Koubriti v. Convertino et al

Filing 63

MOTION to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment by Michael Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Michael Thomas) (Swick, Richard)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KARIM KOUBRITI,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:07-cv-13678

V

Hon. Marianne 0. Battani
RICHARD CONVERTINO,
MICHAEL THOMAS and
HARRY RAYMOND SMITH,
Jointly and Severally
and in their Individual Capacities
Defendants.

Ben M. Gonek (P437 16)
Ben M. Gonek, P.C.
615 Griswold Street
1300 Ford Building
Detroit, MI 48226
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)
Matthew F. Leitman (P48999)
Gerald J. Gleeson, II (P53 568)
David D. O’Brien (P65532)
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C.
840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200
Troy, Michigan 48098
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Harry Raymond Smith

Richard L. Swick
Swick & Shapiro, P.C.
1225 Eye Street, N.W., Ste 1290
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
Attorney for
Defendant Michael Thomas

Robert S. Mullen (P54827)
Progressive Legal Services
800 Starkweather St.
Plymouth, MI 48170
[phone]
Attorney for Defendant Richard Convertino

DEFENDANT MICHAEL THOMAS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Michael Thomas, by undersigned counsel, moves this Court under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and action
against him because he is immune to suit for actions that he took in good faith in his
capacity as an FBI Agent. Alternatively, Defendant moves for summary judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 6(c) because there is no evidence that
Defendant engaged in any misconduct which violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Background
1. Plaintiff Karim Koubriti alleges Defendant Thomas violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights in a criminal matter by manufacturing evidence and failing to turn
over exculpatory evidence to Plaintiff’s criminal defense counsel. Plaintiff has brought
his claim pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388
(1999).
2. Because Defendant Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity from suit,
Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(6).
3. Alternatively, because Plaintiff cannot create a genuine issue of material fact
about whether Defendant Thomas engaged in any misconduct which violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights, summary judgment must be granted to Defendant Thomas.
2

__________________

Defendant Michael Thomas therefore respectfully requests this Court to enter an
order dismissing the Complaint and action in its entirety, or alternatively, granting
summary judgment to Defendant.
Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Richard L. Swick
Richard L. Swick
Counsel for Defendant Michael Thomas
Swick & Shapiro, P.C.
1225 Eye Street, N.W. Ste 1290
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: ri swick(dswickandshapiro.com
Date:

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KARIM KOUBRITI,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:07-cv-13678

V.

Hon. Marianne 0. Battani
RICHARD CONVERTINO,
MICHAEL THOMAS and
HARRY RAYMOND SMITH,
Jointly and Severally
and in their Individual Capacities
Defendants.

Ben M. Gonek (P437 16)
Ben M. Gonek, P.C.
615 Griswold Street
1300 Ford Building
Detroit, MI 48226
[phone]
Attorney for Plaintiff

Thomas W. Cranmer (P25252)
Matthew F. Leitman (P48999)
Gerald J. Gleeson, II (P53 568)
David D. O’Brien (P65 532)
Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, P.L.C.
840 West Long Lake Road, Suite 200
Troy, Michigan 48098
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Harry Raymond Smith

Richard L. Swick
Swick & Shapiro, P.C.
1225 Eye Street, N.W., Ste 1290
Washington, D.C. 20005
[phone]
Attorney for
Defendant Michael Thomas

Robert S. Mullen (P54827)
Progressive Legal Services
800 Starkweather St.
Plymouth, MI 48170
[phone]
Attorney for Defendant Richard Convertino

4

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT MICHAEL THOMAS’
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM OR,
ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

Has Plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief can be granted?
Defendant’s contention: No.

II.

Is Defendant entitled to qualified immunity from the instant suit?
Defendant’s contention: Yes.

III.

Is Plaintiff’s claim barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion?
Defendant’s contention: Yes.

IV.

Can Plaintiff create a genuine issue of material fact about whether Defendant
engaged in any misconduct which violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights?
Defendant’s contention: No.

5

CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

Even if each of plaintiff’s allegations is taken as true, no relief could be granted
under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.
Marks v. Newcourt Credit Corp., Inc., 342 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2003)
Hobbs v. Duggins, 318 Fed.Appx. 375 (6th Cir. 2009)
II.

Plaintiff has failed to meet the pleading standards articulated by the Supreme Court
because his complaint contains only labels and conclusions.
Bell Atlantic Corp. V. Twombly,

U.S._, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)

Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545
th
6
(
Cir. 2007)
III.

Plaintiff can create no genuine issue of material fact which must be decided by a
jury.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)
Kunz v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 876 F.3d 1006 (6th Cir. 1993)
Street v. IC. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472 (6th Cir. 1989)

IV.

Defendant Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity from the instant suit because
his conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999).
Harlowv. Fitgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511(1985)
Pearson v. Callahan,

U.S.

,

129 S.Ct 808 (2009)
6

Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010)
Abel v. Sharp, 278 Fed.Appx. 642 (6th Cir. 2008)
V.

Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating the issue of Agent Thomas’s qualified
immunity by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979)
Hammer v. INS., 195 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 1999)

VI.

The allegations against Defendant Thomas do not amount to a violation of
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972)
Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010)
United States v. Bernard, 625 F.2d 854 (9th Cir. 1980)

7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Karim Koubriti’s instant Complaint purports to assert Bivens claims
against Defendant Michael Thomas, alleging that Defendant Thomas violated Plaintiff’s
rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, Plaintiff
has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted because Defendant Thomas is
entitled to qualified immunity from the instant suit. Furthermore, at no time did
Defendant Thomas engage in any conduct which violated Plaintiffs constitutional rights.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiffs claim against co
defendant prosecutor Richard Convertino, holding that Convertino is entitled to both
absolute and qualified immunity from the instant suit. Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d
459 (6th Cir. 2010). As Plaintiffs case against Convertino involved the same set of facts
as well as the identical legal issue of qualified immunity, Plaintiff should be barred from
bringing this claim against Defendant Thomas by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or
issue preclusion.
ARGUMENT
I.

Legal Standards

a.

Motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 2(b(6)

Agent Thomas moves to dismiss the instant suit for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure l2(b)(6). Even if
each of plaintiffs allegations is taken as true, “no relief could be granted under any set of

facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations” because Agent Thomas is
entitled to qualified immunity from the instant suit. See Hobbs v. Duggins, 318
Fed.Appx. 375, 376 (6th Cir. 2009), quoting Marks v. Newcourt Credit Corp., Inc., 342
F.3d 444, 452-53 (6th Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule
1 2(b)(6) because Plaintiff has failed to meet the pleading standards articulated by the
Supreme Court. Following the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly,

U.S.

,

127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), the Sixth Circuit has quite recently stated

the pleading requirements that a complaint must satisfy:
The Supreme Court has recently clarified the law with respect to what a
plaintiff must plead in order to survive a Rule 1 2(b)(6) motion. Bell At!.
Corp. v. Twombly, [127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)]. The Court stated that “a
plaintiffs obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 1964-65 (citations and
quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the Court emphasized that even
though a complaint need not contain “detailed” factual allegations, its
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint
are true.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th
Cir. 2007).
In Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, the Sixth Circuit highlighted that, on a
Rule 12(b)(6) challenge, a complaint must not be indulged inferences that lack grounding
in pleaded facts:

2

In so holding, the Court disavowed the oft-quoted Rule 12(b)(6) standard of
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed.2d 80 (1957)
(recognizing “the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief’), characterizing that rule as one “best forgotten as an incomplete,
negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard.” Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at
1969.
Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, 502 F.3d at 548.
b.

Motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(c)

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. 5 6(c), summary judgment is proper if there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986). The facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are viewed
in a light most favorable to the non-moving party in determining if a genuine issue of
material fact exists. Kunz v. United Food & Commercial Workers, 876, F.3d 1006,
1008-09 (6th Cir. 1993). The standard is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party
must prevail as a matter of law.” Street v. IC. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th
Cir.1989), quotingAnderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 25 1-52 (1986).
In this case, Plaintiff cannot produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue
as to any material fact. As such, his complaint must be dismissed.
II.

Agent Thomas is entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

Under the Bivens line of cases, the Supreme Court has recognized a cause of action

3

against federal officials for certain constitutional violations where there are no

alternative processes to protect the interests of the Plaintiff and no special factors
counseling against recognizing the cause of action. Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459,
466 (6th Cir. 2010), citing Wilkie v. Robins, 551 U.S. 537, 550, 127 S.Ct. 2588, 2596
(2007). On the other hand, government officials generally enjoy a presumption qualified
immunity from civil lawsuits, such that they are “shielded from liability for civil damages
insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Koubriti, 593 F.3d at 466,
quoting Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603, 609, 119 S.Ct. 1692, 1696 (1999).
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing
discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as
their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
which a reasonable person would have known.” Abel v. Sharp, 278 Fed.Appx. 642, 649
(6thCir. 2008), quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified
immunity entails “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Abel, 278
Fed.Appx at 649., quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, (1985) (emphasis in
original).
To determine whether a defendant is entitled to the shield of qualified immunity,
the Sixth Circuit adopted a three-step inquiry: “(1) whether the facts taken in the light
most favorable to plaintiff could establish a constitutional violation; (2) whether the right

4

was ‘a clearly established’ right of which any reasonable officer could have known; and
(3) whether the official’s actions were objectively unreasonable in light of that clearly
established right.”Abel, 278 Fed.Appx at 649, quoting Risbridger v. Connelly, 275 F.3d
565, 569 (6th Cir. 2002). However, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Pearson v.
Callahan, the Court is no longer required to address the constitutionality of the alleged
conduct first and can resolve the issue by determining whether such a violation was
clearly established. Koubriti v. Convertino, 593 F.3d 459, 471 (6th Cir. 2010), citing
Pearson v. Callahan,
a.

U.S.

,

129 S.Ct. 808, 818 (2009).

None of the actions or omissions Plaintiff has alleged against Agent
Thomas were objectively unreasonable in light of a clearly established
constitutional right.

In determining whether a right is clearly established, the Court “may rely on
decisions of the Supreme Court, decisions of this court and courts within this circuit, and
in limited circumstances, on decisions of other circuits.” Koubriti, 593 F.3d at 471
(internal citations omitted). In Plaintiff’s case against prosecutor Convertino, the Sixth
Circuit could
find no case law to support the conclusion that a reasonable official would
have understood the complained of action violated Koubriti’s rights.
Although Convertino’s directive may be questioned, it cannot be said that
its unlawfulness is apparent, particularly when reviewing the existing case
law. While such behavior is in tension with the policy judgments
underlying Brady[J, it would indeed go well beyond the reasonable limits of
the Brady non-disclosure doctrine to say that it also requires
memorialization of interviews. Additionally, cases analyzing sets of facts
more similar to the instant case than those in Brady have suggested it is not
a constitutional violation. See Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct.
5

2562 (1972) (“We know of no constitutional requirement that the
prosecution make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all
police investigatory work on a case”); United States v. Bernard, 625 F.2d
854, 860 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Nor can we find a constitutional basis for
compelling the creation of [written witness statements] under Brady.”).
Thus, Convertino’s behavior, were it to be ruled as a constitutional
violation, was not clearly established as a violation at the time Convertino
acted. Convertino’s qualified immunity, then, would still be sufficient to
shield Convertino from this claim, even when characterized in the way the
district court and Koubriti suggest.
Id. at 471-72.

The Sixth Circuit’s analysis of Koubriti’s civil claim against prosecutor
Convertino is directly applicable his claim against Agent Thomas. There is no case law
to support an assertion that any of the actions of which Plaintiff complains violates a
“clearly established” constitutional right. As such, Agent Thomas is entitled to qualified
immunity from the instant suit.
b.

Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating the issue of Agent Thomas’s qualified
immunity by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

This issue has been litigated and decided by the Sixth Circuit in Koubriti v.
Convertino, 593 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2010). As such, under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel, Plaintiff should not be permitted to re-litigate this settled issue simply by
naming a different defendant. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, also referred to
as issue preclusion, “once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a
different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation.” Hammer v. I.N.S., 195

6

F.3d 836, 840 (6thCir. 1999), quoting Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153,
(1979). The doctrine reflects the longstanding policy that one full opportunity to litigate
an issue is sufficient. Hammer, 195 F.3d at 840, citing Hickman v. Commissioner, 183
F.3d 535, 537 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit has articulated the requirements for
collateral estoppel as follows:
(1) the issue in the subsequent litigation is identical to that resolved in the
earlier litigation, (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior
action, (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary and essential to a
judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, (4) the party to be estopped
was a party to the prior litigation (or in privity with such a party), and (5)
the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.
Hammer, 195 F.3d at 840; see also United States v. Real Property Known and Numbered
as 415 E. MitchellAve., 149 F.3d 472, 476 (6th Cir.1998); Bills v. Aseltine, 52 F.3d 596,
604 (6th Cir.l995).
All requirements for collateral estoppel to apply are present in this case. Koubriti
v. Convertino involved an essentially identical set of facts and accusations. The Sixth
Circuit held that qualified immunity applied to prosecutor Convertino for the same
conduct of which Plaintiff accuses Agent Thomas. This issue was actually litigated and
decided by the Sixth Circuit, and Koubriti had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
issue of qualified immunity. See Koubriti, 593 F.3d at 470-72.
III.

Notwithstanding his entitlement to qualified immunity from suit, there is no
genuine issue of material fact Agent Thomas did not commit any acts or
omissions which violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

Notwithstanding the fact that qualified immunity shields Agent Thomas from the
7

instant law suit, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Agent Thomas did not
engage in any conduct that violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Plaintiff has based
his constitutional claim against Agent Thomas on the allegation that Agent Thomas
withheld exculpatory evidence from the prosecutor and defense counsel, and fabricated
evidence. However, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out in Koubriti v. Convertino,
[a]lthough Plaintiff makes [the allegation that the defendants violated his
Fifth Amendment Rights by maliciously and intentionally withholding
exculpatory evidence and fabricating evidence], he does not identify the
“fabricated evidence” alleged there or elsewhere. With respect to the
interviews of Hmimssa, there is only the claim of preventing the creation of
evidence for probable impeachment of that witness.
Koubriti, 593 F.3d at 469-70 n. 13. As discussed supra, cases analyzing facts similar to
these suggest that this does not amount to a constitutional violation. See Moore v.
Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795 (1972) (“We know of no constitutional requirement that the
prosecution make a complete and detailed accounting to the defense of all police
investigatory work on a case”); United States v. Bernard, 625 F.2d 854, 860 (9th Cir.
1980) (“Nor can we find a constitutional basis for compelling the creation of [written
witness statements] under Brady.”) Furthermore, Plaintiff can create no triable issue of
fact that Agent Thomas engaged in any act or omission that violated his constitutional
rights.
Plaintiff has alleged that Agent Thomas violated his constitutional rights in the
following ways. First, Plaintiff alleges Agent Thomas failed to take photographs of the
Queen Alia Hospital and failed to turn over photographs of the Queen Alia Hospital to the
8

prosecutor or defense counsel in Plaintiff’s criminal case. Amended Proposed First
Amended Complaint (“Am. Compi.”) at 8. Plaintiff can make no argument that he had a
constitutional right to Agent Thomas personally taking photographs of the Queen Alia
Hospital. Furthermore, Agent Thomas requested that photographs be taken of the Queen
Alia Hospital. When he received copies of those photographs, he furnished the copies to
prosecutor Convertino. DX 1 (Thomas decl.) at ¶ 1-2.
Plaintiff also alleges that Agent Thomas violated his constitutional rights by failing
to disclose emails that undermined witness testimony regarding sketches of the Queen
Alia Hospital. Am. Compl. at 8-9. However, Agent Thomas did not withhold any
information pertinent to the investigation of Plaintiff from prosecutor Convertino,
including any emails concerning sketches of the area around the Queen Alia Hospital.
DX 1 at ¶3. Agent Thomas similarly did not withhold any information regarding the
possibility that Nassa Ahmad’s mentally unstable brother may have been doodling in the
day planner that was seized as evidence, because Ahmad never relayed any such
information to Agent Thomas. Id. at ¶ 4. Agent Thomas also did not withhold any
statement by Air Force OSI SA Goodnight or any other witnesses that the sketch of the
Incirlik Air Base was inaccurate, because to the best of SA Thomas’s knowledge, SA
Goodnight made no such statement. Id. at ¶ 5-6. Prosecutor Convertino and Agent
Thomas visited the Incirlik Air Base together, and both believed the sketch, which was
very rough, was an accurate depiction of what they saw. Id. at ¶ 6.

9

Agent Thomas similarly did not engage in any conduct that violated Plaintiff’s
constitutional rights with respect to the interviews of Yousef Hmimssa. Agent Thomas
did not record the contents of the interviews because it was prosecutor Convertino, not
Agent Thomas, who was conducting the interviews, and Convertino instructed Agent
Thomas not to take notes because the interviews were considered trial preparation. Id. at

¶ 7.

Prosecutor Convertino was fully aware of any inconsistent statements Hmimssa may

have made during his interviews because Convertino was present for and conducted the
interviews. Id. at ¶ 9.
Finally, Agent Thomas did not withhold from prosecutor Convertino a 9/11/2007
email wherein Agent Thomas indicated that there were difficulties transcribing audio
portions of the videotape due to Tuniusei or Algeria dialect speech. AUSA Convertino
was aware of this problem. Id. at ¶ 8.
Plaintiff is unable to create a triable issue of material fact as to any of the
allegations he has lodged against Agent Thomas, because the undisputed evidence
establishes that Agent Thomas did not violate Plaintiff’s “rights.”. Moreover, to the
extent any alleged failure to disclose Brady information could plausibly have amounted to
a denial of due process to Plaintiff, it was prosecutor Convertino who was responsible for
providing discovery to Plaintiff, not Agent Thomas. As such, summary judgment must be
granted to Defendant Thomas.

10

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth in this Motion and Brief, Plaintiff’s Complaint and
action should be dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,

s/ Richard L. Swick
Richard L. Swick
Counsel for Defendant Michael Thomas
Swick & Shapiro, P.C.
1225 Eye Street, N.W. Ste 1290
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Date: January28, 2011

11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 28, 2011, I presented the foregoing Defendant Michael
Thomas’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or, Alternatively, for
Summary Judgment and this Certificate of Service to the Clerk of the Court for filing
and uploading to the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the
following:
Ben M. Gonek (Bgonekaol.com)
Thomas W. Cranmer ([e-mail])
Matthew F. Leitman ([e-mail])
Gerald J. Gleeson, II (gleesonmillercanfield.com)
David D. O’Brien ([e-mail])
Robert S. Mullen (RobSMullengmail.com)

sI Richard L. Swick

Richard L. Swick
Counsel for Defendant Michael Thomas
Swick & Shapiro, P.C.
1225 Eye Street, N.W. Ste 1290
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Dated: January 24, 2008

12