# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Marilao v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_2398%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1993 - **Citation:** 510 U.S. 812 ## Text 92-1715 No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1993 NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR., be PETITIONER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Narciso S. Marilao, Jr. ll John St., Suite 503 New York, NY 10038 (212) 693-1340 Petitioner Pro Se QUESTIONS PRESENTED le Whether the lower Court's denial of Defendant-Petitioner's right of inspection of the jury selection records under 28 USC Sec. 1867 (f) denied him due process of law under the 5th and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2. Whether the Lower Court in denying P2titioner's Right under Rute 32 (c) (3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure t® comment on the Presentence Report of the Probation Officer Deni2d him Due Process of Law as Guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteentn Amendments to the United States Constitution. 3. Whether the Government violations of the attorney client relationship and Rules 4.2 and 5.3 of the ABA Code of Professional Conduct as adopted in Pennsylvania which prohibits a lawyer or his agents from communicating with a party wno is . | represented by another lawyer without the other lawyer's consent, together with other Governmental Misconducts, denied Petitioner Due Process and fair trial, and amounted to outrageous Governmental Misconduct warranting Dismissal or New Trial. 4)Whether the Admission Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence of tne Mirtins' Testimonies ‘Government Key Witnesses) about Setitioner's alleged uncharged D..ssimilar Criminal activities caused unfalzv Prejudice and Denied Him a Fair Trial. aa ; ina TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ........ i SABES UF AUTHORITIES. .ccsccscccasevcveses Vil UPERSGNe BELOW cectcccncsvvsivcecoeseses 2 SUREDUMEGT SIN seacrdcasecasvevesevensecnes 2 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED .cccccccsscccsscses 3 senseremes OF THE CAGE ccccccvcveetescose 5 A. PROCEEDINGS BELOW .nccccesesoecs 5 Be SEATEMENT OF FACTS .ccceccsevces 7 REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT ..... 9 I.The Judgment Of The Court of Aopeals Which Affirmed Tie Action Of The Trial Court I1 Denying The Defendants Access To The Jary Selection Records Pursuant To 28 US2 Sec. 1867 (f) Is Contrary To The Decision Of This Court In Test Vs. United Stat2s 420 U.S. 28 (1975) And The Decisions Of Several Other Circuit Court OF Apoebls...ccccccvees 9 Il. The Lower Court In Denying Petitioner's Right Under Rule 32 (c) (3) Of The Federal Rules O£f Criminal Procedures To Comment On The Presen- cence Report Of The Probation Officer Violated Due Process Of As Guaranteed By The 5th and 14th Amendments Table of Contents Page To The United States Constitution And Such Denial Is In Conflict With Other Circuit Court Of Appeals Decisions....... ssebeeeeeve 14 II1. The Government's Violations Of The Attorney-Client Relationshi; And Rules 4.2 and 5.3 Of The Code Of Professional Conduct As Adopted In Pennsylvania, Which Prohibits A Lawyer Oi: His Agents From Communicating With A Party Who I:s Known To Be Represented By Another Lawyer Without The Other Lawyer's Consent, Together With Other Governmental Misconduct, Denied Petitioner Due Process and Fair Trial, And Amounted To Outrageous Government Misconduct Warranting Dismissal or New Trial, So That The Lower Court Judgment Was In ELror.....seeeeeeees 18 IV. The Admission By The Lower Court Under Rule 494 (b) Of The Federal Rules Of Evidence Of The Martins’ Testimonies About Dissimilar Criminal Activities For Whicn Petitioner Was Not Charged Caused Unfair Prejudice Violating His Right To A Faiv Trial... eeeeeees 29 lv | Table of Contents Page CONCLUSION coccccsecesecesseseseseestsees 31 APPENDICES Appendix A - Judgment Order Of The Court of Appeals Dated January ree) ) keewrrrrre rer rere ee eee ee ee LA Appendix B- Order Of The Court Of Appeals Dated February 23, 1993 Denying Rehearing ..-.-eeeeeeerereees 4A Appendix C - Order Of The District Court Dated April 15, 1991......... 6A Appendix D - Judgment Of The District ef Pe er a aa ee eee SA Appendix E - Defendant's Combined MOECLONS coecvecscres ess carer secness L4A 1) Motion to Inspect Grand Jury Minutes With Request For Extension Of Time To Move To Dismiss ...... L4A and Motion for Inspection, Reproduction and Copying of the Records and Papers In The Custody Of The Court Clerk Pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1866 and Sec. 1867 .(a) (d) & (E)cececccecce L6A Appendix F - Motion Of Defendant For Dismissal of Indictment Based on Unconstitutional Composition of Grand Jury, dated March 21, 1991.......... 29A we Table of Contents Page Appendix G - 28 USCS Sec. 1867 ..... 33A Appendix H - Federal Rules of Criminal PEOCOGULES ccccccceccceccecesecscsesese 37A TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Constitution, Statutes, Codes and Rules Page J. S. Constitution, Stn Amendment ......... 3,14,17 J. S. Constitution 14th Amendment ......... 3,14,17 YXode of Professional Conduct, Rule 4.2..... 8,18,19 YXode of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.3 .... 8,18 *%ederal Rules of Criminai Procedure, Mle 32(C)(3) cccecccccccccccccscccceccese 14,15,16 7ederal Rules of Evidence, Tle 404 (b) a ccccccdeccccccscccvcccccccccce 6,29, 30 cal Rules of Criminai Procedures of Yennsylvania, RULE 2.....eeeeeeeeeee beceede 2L fode| Code of Professional Responsibility, Be PRG 4G) CAPISED ccccnccccvcccccveacnce 27 OES ee ee 5 ee SSS ee eee 5 I EERE Liebe eS eennesverenecces 8 BP UMC Mec. L257 (1) nncncencsccssescccesecs 2 Me USS Sec. 196] ccccccccccccnccscccceccces 10 Table of Authorities Page 28 USC Sec. 1366 .. ccc cccceeecccenccccccces 5 28 USC Sec. 1867 (a), (d), and (f) ...-- 4,5,9,10,12 Cases Cited Donnelly v. De Christofono 116 US 636, 646-647 ...cceceeceerccceeecces 27 Fong Foo v. United States 369 U.S. 141 (1962) wc cece eececccccnccccces 26, 28 Giglio v. United States 92 S. Ct. 763 (1972) wcccccceccecsccccceees 24 Government of Canal Zone v. Davis ‘1979, CA Canal Zone), 592 F 2d 887 .....- 12 Grifin v. California 380 JS 6)9..e..--e0ess 26 Huddleston v. United Sates (1988) 485 U.S. 6B1 ..cceeecccecereeceees 30 Johnson v. Superior Court 539 F 2d 792 (1975) ..cccwecceccccrcccccecees 23 Test v. United States 420 US 28 (1975) wcccececcececcececccees 9,10,11,12 vili « ai talacaaiat aaa Table of Authorities Page Thomas v. United States 343 F 2d 49 (1965) ccccccccccccccercccceceess 23 United States v. Al Mudarris 695 F 2d 1182 ‘9th Cir.), cert. denied 461 US 932 (1983) .. 19 United States v. Alden (1985, CA 8 Mo.) 776 F 2d 771 cvcccccccccccccscvccccccccccces ll United States v. Alexander (1988, CA 2 NY) B60 F 2d 508 ..cccccccccccccccccsccccccccocs 16 United States v. Beaty (1972, CA 9 Ariz.) 465 F 2d 1376 cccccccccscccccccccccccccceces 12 United States v. Braniff Airways: Inc. (1977 Wid Tx) 428 F Supp 579 .rcccccccccceccceecececes aces 22 United States v. Capocci 433 F 2d 155 (Ist Cir. 1970)..-----eeeeeeee 26,28 United States v. Caputo 641 F Supp 378 (E.D. Pa 1986) ..---+--+eeee- 21 United States v. Cortijo-Diaz (1989, CA 1) B75 F 2d 93 ccccvccccccccccvccccccccccccese 31 United States v. Hammad 858 F 2d 834 (2nd Cir. 1988) ...-cceeeeceeeceeccececcces 21 1X aa Table of Authorities Page United States v. Houghton 554 F 2d 1219 (lst Cir.) cert. denied, 434 US 851 (1977).. 19 United States v. Miller (1989, CA 9 Cal.) B74 P28 ADS ccvccccevececccestésvaceseeanes 30 United States v. Modica 663 F 2d 1173 (2d Cir. 1961) ccccccccccccss 26 United States v. Oliver 570 F 2d 397 (Ist Cir. 1978) ccccccccccceee 26,28 United States v. Penia (1981, W.D. Dela) 216 F Supp 246 acvccccccveccessccscesseccess 12 United States v. Philip Petroleum Co. 435 F. Supp 61001977) wccccccccccscccececes 22,23 United States v. Russel 411 U.S. 423 (1973) cccccccccccsssccssecoes 19 United States v. Sparrow (1982, CA 5 Miss.) G73 Fi. BA B62 cccccvcdvcsescsecssestveenses 17 United States v. Studby (1986, CA 9 Cal.) FBS F 20 934 cccccvcccccccccccsesacessecese 12 Table of Authorities Page @ilson v. United States 371 So. 2d 126 (Fla, Dist. Ch Apo. 1978). .ceceeeeeeeeeees 27 Miscellaneous ABA Prosecution Standard std.3-58 (b)...... 27 ABA Prosecution Si:andards, Std. 3-5.8 (CC) coccccccvccccccccsecccsccces 27 68 ALR Fed Sec. 5(a) pe 814 wosveeeeeeeveees 22 9 Federai Procedure, L. Ed Sup June 1990, Bec .22:18, BD. 373 ercccccccccccccccessccecs L5 Defending Business and White Collar Crimes, by Bailey,Vol. 1, Cum Supp (1990), Pe2.sece 24 Xi sadgeiad No. IL N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1993 NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR., PETITIONER, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tiiird Circuit entered on January 21, 1993. hoes OPINIONS BELOW The judgment order of the Court of Appeals be low (Appendix wan pla ) was not reported. Judgment of the District Court below ‘Appendix D p.8A ) was not reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals below (Appendix A p.l1A ) was entered on January 21, 1993. The order denying the Petition foc Rehearing (Appendix B_ p. 4A ) was entered on February 23, 1993. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 USC, Section 1257(1) to review by writ of certiorari a final judgment rendered by the United States Court of Appeals. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED 1. Fifth Anendment, United States Constitution, which provides: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for piblic use, without just compensation. 2. The Fourteenth Amendment, United Szates Constitution, Sec. 1, which provides: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, aid subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make oc enforce any law which shall abridye the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. aia ; 3. 28 USC Sec. 1367 (f£) which provides: f) The contents of records or papers used by the jury commision or clerk in connection with the jury selection process shall not be disclosed, except pursuant to the district court plan or as may be necessary in the preparation or presentation of a motion under subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, until after the master jury wheel has been emptied and refilled pursuant to_ section 1836(b)(4) of this title, and all persons selected to serve as jurors before the master wheel was emptied have completed such service. The parties in a case shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce, and copy such records or pape-s at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of such a motion. Any person who discloses the contents of any record or paper in violation of this subsection may be fined not more than $1,090 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. (See full Text of 28 UST Sec. 1867, in appendix G). 4. Rule 32 (c) (3), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, (See Appendix H for full text) STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Proceedings Below: The Petitioner was charged by a Grand Jury in the District Court with conspiracy to defraud the Immigration and Naturalization Service (hereinafter called "INS") under 18 USC Sec. 371, and false statements in the legalization applications under 18 USC Sections 1001, 1002. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to all counts. Prior to trial, on November 9, 1990, Petitioner filed a Combined Motions: Motion to inspect Grand Jury minutes, and Motion for In&Spection, Reproduction, Copying of the records with the Court Clerk pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1366, and Sec. 1367 (b)(d) and (f£). (Appendix E£, 0.14 A) Both motions were denied, with the Court declining action on Petitioner's motion for inspection, reproduction and copying of the records with the Court Clerk under 28 USC Sec. 1867 (b)(d) and (f). On March 22, 1991, petitioner through counsel filed the Defendant's Motions to Dismiss for 5 ie ; Roverceental Misconduct, Grand Jury Abuse, and Unconstitutional Composition of the Grand Jury (AppendixF , p.29A), all of which were denied. On April 15, 1991, the Government filed a motion in Linine to admit the testimonies of Ramon and Marie Martin . This was granted by the Court under Rule 404 (b) Federal Rules of Evidence, notwithstanding oral objections by the Defense. After a trial by an all white jury, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the four counts. During the sentencing on April 24, 1992, the Court refuscdPetitioner's request to comment on the Revised Presentence Report of the Probation Officer. (Video Tane 4/24/92) Petitioner was sentenced, judgment rendered ‘Appendix 0, p8A ) and corrected judgment entered on May 15, 1992. Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but Said Court affirmed the judgment of conviction by a Judgment order, withoit discussing the issues. ( Appendix A , plA ) 4 B. Statement of Facts. Petitioner is ar American citizen of Philippine origin, 02 years old, of previously unblemished reputation, and a lawyer with a clean record for more than 30 years. On May 21, 1990, Petitioner accompanied three (3) applicants for legalization (Corado, Pamposa and Panahon) in their interview in the INS of fice in Philadelphia, PA. On that same day, after their interview, Petitioner represented the applicants, as their counsel, when they were interrogated by the INS criminal investigators in their office. Upon advise of Petitioner as their counsel, the applicants invoked their constitutional rights to remain silent during the interrogation. Irritated and angered by the refusal of the applicants, upon counsel's advise, to answer their questions, the INS investigators launched that very day thei: Operation "Barrister" (to go after their lawyer), altnough the investigators had no evidence against him. ¢ In or about July 1990, the INS investigators made contacts with the applicants, Pamposa and Corado, in their residences, in the absence and without the knowledge of their counsel, the Petitioner. Tnis appears to have been made with the consent, authorization and/or supervision of the government lawyers in violation of the AA Code of Professional Conduct, Rules 4.2 and 5.3 as adopted in Pennsylvania, as well as the attorney-client relationship. Other government misconducts were cammitted during the grand jury proceedings and jury trial which are discussed under the heading: Reasons for Allowance of the Writ. y potential for unfair prejudice under Rule 493. Huddleston v United States (1988) 485 JS 681. Prior acts should not have been admitted since prior activities were too dissimilar from the offenses charged to permit prior acts -to serve as valid proof of intent to commit the offenses charged. See United States v Miller (1989, CA 9 Cal.) 874 F. 2d 1255. In prosecuting for conspiracy and false statements to government agency, the Court should not have admitted evidence of defendant's al ledged orior bad acts under Rule 404 (0) where evidence of erior acts had no relevance to charges filed except to established propensity to falsification, which 30 is the kind of conclusion prohibited by Rule 404(b). See United States v Cortijo-Diaz (1989, CA 1) 875 F 2d 93. CONCLUS ION This Petition involves questiohs of exceptional unportance since it affects fundamental and constitional rights of the parties in criminal and civil cases to due process of law and a fair jury trial, and constitional and statutory rights of defendants in criminal cases + Cement on the probation report which will affect their lives, liberty and property. For the reasons set forth above, the pocitioner respectfully prays this Honorable Court to grant the herein writ. Respectfully submitted, in (AN Dated: April1l6, 1993 Narciso S Marilao, Jr. Petitioner Pro S2 lL John St., Suite 593, New York, NY 10038 (212) 693-1340 31 APPENDICES APPENDIX "A" UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 91-1872 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ve NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR., Appelant a -——ae ee eee ewe eee ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew www wen mere ere ee Appeal from the United States District 4 Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania D.C. Criminal No. 9-00473-061 (Honorable Lowell A. Reed, Jr.) eee Submitted January 8, 1993 Pi) Before: Hutchinson and Sztirica, Circuit ; Judges and Standish, District Judge* JUDGMENT ORDER After considering the contentions Taised by appelant, to wit, that: [ne Honorable William L. Standish, United Btates District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Sitting by feslynation. a al ' ie The court erred in denying appelant's motions to (1) inspect grand jury minutes, and, (2) for inspection, reproduction and copying of the records and papers in the custody of the court clerk pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1866 and 1867 (a), (d) and (f£) (including the master jury wheel, lists and records); 2. The evidence was insufficient to convict and/or the verdict and judgment is against the weight of evidence; 3. Misconduct by the prosecutor and government agents warrants dismissal of the indictment, or new trial; 4. The indictment and jury instructions were erroneous in charging one conspiracy, where the evidence showed two separate and individual transactions, not a_— single transaction or alleged conspiracy; 5. The court erred in admitting the 2A testimony of Ramon and Marie Martin under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b); 6. The court erred in imposing the sentence herein; and, 7. The court erred in denying appelant's motion for judgment of acquittal and/or new trial, it is ADJUGED AND ORDERED that judgment of the district court be and is_ hereby AFFIRMED. | | | BY THE COURT, . (Sgd.) Scirica | . Circuit Judge Attest: Sally Mrvos, (Sgd.) Clerk Dated: January 21, 1993 3A APPENDIX B UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ve. NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR., Appelant SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING Present: SLOVITER, Chief judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCIRICA, COWEM, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH AND LEWIS Circuit Juges, and Standish* District Judge The petition for rehearing filed by appelant in the above-entitled case having been submitted to the judges wo participated in the decision of this Court *As to panel rehearing only. 4A Bnd to all the other available circuit hudges of tne circuit in regular active ervice, andno judge who concurred inthe Kecision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular service not having woted for rehearing, the petition for rehearing by the panel and the Court i1n banc, is denied. By the Court, (Sgd.) Scirica Circuit Jadge a Dated: February 23, 1993 5A sali Lau CBI ox Gsnallbes a % in ae a eh Dba ih Mo APPENDIX "C" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ve NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR. CRIMINAL NO. 9000473 ORDER AND NOW, this 15th day of April, 1991, upon consideration of defendant's motion t> Inspect Grand Jury Minutes with Request '’ for Extension of Time to Move to Dismiss, the Motion of Defendant Narciso Santiago Marilao, Jr., For Dismissal of Indictment Based Upon UnConstitutional Composition of Grand Jury, the government's consolidate respons2s thereto, and tne entire record in this case, it is hereby ORDER ED 6A : Riat defendant's Motion to Inspect Grand Hury Minutes with Request for Extension of Mim to Move to Dismiss 1s Denied, as moot Since the minutes have been supplied. BY THE COURT: (Sgd.) LOWELL A. REED, JR. United Sxates District Judge Entered: April 18, 1991 7A 2. ie Se A ND eA Pe BRE Pe + ee "cla NORRIS : — i S146 8 tev, 490) Shoot + - sirens 2 crtrines cove MBBENDIX LLB a WU : ee Cored as @ ue copy en . Wnited States District Court me" - -- EASTERN District of PENNSYLVANTA | 1 | Soca UNITED STATES OF AMERICA . JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE - Vv. i (For Offonses Committed On or Alter November 1, 1907) NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR,Case Number: cr, 90-00473-01 (Name of Oelendant) ' . Delendani’s Allorney . 8 € DEFENDANT: 1 pleaded gullty to count(s) ! was found gullty on count(s) 1,2, 3 ahd 4 aller .. - e plea of not guilty. + Accordingly, the defendant Is adjudged gully of such couni(s), which sie the following offenses: .. NN Date Ollonse ~* ‘Count Conciuded p & Section Nature of Offense oo Number(s) 71 wunepaeony to defraud INS. May 21, 1990 1. B46 (a) Use of fraudulent immigration May “21, 1990 Sa8s4s ocuments. ATRUE TOFROM THE RECORD : | DATED : t |. ATTEST: iy mw Coual The defendant is sentenced as provided In pages 2 through __ 6 _ of Fis’ judgment. osed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.. - defendant has been found not guilty on'counl(s) d is discharged as to such count(s). ount(s) s guhhdved Gamtioced on the maton of be United States. ‘ordered that the defendant shall pay a special assessment of of $200.00: for count(s) _ — immediately GQ as follows: within hirt 330), dave s of today's ITIS ADERED that the delenday. Hall notify the United States attorney for this district within ays of on ae of name, residence, or mailing address = all ane, restilulion, costs, and special samonts bnpoeed by tie hidoment are tully paid. ” dan''s Soc. Sec. No.: 564-63-9526_ dani’s Dale of Birth: December..2 9, 1 930 : dant’s Mailing Address: me & Tite of Judicial Officer JUDGE | dan's Residence Address: wala [292.. Center Street 4—NI__07312 ; f- : UROPO 1900-12244 10280 . TO te Oe ee Fe emt ame ee wee SS: a . re 090) Shows 2 - Wngrle ONO eer 98 64s ewer eee SS eee eS ; NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR. Judgment-Page ? é bor Crk, 90-00473-0) IMPRISONMENT iolendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned ! sixtean (16). monthe ee i 1 4G RMas ¢: ‘eck Burt makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons é ‘ STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION “. © O6 oe d ~ ; . . 9 iho delondant 1s on supervised release pursuant to this judgment, ino delendant shall not commu! another lederal siaig Of pcabdime in x olondant shall not loave the judicial distinct without the parmission of the Court oF probation officer delendant shall report to the probation officer as Gwecied by the courl of probauion olficer and shall submit a iruthiul and complete wrilien repo: 4 ivst we days of each month, dolondant shali answer truthlully all inquines by the probation officer and follow dolendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other lamily responsibaives, dolondant shall work reguiarty at @ lawtul occupalion unless excused by the probation officer for $c delendant shall notify the probation olficer within 72 hours of any change in residence oF employment. delendant shalt retrain from excessive use of alcohol and shail not purchase. possess. 056, distribute, of adrrunusier any Narcotic Or OINer Cor ; “ot any paraphernalia relaied lo such substances, except as prescribed by & physician: dolendant shalt not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, disiribuled, or sdrwrusiered. PE aS — the instructions of the probation officer ’ hoolng. Waiwung, of other accepiabie re g delendant shall not associate with any persons lelony 4 permission to do 80 by the probation dolendant shall pormit a probation officer to visi ham or hor at any lane at home oF view by the probation officer; delendant shalt notity the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arresied or questioned by & law enlorcement ofa’ delendant shail not enter into any agreement to act as an inlormer or @ special agent of a lbw eniorcement agency wahout the permission Of ine Bwecied by the probation officer, the delondant shall notily third parties of risks thal may be occasioned by the defendant's Crimunal cord o* pe ory or Characteristics, and shall permit the probation officer to make such noulications and to conlum the delendant’s comphance wiih such now! ement. olsowhore and shail perma conliscabon of any Coniraband ob- re e@U S GRO 1000/22 448/10l¢ § 10A yates Ee «3 ndant: NARCISO 8. MARILAO, JR. Judgment-Page 4 of _6 & ss Number! CR. 90-00473-01 ADDENDUM OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE ial conditions of supervised release are: defendant shall observe the standard conditions of supervised ase of the District Court for the District in which the fendant resides. Defendant s hall not possess any firearms or other dangerous ons. pefendant shall submit financial information to the Probation ice at anytime upon request, includ ” mMallment basis, on 4 Pp bation Office. The failure to pay any installment of this ing providing copies of his onal federal, state, and local income tax returns to-the ation Office upon request, and within thirty (30) days of ng said returns. Defendant shall pay a fine in the sum of $10,000.00 on an eriodic basis on a schedule set by the may be grounds for revocation of the status of supervised ase. The defendant is ordered to liquidate any assets @ssary to pay the fine or its installments. ae ater re? Hei Sex ataeab as Ab aM aP or ak get L1A Pee ore See aceon ee PSOE RAR REND A 10 Sheet 5 - Fine NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR. Judgment — Page 5 of CR. 90-00473-01 ie . FINE B dant shall pay a tine of $ 10,000.00 __. The fine includgs any costs of incarceration and/ p unt is the total of the fines imposed on individual counts, as follows: Counts 1, 2, 3 & ej % ‘ has determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest. It is ordered that: terest requirement is waived. terest requirement is modified as follows: ® plus any interest required shall be paid: | immediately. I not later than —_. bual monthly installments over a period of ___.____ months. The first payment is due on the of this judgment. Subsequent payments are due monthly thereafter. tallments according to the following schedule of payments: on an installment basis, ba periodic basis on a schedule set by the Probation Office. eg ad pa’ Sn te ee a Oe a not paid, the court nay sentence the defendant to any sentence which might have been ‘ posed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3614. @U S GPO 1000-722-448/10206 12A ‘ 470) Shea ? ‘ Steterment of Ressone NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR. Judgment—Page ° oer en, «6«90-004573-01 STATEMENT OF REASONS br adopts the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence repor! > OR t adopts the factual findings and guideline application in the presentence rport except tachment, if necessary) SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM - (4 pages) Range Determined by the Court: Hiense Level. _. eS | History Category: 1 ees | ament Range: 10. to _.16— months ed Release Range. 2. to _3__ years ange: $ 3,000.00 to $30,000.00 3 N ) Fine is waived or is below the guideline range, because of the defendant's jr@bilit? ip pay ¢ it a 7) ¢ 7 Full restitution is not ordered for the following reason(s): s . r : ~ e@ vt a a" ntence is within the guideline range, that range does not exceed 2'4 months, and the court finds no ‘0 depart from the sentence called for by application of the guidelunes OR ntence is within the guideline range, that range exceeds 24 month:s, and the sentence is imposed following reason(s) SENATE AT ARINE RAS IY OER BRERA SN OTR AEE SI Se MACE: V nce departs from the guideline range Dare eee ere at ‘motion of the government, as a result of defendant's substantial assistance : é ki the following reason(s): = (2) U.S. Marshal ; Probation Pretrial AUSA Defense Counsel Ney ky - SQPO 880 "22 448 O288 APPENDIX "E" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR CRIMINAL NO. 90-0047301 COMBINED MOTIONS MOTION TO INSPECT GRAND JURY MINUTES WITH REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MOVE TO DISMISS Defendant in the above-entitled action respectfully moves the court as follows: l. For an order, pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, permitting defendant to inspect the minutes of the Crand Jucy of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for all sessions during which it considered matters leading to the filing of the indictment herein, and directing the United States Attorney for 14A Sh ead < weed yes, alae tease 4 7 BNE HOE ik gt Peery ny Sarl aes Bc sRuetbbbbed Vostro ce ihe! Ce ae ILLIA AS id ne AS BG Br ge ne ia is Bi ae ok Be aid wi the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Seth Weber Esq.) to make availabte to defendant a copy of the minutes. 2. For an order, pursuant to Rule 45(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure extending the time within whici Defendant may move to dismiss the indictment herein until 15 days after entry of the order determining this motion. This motion is made on the grounds that matters occuring before said grand jury may constitute grounds for a motion to dismiss the indictment, and that the extension of time is necessary to permit the inspection of such minutes prior to the preparation and filing of such a motion. Dated November 7, 1990. Narciso S. Marilao, Jr. Defendant 13 John Street, Suite 593 New York, NY 10038 (212) 693-1340 15A Tei DA 239 ee Se ERP 5 re 02 HTS a! FINED 4 oxy - ra 5 —— . . _ . Be Nh te aT FE eee 2 MOTION FOR INSPECTION, REPRODUCTION, AND COPYING OF THE RECORDS AND PAPERS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE COURT CUERK PURSUANT TO 28 USC SEC. 1866 AND SEC. 1867 (a),(d) & (f) The defendant moves this Court for an Order permitting him to make discovery of certain records and facts necessary to the support of this challenge to the indictment because of discrimination in the selection of the grand jury, etc., in support of the said motion for discovery, he alleges as follows: The defendant hereby moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1867 (a), (d), (f£), for an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to permit the defendant, his attorney or representative to inspect, reproduce and copy the contents of records and papers used by the Cierk of the Court in the selection process for the Grand Jury which 16A A Rs te a a % & & é oy ere . iy aig grees s 3 a ye e — = , 7 ety SA a el Sse . Pe TS BX SE A ” LS gS Hest ig EERE A See} , ; A ay yeh RRC ES See returned the above entitled indictment and tne selection procesg for the prospective petit jury to be summoned for the trial of the instant case. The informaton sought by this :notion 1S based on the defendant's information and understanding of the jury selection process as provided for in the pl2n for this federal district, as well as the information provided by others. Defendant specifically seeks discovery OF: records necessary for him to conduct a statistical study of the jury selection process at each level of functioning for this Court. Defendant moves for the discovery of the following information and materials: a. That the Cierk of the Court be directed to provide defendant with all information at his disposal concerning procedures followed in implementing the 17A PREP Rite tA a jury plan for this Court. Such information is to include, but is not to be limited to, the following: i.The numbers selected at random which determine the application of the guotient for se2lection of names from the voter registration list according to the provisions of the jury plan for this Court, this number to be provided for all divisions. ii. The total number of names of persons 30 selected, drawn from a master jury wheel in each of the divisions, ko whom gualification questionnaires were sent. 11i1.The total number of such gualification questionnaires which were returned to the Clerk of the Court as incapable of being delivered. lv. The total number of qualification questionaires d2livered by the postal service, but not returned by the recipient. v. Tne addresses of all those persons who failed to respond or whose qualification guestionnaires were returned as non-deliverable. vi. Any procedure taken with regard to those persons who did not respond. vii.The total namber of juror gualification questionnair2s not placed in the qualified jury wheel, and viii. Other information concerning 18A the processing of the questionnaires, excusals, disqualifications, and/or exemptions. b. That the Clerk of the Court be directed to permit inspection, reproduction, and/or copying by the defendant and his representatives, of the total number of juror qualification questionnaires (or, depending upon the number, some percentage thereof, to be determined in the future and selected randomly), which correspond to the names which have been drawn from the voter registration lists. c. That the Cierk of tne Court be directed to permit defendant and =his representatives inspection, reproduction and/or copying of the total number, or a random sample thereof, of tne juror qualification questionnaires for the division, which questionnaires were received by the Clerk of the Court and were not ptaced into the qualified jury wheel, wether because the prospective juror was disqualified, exempt or excused. dad. That the Clexk of the Court be directed to permit defendant and “his representative inspection, reproduction and/or copying of the total number of jury qualification questionnaires for the division, which questionnaires correspond tO persons who were initially qualified for service but did not respond to the summons for service or were disqualified, exempted Ox excused, temporarily or permanently, from actualiy serving or responding to the summons for jury service. 19A e. With respect to the matters described above, defendant mov2s that in addition to the jury qualification guestionnaires, ne also de granted discovery of any and all other documents Or papers in existence which are relevant to the determinaton of the juror's status of those persons contain2d in te above requested samples. Tnis includes, but is not limited to ’ lettecs requesting excusals, orders granting excusals, and transcripts, or yucy impanelment procedings at which prospective jurors, wno are includ2d within the sample were excused. f. Defendant further movés that the Clerk of the Court be directed to permit inspection, reproduction and/or copying of all reports made to the Administrative Office of the Court by the Cierk in complicance with the reporting requirement of the Judicial Conference. The jury plan requires these reports to provide certain data which is essential to the support of the defendant's challenges =o the indictment and includes the following information: ----general data relating to the master jury wheel, the time and manuer of name selection, the source and number of names placed in the wheel and related information, an analysis of the race and sex of prospective jurors based on returns of 590 juror qualification forms drawn at random and from the master jiry wneel, and an analysis by race, sex and occupation of all persons who have actually reported for jury service during the period covered by the report. 20A [n addition, the de2flendant turcther moves that the Clerk be directed to permit the d2fendant inspection, reproduction and/or copying of the data constituting the underlying samples and statistical compilations upon which these reports are based. Defendant further moves that the Clerk »E the Court ne directed £O permit defendant inspection, reproduction and/or copying of the information that forms the basis of the determination to reply upon voter registration lists as the exclusive source of prospective jurors. Defendant further moves that the Clerk Of tne Court be directed to permit defendant inspection, reproduction and/or copying of the last voter registration list — for the division, which lists were actually the sources of tne names placed in the present master jury wheel. With respect to all of the above information and materials, defendant requests that the Court permit him or his counsel to mechanically reproduce or copy these materials either at the cost of the Government, or in the alternative, in such a manner as may be otherwise arranged under their direct supervision, whichever method being least costly to the defendant. This request is made because the defendant's funds for his defense against those charges are limited and the cost of commercial copying would be prohibitive. Dated November 7, 1990 Respectfully submitted, NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR. Defendant lj. John St., Suite 503, New York, NY 10038 (212) 693-1340 22A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERIZA vs. NARCISO S. MARILAO, JR. H CRIMINAL NO.90-0047-O01 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES i. It apppears that the manner and method Sy which the court that selected members of the Grand Jury which returned the indictment against the defendant Systematically excluded s2gments of the €ligible population in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Acts of Congress. : 2. The use of voter registration list as the sole source of names for the master jury wheel results in substantial under-representation in the master jury wheel, in the qualified jury wheel, and in tne grand jury of certain cognizable 23A classes, including but not limited to women, racial, ethnic ad nationality minorities, people from lower SOC1O- economic groups and young people. 3. Upon information and belief, the 4 detendant (therefore) AVETS ttieat the followiny cognizable classes, amony others appear ©“O have been substantialiy under- represented wnen their me2mbers withia the district as shown by statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau, are compared and contrasted with the proportional appearance in the master jury wneel, the qualified jury whe2l and the grand jucy as finallly impaneled, to wit: a. Persons of Mexican origin b. Persons of other Central and Soutn American origin =. Persons of Pailippine origin d. Persons ot Pacific Islander origin e. Brown race f. Urban dwellers 24A ——— —— g. Young people h. Persons of low income, as defined yy the standards of the United States jovernment i. Persons who are "daily wage earners" j}- Blue collar workers k. Poorly educated persons l. Conscientious non-voters m. New residence (persons wno have resided in the district less than one (1) year and not more than two (2) years n. Atheists and agnostics 4. With respect to the foregoing allegations, precise factual information ls unavailable without discovery and inspection of the jury records. 5. Because the defendant has not yet been able to inspect the jury records, he is unable to make, at this time, any precise estimat2s of the extent of the under-representation of the cognizable classes. The defendant intends to Supplement this motion by filing 25A - ome RT ABW SSE affidavits and memoranda of law which will detail and constitute a specific statement as to how the defendant's rights have been violated. This motion places tne matter of the composition of the grand jury in this case in issue. 6. Defendant reserves right to bring challenges if, after discovery of the materials requested in the application for inspection of the jucy records, such additional challenges become appropriate. 7. Defendant is a member of the Class which had been systematically excluded, it appears. 8. Upon information and belief, defendant avecs that certain favorable treatment, "deals", consideration or other leniency appear given oF promised to certain witnesses called for before the Grand Jury, and it may not have been informed about them. 26A 9. Upon bnlLormation aid belicl, jlefendant allegss that there has been selective, discriminatory and vindictive enforcement of the law or prosecution, and the Circumstance may not have been told to the Grand Jury. 10. involve Since the counts in the indictment 2 complex alleged offenses and violations, the Grand Jury may not have recelved proper instruction on this matter. Authorities United States v. Gallo, 394 F. Supp. 310,314 (D. Conn. 1975), failure to appraise grand jury of hegarsay or perjurious nature of testimony warrants dismissal of indictment. United Sates v. DeMarco, 401 F. Suppo. 505 (C.D. Cal 1975), af£&*d on Other grounds, 550 F.2d 1244 (9th Cic. 1977), where prosecutor fails to alert grand jary to possibility of malicious prosecution, the indictment must be dismissed. Johnson v. Supreme Court, 124 Cal. Rptr. 32, 539 F.46 732 (1975), failure to present favorable evidence befor? a grand jury mandates dismissal of indictment. 27A People v. Percy, 45 A.D. 2d 284; N.Y¥.S.2d 434 (2d Dept.1974), aff’ 38 N.Y. 2d 806, 382, N.¥.S.2d 39 (i9735)% holds the girand jury instructions in a complex case must be recorded under C.P.L. Section 210.35(5) People v. Mackey, 371 N.Y.S. 2d 559 (Suffolk Co. Ct. 1975), prosecutor's Failure to properly instruct grand jury was a denial of due process. 283A APPENDIX "F" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT -OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ve. : NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO JR $ Defendant CRIMINAL NO. 90-00473-01 MOTION OF DEFENDANT NARCISO SANTIAGO MARILAO, JR. FOR DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT BASED UPON UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMPOSITION OF GRAND JURY The Defendant, Narciso Santiago Marilao, Jr., by his undersigned counsel, Jack 1. Gruenstein, Esquire, moves for the dismissal of the indictment in this matter as being illegal, * void and unconstitutional on the following grounds: 1.The array of Grand Jary was not selected, drawned or summoned in accordance with law and the constitution and is not representative of the community from which it was impanelled. 2. The method of selection of the Grand 29A Jury which sat on the case did not produce an impartial jury drawn from a cross- section of the community and, therefore denied the Defendant the right secured to him by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment:is to the Constitution of the United States. 3. The composition of the Grand Jary, because it was not an impartial jury drawn from a cross-section of the community, denied the Defendant the rights secured to him by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the Jnited States. 4. The plan for the Random Selection of Grand Jury and petit Jurors of 1958 for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as amended, is unconstitutional. The use of the voter registration lists as the only source list of the prospective jurors is violative of die process and equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 30A Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because voter registration lists, anony others, over-represent men, older people, higher educat2d people and wealthier people, and systematically exclude and/or substantially underrepresent women, racial, national origin, ethnic or religious minorities such as Orientals (including Filipinos) and Hispanics, young people (ages 15-29), poor people with low paying jobs, and the unemployed. 5. The granting of automatic exemptions to m2mbers of the fire and police departments, U.S. Armed Forc2s in active service, public officers, and the excuse from jury service on request of persons over 70 years old, practicing lawyers, physicians, dentists, clergy or actively engaged members of religious orders and volunteer safety personnel violates the above stated clauses of the United States Constitution. 31A WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays the Court to dismiss the indictment in this case. Respectfully submitted, JACK L. GRUENSTEIN, ESQUIRE Suite 800 ; One East Penn Square Juniper and Market Streets Philadeiphia, PA 19107 (215) 564-1575 Attorney for Defendant Narciso Santiago Marilao; Jr. Nated: March 21, 1991 32A APPENDIX "G" 28 USCS Sec. 1867 Sec. 1867. Challenging compliance with selection mrocedures a) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examinations begins, or within seven days after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier , the defendant may move to dismiss the indictment oor stay the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in . selecting the grand or petit jury. b) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examinations begins, or within seven days after the Attorney General of the United States discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier, the Attorney General may move to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings on the ground of substantial failure to camply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand Or petit jury. 33A , ee fr, a eae ee el c) In civil cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the party discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier, any party may move to Stay the proceedings on the grouid of substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the petit jury. d) Upon motion filed under subsection (a), (b). or (c) of this section, containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title, the moving party shall be entitled to present in support of such motion the testimony of the jury commision or clerk, Jif available, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury commisioner or clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand jury, the court shall stay the proceedinys pending the selection of a grand jury in conformity with this title or dismiss 34A a Cy =~ the indictment, whichever is appropriate. If the court determines that there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the petit jury, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of a petit jury in conformity with this title. e) Tae procedures prescribed by this section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of a Federal crime, the Attorney General of the United States oct a party in a civil case may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this ae. Nothing in this section shall preclude any person or the United States from pursuing any other remedy, civil or criminal, , which may be available for the vindication or enforcement of any law prohibiting discrimination on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or econamic status in the selection of persons for service on grand or petit juries. £) The contents of records or papers used by the jury commission or clerk in connection with the jury selection process shall not be disclosed, 35A except pursuant to the district court plan or as may be necessary in the preparation or presentation of a motion under subsection (a), (b), or €) of this section, until after the master jury wheel has been enptied and refilled pursuant to section 1863(b)(4) of this title, and all persons selected to serve as jurors before the master wheel was emptied have completid such service. The parties in a case shall be allowed to inspect, reproduce, or copy such records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of such a motion. Any person who discloses the contents of any record or paper in violation of this subsection may be fined not more than $1,090 or imprisoned not more than one year or both. (June 25, 1948, ch 645 Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 953: Sept. 2, 1957, P.L. 85259, 71 Stat. 583; Mar. 27, 1968, P.L. 90-274, Sec.101, 82 Stat. 59.) 36A APPENDIX "H" Rule 32 Federal Rules Of Criminal Procedure c} Presentence Investigation. 1) Wnen Made. A probation officer shall make a presentence investigation and report to the court before the imposition of sentence unless the court finds that there is in the recoicd information sufficient to enable the meaningful exercise of sentencing authority pursuant to 18 USC 3553, and the court explains this finding on the record. Except with the written consent of the defendant, the report shall not be submitted to the court or ‘its contents disclosed to anyone unless. the defendant has pleaded guilty oi nolocontendere or has been found guilty. 2) R2port. Tne report of the presentence investigation eal contain — A) information about the history = and Characteristics of the defendant, including prior criminal record, if any, financial condition, and any circumstances affecting the defendant's behavior that may be helpful in 37A imposing sentence or in the correctional treatment of the defendant. B) the classification of the offense and of the defendant under the categories established by the Sentencing Commision pursuant to section 994(a) of title 28, that the probaton officer believes to be avplicable to the defendant's case; the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range suggested for such a category of offense committed by such a category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commision pursuant ‘to 28 USC 994(a)(1); and an explanation by the probation officer of any factors that may indicate that a sentence of a different kind.or of a different length from one within the applicable guideline would be more appropriate under atl tne circumstances; C) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commision pursuant to 28 USC 994(a)(2); D) verified information stated in a nonargumentative style containing an 38A assessment of the financial, social, psychological, and medical impact upon, and cost to, any individual against whom the offense has been committed; E) unless the court o-ders otherwise, information concerning the nature and extent of nonprison programs and resources available for the defendant; and F) such other information as may be required by the court. 3) Disclosure. A) At least 1) days before imposing sentence, unless this minimum period is waived by the defendant, the couct shall provide’ the defendant and the defendant's counsel with a copy of the report of the presentence investigation, including the information required by subdivision (c)(2) but not including any final recommendation as to sentence, and not to the extent that in the opinion of the court the report contains diagnostic opinions, which if disclosed, might seriously disrupt a program Of rehabilitation; or sources of information 39A obtained upon a promise of confidentiality; or any other information which, if disclosed, might result in harm, ohysical or otherwise, to the defendant or other persons. The court shall afford the defendant and the defendant's counsel an opportunity to camment on the report and, in the discretion of the court, to introduce testimony or other information relating to any alleged factual inaccuaracy contained in it. B) If the court is of the view that there is information in the piesentence report which should not be disclosed under subdivision (c)(3)(A) of this rule, the court in lieu of making the report or part thereof available shall state orally or in writing a summary of the factual information contained therein to be relied on in determining sentence, and snall give the defendant and the defendant's counsel an opportunity to comment thereon. The statement may be made to the parties in camera. C) Any material which may be disclosed to the defendant and the defendant's counsel shall be disclosed to the attorney for the government. 40A Set eae D) If the comments of the defendant and the defendant's ccounse1 or testimony or other information introduced by them allege any factual inaccuracy in the presentence investigation report ox the summary of the report or part thereof, the court shall, as to each matter controverted, make (i) a finding as to the allegation, or (ii) a determination that no such finding is necessary because the matter controverted will not be taken into account in sentencing. A written record of such findings and determinations shall be appended to and accompany any copy o* the presentence investigation report thereafter made, available ot the Bureau of Prisons. E) The reports of studies aid recommendations contained therein made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 USC Sec.3552(b) shall be considered a presentence investigation within the meaning of subdivision (c) (3) of this rule. F) (Redesignated) 41A --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386011_2398%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.