin’s counsel declares that this is because counsel 16 did not formulate the argument until after Respondents emphasized in their Motion 17 that Voronin’s actions should be characterized as “assisting.” (Decl. Fariborz 18 Rouzbehani ¶ 2e, ECF No. 47.) This argument is highly suspect and is not well taken. 19 In its Decision, USCIS could not have been more clear that its conclusion was based 20 on Voronin’s assisting in drug trafficking rather than directly committing it; on the last 21 page, the Decision reads: “USCIS has determined that you are inadmissible pursuant 22 to INA 212(a)(2)(C)(i), as there is reason to believe you have aided, abetted, assisted, 23 conspired or colluded in the illicit trafficking of marijuana.” (CAR 57; see also CAR 24 92 (citing, in NOID, entirety of INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i), including “assister” provision, 25 and later, framing issue as whether Voronin was “involved” in illicit drug trafficking). 26 Thus, if counsel formulated the duress/coercion argument in response to arguments 27 that Voronin had assisted in cannabis trafficking, the Court would have expected 28 counsel to raise the issue with USCIS, or, at the very latest, in Voronin’s district court

10 Case 2:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:592

1 Complaint. Voronin’s duress/coercion argument is ultimately a factual one, not a legal 2 one, and the facts supporting the argument have always been available to him. That 3 he did not raise the argument until the eleventh hour gives the Court serious doubts 4 about whether the argument should be considered at all. 5 Second, even if the Court considers the argument and accepts all of Voronin’s 6 related factual contentions as true, the argument is substantively unmeritorious. 7 Voronin argues that his relationship with Wonderland was the product of duress and 8 coercion: duress, because he needed a job to pay his bills, and coercion, because 9 Wonderland’s manager assured Voronin that “the business was legal and that by 10 signing the collective agreement, he was legally working.” (Opp’n 16.) That being 11 the case, he argues, the services he provided to Wonderland cannot be considered 12 knowingly assisting drug trafficking under INA § 212(a)(2)(C)(i). 13 This argument fails on its premises. The bare fact that Voronin needed a job to 14 pay the bills does not make the job coercive; otherwise, most employment contracts 15 would be coercive as a matter of law. Moreover, irrespective of what Voronin claims 16 he did or did not know about immigration law at the time, the simple fact remains 17 that, then and now, cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. 18 Voronin cannot credibly claim that he thought that merely signing the collective 19 agreement made Wonderland’s operation, and Voronin’s association with it, legal 20 under federal law. The collective agreement itself is clear on this point. (See CAR 21 158 (“The Federal Controlled Substance Act (21 U.S.C. § 801) prohibits the 22 manufacture, distribution and possession of cannabis without any exemptions for 23 medical use.”).) Any confusion Wonderland’s supervisor may have caused by his 24 representations about the legality of cannabis or of Voronin’s job simply does not rise 25 to the level of duress or coercion that invalidates a finding of basic scienter. 26 Moreover, even if its premises are true, Voronin’s duress/coercion argument 27 fails because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The question here is 28 not whether Voronin understood the intricacies of federal immigration law and

11 Case|P:20-cv-07019-ODW-AGR Document 52 Filed 08/04/22 Page 12 o0f12 Page ID #:593

1 || subjectively knew what effect working for Wonderland would have on _ his 2 || immigration status. The question is whether Voronin knew he was providing services 3 || to a cannabis business, and the answer is that he obviously did. USCIS determined 4 || that this made him ineligible for permanent resident status, and in doing so, it properly 5 || applied the law to the facts. 6 For these reasons, the Court finds no error in USCIS’s Decision. The Court 7 || accordingly grants Respondents’ Motion and denies Voronin’s Motion. 8 Vv. CONCLUSION 9 The Court GRANTS Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF 10 || No. 42), and DENIES Voronin’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 43). The 11 | Court hereby VACATES the trial and all pretrial dates and deadlines and 12 || correspondingly DENIES AS MOOT the Parties’ Stipulation to continue the trial. 13 | (ECF No. 51.) The Court will issue Judgment. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 August 4, 2022 Re 18 Soe SY 2

0 OTIS D. HT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28