Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 5 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________
)
)
IN RE CONTEMPT FINDING IN )
) Misc. No. 09-mc-00273-EGS
UNITED STATES v. STEVENS )
)
_________________________________)

MOTION FOR RULING ON

UNCONTESTED MOTION TO VACATE FINDING OF CONTEMPT

Patty Merkamp Stemler, by and through counsel, respectfully requests this Court

promptly rule on her motion filed June 2, 2009, to vacate the Court’s February 13, 2009, finding

of contempt in United States v. Stevens, Case No. 08-cr-231 (EGS). In support of this motion,

Ms. Stemler incorporates by reference her prior motion and accompanying memorandum of law

and declarations, and further states as follows:

1. On February 13, 2009, during a status conference in United States v. Stevens, this

Court held Ms. Stemler and two other attorneys in contempt of court for failure to produce thirty

documents to the defendant during post-trial proceedings. As stated in the declarations of former

Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita Glavin and Patty Stemler that were attached to Ms.

Stemler’s Motion to Vacate and which no one has disputed, Ms. Stemler had no knowledge of or

involvement in the failure to produce the thirty documents to the defendant prior to the February

13, 2009 status conference. (Glavin Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9, June 2, 2009; Stemler Decl. ¶¶ 8, 22, 25, 30,

June 1, 2009.)

2. Ms. Stemler, who was sitting in the audience as an observer during the February

13, 2009 status conference, only came to the Court’s attention when, in response to the Court’s
 Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 5 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 3

inquiry, she stood to identify herself as a signatory to the February 9, 2009 government filing.

Her in-court conduct was indisputably not contumacious.

3. When the Court held Ms. Stemler in contempt, the Court stated that “there will be

further proceedings at the appropriate time” and that it would “deal with the sanctions associated

with the conte[mpt] at a later date.” (Hr’g Tr. 12-13, Feb. 13, 2009.)

4. On April 7, 2009, the Court set aside the verdict in United States v. Stevens and

dismissed the case. At the same time, the Court commenced criminal contempt proceedings

against six members of “the original prosecution team” in United States v. Stevens pursuant to

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42. (Hr’g Tr. 46, Apr. 7, 2009.) Two of these six attorneys

were held in contempt along with Ms. Stemler during the February 13, 2009 status conference.

Ms. Stemler, who was not part of the original prosecution team in United States v. Stevens and

had no involvement in the conduct that led to the dismissal of the case, was not among the six

attorneys named by the Court on April 7, 2009. As a result, Ms. Stemler is not a subject of the

special inquiry being conducted by Henry Schuelke.

5. On June 2, 2009, Ms. Stemler filed a Motion to Vacate Finding of Contempt,

respectfully requesting that the Court reconsider or otherwise resolve its in-court contempt

finding of February 13, 2009, as it pertained to her. Two days later, her motion was transferred

to this Court.

6. No action has been taken on Ms. Stemler’s motion for more than a year. No one

has opposed her motion or has otherwise voiced objection to her request, and the Court has not

requested any additional briefing or a hearing. Significantly, no one has disputed that Ms.

Stemler had no role in the conduct the Court found contumacious during the February 13, 2009

status conference.
 Case 1:09-mc-00273-EGS Document 5 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 3

7. The long pendency of Ms. Stemler’s outstanding, unopposed motion has caused

harm both to Ms. Stemler and to the Department of Justice. Other than the Court’s February 13,

2009 contempt ruling, Ms. Stemler has an unblemished record of thirty-four years. Ms. Stemler,

who has dedicated her professional career to the Department of Justice and has served as the

Chief of the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section since 1992, has borne the opprobrium of this

unwarranted charge for more than sixteen months. Because the Court’s contempt ruling remains

unresolved, Ms. Stemler has not signed her name to any brief, or filed an appearance, on behalf

of the United States since February 13, 2009, hampering the government’s advocacy in the most

important criminal appellate cases. (Stemler Decl. ¶ 6.)

For these reasons and for the reasons set forth in her prior motion, Ms. Stemler

respectfully requests that the Court rule on her pending motion at the earliest opportunity.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Seth P. Waxman______

Seth P. Waxman (#257337)
Howard M. Shapiro (#454274)
Mary K. Gardner (# 987638)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: (202) 663-6000
Fax: (202) 663-6363
Attorneys for Patty Merkamp Stemler
Dated July 8, 2010