WPC4 b|'cdbQjRmVgRhcc7r_UT4N{P^Z᾽&eVtYÝXf!)MA_3`cHB @)\T r;͵b۶Ƃ ]MQZmbdR4Ô93S9+_VK{t l&^fSUH)RF`żoP~B! f pț~׻T<i~(M0 []n=6#Nhn&f @3PTX1›7VbOmm=Yl:whyf^/XKz -Zd]1nfPeAzo~0פum,ؐQw̤~^}$8#yN[VĶ{nmh;Iu?c·MںZ#UN % 0: U!8C U>{ ^ 1u 72: wl 1p 0~ 0Du 4   m @ 5UD/s@ 3-s  <"?& 0c ) 0Un)) 0v+RY,L02 04 04 05 06U67 07 08Z9 0 @@ 0CF 0/GYHnYLSMS 0U#VY9Z 0[\Ndd i 0>v 0wgw 02y 0y 0zm{ 0@| 0 0 0U 0 0 0 0c 0օօW BLANIER 5635 PCL 6 (Copy 1)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,<4 9Z+ Courier New <( 9Z &Courier Regular,0 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)0UCEKQW]cioAutoList3I.1.I.I.I.I.I.I.(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  n/:i+003|x0U 6  ($USUS.,    1    _XoXXXԀCohenhadpreviouslybeenchargedinaComplaint,dated  March2,1998,allegingthatheandothersconspiredtoviolate  Section1084(a).   ($USUS.,    28    _ԀX]@XXXXoXXX]@Nordoesthefactthatoffshoresportsbookscontinueto   flourishopenly,SarafaAff.,para.67,sayanythingmoreabout  thelegalityofbookmakingthandoesthe opensaleofdrugs n implythelawfulnessofdrugdealing.#X]@XXXo#6"AZ,CopprplGoth Bd BT    ($USUS.,    23    _XoXXXԀInhismemorandumoflaw,Cohenrecognizesthathemust  showbothcauseandprejudiceforfailingtoraisehisselective  prosecutionclaimonappeal.SeeMemorandumofLawinSupportof \ MotionPursuantToSection2255( CohenMem.),at2425.Cohen 2 claims,however,inhisMemorandumthattheGovernment withheld X informationfrom[him]andtheCourtregardingtheDepartmentof . JusticesunderstandingofthelegalstatusofOTB,themodelfor   [WSE],andactuallymisledtheCourtthroughoutthetrial.Mem.   25. `     ` CohensclaimthattheGovernmentimproperlywithheld  \  informationfromhimispureipsedixit.And,asnotedabove,  2  eveniftheGovernmentattrialwaswrongaboutwhetherSection   1084(a)appliedtoOTB,sincetheCourtrefusedtheGovernments   requesttoinstructthejurythatSection1084(a)didnotapply d  % toOTB,therewasnoerrorwhatsoeverintheCourtinstructing  thejuryabouttheirrelevanceofhisinnocentframeofmind. 6  ($USUS.,    17    _ԀXoXXXAsshownthefirstpageofExhibit17,theDiGregory  letterwassenttoMs.ThuillezonoraboutFebruary1,2000,and  wasreceivedbyherofficeonoraboutFebruary7,2000 n approximatelyoneweekbeforetrialbeganinthiscase. D    `   AsshownonthelastpageofExhibit17,theletterwas @ faxedbyStaceyWalkerofNewYorkStateRacingandWagering   Board(the RWB)toMelindaSarafaonoraboutFebruary1,2001,   priortothecloseofbriefingonCohensdirectappeal; r  approximatelyeighteenmonthsbeforeCohenfiledhisSection2255 H   petitionbasedonthatletter;andmorethanthreeyearsbefore  n  Cohensinstantbailmotion.  D     `   OnJanuary5,2004,IfaxedacopyofExhibit17toStacey   Walker(nowStaceyClifford),whoisthePublicInformation v  OfficeroftheRWB,andspokebytelephonewithMrs.Clifford L  laterthatdayandagainonJanuary8,2004.Mrs.Clifford "r  informedmethatsherecalledthatMs.Sarafatelephonedherin H oraboutFebruary2001,andthatMs.Sarafawasawareof,andhad  specificallyrequested,acopyoftheDiGregoryletter.Mrs.  CliffordrecallsthatfollowingMs.Sarafasrequestforthe z DiGregoryletter,shesearchedthefilesofNicoleThuillez(the P recipientoftheletter)fortheletter.Uponfindingthe &v DiGregoryletterinMs.Thuillezsfiles,Mrs.Cliffordfaxedthe L lettertoMs.Sarafa.Mrs.Cliffordinformedmethatherjob " dutiesincluderespondingtorequestsforinformationand  documentarymaterialsfrommemberofthepublic.Mrs.Clifford ~ furtherinformedmethathadMs.SarafarequestedtheDiGregory T letteratanytimeafteritsreceiptbytheRWBonFebruary7, *z 2000,shewouldhaveprovidedthelettertoMs.Sarafainthe P ordinarycourseoffulfillingherjobdutiesasPublic & InformationOfficerfortheRWB. ##Xd#   ($USUS.,    15    _ԀXoXXXԀAstheCourtofAppealsnoted, WSEcouldonlybookthe  betsthatitscustomersrequestedandauthorizedittobook.By  makingthoserequestsandhavingthemaccepted,WSEscustomers n wereplacingbetswithinthemeaningofSection1084(a)Id.at D 75. 2  ($USUS.,    27    _XoXXXԀOfcourse,Cohensclaimdependsonaflawedpremise:  thattheoperatorsofstatesponsoredracetracksconstitutean   identicallysituatedclassofpersonsasoffshoresportsbook \ makerslikehim.Yet,itishardlyselfevidentthatstate 2 sponsoredhorseracingalawfulactivityunderthelawsofmany X statesis identicalforconstitutionalpurposesto . bookmakingoperationsinvolvingbettingonprofootball,   basketball,andbaseballgamblingwhichispatentlyillegalin   NewYorkandeveryotherstateintheUnionsaveNevada.Cohens `  failuretodemonstratethatWSEandOTBareconstitutionally 6    identicalis,ofnecessity,fataltohisselectiveprosecution  \  claim. 5  ($USUS.,    6    _XoXXXԀSection1084(b)createsa safeharborfromprosecution,  providedthatthetransmissionsonly(1)involvewagering  information(asopposedtoactual betsand wagers),and(2) \ occurbetweenstateswheretheunderlyingbettingactivityis 2 legal.See18U.S.C.1084(b). X Ѐ . (;3$2#  0  .3  0  *+ (_2623  ..   ($USUS.,    24    _XoXXXԀInfact,manyoftheExhibitstoCohenspetition  involvingDebevoise(Exh.27and30to34oftheSarafaAff.)  stillbeartheGovernmentsBatesstampnumbering,conclusively \ establishingthatCohenhadthemduringtrial.*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   H  ($USUS.,    19    _ԀXoXXXIndeed,theSecondCircuitsholdingonthe  inapplicabilityofthesafeharborinSection1084(b)toCohens  conduct,seeCohen,960F.3dat_7374,_ԀisfataltoCohens n % Section2255petition.ThatisbecauseevenifCohens account  wageringanalogytoOTBwerelegallysound(whichtheSecond  Circuithelditwasnot,seei.d.,at_7476),_Ԁsincesports \ bettingofthetypepromotedbyCohenisillegalunderNewYork 2 law,eventhetransmissiontoNewYorkofmere information X assistingintheplacingofbetsandwagersisviolativeof . Section1084(a)andCohenadmittedlycausedWSEtoengagein   suchtransmissions.SeeTr.92728. B  ($USUS.,    7    _XoXXXԀNotably,Cohendoesnotclaimthattheletterscouldnot  havebeendiscoveredbyhimpriortotrialortohisappeal.  Indeed,asdescribedbelow,theDiGregoryletterwasobtained \ fromOTBofficialsbyasimpletelephonicrequesttoOTBspublic 2 informationoffice,andtheJenningsletterwasobtainedfroma X DepartmentofJusticewebsite.   ($USUS.,    12    _ԀXoXXXItwasundisputedthatatalltimesrelevanttothe  Indictmentandtrial,WSEneverofferedwageringonhorseracing.*A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <6X9`(Courier New*5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    18    _XoXXXԀAsshowninExhibit16,theJenningsletterwassentto  SenatorLeahyonoraboutJune9,1999,approximatelyseven  monthspriortothecommencementofCohenstrial.Asshownon \ thelastpageofExhibit16,theJenningsletterappearstohave 2 beenuploadedtotheWebsiteoftheDepartmentofJustice X ComputerCrimesandIntellectualPropertySection( CCIPS)on . % August30,1999,approximatelysixmonthsbeforeCohenstrial  began.TheCCIPSWebsiteisaccessiblebyanymemberofthe  publicwhohasaccesstotheInternet,andanypersonwith \ InternetaccesscouldobtaintheJenningsletterafteritwas 2 uploadedtotheCCIPSWebsiteonAugust30,1999. x   X   Moreover,accordingtothe telltaledateandtimestamp   atthebottomoftheExhibit,theJenningsletterwasapparently   obtainedbycounselforCohenbyaccessingtheCCIPSWebsiteon `  oraboutJanuary31,2001priortothecloseofbriefingon 6   Cohensdirectappeal;almosttwoandonehalfyearsbeforeCohen  \  filedhisSection2255petition;andalmostthreeyearsbefore  2  theinstantbailmotion.   */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    5    _XoXXXԀCohenscoconspirators(nowindicted)remainas  fugitives,andCohen,tothebestoftheGovernmentsknowledge,  maintainshisownershipinterestinWSE.Cohenhasnever \ expressedanyremorseforhisillegalactivities.NorhasCohen 2 everindicatedthathewouldrefrainfromengaginginillegal X sportsbookmakingoperationsinthefuture,orfromprofiting . fromhisownershipinterestinWSEonceheisreleasedfrom   custody.     Indeed,sincetheconvictionofJayCoheninFebruary 6   2000,agentsassignedtotheFBIsComputerCrimesSquadhave  \  periodicallyaccessedWSEsWebsite( www.wsex.com).TheFBIs  2  mostrecentaccessofWSEsWebsitewasinoraboutlate   December,2004.IhavebeeninformedbyFBIagentswhoaccessed   WSEsWebsitethat,uponaccessingtheWebsite,theyobserved d  (1)thatWSEsWebsiteisstillactive;and(2)thatWSE :  continuestosolicitbetsandwagersonprofessionalsporting `  eventssuchasfootball,basketball,andfootball.#XXXXoe#XoXXXԀ* (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2   O  ($USUS.,    3    _XoXXXԀInpriorproceedings,althoughtheGovernmentdidnot  opposeavoluntarysurrenderbyCohen,itopposedCohens  continuedreleaseonbailafterthejuryreturneditsverdict \ convictinghimofallcountsoftheIndictment.SeeEx.Btothe 2 AffirmationofMelindaSarafa,Esq.,datedDec.19,2003. X FollowingtheaffirmanceofhisconvictionbytheCourtof .  Appeals,theGovernmentlatermovedtorevokeCohensbail,  althoughthisCourtdeniedtheGovernmentsapplicationand  permittedhimtoremainonreleasependingresolutionofhis \ petitiontotheSupremeCourtforawritofcertiorari.Seeid. 2 Exhs._A_Ԁ_(Dkt._ԀEntry_#55),_ԀandD. d  ($USUS.,    8    _XoXXXԀSee,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Blair,54F.2d639,641(10th  Cir.1995);UnitedStatesv.Barone,467F.2d247,249(2dCir.  1972). I  ($USUS.,    14    _ԀXoXXXInexplainingwhatqualifiesastransmissionof"abeton  asportingeventorcontest,"theDistrictCourtstated,   ifapersonplacesacallfromaplaceintheUnitedStatestoa n foreigncountryandsaysinwordsorsubstance,Iwishtoplacea D betonsuchandsuchasportingevent,andifhespecifiesthe j amountofthebetandtheothernormaldetails,andifaperson @ atthebettingbusinessintheforeigncountrysaysinwordsor   substanceweacceptyourbet,thisisatransmissionofabet   withinthemeaningofthestatute.ӀTr.1207. r     ` Inaddition,respondingtodefensearguments,this  n  Courtemphasizedthat,forpurposesofdeterminingwhetherthe  D  defendantsconductsatisfiesthisdefinition,itwasirrelevant   whetherCohen"deemed"betstotakeplaceonlyinAntiguaorthat   Cohen"construed"hisconductasoutsidethestatutory v  definition.Tr.120809.   ($USUS.,    4    _ԀX mXXXForreasonsnowhereexplainedinhisSection2255petition  orhisbailmotion,althoughservinghissentenceCohenwaited  morethansixmonths_sincethefilingofhisSection2255 r petition(almostonequarterofhistotalsentence)to_Ԁmovefor J bailpendingresolutionof_that_Ԁ___petition.#XXXX mg#_*AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    20    _ԀXoXXXIndeed,evenassumingthatCohenwascorrect,andthatOTB  wasinviolationofSection1084(a)atthetimeofhistrial,the  factthattheGovernmenthadnotelectedtochargeOTBwith n violatingSection1084(a)saysnothingaboutwhetherCohen D violatedSection1084(a).WereCohensargumentacceptedbythis j Court,anybookmakercouldavoidliabilityunderSection1084(a) @ bypointingtootherasyetunchargedbookiesas proofoftheir   owninnocentframeofmind.     ($USUS.,    2    _XoXXXԀAcopyoftheCourtofAppealsdecisionisattached  heretoasExhibitA. /  ($USUS.,    9    _XoXXXԀAcopyofthepertinentportionsofthetranscriptofthe  pretrialconferenceonJanuary4,2000isannexedheretoas  ExhibitB.*>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    13    _ԀXoXXXԀOncrossexamination,Cohenadmittedthathehadbeen  specificallyinformedbylawyersfortheNationalFootballLeague  thathisconductviolatedSection1084andthat,inspiteofthis n advice,Cohenneversoughtcounselfromanyotherlawyer.See D Tr.94748;seealsoSarafaAff.para56(describing j correspondencefromDebevoise&PlimptontoCohenconcerning @ applicabilityofSection1084(a);seealsoExh.28toSarafaAff.   (letterfromBruceP.KellertoJayCohen,etal.,datedMay13,   1997,at2,3,(informingCohenthathewas operatingan r  unlawfulsportsgamblingenterprisedirectedtoresidentsofthe H   unitedStatesand puttingyouonnoticeconcerninghis  n   violationsofU.S.criminallawsandcollectingcases).  D     ` Inaddition,Cohenacknowledgedthatheknewthat   operatingasportsbookwaslegalonlyinonestateNevada v  andthat,eventhere,itwasnotpermissibletotakebetsfrom L  personsoutsideNevada.SeeTr.88182.Cohenalsoadmitted "r  thatthequoteattributedtoanofficialoftheDepartmentof H JusticesaidnothingaboutwhetherInternetgamblingislegal  underSection1084(a)andalsoadmittedthatheneversoughtthe  adviceoftheDepartmentofJusticeonthissubject.SeeTr. z 950.Further,Cohenacknowledgedthatusinginternationalwires P totransmitbetswasillegalunderexistinglaw.SeeTr.99596.   ($USUS.,    22    _ԀXoXXXCohenssupposedrelianceonthisofficialsstatementwas  thesubjectofbothhisdirectandcrossexaminedtestimony.  Notably,oncrossexamination,Cohenwasforcedtoadmitthatthe n quoteattributedtoanofficialoftheDepartmentofJusticesaid D nothingaboutwhetherInternetgamblingislegalunderSection j 1084,andalsoadmittedthatheneversoughttheadviceofthe @ DepartmentofJusticeonthissubject.SeeTr.950.Nordid   Coheneverseektheadviceofeitheracriminallawyerora   lawyerversedingamblinglaw,afactomittedfromhispetition. r  Indeed,evenafterhewaschargedbyComplaintinMarch1998with H   violatingSection1084(a)andwasthusplainlyonnoticeofhis  n  illegalconduct,CohencontinuedtocausedWSEtoacceptbetson  D  sportingeventsandwagers,asallegedinCountsEightandNine   oftheIndictmentuponwhichhewasconvicted.  ($USUS.,    21    _XoXXX ` Inanefforttoavoidcontinuedincarcerationona  convictionwhichraisesnonewissuesoflaworfactand,over  thecourseoffouryears,hassurvivedthescrutinyofthis \ Court,theSecondCircuit,andtheU.S.SupremeCourt(atotalof 2 thirteenfederaljudges),Cohenassertsthat(1)heisnotarisk X offlight;and(2)theGovernmentimproperlyobjectedtoa . requestforafurloughwhichhemadelastyear.      ` Besidesbeingselfserving,Cohensclaimsare `  meritless.WSEisstillbeingoperatedbyCohens(nowindicted) 6   coconspiratorsnotwithstandingtheaffirmanceofhisconviction  \  throughmultiplelayersofappellatereview,andCohenhasnever,  2  totheGovernmentsknowledge,everexpressedanyindicationthat   hewillrefrainfrom(1)promotingWSEuponhisrelease,(2)   profitingfromitsillegalgamblingactivities,or(3)otherwise d  beassociatedwithWSEwhenheisreleased.Accordingly,the :  GovernmentrespectfullysubmitsthatCohenposesbothariskof `  flightandadangertothecommunity,andthatheshouldnotbe 6 releasedonbailwhilehisSection2255petitionisdecided.      `    ` Finally,Cohensclaimthatheshouldbegrantedbail h becausehissentenceisduetoexpireonApril22,2004,and > thereforepresents exceptionalcircumstances,bordersonthe d frivolousforitwasCohenwho,asdescribedabove,_chose_Ԁnotto : raisetheissueoftheapplicabilityofSection1084(a)toOTB_as  abasistoassertlegalerror_Ԁ_attrial__until_Ԁmorethanayear  afterreceivingtheDiGregoryandJenningsletterswhichdiscuss l thattopic;anditwasCohenwhowaitedmorethansixmonths B afterfilinghisSection2255petitiontoseekbail.The h GovernmentrespectfullysubmitsthatCohenshouldnotbeallowed > tomanufacture exceptionalcircumstancesbywaitingtobring  arguments(evenlegallymeritlessonessuchasthosepresentedby  hispetition)totheCourtsattentionforreview.Andheshould p  notbeallowedtoclaimthe exceptionalcircumstanceofasoon F ! toexipresentenceasabasisforbailwhensuch circumstance !l" isaresultofhisowninactioninseekingbailearlierdespite !B# havingeveryopportunitytodoso.*;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2   ]  ($USUS.,    25    _XoXXXԀCitingUnitedStatesv.Monteleon,98Cr.812(S.D.N.Y.  July29,1998)andUnitedStatesv.DiNola,98Cr.1051(S.D.N.Y.  Sept.28,1998).*5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    11    _ԀXoXXXCohennoted,forexample,thatheretainedtheaccounting  firmofPeatMarwickfortaxadviceandassistanceinobtaining  anAntiguangaminglicenseandthatPeatMarwicknevermentioned n tohimthathisconductedviolatedSection1984.SeeTr.816818. D Thiswassignificant,Cohenclaimed,becauseheunderstoodthat j PeatMarwickhadconsultedwithitsinhouseattorneysforsome @ unspecifiedpurposebeforeacceptingCohenasaclient.SeeTr.   817.Inaddition,Cohentestifiedthathereadanarticlein   whichaDepartmentofJusticeofficialwasquotedassayingthat r  littlecouldbedoneaboutenforcingSection1084against H   offshoresportsbooks.SeeTr.86062,988.( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  (;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2     ($USUS.,    16    _ԀXoXXXԀTellingly,CohensSection2255petitionandbailmotion  makenomentionoftherulingsmadebytheSecondCircuitinthis  caserulingswhicharebothbindingprecedentaswellasthe n lawofthecaseandwhichdefeathisSection2255petition. D   Ofcourse,totheextentthatCohensSection2255 @ petitionraisedissesthatwerelitigatedondirectappealCohen   isprocedurallybarredfromraisingtheminhisSection2255   petition.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Sanin,252F.3d79,83(2d r  Cir.2001)(percuriam)( [i]tiswellestablishedthata2255 H   petitioncannotbeusedtorelitigatewhichwereraisedand  n  consideredondirectappeal)(quotingCabrerav.UnitedStates,  D  972F.2d23,25(2dCir.1992).ItisequallytruethatCohenis   foreclosedfromlitigatingunderSection2255claimsthathe   couldhaveraisedonappealbutdidnot,#XXXXog#ԀXoXXX_absentestablishing v  % causeandpreducideforthefailure.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.  Perez,129F.3d255,260(2dCir.1997)( [a]defendantisalso  barredfromraisingclaimsinhis2255motionthathefailedto \ raiseondirectappealunlessheshowscausefortheomissionand 2 prejudiceresultingtherefrom)(citingFemiav.UnitedStates, X 47F.3d519,524(2dCir.1995)._Ԁ__  ($USUS.,    10    _ԀXoXXXAcopyofthepertinentportionsofthetrialtranscript  isannexedheretoasExhibitC. M  ($USUS.,    26    _XoXXXԀIndeed,bookmakerswhotargetAmericansfromoutsidethe  bordersoftheUnitedStateshavebeenthesubjectoffederal  enforcementactionssincetheearlypartofthelastcentury. \ E.g.,Horowitzv.UnitedStates,63F.2d706(5thCir.1933) 2 (defendantsinMexicosolicitedparticipationofAmericansin X illegallottery).  d !USUS.,  _XoXXXX mXXXo{\UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK  Є  x ` UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA h     : 8   v.    h     : p 04Civ.4379(TPG)  8 JAYCOHEN,0    h     : p S298Cr.434(TPG)  (# (#    `    Defendant.   p     `     h     : H   Єx  p  #XoXXX m\#  GOVERNMENTSMEMORANDUMOFLAWINOPPOSITIONTOJAYCOHENS   MOTIONFORBAILPENDINGRESOLUTIONOFHISPETITIONPURSUANTTO   TITLE28,UNITEDSTATESCODE,SECTION2255 z    PRELIMINARYSTATEMENT &v     ` TheGovermentrespectfullysubmitsthismemorandumof " lawinoppositiontodefendantJayCohen'smotiontobereleased ~ onbailpendingthisCourt'sreviewanddispositionofhis *z petitionforhabeasrelief,pursuantto28U.S.C.2255. & Cohen'smotionforbailshouldbedenied,becausetheclaimsset  forthinhis2255petitionpresentnoreasonableprospect,let .~ aloneasubstantiallikelihood,ofsuccess,norhasCohen * presentedanyotherunusualcircumstancethatwouldwarrantthe   extraordinaryremedyofreleasependingreviewofhisSection 2!" 2255petition. ".$    ` ThecruxofCohen's2255petitionishisclaimthathis $& discoveryaftertrialoftwoletterswrittenbyDepartmentof 6&!( Justice("DOJ")officialsshowthattheGovernmentmade '2#* "misrepresentations"athistrialconcerningwhetherthe )$, activitiesoftheStateofNewYork'sOffTrackBettingentity :+&. ("OTB")wereinviolationoftheWagerWireAct,18U.S.C. ,6(0 {\ 8XXdd8   1084(a).Cohenclaimsthat,asaresultofthese  "misrepresentations,"theGovernmentmisledtheCourtinto \ improperlycurtailingCohen's"defense"thathemodeledhisown X offshoresportsbettingoperationontheOTB'soperation.Cohen   furtherclaimsthattheexistenceoftheselettersshowsthatthe `  Governmentengagedin"selectiveprosecution"byprosecutinghim  \  while,atthesametime,notprosecutingOTB.Theseclaimsare   baseless. d     ` First,the"misrepresentations"allegedbyCohen `  consistofnothingmorethanthelegalviewsofthetrial   prosecutorsthatOTBwasnotsubjecttoregulationunderSection h 1084andwasinsteadgovernedbyaseparatefederalstatute d relatingspecificallytohorseracing.Thereisnotandcannot  beanyclaimthattheseviewswerenotheldingoodfaith;that l theprosecutorssoughttosuppressanyinformationfromthe h Court;orthattheprosecutorswereevenawareofthetwoDOJ  letters.TheissueofwhetherOTBwasregulatedbySection p  1084(a)wasinjectedbyCohenduringthemiddleoftrial,andthe !l" GovernmentwasneveraskedbytheCourtorbydefensecounselto "$ researchtheissueortosolicittheviewsofDOJonthesubject. t$& NordidtheprosecutorseversuggesttotheCourtthatithad  &p!( doneso.Hence,thereisnobasisforanyclaimofintentional '#* (orevennegligent)misconductonthepartoftheGovernment. x)$,    ` Second,evenifthetrialprosecutorsweremistaken $+t&. abouttheapplicabilityofSection1084(a)toOTB,thiswouldnot  begroundsforanewtrialbecauseithadnoeffectwhatsoeveron \ thetrial.AlthoughtheGovernmentaskedtheCourttoinstruct X thejuryabouttheinapplicabilityofSection1084(a)toOTB,the   Courtnevergavesuchaninstruction,andpermittedCohento `  testifyfullyandextensively,as proofofhissupposed  \  innocentstateofmind,abouthowhesupposedlymodeledhis   operationsafterOTBsanddidnotengageinanyprohibited d  wageringtransmissions. `     ` Third,astheCourtcorrectlyinstructedthejury,   Cohenspurportedbeliefthathisconductdidnotviolatethelaw h ЄincludinghisviewsabouthowhemodeledhisconductafterOTB d andhisownpersonaldefintionofwhatconstitutedthe  transmisionof betsunderSection1084(a)waslegally l irrelevantinanyevent.TheCourtofAppealsupheldthis h CourtsjuryinstructionsinitsopinionaffirmingCohens  conviction.Accordingly,Cohensassertionthattheprosecutors p  mistakeaboutOTB diminishedhistrialtestimonyismeritless, !l" foradefendanthasnorighttopresentirrelevantevidencetoa "$ jury. t$&    ` &XoXXXoFinally,Cohen's"selectiveprosecution"claimisalso  &p!( entirelywithoutmerit.ThatCohenandanumberofother '#* offshoreandonshoresportsbettingoperationshavebeen x)$, prosecutedforviolatingSection1084,whiletheNewYorkOTBhas $+t&. notbeenprosecuted,givesrisetonocognizableclaimthatCohen  wasimproperlysingledoutforprosecutionorthattheGovernment \ actedinvidiouslyorinbadfaith. X #XoXX&Xo#   ` Inshort,becauseevenapreliminaryreviewofCohens   Section2255petitiondemonstratesthatitismeritless,Cohens `  motionforbailpendingresolutionofthatpetitionshouldbe  \  rejected.     PROCEDURALHISTORY `  I   ` OnMarch18,1999,aGrandJuryinthisDistrict   chargedJayCohenwithconspiracytoviolatetheWireWagerAct, h 18U.S.C.1084(a),andsevensubstantivecountsofviolating, d andaidingandabettingviolationsof,theWireWagerAct,in  connectionwithCohen'soperationofWorldSportsExchange l ( WSE),abookmakingorganizationthatCohenownedandranin h Antigua.  #  1      ׀Section1084(a)makesitunlawfultouseawire  communicationfacilitytotransmitininterstateandforeign p  commerce(1)"betsorwagers"onsportingevents;(2) !l" "informationassistingintheplacement"ofanysuchbetsor "$ wagers;or(3)acommunication"whichentitlestherecipientto t$& receivemoneyorcreditasaresultofbetsorwagers."  &p!(    ` Intheconspiracycount(CountOne)andfiveofthe '#* sevensubstantivecounts(CountsThreethroughSix,andCount  Eight),oftheIndictmentCohenwaschargedwithviolatingall \ threeclausesofSection1084(a)(hereafter,the"Betting X Counts").Intwoofthesubstantivecounts(CountsTwoand   Seven),Cohenwaschargedsolelywithtransmitting"information `  assistingintheplacement"ofbetsorwagers,inviolationof  \  clause(2)ofSection1084(a)(hereafter,the"InformationOnly   Counts"). d     ` OnFebruary14,2000,trialbegan,concludingon `  February28,2000,whenthejuryreturnedaverdictofguiltyon   allcountsoftheIndictment.Byspecialinterrogatory,the h juryindicatedwithrespecttoeachBettingCountthatitfound d CohenguiltyofviolatingallthreeclausesofSection1084(a).  OnAugust10,2000,JudgeGriesasentencedCohentoatermof21 l monthsimprisonment. h    ` OnJuly31,2001,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedCohens  convection.SeeUnitedStatesv.Cohen,260F.3d68(2dCir. p  2001).4  #  2      ׀OnJune17,2003,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdenied !l" Cohenspetitionforcertiorari..<  #  3      ׀OnOctober15,2002,Cohen "$ surrenderedtotheBureauofPrisons,andbeganservinghis  sentence.OnJune16,2003,CohenfiledhisSection2255 \ petitionalleging,insubstance,thathehadnotreceivedafair X trialbecausetheCourtdidnotpermitthejurytoconsiderhis    relianceontheexistenceofNewYorksOTBasamodelforWSE; `  and(2)allegingthatheandapproximately21othersportsbook  \  operatorswhichwereprosecutedbythisOfficefrom19982000had   beenthevictimsof selectiveprosecution.Asdescribedmore d  fullybelow,Cohensargumentsforbailfallfarshortofthe `  showingnecessarytojustifythegrantingofbailduringthe   pendencyofhisSection2255petition.1  #  4       h    ` ThroughoutCohenstrialinFebruary2000and d continuingtothepresentdayWSEremainedinoperation,  offeringbettorsintheUnitedStatestheabilitytoengagein l gamblingactivitywhichisillegalineverystateexceptNevada: h  theplacingofbetsandwagersonprofessionalsportingevents  suchasfootball,baseball,basketball.+  #  5      ׀      ` ThegravamenofCohensSection2255petitionthat \ theGovernmentengagedinprosecutorialmisconductby X intentionallymisleadingtheCourtconcerningtheapplicability   ofSection1084(a)toOTBisbaseless.Moreover,evenifthe `  Governmentwasmistakenintheviewsitexpressedattrial  \  concerningtheapplicabilityofSection1084(a)toOTB,and   Section1084(a)doesapplytoOTB,anyerrorinthisregardwas d  surelyharmless.ThatisbecausetheCourt,overthe `  Governmentsobjection,specificallyallowedCohentotestify   abouthowhesupposedly(1)modeledWSEafterOTB,and(2) h believedthatWSEfellwithintheexemptionfromprosecution d containedinsubsectionSection1084(b)becauseunderhis   accountwageringtheoryno betsor wagersweretransmitted, l merely informationassistingintheplacingofbetsorwagers.  #  6      ׀  Moreover,thefactthatthisCourtandtheSecondCircuitheld \ thatCohens accountwageringtheoryofdefensewasinvalidas X amatteroflaw,andthatevenifitwerevalid,Cohencould   stillbeconvictedoftransmittingprohibitedwagering `  information(asopposedtobetsorwagers)foreclosesCohens  \  requestforhabeasreliefbasedonsupposedlythenewly   discoveredevidenceoftheJenningsandDiGregoryletters. d    ARGUMENT󀀀 `  POINTONE   COHENCANNOTMEETTHESTRINGENTSTANDARDS h FORBAILPENDINGHABEAS > ;55   ` Thepowertograntbailtoahabeaspetitioneris a : limitedone,tobeexercisedonlyinaspecialcase.Mappv.  Reno,241F.3d221,226(2dCir.2001);Knutsonv.UnitedStates, B No.00CV4830(ILG),2001WL477269,at*1(E.D.N.Y.Mar.7, > 2001).AstheSecondCircuithasexplained, [t]heeligibility  ofahabeaspetitionerforbailisnotonthesamefootingas F ! thatofapretrialaccusedwhoispresumptivelyinnocent,orthat !B# ofaconvicteddefendantondirectappeal.Ostrerv.United #% States,584F.2d594,599(2dCir.1978);seeUnitedStatesv.  Yarmoluk,No.96Cr.863(JSR),1997WL642564,at*1(S.D.N.Y. \ Oct.17,1997)( thestandardforreleaseonbailunder28U.S.C. X 2255isevenhigherthanunder18U.S.C.3143(b)).      ` Thestandardforbailpendinghabeaslitigationis a `  difficultonetomeet:Thepetitionermustdemonstratethatthe  \  habeaspetitionraise[s]substantialclaimsandthat   extraordinarycircumstancesexist[]thatmakethegrantofbail d  necessarytomakethehabeasremedyeffective.Mappv.Reno, `  241F.3dat226(quotingGrunev.Coughlin,913F.2d41,44(2d   Cir.1990))(internalquotationmarksomitted).Thismeansthat h thepetitionermustestablish ademonstratedlikelihoodthat d thepetitionwillprevail,baseduponclaimsofasubstantial  natureuponwhichthepetitionerhasahighprobabilityof l success,...sothatvictoryforpetitionercanbepredicted h withconfidence.UnitedStatesv.Yarmoluk,1997WL642564,at  *1(quotingHarrisv.UnitedStates,No.97Civ.1904(CSH),1997 p  WL272398,at*1(S.D.N.Y.May21,1997));seealsoJacksonv. !l" Bennett,No.01Civ.8971(NRB),2002WL126679,at*1(S.D.N.Y. "$ Jan.30,2002);Wordv.Lord,No.00Civ.5510(LAP)(HBP),2001 t$& WL1150345,at*1(S.D.N.Y.Sept.27,2001).  &p!(    ` CohenismistakenishisletterofDecember29,2003, '#* totheextentthathereliesonGrunev.Coughlin,913F.2d41, x)$, 4344(2dCir.1990)forthepropositionthattheSecondCircuit $+t&. doesnotrequirethemeritsofaSection2255petitiontobe  consideredinaddressingbail.Gruneonlyheldthatbecausethe \ remedysoughtbybail(releasependingdecisiononthepetition) X isnotthesameasafulladjudicationofthepetition,bail   determinationsareimmediatelyappealableunderthecollateral `  orderdoctrine.Id.at4344.Afterclarifyingthispointof  \  appellatelaw,Grunewentontoreiteratethestringencyofthe   requirementsforbailpendinghabeasreviewandspecifically d  reaffirmedthatthepetitionermustdemonstratethatthehabeas `  petition raise[s]substantialclaims.Id.at44.   Accordingly,ahabeaspetitionerseekingbailmustalwaysshow h ataminimumthathisclaimsare substantial.Seeid.;see d alsoMapp,241F.3dat226.     ` Moreover,anyclaimof exceptionalcircumstances l groundedintheimminenceofCohensanticipatedApril2004 h releasedateis,asdescribedbelow,acircumstanceofCohens  owncreation,andshouldnotformabasisforbail.Indeed,even p  wereitnotacircumstanceforwhichCohenalonebears !l" responsibility,courtsinthisDistricthaveroutinelyheldthat "$ "themerefactthat[ahabeaspetitioner]hasalmostcompleted t$& hissentenceisnotsufficientfoundationforgrantingbail  &p!( absentasubstantialclaim.Ifitwere,everyprisonernearing '#* theendofatermcouldbringasuccessfulbailmotionin x)$, connectionwithahabeaspetition."Caryv.Ricks,2001WL $+t&. 314654,at*3(S.D.N.Y.March30,2001);accordHarrisv.Allard,  2002WL31780176,at*4(S.D.N.Y.Dec.11,2002);Jacksonv. \ Bennett,2002WL126679,at*1. X    ` AlthoughtheGovernmentisstillreviewingthefactual   andlegalassertionsofCohenslengthySection2255petition,a `  reviewofthatpetitionsofarmakesitabundantlyclearthat  \  Cohenhasfailedtoestablishanyprobabilityifsuccess,let   alonesucha highprobabilityofsuccessthat victoryfor d  [Cohen]canbepredictedwithconfidence.Yarmoluk,1997WL `  642564at*1.ThisissobecauseCohensclaimthatthe   GovernmentintentionallymisledtheCourtisgroundlessand h becausetheletterscitedbyCohenasproofoftheapplicability d ofSection1084(a)toOTBareirrelevantbothtohisclaimsof  errorattrialandtohiscomplaintsofselectiveprosecution. l   POINTTWO h ANALYSIS  THECLAIMSSETFORTHINCOHENS p  SECTION2255PETITIONAREMERITLESS F ! 6NN    ` Inhispetition,CohenclaimsthattheGovernmentmade !B# intentionalmisrepresentationstotheCourtaboutwhetherSection #% 1084(a)appliedtoOTBandthat,asaresult,histestimonywas J% '  diminishedandhewasdeniedafairtrialinviolationofthe &F") DueProcessclauseoftheFifthAmendment.Inanutshell,Cohen (#+ claimsthatbecausetheGovernmentintentionallymisledtheCourt N*%- aboutwhetherSection1084(a)appliedtoOTB,andbecausehe +J'/ modeledhis accountwageringsystemafterOTBinaneffortto  ensurethatno betsweretransmittedusinginternationalwires, \ andbecauseOTBhadnotbeenprosecutedforviolatingSection X 1084(a),Cohenactedinthegoodfaithbeliefthathisconduct   waslawful.Accordingly,Cohenclaimsthathedidnothavethe `  mensreatobeconvictedoftheSection1084(a)conspiracyor  \  substantiveoffensesallegedintheIndictment.      ` Specifically,CohenclaimsthattheGovernments d  representationsabouttheapplicabilityofSection1084(a)toOTB `  ЄandtheCourtsinstructionstothejuryabouttheirrelevance   ofCohensstateofmindandofOTBservedto [d]iminish, h the cruxofhisdefense,whichhewas thathedidnotbelieve d thatWSEwasinvolvedinthetransmissionofbetsorwagers.  SarafaAff.Point.B;id.,para.15. l    ` Insupportofthisclaim,Cohenreliesontwo h supposedlynewlydiscoveredletters(Exhs.16and17tohis  Section2255petition),ofwhichhewasallegedlyunawareduring p  histrial,   #  7      ׀andwhichpurporttoshowthathewascorrectinhis !l" viewthatOTBwassubjecttoSection1084(a)notwithstandingthe "$ factthatittoooperatedan accountwageringsystem. t$& AccordingtoCohen,thesenewlydiscoveredletterstherefore  provehisinnocentstateofmind.Thedefectsinthislogicare \ apparentandfailtopresentasubstantialclaimjustifyingbail. X    ` Inadditiontohisclaimofnewlydiscoveredevidence,   Cohenclaimsthathewasthesubjectof selectiveprosecution, `  whichheterms invidiousbecausethecaseagainsthimandother  \  bookiesprosecutedin1998bythisOfficeresultedfroma   referralbyDebevoise&Plimpton( Debevoise),lawyersfor d  variousprofessionalsportingleagueswhosesportingeventswere `  thesubjectofCohensillegalbookmakingactivities.SeeSarafa   Aff.paras5365.AccordingtoCohen,sincethe tiesbetween h DebevoiseandtheU.S.AttorneysOfficeare close,strong,and d deep,id.,Cohenshouldbeentitledtodiscoveryconcerning  documentswhichshowthathewasthevictimofselective l prosecution.Asdescribedbelowthisclaimisprocedurally h barredand,evenwereitnot,ismeritlessinanyevent.As  such,itfailstopresentasubstantialclaimjustifyingbail. p  A.CohensArgumentsRegardingOffTrackBetting !l"    ` Inhispretrialmotionsandattrial,Cohenargued "$ thatinordertobeconvictedofviolatingSection1084(a),it t$& wasnecessaryfortheGovernmenttoprovethathespecifically  &p!(  intendedtoviolatethelaw.TheCourtrejectedthisargument '#* beforetrial,inconformitywithapplicablerelevantcaselaw,/  #  8         andruledthatSection1084(a)isageneralintentcrime,nota \ specificintentcrime. h Specifically,stressingtherelevant X distinctionbetweenknowingconductandknowingillegality:   8  8`   8 ` x` xifthedefendantknewthathewas `  usingawirecommunicationfacility 6   ...myviewofthelawisifhe  \  knewthathewasusingawire  2  communicationfacilityforthe   purposesoutlinedinthestatute,   thenhehadthecriminalmensrea, d  thecriminalstateofmindand :  wouldbeguilty.`    a8  8`   8 ` x` xLetmerepeat:Q   8  8`   8 ` x` xIfheknewthathewasusingawire  communicationfacilityforoneor h moreofthepurposesoutlinesin > thestatute,thenhehadthe d criminalmensrea.Ifhediditand : heknewthat,thenheisguilty.   0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# 8  8`   8 ` x` xNow,ifhisdefenseis,well,I Q knewIwasusingthewire ' communicationfacility,butI  reallydidnotknowitwasillegal,  thenthatisnotadefenseinmy Y view./    Tr.2728.5  #  9      ׀TheCourtindicated,however,that,withrespectto  # Cohen'sownrighttotestify,itwouldpermithimadegreeof ]"% leewayto"testifyaboutwhathewantstotestifyabout."Tr.  $Y' 19.Thatleeway,however,wouldbe"subjecttomyinstructions  latertothejury."Id. \    ` Duringthedefensecase,Cohentookfulladvantageof X theCourtslatitudeconcerninghisrighttotestify.Indeed,   duringhistestimony,Cohenadvancedtheverydefensethatthe `  Courthadruledinvalid:thatheactedinthebeliefthathis  \  conductwaslawful.Cohenadmittedthathewasinthebusiness   ofbookmaking,seeTr.910,955;thathissportsbooktookbets d  fromgamblersthroughouttheUnitedStates,seeTr.911,95152; `  thatthesecallsinvolvedtransmissionofinformationassisting   intheplacingofbetsandwagers,seeTr.92728;andthathe h knewinternationaltelephonelinesandtheInternetwerewire d communicationfacilities.SeeTr.876,911.P  #  10      ׀However,Cohen  testifiedthathepersonallyreadSection1084,anddecidedon l hisownthathedidnotviolateitsprovisions.SeeTr.861. h Cohentestifiedthathewasawarethattakingbetsoverthe  telephonewasillegal,seeTr.829,andthathecouldnotlegally p  conducthisbusinessfromtheUnitedStates,seeTr.829,but !l" maintainedthathisconductwaslegalbecause,inhismindand "$ accordingtoWSE'srules,everythingtookplaceinAntigua.See t$& Tr.829,832,86263.Notably,however,informinghisviews,  &p!( Cohendidnotclaimtohavereceivedorreliedonanyadviceof '#* counsel.SeeTr.947.Instead,Cohentestifiedthathe"relied"  oncertainotherinformation,allofwhichhereallegesinhis \ habeaspetition.A  #  11      ׀ X    ` Moreover,inaslightvariationonhisinnocentframe   ofminddefenseCohenarguedthathecouldnotbeconvictedof `  violatingSection1084(a)because,heclaimed,no betsor  \   wagersweretransmittedwithinthemeaningofthestatutewhen   acallerinNewYorkpickedupatelephone,placedacalltoa d  WSEoperatorinAntigua,andaskedtowager$55ontheoutcomeof `  aparticularprofootballgame.Thiswastrue,accordingto   Cohen,becauseWSEdidnotextendcredittobettorsbutinstead h requiredbettingtobemadefromprefundedaccounts(amethodhe d characterizedas accountwagering).     ` OnFebruary22,2000,inthemiddleofCohensdirect l testimony,counselforCohensubmittedalettertotheCourt h concerningthesupposedapplicabilityofOTBsoperationstothe  issueofwhatconstitutedthetransmissionofa betunder p  Section1084,andexplainingforthefirsttimeindetail !l" hisunderstandingofhowstatesponsoredparimutuelwagering  horseracingoperationswereorganizedinNewYork,Oregon,and \ Pennsylvania.SeeExh.9totheSarafaAff.,at15.!  #  12      ׀Thiswas X significant,accordingtocounsel,because, [t]hecoexistenceof   suchlawfulaccountwageringfacilitieswith[Section1084(a)] `  reflectstheprevailingviewthatofferstobetorwagering  \  instructionsfromoutofstateaccountholderstoaccount   wageringfacilitiesconstitutemerelyinformationassistingin d  theplacingofbetsorwagersandnotbetsorwagersperse, `  withinthemeaningofSection1084.Seeid.at5.      ` Laterthatdayincourt,inaclearefforttoevadethe h CourtspriorrulingsconcerningtheirrelevanceofCohens d stateofmind,counselexpandedonhisletterbysayingthathe  wishedtopresentevidenceconcerningOTBnotasa legal l defense,butsothatCohencouldexplaintothejury howhe h cameupwiththisconceptsothejurydoesntincorrectly  concludethatthiswasjustawildidea.Tr.856.Presaginga p  closingargumentwhichtheCourtlatertermed avirtualrequest !l" forjurynullification(Tr.125051),defensecounselstated "$ thatCohensformationOTBwasrelevantbecauseitprovedthat t$& WSE wasnotawildidea,andthatCohen spentsixmonths  &p!( researchingthisnewbusinessspecificallyforthepurposeofnot '#* violatingthelaw.Tr.856.CounselstatedthatCohen should  bepermittedtosimplysaywhathedid,andthatafterCohenhad \ suchanopportunitytheGovernmentcould getuponsummationand X saythatsnonsense,thisisnotOTB,thisisridiculous.      ` TheGovernmentarguedthatifCohenwereallowedto `  testifyaboutOTBthejurywouldbeconfusedandthatarguments  \  onsummationwouldnotdispelsuchconfusion.SeeTr.857.   Accordingly,theGovernmentaskedtheCourttoinstructthejury d  thatOTBwasnotregulatedbySection1084(a).Seeid.Although `  indicatingitsownconcernthatthejurycouldbemisledby   Cohensreferencestoofftrackbetting,theCourtnevertheless h refusedtheGovernmentsrequest,seeTr.85758,andinstructed d thepartiesthatattheconclusionofthecaseitwouldcharge  thejurywithwhatitbelievedtobeproperinstructions l concerningtheelementsofaSection1084(a)violation.SeeTr. h 858.CohenthentestifiedthatheunderstoodthatOTBallowed  telephonicwagerstobeplacedonhorseracesruninNewYork p  frombettorsoutsideNewYork,seeTr.839,85960,868,and !l" profferedhistheorythatbecauseallactivitytookplaceonWSE "$ computerserversinAntiguano betsorwagersweretransmitted t$& inthecourseofWSEscommunicationswithitsgamblersinthe  &p!(  UnitedStates;this,accordingtoCohen wasnodifferentthan '#* OTB.Tr.868.7  #  13      ׀CohenrepresentedthatbecausehemodeledWSE   afterOTB,thathedidnot knowinglyviolatethelawsofthe \ UnitedStatesafactirrelevantinlightoftheCourtsprior X rulingthatthis [w]asnotadefenseavailableunderSection   1084(a).Tr.28(Exh.B). `     ` FollowingthistestimonybyCohen,andinresponseto  \  theGovernmentsobjectionthatCohenhadbeenpermittedtoput   beforethejurytheverydefensewhichtheCourthadexpressly d  ruledwasirrelevantasamatteroflaw,theCourtagain `  reiterateditsunderstandingofthemensrearequirementof   Section1084(a): h 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Asfarasthemensreaissue,IbelieveIwill d instructthejurythatifthedefendantknewthat  acallwasbeingmadefromIllinoisorNewYorkby  abettortoAntiguathat...isasufficient \ mensreaandthedefendantcannotreinterpretthe 2 statute.Hedoesnothavethatauthorityunder X thelaworfacttoreinterpretthestatutetohave . itsaysomethingwhichisdifferentandapplyit   inadifferentway.Itwouldbelikesomeone   sayingifhepossessesheroin,Ibelieveheroinis `  peppermintcandyandIknowthestatutedoesn't 6   coverpeppermintcandyand,therefore,Iamgoing  \  tocallitpeppermintcandyandI'mnotselling  2  heroinbecauseIamsellingpeppermintcandy.Now   Ihaveusedalittlebitmoreextreme,butnottoo   muchofanextreme[example].Thelawdoesnot d  permitthat.Ifthelawpermittedthat,itwould :  simplypermitevasionsbysimplyapersonal `  constructionwhichiscontrarytoanobviousset 6 ofphysicalfacts.  (# (# Tr.945. >    ` Moreparticularly,theDistrictCourtflatlyrejected, : aslegallyincorrect,Cohensproposeddefinitionof"bet,"which  dependedonthenotionthattheonlypertinent"transmission"of B betsoccurredwithinWSE'soffices,fromonespotonCohens > computernetworktoanotherspotonthesamecomputernetwork.  TheCourttermedsuchaconstructionofSection1084"anobvious F ! distortionandevasionofthestatute,"andcontrarytothe !B# commonsensemeaningoftheword"bet."SeeTr.846.Asthe #% Courtstated:  J% ' 8  8`   8 ` x` xItsreallyaperfectlyit'sa a'"* dreadfulargumentfrankly,and 7(#+ itsasifthecallerImean,  )]$, hereyouaresaying,intheEnglish )3%- language,thatthetelephone * &. operatoratWSEplacesthebet.You +&/ ignorethefactthatsomeoneinNew  Yorkwhowantstogamble,that  persondoesn'tplacethebet.\   @$***  8  8`   8 ` x` xAndthenyousaythedatabase s serveracceptsandrecordsthebet I  andcausesabetacceptedmessage  o toappear.Andafterthistakes  E place,theWSEtelephoneoperator    orallyconfirmsthistothe    individualontheotherendofthe w   line,towhichyougiveno,no M  weightintermsofourstatute,and #s  yousay,thetransmissionofthe I  betastakenplaceentirelywithin   theWSEofficeinAntigua.That   argumentistotally,completely, {  100percentinvalidasamatterof Q law.'w   Tr.846(emphasissupplied).Thisinstructionstothejuryas # ultimatelygiventothejurywereconsistentwiththese  rulings.0  #  14      ׀OnFebruary28,2000,thejuryreturnedaverdictof +{ guiltyonallcountsoftheIndictment.Byspecial ' interrogatory,thejuryindicatedwithrespecttoeachBetting  CountthatitfoundCohenguiltyoftransmittingallthree  prohibitedformsofinformation,including(a)betsandwagers, \ and(b)informationassistingintheplacingofbetsorwagers. X    ` Ondirectappeal,Cohenadvancedanumberofarguments,   allofwhichwererejectedbytheSecondCircuit.Amongother `  things,CohenclaimedthatthisCourterredininstructingthe  \  juryastowhatconstituteda betunderSection1084(a).See   Cohen,260F.3dat7475.Specifically,Cohenrepeatedhis d  argumentattrialthat underWSEsaccountwageringsystem, `  thetransmissionbetweenWSEanditscustomerscontainedonly   informationthatenabledWSEitselftoplacebetsentirelyfrom h customeraccountslocatedinAntigua.Id.at74.TheSecond d Circuitrejectedthisargument,andaffirmedthisCourtsjury  instructionsconcerningwhatconstituteda betwithinSection l 1084(a).  #  15      ׀Inaddition,theCourtofAppealsheldthatevenif h Cohens accountwageringtheoryweresoundandonly   informationassistingintheplacingofbetsorwagerswere p  transmittedbyWSEafactadmittedbyCohenduringhis !l" testimony,seeTr.92728Cohensconvictionwouldstillbe "$ affirmed.ThatisbecausethesafeharborprovisionofSection t$& 1084(b)pertainingtotransmissionofwageringinformation  &p!( onlywheretheunderlyingbettingwaslegalinthejurisdictions  involvedinthecommunicationscouldnotapplyto \ transmissionsofwageringinformationbetweenAntiguaandNew X Yorksincebettingonprofessionalsportingeventssuchas   baseball,football,andbasketballisillegalunderNewYorklaw. `  Seeid.at75,7374.  \     ` Moreover,rejectingCohensrelianceoncases   discussingwhereabetis placedforpurposesofstatetaxlaw, d  theCourtofAppealsheldthatwhateversignificanceexistedfor `  the locusofabettingbusinessfortaxationpurposes,Section   1084(a)sdefinitionof betwassatisfiedwhen someoneinNew h Yorksignaledanoffertoplaceaparticularbetandthatsomeone d atWSEsignaledanacceptanceofthatoffer.Id.at75.  AccordingtotheCourtofAppeals, thiscasewasneverabout l taxationandtherecanbenodisputeregardingWSEsacceptance h ofcustomersbetrequests.Id.N  #  16      ׀     ` InhisSection2255petition,Cohenclaimsthathis  discoveryoftwolettersbyDOJofficialsprovesthatSection \ 1084(a)appliestoOTB,andthattheprosecutorsmisledtheCourt X inassertingthatSection1084(a)didnotapplytoOTB.   AccordingtoCohen,WSEsprocedureswhichsupposedly ensured `  thatonlywageringinstructionswereevertransmittedbywire,  \  andthatnoactualwagerscameintoexistenceuntilWSEaccepted   andexecutedtheinstructionsusingfundsondepositina d  wageringaccountinAntiguawerenodifferentthan `   longstandingaccountwageringpracticesofstateapproved   bettingfacilities.SarafaAff.,para.16.BecauseOTBhadnot h yetbeenconvictedofviolatingSection1084(a),Cohenargues,he d reasonablybelievedthathissportsbookwasnotinviolationof  Section1084(a)sincehe,likeOTB,allegedlydidnottransmit l bets;therefore,hedidnothavethemensreatoviolatethe h statuteandhisconvictionshouldbeoverturned.Cohensclaim  islegallyandfactuallymeritless. p     ` Adefendantseekingtooverturnhisconvictiononthe !l" groundsofnewlydiscoveredevidencebearsaheavyburden.The "$ SecondCircuithascautionedthatadistrictcourtshouldgranta t$& newtrialonthebasisofnewlydiscoveredevidenceonlyinthe   mostextraordinarycircumstances,UnitedStatesv.Locascio,6 \ F.3d924,949(2dCir.1993),andonlyifadefendantestablishes X (1)thattheevidenceis"new"inthesensethatitwas   discoveredaftertrial;(2)thattheevidencecouldnothavebeen `  discoveredbeforeorduringtrialwiththeexerciseofdue  \  diligence;and(3)thattheevidenceissomaterialthatitwould   probablyleadtoanacquittal.Id.;seealso,e.g.,United d  Statesv.Sasso,59F.3d341,350(2dCir.1995)( Amotionfora `  newtrialbasedonnewevidenceistobegrantedonlywithgreat   caution...inthemostextraordinarycircumstances").Cohen h cannotmeeteitherthesecondorthirdprongofthisdemanding d standard.     ` First,Cohencannotseriouslyclaimthattheletters l  couldnothavebeendiscoveredbeforeorduringtrialwiththe h exerciseofduediligence.Locascio,6F.3dat949.Asis  evidentfromthefaceofthetwoletters,bothexistedpriorto p  trialandcouldhavebeenobtainedbydefensecounselforuseat !l" trial,oronappeal.Indeed,theletterofKevinDiGregory, "$ writtenbeforetrialinthecasebegan(Exh.17totheSarafa t$& Aff.),wasapparentlyobtainedthroughasimplerequesttoNew  &p!( YorkStateOTBofficials,whofaxedittodefensecounselon '#*  February1,2001,beforebriefingwascompleteonCohensdirect x)$, appeal.  #  17      ׀TheletterofJonJennings(Exh.16totheSarafa   Aff.)wasapparentlyprintedbycounselfromtheDepartmentof \ JusticeCybercrimeWebsiteonJanuary31,2001,alsobefore X briefingwascompleteonCohensdirectappeal.)b  #  18      ׀Cohenoffers   noexplanationastohowtheDiGregoryorJenningsletterswere  notdiscoverablebyhimintheexerciseofduediligence. \ Standingalonethisisfataltohisclaimof newlydiscovered X evidence.SeeLocasio,6F.3dat949.      ` Nordoescounselbothertoexplainwhyhechosetowait `  untilJune16,2003almostoneandonehalfyearsafteractual  \  receiptoftheDiGregoryletterandtwoandonehalfyearsafter   actualreceiptoftheJenningsletterstoraisethemasa d  basisforchallenginghisconviction.Asnotedabove,"themere `  factthat[ahabeaspetitioner]hasalmostcompletedhissentence   isnotsufficientfoundationforgrantingbailabsenta h substantialclaim."Caryv.Ricks,2001WL314654,at*3 d (S.D.N.Y.March30,2001).YettheargumentforbailbyCohenin  thesecircumstancesisfarlesscompellingthanforatypical l habeaspetitionernearingthecompletionofhissentence.Forby h waitinguntilthetwilightofhissentencetomoveforbailbased  ontheseletters,Cohenhascreatedtheverycircumstanceof  whichhecomplains.TheGovernmentsubmitsthat,underthese \ circumstances,bailpendingresolutionofthatpetitionis X particularlyinappropriate.      ` Morefundamentally,evenifCohencouldnothave `  discoveredtheDiGregoryorJenningslettersthroughdue  \  diligence,theissuestheyraisediscusswouldhavehadnoimpact   whatsoeverontheoutcomeofthetrial.Assuch,Cohencannot d  crediblymaintainthat theevidenceissomaterialthatitwould `  probablyleadtoanacquittal.Locascio,6F.3dat949.      ` Specifically,&XoXXXoԀthealleged"misrepresentations" h concerningtheOTB'sstatusunderSection1084hadnoeffecton d Cohen'strialinmanner.AlthoughCohenallegesthatthe  GovernmentattemptedtolimitthescopeofCohen'stestimonyand l tosecureajuryinstructionthatwouldhavediminishedthe h impactofhistestimony,thisCourtdidnotlimitCohen's  testimonyanditrejectedtheGovernment'sproposedinstruction. p  SeeTr.85758.Moreover,theissuewentonlytoCohen'sstate !l" ofmind,andspecificallytowhetherhebelievedhewasacting "$ lawfullybymodelinghisconductontheOTB'stheveryissue t$& thatthisCourtheld,andtheSecondCircuitagreed,wasentirely  &p!( irrelevanttoCohen'sliabilityunderSection1084.  #  19      ׀ '#* Accordingly,undernoconceivablesetofcircumstanceswould  Cohen'sclaimjustifythegrantingofanewtrial.3@  #  20       \ #XoXX&Xo#   ` Finally,the"misrepresentations"allegedbyCohenwere X merelytheviewsofthetrialprosecutorsastothelegalstatus   ofOTB;atnotimedidtheprosecutorsrepresentthoseviewsto `  beofficialDOJpolicy.Thereisnotandcannotbeanyclaim  \  thattheseviewswerenotinbadfaith;thattheprosecutors   soughttosuppressanyinformationfromtheCourt;orthatthe d  prosecutorswereawareofthetwoDOJletters.Indeedthe `  circumstancesofhowtheissuearosebelieanynotionthatthe   GovernmentwasawareoftheDiGregoryletters.Theissueof h whetherOTBwasregulatedbySection1084(a)wasputforthinthe d middleoftrialbycounselforCohenostensiblysothatthejury  couldseethatWSEwasnot justawildidea(Tr.856),andto l bolstercounselsclaimthatCohen wassomeonewhospentsix  monthsresearchingthisnewbusinessspecificallyforthepurpose \ ofnotviolatingthelaw.Tr.856.Atnotimebeforeorafter X February22,2000,whentheissuearosewastheGovernmentasked   bytheCourtorbydefensecounseltoresearchtheissueorto `  solicittheviewsofDOJonthesubject.Andatnotimedidthe  \  prosecutorsrepresentthattheyhadresearchedtheissue.Hence,   thereisnobasisforanyclaimofintentional(oreven d  negligent)misconductonthepartoftheGovernment. `     ` Insum,whetherSection1084(a)governsOTB,and   whetherOTBwasthesubjectofprosecutiondoesnothingtoalter h thefactthattheevidenceadducedattrialestablishedbeyond d peradventuretheelementsofaclassicSection1084(a)violation:  thatCohen(1)wasabookmaker;(2)usedinternationaland l interstatewirecommunicationfacilities;and(3)usedsuch h facilitiestotransmit(a)betsandwagers,(b)information  assistingintheplacingofbetsorwagers,and(c)wire p  communicationsentitlingtherecipientstoreceivemoneyand !l" creditasaresultofbetsandwagers.Thatiswhatthelaw "$ requiredtheGovernmenttoprovetothejuryand,asdemonstrated t$& byitsverdictandconfirmedbytheCourtofAppeals,thatis  &p!( whattheGovernmentdidsoprove. '#*    ` BecausetheCourtsinstructionstothejuryconcerning x)$, theelementsofSection1084(a)werecorrect,andbecauseCohens $+t&. subjectiveinterpretationofwhatconstituteda betunderthe  statutewaslegallyirrelevant,CohensSection2255petitionis \ devoidofmerit,andCohencandemonstratenogroundslet X alone substantialgroundsonwhichtobasearequestfor   bailwhilehispetitionisdecided.:  #  21      ׀ `  Ї2.SelectiveProsecution     ` Cohensselectiveprosecutionargumentfaresnobetter \ thanhis OTBdefense.Itisprocedurallybarred,andmeritless X inanyevent.      ` Asaninitialmatter,Cohenhasprocedurallydefaulted `  onhisclaim,whichheraisesforthefirsttimeinhisSection  \  2255Petition.ItiswellsettledthatSection2255isnot   designedasasubstituteforadirectappeal,seeUnitedStates d  v.Frady,456U.S.152,165(1982),UnitedStatesv.Addonizio, `  442U.S.178,184-85(1979),andthatafederalprisonerlike   CohencannotuseaSection2255petitionasavehicletolitigate h questionsthatcouldhavebeenraisedondirectappealbutwere d not.SeeRosariov.UnitedStates,164F.3d729,732(2dCir.  1999).Thus,whereadefendanthasprocedurallydefaulteda l claimbyfailingtoraiseitatsentencingorondirectappeal, h theclaimmayberaisedinhabeasonlyifthedefendantcan  firstdemonstrateeithercauseandactualprejudice,orthat p  heisactuallyinnocent.Bousleyv.UnitedStates,523U.S. !l" 614,622(1998)(quotingMurrayv.Carrier,477U.S.478,485, "$ 496(1986);Wainwrightv.Sykes,433U.S.72,87(1977),and t$& Smithv.Murray,477U.S.527,538(1986));seealsoRosariov.  &p!( UnitedStates,164F.3dat732(defendantmustdemonstrate '#*  either(1)causeforfailingtoraisetheissue,andprejudice x)$, resultingtherefrom,...or(2)actualinnocence.) $+t&. (citationsomitted).     ` TheSupremeCourthasmadeclearthat causeis \ measuredbyastringentstandardofdiligence.See,e.g., X Colemanv.Thompson,501U.S.722,752(1991)( causeis    somethingexternaltothepetitionerwhich cannotbefairly `  attributedtohim). Causetoexcuseaproceduraldefaultmay  \  existwhereaclaim issonovelthatitslegalbasis[was]not   reasonablyavailabletocounsel.Reedv.Ross,468U.S.1,16 d  (1984).Aclaimis reasonablyavailable,however,ifatthe `  timeofthedefault,itwasbeingraisedbylitigantsand   addressedbythecourts.SeeBousleyv.UnitedStates,523U.S. h at622-23(claimnot novelwherejudicialdecisionsinthe d reportersshowthatthelegalbasisfortheclaimwas reasonably  available).Althoughashowingthatthefactualbasisfora l claimwasnot reasonablyavailabletothedefendantwiththe h exerciseofduediligencecanestablishcause,seeHelmsley,985  F.2dat1205-08, themerefactthatcounselfailedtorecognize p  thefactualorlegalbasisforaclaim,orfailedtoraisethe !l" claimdespiterecognizingit,doesnotconstitutecausefora "$ proceduraldefault.Murray,477U.S.at486-87,488;seealso t$& McCleskeyv.Zant,499U.S.467,497-98(1991)( Forcauseto  &p!( exist,...thereasonableunavailabilityoftheclaim[]must '#* havepreventedpetitionerfromraisingtheclaim);Coleman,501 x)$, U.S.at752;UnitedStatesv.Tarascio,15F.3d224,225(2dCir. $+t&. 1993)(nocausewherefactsnecessarytoestablishclaimofgrand  jurydiscriminationwereavailabletodefendantpriortotrial). \    ` Here,Cohenbearstheburdentoestablish causefor X failingtoraisehis selectiveprosecutionclaimonappeal.   SeeCampinov.UnitedStates,968F.2d187,190(2dCir.1992). `  Theonlyallegedcause,Cohenoffers,absentanyelaboration,is  \  thatthe discoveryoftheDiGregoryandJenningsletters shed   newlightonthepurportedselectivityofhisprosecution. d  SarafaAff.para47.Cohenthengoesontoessentiallyrepeat `  factualassertionsmadeattrialandonappealaboutcomments   madebyaDepartmentofJusticeofficialuponwhichCohen h supposedly reliedasanendorsementofhisconduct,9  #  22      ׀see d SarafaAff.paras.4652;howillegalsportbettingoperations   flourishopenlyandarenotprosecutedwhilehe(and21other l similarlysituatedsportsbookieswereprosecuted),seeSarafa h Aff.para67;andhowOTBhasneverbeenprosecutedbythis  Office,orbyanyotherfederalprosecutorialentity,seeSarafa  Aff.para65.Curiously,however,Cohennowhereexplainshowthe \ discoveryoftheDiGregoryorJenningsletters shed[s]lighton X anything,muchlessthedecisionbythisOfficetoprosecutehim.   ThereaderislefttowonderhowthefactthatOTBorany `  otherentitymightbeviolatingSection1084(a)relatestoany  \  decisiontoprosecuteapersonlikeCohenwho,asthejuryand   theCourtofAppealsrecognized,didviolateSection1084(a). d     ` Moreover,giventhattheDiGregoryandJenningsletters `  wereavailabletoCohenpriortotrialandwereactuallyobtained   byhimbeforebriefingwascompleteintheCourtofAppeals, h Cohenisparticularlybereftofanyjustifiable causefornot d raisinghisselectiveprosecutionclaimbasedontheseletters.  Insum,whenmeasuredbytherequiredstringentstandardof l diligence,Cohenspurported causeforfailuretoraisehis h selectiveprosecutionclaimondirectappealmustfail.  #  23      ׀     ` Furthermore,Cohendoesnotestablishthathesuffered  anyprejudicearisingfromhisfailuretoraisetheseclaimson \ directappeal. Theprejudiceprongrequiresthatthepetitioner X showactualprejudice,...notmerelythattheerrorsathis   trialcreatedapossibilityofprejudice,butthattheyworkedto `  hisactualandsubstantialdisadvantage,infectinghisentire  \  trialwitherrorofconstitutionaldimensions.Femiav.United   States,47F.3d519,524(2dCir.1995)(emphasisinoriginal; d  citationsomitted).Here,inhisownSection2255petition, `  Cohensetsforthalloftheinformationwhichwasathisdisposal   concerninghowhiscasewasreferredforprosecutionby h Debevoise,seeSarafaAff.paras.5462,andcametobe d prosecutedinformationwhichwasprovidedtoCohenbythe  Governmentindiscovery,andaspartofits3500obligations.<  #  24      ׀ l Indeed,itwastheGovernmentitselfthat,duringitscasein h chief,calledaprivateinvestigatorhiredbyDebevoisewhohad  madeconsensualcallstoWSEseekingtowageronprofessional p  sportingevents.SeeSarafaAff.,para5556;seealsoTr.525 !l" 43(testimonyofJosephAglione).Thisinvestigatorwascross "$ examinedextensivelybycounselforCohenonthesubjectofhis t$& retentionbyDebevoise.SeeTr.53640.Moreover,although  callingseveralwitnessesonhisbehalf,Cohenelectednotto \ calleitherDebevoiselawyersLaurenResinerorBruceKellerto X testifyabouthowhisandotheroffshorebookmakingcaseswere   referredforprosecutioneventhoughcounselforCohenknewof `  Messrs.KellersandResinersinvolvementinreferringthecases  \  totheU.S.AttorneysOfficesincebeforetrialcommenced.   Counseldoesnotbothertoexplainhowtheabsenceofthe d  JenningsandDiGregorylettersresultedinprejudicetohimat `  trial,letalonehowtheirabsence infect[ed]hisentiretrial   witherrorofconstitutionaldimensions.Femiav.United h States,47F.3dat524.Assuch,Cohensclaimisprocedurally d barredandpresentsno substantialclaimjustifyingbail.     ` Inanyevent,evenwereitnotprocedurallybarred, l Cohensselectiveprosecutionargumentismeritless,andhis h requestfordiscoveryshouldbedenied.Adefendantchallenging  theGovernmentsdecisiontoprosecutehimbearsaheavyburden. p  ItiswellsettledthattheGovernmentretains broaddiscretion !l" astowhomtoprosecute,because thedecisiontoprosecuteis "$ particularlyillsuitedtojudicialreview.Waytev.United t$& States,470U.S.598,607(1985).Accordingly,apresumptionof  &p!( regularitysupportsprosecutorialdecisionsoftheAttorney '#* GeneralandtheUnitedStatesAttorneys.UnitedStatesv. x)$, Armstrong,517U.S.456,465(1996).Accordingly,intheabsence $+t&. ofclearevidencetothecontrary,courtspresumethat  prosecutingofficialshaveproperlydischargedtheirduties.Id. \ at465(citingUnitedStatesv.ChemicalFoundation,Inc.,272 X U.S.1,1415(1926)).      ` A selectiveprosecutionclaimisnotadefenseonthe `  meritstoacriminalchargeitself,butanindependentassertion  \  thattheprosecutorhasbroughtthechargeforreasonsforbidden   bytheConstitution.Armstrong,517U.S.at463.Accordingly, d  althoughprosecutorialdecisionsarenotcompletelyshieldedfrom `  judicialreview,adefendantcannotprevailonaselective   prosecutionclaimunlessheisabletoshowthat thedecisionto h prosecute[was]deliberatelybaseduponanunjustifiable d standardsuchasrace,religion,orotherarbitrary  classification,...includingtheexerciseofprotected l statutoryandconstitutionalrights.Wayte,470U.S.at608 h (quotingBordenkircherv.Hayes,434U.S.357,364(1977)  (internalquotationomitted)). p     ` TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasmadeclearthatthe !l" legalstandardforestablishingaclaimofselectiveprosecution "$  isademandingone,requiringadefendanttodemonstrateby t$&  clearevidencethatthedecisiontoprosecute hada  &p!( discriminatoryeffectandthatitwasmotivatedbya '#* discriminatorypurpose.Armstrong,517U.S.at463,465 x)$, (quotingWayte,470U.S.at608).Inordertoestablish $+t&. selectiveprosecution,adefendantmustshow:  8  8`   (1)that,whileotherssimilarlysituated \ havenotgenerallybeenproceededagainst 2 becauseofconductofthetypeformingthe X basisofthechargeagainst[thedefendant], . hehasbeensingledoutforprosecution,and   (2)thatthegovernmentsdiscriminatory   selectionof[thedefendant]forprosecution `  hasbeeninvidiousorinbadfaith,i.e. 6   baseduponsuchimpermissibleconsiderations  \  asrace,religion,orthedesiretoprevent  2  hisexerciseofconstitutionalrights. ` x` x oUnitedStatesv.Fares,978F.2d52,59(2dCir.1992)(quoting d  UnitedStatesv.Moon,718F.2d1210,1229(2dCir.1983)). `     ` Adefendantseekingdiscoveryonaselective   prosecutionclaimfacesa correspondinglyrigorousburden. h Armstrong,517U.S.at468.AstheSupremeCourtexplainedin d Armstrong:  8  8`   Ourcasesdelineatingthenecessaryelements l toproveaclaimofselectiveprosecution B havetakengreatpainstoexplainthatthe h standardisademandingone.Thesecases > affordabackgroundpresumption...that  theshowingnecessarytoobtaindiscovery  shoulditselfbeasignificantbarriertothe p  litigationofinsubstantialclaims.F !` x` x 0  0` (#(#...!B#` (#` (# 8  8`   Ifdiscoveryisordered,theGovernmentmust #% assemblefromitsownfilesdocumentswhich t$& mightcorroborateorrefutethedefendants J% ' claim.Discoverythusimposesmanyofthe  &p!( costspresentwhentheGovernmentmust &F") respondtoaprimafaciecaseofselective '#* prosecution.Itwilldivertprosecutors (#+ resourcesandmaydisclosetheGovernments x)$, prosecutorialstrategy.Thejustifications N*%- forarigorousstandardfortheelementsofa $+t&. selectiveprosecutionclaimthusrequirea +J'/ correspondinglyrigorousstandardfor  discoveryinaidofsuchaclaim.` x` x j Armstrong,517U.S.at463,468(citingUnitedStatesv. 2 Mezzanatto,513U.S.196(1995)). .    ` Accordingly,inordertoestablishonesentitlementto   discoveryfromtheGovernmentontheissueofselective 6   prosecution,adefendantmustcomeforwardwith someevidence  2  tendingtoshowtheexistenceofbothoftheessentialelements   ofaselectiveprosecutionclaim.Armstrong,517U.S.at468 :  (citingUnitedStatesv.Berrios,501F.2d1207,1211(2dCir. 6 1974)).Ashowingofdiscriminatoryeffectmustincludeevidence  thattheGovernmenthas failedtoprosecuteotherswhoare > similarlysituatedtothedefendant.Id.at469. Mere : assertionsandgeneralizedproffersoninformationandbeliefare  insufficienttosatisfythisburden.UnitedStatesv.Fares, B 978F.2dat59(citingBerrios,501F.2dat1211);UnitedStates > v.White,972F.2d16,19(2dCir.1992)(conclusoryallegations  astotimingofindictment,governmentsfailuretofollow F ! internalguidelines,andimproprietiesofprosecutorsnot !B#  objectiveevidencewarrantingdiscovery).Instead,a #% defendantsevidenceofdiscriminatoryeffectanddiscriminatory J% ' intentmustbe credibleinordertowarrantdiscovery.See, &F") e.g.,Armstrong,517U.S.at470(defendantmustmakethreshold (#+ showingby credibleevidencebeforediscoverywarranted); N*%- UnitedStatesv.AlJibori,90F.3d22,25(2dCir.1996) +J'/ (Armstrongrequiresthatdefendantcomeforwardwith credible  evidencebeforediscoveryallowed);UnitedStatesv.Hastings, \ 126F.3d310,313(4thCir.1997)( [b]eforeadefendantcan X obtaindiscoveryfromthegovernment...,heorshemust   producesomeevidencemakingacredibleshowingofboth `  discriminatoryeffectanddiscriminatoryintent),cert.denied,  \  118S.Ct.1388(1998);UnitedStatesv.Sanders,17F.Supp.2d   141,145(E.D.N.Y.1998)(defendantmustpresent credible d  evidenceinordertoobtaindiscovery). `     ` Measuredagainstthesestandards,Cohens selective   prosecutionclaimmustfail.First,Cohendoesnotclaimthat h hewasthesubjectofanyracial,ethnic,religious,orother d targetingbasedonaconstitutionallyprotectedstatus.Nor  couldheclaimthathewassingledoutforprosecutionamongthe l legionofotherCarribeanbasedsportsbookiesthatexistedin h 1998,sinceapproximately21othersuchbookieswerechargedwith  violatingSection1084(a)atoraboutthesametimehewas. p  Rather,itappearsthatCohenclaimsthatbecauseDebevoise !l" representedprofessionalsportingleagues(whowouldinsome "$ unspecifiedmannerbenefitfromtheprosecutionofCohen),and t$& becauseOTBorotherstatesanctionedhorseracingoperations  &p!( havenotbeenprosecutedunderSection1084(a),theprosecution '#* ofCohenwasimproper.SeeSarafaAff.para6566. x)$,    ` Insupportofhisnovelstatusbasedallegationof $+t&. selectiveprosecution,Cohenpointstothefactthat onlytwo  prosecutionsunder[Section1084(a)]againstsportswagering \ operationsbytheU.S.AttorneysOfficesinceMarch1998have X beeninitiated.SarafaAff.para66.=  #  25      ׀However,Cohenfailsto   mentionthat,inadditiontoDiNolaandMoneteleon,numerous `  otherbookmakersincludingoffshoreandcrossbordersports  \  bookieslikeCohenhavebeenprosecutedbythisOfficeboth   subsequentandpriortothefilingofchargesagainstCohen,and d  thattheseprosecutionshavefrequentlyinvolvedSection1084(a) `  charges.E.g.,MiltonBialostok,03Cr.296(RWS)(defendant   chargedwithmoneylaunderingandconspiracyinconnectionwith h hisoperationofillegalsportsbook);UnitedStatesv. d Fitzsimmons,etal.,02Cr.1066(HB)(twodefendantschargedin  connectionwiththeiroperationofillegaloffshoresportsbook l basedinCuracao);StevenKushnitz,02Cr.1366(LAK)(offshore h sportsbookiechargedwithviolatingSection1084(a));United  Statesv.LawrenceGalazia,etal.,02Cr.273(racketeering p  prosecution,includingSection1084(a)charges,directedagainst !l" fivesportsbookies);UnitedStatesv.Parrello,etal.,01Cr. "$ 1120(RLC)(same;offshoresportsbook;threedefendants t$& prosecuted);UnitedStatesv.BruceBerg,etat.97Cr.866(LAK)  &p!( (threedefendantschargedwithmoneylaunderingandconspiracyin '#* connectionwiththeiroperationofillegalsportsbook);Gary  Fazio,00Cr.1183(KNW)(same;onedefendant);UnitedStatesv. \ Barone,467F.2d247(2dCir.1972)(Section1084(a)prosecution X bythisOfficeofcrossborderbookie).      ` Indeed,althoughcounselclaimsnottobeaware ofany `  effortbyprosecutorsinthisoranyjurisdictiontomake  \  prosecutionofInternetortelephonebasedsportsbettingalaw   enforcementpriority,SarafaAff.,para.67,bothbeforeand d  afterthefilingofchargesinthiscasesportsbetting `  operationshaveoftenbeenthesubjectoffederalactionby   prosecutorsthroughoutthecountry.E.g.,UnitedStatesv. h Blair,54F.3d639(10thCir.1995)(offshoresportsbookmaker d prosecutedunderSection1084(a),UnitedStatesv.DAmbrosia,et  al.,01Cr.121C(W.D.Wis.)(Section1084(a)prosecutionof l fivesportsbookies);UnitedStatesv.DavidTedder,02Cr.105C h (W.D.Wis.)(same);UnitedStatesv.Meghrouni,etal.,(E.D.  Mo.)(threedefendantschargedwithviolatingSection1084(a)in p  connectionwithoperationofoffshoresportsbookmaking !l" operation);UnitedStatesv.Kaczowski,114F.Supp.2d143,148, "$ 151154(W.D.N.Y.2000)(Section1084(a)prosecutionofoffshore t$& sportsbook);UnitedStates$753,578.82inUnitedStates  &p!( Currency,286F.3d641(3dCir.2002)(affirmingcivilforfeiture '#*  ofmoniesondepositwhichbelongedtooffshoresportsbetting x)$, operators).Q  #  26      ׀      ` Cohencannotseriouslycontendthatallthesecases \ broughtunderSection1084(a)andrelatedantigamblingstatutes X weretheresultof invidiousconsiderationsorwere    selectivelyor arbitrarilyinitiatedforimproperpurposes `  simplybecauseOTBwasneverprosecutedunderSection1084(a).  \  YetthatseemstobethecruxofCohensselectiveprosecution   claim.SeeSarafaAff.para.73( theinvidiousdistinction d  betweenthoseprosecuted[Cohen,etal.]andtheidentically `  situatedclassthatwasnot[OTB],wasthefactthatthelatter   didnotofferwageringonanysportsofconcerntothemajor h leaguesportingclientsofDebevoise).  #  27      ׀ d    ` CohenconcedesthattheGovernmentschargingdecisions  enjoybroadlatitude.SeeMemorandumofLawInSupportofMotion l PursuantTo28U.S.C.2255;seealsoWaytev.UnitedStates,  470U.S.598,607(1985);Oylerv.Boyles,368U.S.448,456 \ (1962)).Andasdemonstratedabove,theprosecutionofCohenand X 21othersportsbookmakerswerefarfromthefirst(orlast)time   Section1084(a)wasenforcedagainstoffshoresportsbookies.To `  thecontrary,theyarepartofalonglineofSection1084(a)  \  prosecutionsstretchingbacktotheearliestdaysofthestatutes   existence,see,e.g.,Barone,467F.2d247(2dCir.1972),and d  continuingtothepresent.Intheend,Cohensargumentproves `  toomuch.ForifCoheniscorrectthataprosecutionwhich   arguablybenefitsathirdpartyresultsinan arbitrary h distinctionwithotherswhowerenotprosecutedthenevery d prosecutionwhichtriggerssometangentialbenefittoathird  partycontainstheseedsofameritoriousclaimofselective l prosecution.Thisisnot,andcannotbethelaw.Indeed,the h Governmentsubmitsthatevenifithadmadeapolicydecisionnot  toprosecuteOTBorotherstatesponsoredhorseracingentities, p  suchadecisioniswellwithinitsdiscretionevenassuming !l" thatprivatesportsleagues,lawyersforsuchleagues,orother "$ thirdpartiesmightarguablyderivesomecollateralbenefitfrom t$& theprosecutionofsportsbookmakers.  #  28        &p!(   CONCLUSION  ?   ` Fortheforegoingreasons,Cohensapplicationforbail \ pendingdecisiononhishabeaspetitionshouldbedenied. X Dated:January9,2003     NewYork,NewYork `     `     h   RespectfullySubmitted,  2     `     h   DAVIDN.KELLEY      `     h   UnitedStatesAttorneyforthe d     `     h   SouthernDistrictofNewYork :     `     h   _______________________________     `     h   JosephV.DeMarco h    `     h   AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney >    `     h   Tel.:(212)6372203 d r@  B @CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE \    ` JOSEPHV.DeMARCOdeposesandsaysthatheisemployed X intheOfficeoftheUnitedStatesAttorneyfortheSouthern   DistrictofNewYork,andthatonthe9thdayofJanuary,2004, `  hecausedtobeservedthewithinGovernment'sRequestsToCharge  \  on:   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#MelindaSarafa,Esq.`  (# (#    `  Brafman&Ross 6    `  767ThirdAve.(26thFloor)      `  NewYork,NewYork10017     `  2127507800 h Fbycausingacopyofsametobedeliveredbytelecopy(by : agreementofcounselwithoutattachments)andbyovernight  courierdelivery(completecopy)totheabovereferencedcounsel. B    ` Ideclareunderpenaltyofperjurythattheforegoing > istrueandcorrect.28U.S.C.1746.     `     h   ________________________ "$    `     h   JOSEPHV.DeMARCO #%    `     h   AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney t$&    `     h   Tel.:2126372203 J% ' Dated:January9,2004 &F")   NewYork,NewYork '#* I +J'/ Ї     `