Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 12-17808
George K. Young, Jr. requests leave to file the attached proposed Sur-Reply in
Opposition to Defendants’ Petition for Rehearing en banc and would show unto the
1. On November 15, 2018, Defendants filed their Motion for Leave to File Reply
and included additional references to their amici briefs in an attempt to persuade this
wholly in line with their previous position that regular citizens can receive open
carry licenses. See Reply, pp. 2-3. However, as explained in the Sur-Reply, this is
incorrect.
3. Defendants also state, falsely, that there “is no basis for Young’s statement
that past practice supports the [P]anel’s interpretation.” Id. As demonstrated in the
own documentation and those documents are being provided to this Court to refute
Defendants’ assertion.
constitutional rule that will impose strict scrutiny on any public-carry law”
1
(3 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-1, Page 3 of 5
including, ostensibly, other Circuits. This is a gross misstatement of the case and
the law and itself warrants leave to file a Sur-Reply if Defendants’ Motion is granted
5. The proposed Sur-Reply conforms to Circuit Rule 27-1 in that it does not
s/ Alan Beck
ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145)
Attorney at Law
2692 Harcourt Drive
San Diego, California 92123
Telephone: (619) 905-9105
Email: alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com
s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh
STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH
Stamboulieh Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 4008
Madison, MS 39130
Telephone: (601) 852-3440
Email: stephen@sdslaw.us
2
(4 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-1, Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the foregoing Motion complies with the type-volume limitations
under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 27 because it contains 279 words,
and this complies with the typeface and style requirements of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 27 because it has been prepared using Microsoft Word 365 in
3
(5 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-1, Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this, the 21st day of November 2018, I served the foregoing pleading by
electronically filing it with the Court’s CM/ECF system which generated a Notice
of Filing and effects service upon counsel for all parties in the case.
I certify that all participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users and that
4
(6 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 1 of 15
No. 12-17808
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction………………………………………………………………..……….1
Argument………………………………………………………………………..….1
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...……..8
Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Service
ii
(8 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 3 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. exrel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017) ..............7, 8
Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................7
Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314
(D.C. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................................6
Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 961, 2014 U.S. App.
LEXIS 5498, *14, 2014 WL 1193434 ....................................................................6
United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013)...........................................6
Statutes
Rules
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Police Dep’t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations
Governing the Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997).....................................1, 2
Other Sources
http://hifico.org/ag-reports/?fbclid=IwAR1UuvuU4Zp41aZXm-
QZZAfKVayWDLYGBvtPeV-udXiYFRPj2xr9xCjqPqk .....................................5
El Larson, "Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public
carry guns", September 20th, 2018,
http://www.kitv.com/story/39131297/honolulu-police-commission-reviewing-
hpds-policies-on-letting-the-public-carry-guns .....................................................4
"Firearm Registrations in Hawaii, 2017",
https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2018/05/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-
2017.pdf ..................................................................................................................5
iii
(9 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 4 of 15
iv
(10 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 5 of 15
Introduction
made in Defendants’ Reply brief1. The relief sought in Mr. Young’s complaint is to
be issued a permit to carry a firearm. See ER 5. The only entity able to issue him a
permit is the County of Hawaii via its Chief of Police. The County’s written
guards. The extra record evidence Defendants rely on should be ignored because as
shown below it is neither properly before this court nor credible. Defendants’
Argument
regulations are promulgated by the Chief of Police for the granting of authorization
for the carrying of weapons as provided by section 134-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes”.
Police Dep’t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of
Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997) at *1. It limits open carry permits to “Licensed
1
Mr. Young’s sur-reply focuses on the argument made in Section 1 of Defendants’
Reply. Most of the argument made in Section II and IV rehash argument that was
addressed in the response and thus do not need to be addressed. As to Section III,
Mr. Young directs this Court to San Diego County Gun Owners excellent amicus
brief which thoroughly demonstrates that Defendants and their amici have seriously
misconstrued the history at issue.
1
(11 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 6 of 15
guard agency”. Police Dep’t of Cty. Of Haw., Rules and Regulations Governing the
Issuance of Licenses 10 (Oct. 22, 1997) at *4, *11. Thus, Hawaii County’s
implementation of state law bans open carry for anyone other than private detectives
or those employed at a guard agency. Even if this Court were to take the Hawaii
Attorney General’s opinion and the Counties’ amicus brief at face value, they have
no probative value because the actual implementation of state law against Mr. Young
However, this Court should not accept Defendants’ new position because it is
inconsistent with their previous briefing. Defendants contend the State position is
not at odds with its previous briefing. However, a faithful review of the record
demonstrates otherwise. Rather than correct the County about the correct
2
(12 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 7 of 15
Defendants argue that this Court should not consider the monthly reports Mr.
Young submitted with his response because it is non-record evidence. That is ironic
amicus brief. Those declarations are not properly before this Court. Unlike those
declarations, the monthly reports can be properly considered because they are
judicially noticeable. Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows this Court
to take judicial notice of facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”. See Rule 201 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. The monthly reports are judicially noticeable because
questioned.
Defendants do not and could not dispute the veracity of these reports. Equity
requires these reports be considered, especially at this stage, because the Defendants
opened the door to them by introducing extra record “evidence”. The attached
3
(13 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 8 of 15
reports have been submitted to impeach the credibility of Defendants’ extra record
“evidence”.2
These reports demonstrate that Hawaii’s past practice supports the Panel’s
interpretation of H.R.S. section 134-9. The monthly reports by each County list the
permits as “security” and “citizen”. At the end of the year, the authors of the annual
report tally up all the “security” applications in order to produce a number for open
carry permits issued and denied and then they tally up all the citizen applications
denied producing a concealed carry number. For example, in 2017 the monthly
reports submitted by the Counties to the State show 14 citizen applications were
2
Honolulu’s position is especially suspect. The Honolulu Police Commission has
recently expressed concern that the Honolulu Police Department’s (“HPD”)
licensing scheme violates the Constitution. In September it requested HPD disclose
how it evaluates permits and HPD refuses to do so. Commissioner Sheehan recently
said: “If we don’t have adequate regulations in place, then people’s constitutional
rights could be violated”. T. Langford, “Police Commission: Why Is It So Hard To
Get A Permit To Carry A Gun In This City?” Honolulu Civil Beat, November 2,
2018, https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/11/police-commission-why-is-it-so-hard-to-
get-a-permit-to-carry-a-gun-in-this-city/ (accessed 11/16/2018). See also El Larson,
“Police Commission reviewing HPD's policies on letting the public carry guns”,
September 20th 2018, http://www.kitv.com/story/39131297/honolulu-police-
commission-reviewing-hpds-policies-on-letting-the-public-carry-guns (accessed
11/16/2018) (“Commissioner Steven Levinson says Honolulu needs to be ready
because he expects more cases to come forward. ‘This is our Hurricane Florence. It
is a monster storm. It is out there, and its coming. And it’s coming at us and if we
do not have a defensible mechanism for passing upon applications for permission to
exercise what the United States Supreme Court has now held is a fundamental
individual constitutional right we're going to be in big trouble’”).
4
(14 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 9 of 15
received3,4. See YoungAdd-127 to 221. The State took this figure to create their
concealed carry applications demonstrates open carry permits have always been
rule that will impose strict scrutiny on any public-carry”. As a preliminary matter,
3
These reports were obtained via a Uniform Information Practices Act request which
is Hawaii’s version of the Freedom of Information Act.
4
The Hawaii Firearms Coalition has uploaded all 18 years of monthly reports from
the Counties onto their website. A review of those monthly reports along with the
publicly available annual reports demonstrates that the past practice of the State of
Hawaii has always been to treat citizen carry applications as interchangeable with
concealed carry permits. See http://hifico.org/ag-
reports/?fbclid=IwAR1UuvuU4Zp41aZXm-QZZAfKVayWDLYGBvtPeV-
udXiYFRPj2xr9xCjqPqk (accessed 11/21/2018).
5
See “Firearm Registrations in Hawaii, 2017”,
https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2018/05/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-
2017.pdf at *9.
5
(15 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 10 of 15
the Panel did not even apply strict scrutiny. The Young Panel simply applied Circuit
[a] law that imposes such a severe restriction on the core right of self-
defense that it “amounts to a destruction of the [Second Amendment]
right,” is unconstitutional under any level of scrutiny. Heller, 554 U.S.
at 629 (internal quotations omitted). By contrast, if a challenged law
does not implicate a core Second Amendment right, or does not place a
substantial burden on the Second Amendment right, we may apply
intermediate scrutiny. See, e.g., [United States v. ]Chovan, 735 F.3d at
1138-39; cf. Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), 670 F.3d 1244,
1257, 399 U.S. App. D.C. 314 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“[A] regulation that
imposes a substantial burden upon the core right of self-defense
protected by the Second Amendment must have a strong justification,
whereas a regulation that imposes a less substantial burden should be
proportionately easier to justify.”).
See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 961, 2014 U.S. App.
because both State law and the County of Hawaii’s implementation of State law
statement that somehow the Ninth Circuit just “established a constitutional rule that
will impose strict scrutiny on any public carry law that Hawaii – or California or
Oregon or any other State – enacts in the future[]” is absurd and farcical. See Reply,
suggestion that states in other Circuits could somehow be bound by the Panel’s
6
(16 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 11 of 15
Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2001). Despite Defendants
categorically false misreading of the Panel’s Opinion, this Court is still free to apply
Defendants claim that Courts often vacate and remand opinions in light of
case. In Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd. v. G.G. exrel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (2017), the
7
(17 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 12 of 15
Subsequently, the “guidance document” was withdrawn and the basis for the
Fourth Circuit’s decision was nullified. For that reason, the Supreme Court
remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for panel reconsideration. But in Mr.
Young’s case, there was no ambiguity, nor did Mr. Young’s Panel rely on any
“guidance document”. The law is clear on who is entitled to an open carry license in
Hawaii: security guards, i.e. persons protecting life and property. The Attorney
Defendants’ attempt to interpret state law in a manner inconsistent with the express
wording of the statute and their prior representations to this Court and the County’s
Even if section 134-9 were vague, G.G. v. Gloucester does not support remand
to the trial court. In G.G. v. Gloucester, the Supreme Court remanded the case back
to the Fourth Circuit to give the panel an opportunity to reconsider the case in light
of the new guidelines. At best, G.G. v. Gloucester supports panel rehearing which
Conclusion
Rather than ask for rehearing en banc based upon Hawaii’s actual implementation
of its laws, Defendants have gone to great lengths to create a fantasy where all three
judges on Mr. Young’s Panel misread Hawaii law. There is absolutely no reason for
8
(18 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 13 of 15
this Court rehear Mr. Young’s appeal based on a post-hoc fiction. Defendants’
s/ Alan Beck
ALAN BECK (HI Bar No. 9145)
Attorney at Law
2692 Harcourt Drive
San Diego, California 92123
Telephone: (619) 905-9105
Email: alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com
s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh
STEPHEN D. STAMBOULIEH
Stamboulieh Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 4008
Madison, MS 39130
Telephone: (601) 852-3440
Email: stephen@sdslaw.us
9
(19 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 14 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P. 5(c)(1)
and 32(c)(2) because, excluding the parts of the document exempted by Fed. R. App.
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.32(a)(5)
and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because it has been
10
(20 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-2, Page 15 of 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 21st, 2018, I filed the foregoing Sur-Reply
in Opposition of Petition for Rehearing En Banc with the Clerk of the Court for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF
system.
I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and
11
(21 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 1 of 95
YoungAdd-127
(22 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 2 of 95
YoungAdd-128
(23 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 3 of 95
YoungAdd-129
(24 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 4 of 95
YoungAdd-130
(25 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 5 of 95
YoungAdd-131
(26 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 6 of 95
YoungAdd-132
(27 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 7 of 95
YoungAdd-133
(28 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 8 of 95
YoungAdd-134
(29 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 9 of 95
YoungAdd-135
(30 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 10 of 95
YoungAdd-136
(31 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 11 of 95
YoungAdd-137
(32 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 12 of 95
YoungAdd-138
(33 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 13 of 95
YoungAdd-139
(34 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 14 of 95
YoungAdd-140
(35 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 15 of 95
YoungAdd-141
(36 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 16 of 95
YoungAdd-142
(37 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 17 of 95
YoungAdd-143
(38 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 18 of 95
YoungAdd-144
(39 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 19 of 95
YoungAdd-145
(40 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 20 of 95
YoungAdd-146
(41 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 21 of 95
YoungAdd-147
(42 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 22 of 95
YoungAdd-148
(43 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 23 of 95
YoungAdd-149
(44 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 24 of 95
YoungAdd-150
(45 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 25 of 95
YoungAdd-151
(46 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 26 of 95
YoungAdd-152
(47 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 27 of 95
YoungAdd-153
(48 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 28 of 95
YoungAdd-154
(49 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 29 of 95
YoungAdd-155
(50 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 30 of 95
YoungAdd-156
(51 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 31 of 95
YoungAdd-157
(52 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 32 of 95
YoungAdd-158
(53 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 33 of 95
YoungAdd-159
(54 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 34 of 95
YoungAdd-160
(55 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 35 of 95
YoungAdd-161
(56 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 36 of 95
YoungAdd-162
(57 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 37 of 95
YoungAdd-163
(58 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 38 of 95
YoungAdd-164
(59 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 39 of 95
YoungAdd-165
(60 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 40 of 95
YoungAdd-166
(61 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 41 of 95
YoungAdd-167
(62 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 42 of 95
YoungAdd-168
(63 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 43 of 95
YoungAdd-169
(64 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 44 of 95
YoungAdd-170
(65 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 45 of 95
YoungAdd-171
(66 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 46 of 95
YoungAdd-172
(67 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 47 of 95
YoungAdd-173
(68 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 48 of 95
YoungAdd-174
(69 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 49 of 95
YoungAdd-175
(70 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 50 of 95
YoungAdd-176
(71 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 51 of 95
YoungAdd-177
(72 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 52 of 95
YoungAdd-178
(73 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 53 of 95
YoungAdd-179
(74 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 54 of 95
YoungAdd-180
(75 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 55 of 95
YoungAdd-181
(76 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 56 of 95
YoungAdd-182
(77 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 57 of 95
YoungAdd-183
(78 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 58 of 95
YoungAdd-184
(79 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 59 of 95
YoungAdd-185
(80 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 60 of 95
YoungAdd-186
(81 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 61 of 95
YoungAdd-187
(82 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 62 of 95
YoungAdd-188
(83 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 63 of 95
YoungAdd-189
(84 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 64 of 95
YoungAdd-190
(85 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 65 of 95
YoungAdd-191
(86 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 66 of 95
YoungAdd-192
(87 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 67 of 95
YoungAdd-193
(88 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 68 of 95
YoungAdd-194
(89 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 69 of 95
YoungAdd-195
(90 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 70 of 95
YoungAdd-196
(91 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 71 of 95
YoungAdd-197
(92 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 72 of 95
YoungAdd-198
(93 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 73 of 95
YoungAdd-199
(94 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 74 of 95
YoungAdd-200
(95 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 75 of 95
YoungAdd-201
(96 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 76 of 95
YoungAdd-202
(97 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 77 of 95
YoungAdd-203
(98 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 78 of 95
YoungAdd-204
(99 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 79 of 95
YoungAdd-205
(100 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 80 of 95
YoungAdd-206
(101 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 81 of 95
YoungAdd-207
(102 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 82 of 95
YoungAdd-208
(103 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 83 of 95
YoungAdd-209
(104 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 84 of 95
YoungAdd-210
(105 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 85 of 95
YoungAdd-211
(106 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 86 of 95
YoungAdd-212
(107 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 87 of 95
YoungAdd-213
(108 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 88 of 95
YoungAdd-214
(109 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 89 of 95
YoungAdd-215
(110 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 90 of 95
YoungAdd-216
(111 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 91 of 95
YoungAdd-217
(112 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 92 of 95
YoungAdd-218
(113 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 93 of 95
YoungAdd-219
(114 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 94 of 95
YoungAdd-220
(115 of 115)
Case: 12-17808, 11/21/2018, ID: 11096529, DktEntry: 193-3, Page 95 of 95
YoungAdd-221