[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
Case number 15-5314, William S. Price, appellate, versus U.S.

[00:00:07] Speaker 01:
Department of Justice attorney office at L. Mr. Baruch for the amicus cari, Mr. Fathom-Roth for the appellees.

[00:00:19] Speaker 03:
Good morning, your honors.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
My name is Sean Hockwood, and I am a teaching fellow at the Georgetown Appellate Litigation Program.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
And I want to introduce my student who's going to be arguing the case, a student council, Benjamin Baroque.

[00:00:33] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:00:33] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:00:38] Speaker 06:
Thank you, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:00:41] Speaker 06:
Congress carefully enumerated nine bases for withholding in FOIA to the exclusion of all others, and it required disclosure to any person that makes the FOIA request.

[00:00:52] Speaker 06:
That text is reflective of FOIA's overriding policy, which is that everyone have equal access to the same information.

[00:00:59] Speaker 06:
FOIA waivers are inconsistent with that statutory scheme for two reasons.

[00:01:03] Speaker 06:
First, because they result in people having different access to the same information, thereby returning us to a system that predates FOIA that Congress already rejected.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
Isn't it a bit much?

[00:01:15] Speaker 04:
In your briefs, you called this, if we were to enforce the waiver, you say it would be a tenth exemption.

[00:01:21] Speaker 04:
I think that's the phrase that's used.

[00:01:23] Speaker 04:
Isn't that overstating things a bit?

[00:01:26] Speaker 04:
An exemption takes a category of documents

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
and keeps the public from it altogether.

[00:01:33] Speaker 04:
That's not what's going on here.

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
These documents aren't kept from everybody in the public.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
They're just kept from Mr. Price because of a contractual arrangement he made.

[00:01:43] Speaker 04:
So haven't you overstated your argument in this tenth exemption?

[00:01:48] Speaker 06:
Your honor actually brings up a good point, the fact that an exemption applies equally across the board to everyone.

[00:01:56] Speaker 06:
And that's another indication in FOIA that there's a fundamental principle in it that Congress enacted, that everyone have equal access to that information.

[00:02:06] Speaker 06:
So the fact that Mr. Price is being denied information that his aunt

[00:02:10] Speaker 06:
can then get is symptomatic of waivers inconsistency with the statute and with the equal access principle that Congress enacted.

[00:02:20] Speaker 05:
I still don't understand what that has to do with whether someone can waive that.

[00:02:24] Speaker 05:
It's not like we're creating a new exemption or exempting people from FOIA who shouldn't pay.

[00:02:30] Speaker 05:
It's his choice.

[00:02:32] Speaker 06:
Well, that's true.

[00:02:33] Speaker 06:
It's his choice.

[00:02:33] Speaker 06:
But when Congress enacts a statute, the mechanism by which it achieves its goal is to ensure that everyone has equal access.

[00:02:42] Speaker 06:
And waivers contravene that principle because it then happens that person A can get documents that person B cannot.

[00:02:49] Speaker 06:
Then it's not for Mr. Price.

[00:02:51] Speaker 06:
It's not for the government.

[00:02:52] Speaker 06:
And it's not for them to team up and say that, OK, we know this is a public right that guarantees equal access to everyone.

[00:02:59] Speaker 06:
But we're going to turn it into a private right that doesn't.

[00:03:02] Speaker 04:
Let me pose to you a hypothetical.

[00:03:04] Speaker 04:
And remember, it's a hypothetical, so I know it's not your case.

[00:03:08] Speaker 04:
But the hypothetical involves a FOIA request for three documents.

[00:03:13] Speaker 04:
We'll call them documents A, B, and C. The agency refuses to turn over the documents.

[00:03:19] Speaker 04:
Litigation ensues, and then there's a settlement.

[00:03:23] Speaker 04:
And in terms of the settlement, the agency says, you can have document A, but you can't have document B or C.

[00:03:31] Speaker 04:
The settlement proceeds a pace.

[00:03:34] Speaker 04:
Sometime later, the petitioner decides, no, I'd really like to get B and C. So he comes back and asks for B and C.

[00:03:42] Speaker 04:
The agency says, sorry, we had an agreement.

[00:03:45] Speaker 04:
You don't get them.

[00:03:47] Speaker 04:
What comes of that?

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
Is your argument that that agreement's not enforceable because the only way that a document can be kept from the public is if it falls within one of the exemptions?

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
That seems to me to be the force of your argument.

[00:04:01] Speaker 04:
Where have I misunderstood?

[00:04:02] Speaker 06:
So we don't think that that would be enforceable because, again, then it results in treating different people differently.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
But you aren't going to have any settlements of FOIA cases, right?

[00:04:12] Speaker 06:
Well, it's also not inconsistent with waivers to treat retrospective settlements of claims already accrued differently than prospective waivers of claims yet to be accrued.

[00:04:23] Speaker 06:
And I think that's reflected in the FLSA cases in Barentine and Brooklyn savings.

[00:04:27] Speaker 06:
So for example, their minimum wage provisions are unwaivable in the FLSA.

[00:04:33] Speaker 06:
And yet, when an employee sues his employer and they settle those claims, there's nothing wrong with that settlement.

[00:04:41] Speaker 06:
And that settlement will be enforced.

[00:04:43] Speaker 06:
It becomes a problem if then the employee is waiving prospective

[00:04:49] Speaker 06:
minimum wage claims that may accrue in the future.

[00:04:51] Speaker 06:
So if the court's concerned about settlements, those are easily distinguishable here, and they're not inconsistent with disallowing FOIA waivers.

[00:05:00] Speaker 05:
Let me ask you about some of your other arguments for not recognizing this waiver.

[00:05:08] Speaker 05:
One is that we can't recognize this waiver because FOIA is related to unwaverable rights, right Brady, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:05:19] Speaker 06:
That's part of it, Your Honor, yes.

[00:05:20] Speaker 05:
Yeah.

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
And you cite Gillen for that, for the ineffective assistance, but Gillen requires a colorable claim of ineffective assistance, doesn't it?

[00:05:29] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:05:30] Speaker 05:
So how does that fit in?

[00:05:31] Speaker 05:
What does that language tell us?

[00:05:35] Speaker 05:
We don't have an ineffective assistance claim here.

[00:05:38] Speaker 05:
You're just arguing that there has to be, we can't enforce any waiver, any FOIA waivers, because of the possibility that someone might have a colorable, ineffective claim.

[00:05:50] Speaker 06:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:05:51] Speaker 06:
We cite Dillon for the proposition that appeal and collateral attack waivers are not absolute, and the court has actually carved out exceptions to those waivers.

[00:05:59] Speaker 06:
Now, FOIA requests can actually help get evidence that will then allow the defendant to make his way through those exceptions, so to speak.

[00:06:09] Speaker 06:
So, whereas the government can't force a complete and total waiver of appeal and collateral attack rights because of those exceptions that the court has carved out, the government then takes a step back and says, okay, how can we cut off the best avenue the defendant has to then get information that will allow him to work his way through that exception?

[00:06:28] Speaker 06:
And that's what FOIA waivers do.

[00:06:29] Speaker 06:
And we've cited a few cases in which criminal defendants have found evidence of ineffective assistance or Brady material through FOIA and then have used those to make their way through the exceptions for appeal and collateral attack waivers.

[00:06:44] Speaker 06:
So that's why we cite Gillen.

[00:06:46] Speaker 06:
We're not alleging here that there is ineffective assistance.

[00:06:51] Speaker 06:
But compounding the problem is the fact that there's no limiting principle here.

[00:06:55] Speaker 06:
If waivers are allowed, nothing stops the government from extracting them in context wholly apart from the plea bargaining context.

[00:07:02] Speaker 04:
There's a limiting principle, and it's been set out in Justice O'Connor's opinionary, and that is, is there a criminal justice interest

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
in the waiver.

[00:07:17] Speaker 04:
That's the limiting principle.

[00:07:18] Speaker 04:
Now, that doesn't help the government in this case, but going forward, that would be a limiting principle, wouldn't it?

[00:07:27] Speaker 06:
That's a limiting principle in terms of what waivers can be included in a plea deal, but it's not a limiting principle in terms of where FOIA waivers can be included in general.

[00:07:34] Speaker 06:
So for example, if the government reduces someone's Social Security benefits,

[00:07:39] Speaker 06:
And then that person files a FOIA request to try to find out what's going on, and they challenge the reduction in benefits.

[00:07:44] Speaker 06:
And the government says, okay, we'll reinstate your benefits, but you have to agree to waive your FOIA rights going forward as this information.

[00:07:51] Speaker 06:
Nothing stops the government from doing that if waivers are allowed here.

[00:07:55] Speaker 06:
But in both cases, it results in people being treated differently, and then when you consider the fact that then these can span... But you don't need to make such a broad argument to prevail here, do you?

[00:08:06] Speaker 04:
I mean, that's the argument that you've made, is that they're not waivable, but isn't there an argument that you could prevail if FOIA rights are waivable?

[00:08:18] Speaker 06:
Well, if FOIA rights are waivable... Why make such a broad argument?

[00:08:21] Speaker 06:
Well, I think it's just indicative of how FOIA waivers undermine FOIA's statutory policy.

[00:08:27] Speaker 06:
So FOIA adopts an end goal of getting information out there to the public.

[00:08:32] Speaker 06:
The means that Congress chose to achieve that goal is ensuring that everyone has equal access.

[00:08:37] Speaker 04:
If we don't agree with you that Congress has forbidden waivers, what then?

[00:08:43] Speaker 06:
Well, then we would ask for remand based on the district courts not being adequately apprised by the government of whether all the documents are within his waiver.

[00:08:55] Speaker 06:
So here the EOUSA never even invoked the waiver, and yet the district court held that any documents the EOUSA has are covered by his waiver anyway.

[00:09:04] Speaker 06:
And there's no way for the district court to have known that without a declaration, and much less without the EOUSA even invoking the documents.

[00:09:11] Speaker 06:
And then Mr. Hardy put forth a declaration that essentially said everything here is covered by his waiver, but that gave no direction to the district court as to whether these documents are in fact covered by the waiver.

[00:09:23] Speaker 06:
The district court needs something more than that, and the case law bears that out as to whether the documents are in fact covered.

[00:09:30] Speaker 05:
So just pursuing Judge Griffith's question for a second, he mentioned Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in the town of Newton.

[00:09:45] Speaker 05:
The court there said that it was OK to require a waiver of the 1983, the right to file a 1983 case, which seems like this.

[00:09:57] Speaker 05:
Why is this any different?

[00:09:58] Speaker 06:
Well, because 1983 doesn't embody within it this equal access principle.

[00:10:04] Speaker 05:
Sure it does.

[00:10:06] Speaker 05:
1983 is the way in which you challenge violations of fundamental rights.

[00:10:12] Speaker 05:
Everybody has that right.

[00:10:14] Speaker 06:
Well, no, it's true in the sense that everyone has the right.

[00:10:16] Speaker 06:
But FOIA is unique in the sense that it wants everyone to have access to the same information.

[00:10:22] Speaker 05:
Suppose we don't accept your argument that this somehow violates FOIA's principle that

[00:10:36] Speaker 05:
that the identity of the requesters are relevant, right?

[00:10:41] Speaker 05:
That's your point.

[00:10:42] Speaker 05:
The identity of the requesters are relevant.

[00:10:44] Speaker 05:
Suppose we just think, well, this is just a straightforward waiver case.

[00:10:47] Speaker 05:
It doesn't implicate the broad goal of FOIA in that sense.

[00:10:54] Speaker 05:
Does that mean then that your argument that this is not a legitimate issue for plea bargaining fails too?

[00:11:04] Speaker 05:
I thought these were independent arguments.

[00:11:06] Speaker 06:
No, Your Honor, it doesn't mean it fails, because the text itself leads to the same conclusion.

[00:11:13] Speaker 05:
So then how do you distinguish?

[00:11:15] Speaker 05:
If I don't accept your FOIA argument, you can't answer my 1983 question by citing FOIA.

[00:11:23] Speaker 06:
Well, at least I don't think you can.

[00:11:26] Speaker 06:
Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Romery was about whether the waiver in a plea deal has a sufficient nexus to the criminal process.

[00:11:33] Speaker 05:
Yeah, exactly.

[00:11:33] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:11:33] Speaker 06:
And we're not saying that FOIA waivers don't have a sufficient nexus to the criminal process.

[00:11:39] Speaker 06:
The argument I'm making with the no-limiting principle point is that it doesn't stop the government from extracting waivers in non-criminal context.

[00:11:46] Speaker 06:
And whether there is a nexus there or not is irrelevant to Romery's analysis.

[00:11:52] Speaker 05:
Well, but I go back to town of Newton.

[00:11:54] Speaker 05:
That was a criminal case, and the waiver was a waiver of 1983 rights.

[00:12:01] Speaker 06:
no that that right am I missing that no you're you're you're you're you're right your honor but what's the difference well the difference is that in Brombury the challenge was to whether there's a nexus between the waiver in that case and the criminal process and the court said that there was and we we agree that there is a nexus

[00:12:20] Speaker 06:
between FOIA waivers and the criminal process.

[00:12:22] Speaker 06:
We're just saying that notwithstanding that nexus, it can't be waived because waivers are contrary to FOIA's statutory policy.

[00:12:29] Speaker 05:
But if that's what I said, you see, you keep going.

[00:12:31] Speaker 05:
If we don't accept that argument, if we don't think that FOIA's goal

[00:12:42] Speaker 05:
that the fundamental principle of FOIA, that the identity of the requester is irrelevant, that is, that everyone should have equal access.

[00:12:49] Speaker 05:
If we just see this as a straightforward waiver case, as Judge Griffith said in his question, like if someone waived one individual person, then

[00:13:01] Speaker 05:
Then tell me how you distinguish the 1983 case.

[00:13:07] Speaker 06:
Well, based on FOIA's text, then.

[00:13:08] Speaker 06:
FOIA says in 552A3A that the government shall disclose information to anyone that requests it.

[00:13:17] Speaker 06:
Do you have anything else?

[00:13:22] Speaker 05:
No?

[00:13:23] Speaker 05:
Sorry?

[00:13:23] Speaker 05:
Did you have anything else?

[00:13:24] Speaker 05:
No, no.

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
My time's up.

[00:13:25] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Good morning.

[00:13:36] Speaker 02:
Peter Pfaffenroth, the Department of Justice.

[00:13:39] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:13:41] Speaker 02:
As the court's already recognized, this case reaches this court after substantial proceedings with a plea that has already been looked at under Section 2255.

[00:13:54] Speaker 02:
A certificate of appeal ability has already been denied by the district court in Missouri as well as the police.

[00:14:00] Speaker 05:
Yeah, we got all that, but that's got nothing to do with it.

[00:14:02] Speaker 05:
The waiver was voluntary.

[00:14:04] Speaker 05:
The question here is can it be enforced, right?

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
That is correct.

[00:14:07] Speaker 05:
OK, so why don't you go to that?

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:14:11] Speaker ?:
Yeah.

[00:14:12] Speaker 02:
There is no statutory language that supports their argument.

[00:14:17] Speaker 02:
The language that they point to simply says that the list of exemptions in the FOIA is a finite one.

[00:14:24] Speaker 02:
It does not in any way speak to the waiver issue.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
And there is, of course, a general supposition that all statutory rights can be waived.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
What's the criminal justice interest in a FOIA waiver in a sex offender case?

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
Well, there's the interest in precluding further harm to the victims.

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
That's not the argument you all made.

[00:14:44] Speaker 04:
The one that you made is the public interest in the efficient and effective prosecution and conviction.

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
What does FOIA have to do with that?

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
Efficient and effective prosecution of sex offenders.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
That's the argument you all gave.

[00:15:00] Speaker 02:
Sure, that's an additional argument, Your Honor.

[00:15:05] Speaker 02:
the general purpose of the agreements is finality and bring criminal proceedings to a close and

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
This was not a all-purposes FOIA waiver directed at Mr. Price.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
This was a waiver specifically directed at his criminal prosecution and the investigation that led to it.

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
And trying to bring closure to that criminal proceeding was the purpose of this FOIA waiver.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
So it's nothing about the sex offender part of it.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
It's not specific to the sex offender purpose.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
So how frequently do FOIA waivers appear in plea agreements?

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
they increasingly appear in plea agreements, and it is for those finality purposes and also a related... Do you know where?

[00:15:46] Speaker 05:
By the way, do you know where?

[00:15:47] Speaker 05:
I mean, I have to tell you, I called around through my clerk network with people who've clerked in other district courts.

[00:15:55] Speaker 05:
No one except in Washington has heard of FOIA waivers.

[00:15:59] Speaker 05:
Did I not do a broad enough survey?

[00:16:02] Speaker 02:
Your honor, I haven't done a comprehensive survey myself, but I can.

[00:16:05] Speaker 02:
Are there any?

[00:16:07] Speaker 02:
Two questions.

[00:16:08] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:16:08] Speaker 05:
How typical are they here?

[00:16:10] Speaker 05:
And two, do you know whether they're used anywhere else?

[00:16:13] Speaker 02:
Yes, I do.

[00:16:14] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
So last year, I litigated the case in the district court called Shoal, which is cited in our brief.

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
And that arose out of Indiana.

[00:16:23] Speaker 02:
This one obviously came out of Missouri.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
There are cases cited in the papers out of North Carolina.

[00:16:32] Speaker 02:
I believe Virginia, a number of other states.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
So they're not ubiquitous, but they are increasingly used, and it is for the same finality purposes I was explaining before.

[00:16:43] Speaker 02:
And there's also an administrative burden issue that this case actually does tee up.

[00:16:47] Speaker 02:
The prisoners, frankly, have a lot of time on their hands, and they write a lot of FOIA requests, and it is burdensome to agencies, especially like the FBI and the Executive Office of U.S.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
Attorneys.

[00:16:58] Speaker 05:
What about their argument that the waiver of FOIA is critical to unwaverable rights, like ineffective assistance and Brady?

[00:17:16] Speaker 02:
A few points, Your Honor.

[00:17:17] Speaker 02:
First of all,

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
I don't believe it is critical to Brady.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
To the contrary, the criminal discovery process is the best suited vehicle for exposing Brady violations.

[00:17:30] Speaker 02:
It is an issue that courts are highly attuned to.

[00:17:34] Speaker 02:
And where Brady violations do occur, and I would submit that they are not exceedingly typical, where they do occur, the Brady process ferrets them out.

[00:17:44] Speaker 02:
And that happens through pretrial proceedings, through subsequent proceedings, through 2255s.

[00:17:51] Speaker 02:
And Brady is a constitutional right.

[00:17:54] Speaker 02:
And that is something which far transcends what the statutory rights given by FOIA provide for it.

[00:18:00] Speaker 05:
But FOIA does reveal Brady violations.

[00:18:03] Speaker 05:
I mean, you can see that in your brief, and the amicus cites several such cases.

[00:18:08] Speaker 05:
I mean, you're right that the discovery process is one way, but FOIA does reveal Brady violations.

[00:18:16] Speaker 02:
It certainly, like any number of other ways one might discover something is a way that one might find a break.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
And you talk about finality, the finality goal.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
Is there some way that a FOIA waiver contributes to finality other than the fact that it doesn't get you rating material or ineffective assistance at council material?

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
It cuts off that avenue, to be sure.

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
But is there some other finality value involved here?

[00:18:47] Speaker 02:
allowing the

[00:18:49] Speaker 04:
FBI and the prosecutors to move on and stop responding to FOIA requests for things that were fully litigated before in the much more comprehensive Brady- What about the fact that they do uncover Brady violations on occasion and they do come up with ineffective assistance evidence or ineffective assistance counsel?

[00:19:07] Speaker 04:
Those are pretty weighty concerns, aren't they?

[00:19:10] Speaker 02:
I don't dispute that ineffective assistance and Brady violations are substantial concerns, but this is a

[00:19:19] Speaker 02:
a vehicle that a party may knowingly waive.

[00:19:22] Speaker 02:
So if one has already looked into the voluntariness and knowingness of the plea agreement in the first place, which is really the threshold inquiry, and the criminal defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver at that time, then the fact that he has cut off one of numerous different paths to ask some more questions about

[00:19:48] Speaker 02:
his criminal investigation and prosecution is a decision that he made voluntarily and knowingly.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
But there are decisions that a defendant could make voluntarily and knowingly, which a court would say, nevertheless, we're not going to permit waiver under that circumstance, correct?

[00:20:11] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Judge Brown.

[00:20:12] Speaker 02:
But the contexts in which those have occurred for criminal defendants are ones that go directly to structural criminal defense rights during the trial process, things like prospective waivers of the Speedy Trial Act or the right to be present during trial.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
FOIA is far afield from those kinds of considerations.

[00:20:39] Speaker 02:
If the court has nothing further, I would ask that the decision be affirmed.

[00:20:48] Speaker 05:
Did Mr. Brock have any more questions, any more time?

[00:20:53] Speaker 05:
You can take two minutes if you'd like it.

[00:20:55] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:20:58] Speaker 06:
Your Honors, the government argues here that there's an interest in finality, but that's simply not the case.

[00:21:02] Speaker 06:
So in many cases, like the one here, the waiver can turn around to someone else and ask them to make a request for them.

[00:21:09] Speaker 06:
And in that case, the information is going to get out there anyway.

[00:21:12] Speaker 06:
It's going to get to the defendant.

[00:21:13] Speaker 06:
And so there is no interest in finality there.

[00:21:15] Speaker 06:
Now, in other cases where waivers actually do have their intended effect, the interest in finality is already served by appeals and collateral attack waivers.

[00:21:23] Speaker 06:
There's nothing further that FOIA serves other than to evade the Guillen limits.

[00:21:28] Speaker 06:
And that's what distinguishes this case from the 1983, is that that's the only nexus here, the fact that it helps them evade those limits.

[00:21:39] Speaker 06:
And it's the same thing with efficiency.

[00:21:41] Speaker 06:
With efficiency, the government mentioned that there's an administrative burden, but Congress already weighed those scales and it said, this is the amount of FOIA litigation we're okay with.

[00:21:50] Speaker 06:
And it's not for the government, it's not for a private party to say, sorry, Congress, you allowed for too much FOIA litigation.

[00:21:56] Speaker 05:
Do you know the answer to our questions about how extensive these waivers are?

[00:22:01] Speaker 05:
Do you know?

[00:22:02] Speaker 06:
So I don't know exactly, but we actually did find a law review article that I will cite in our opening brief, although not for this point.

[00:22:09] Speaker 06:
It seems that FOIA waivers are extracted in about 25% of arson and robbery cases.

[00:22:17] Speaker 06:
So that's the extent of the information that we have.

[00:22:22] Speaker 06:
But if there are no further questions, Your Honors?

[00:22:24] Speaker 05:
Anything else?

[00:22:26] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Mr. Barrack.

[00:22:28] Speaker 05:
You and the Georgetown program were appointed as anarchists, and the court's grateful to you and Mr. Hopwood and the rest of your colleagues for your assistance.

[00:22:37] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:22:38] Speaker 05:
The case is submitted.