[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 5]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 5

              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. J-118-2
                               __________

                                 PART 5
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-360 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024                               

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island             Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                        MAY 17, 2023, 10:02 A.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O., a U.S. Senator from the State of South 
  Carolina.......................................................     1
Padilla, Hon. Alex, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, 
  introducing Hon. Ana de Alba, Nominee to be United States 
  Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit............................     3
Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, 
  introducing Hon. Irma Carrillo Ramirez, Nominee to be United 
  States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.....................     4
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  California, prepared statement.................................    28

                       STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

Witness List.....................................................    27
de Alba, Hon. Ana, Nominee to serve as United States Circuit 
  Judge for the Ninth Circuit....................................     6
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    30
Ramirez, Hon. Irma Carrillo, Nominee to serve as United States 
  Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit............................     7
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    85

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Hon. Ana de Alba by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   206
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   207
    Senator Feinstein............................................   211
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   212
    Senator Lee..................................................   213
    Senator Cruz.................................................   217
    Senator Cotton...............................................   220
    Senator Tillis...............................................   225

Questions submitted to Hon. Irma Carrillo Ramirez by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   234
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   235
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   239
    Senator Lee..................................................   240
    Senator Cotton...............................................   243
    Senator Tillis...............................................   247

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Hon. Ana de Alba to questions submitted by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   255
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   257
    Senator Feinstein............................................   268
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   271
    Senator Lee..................................................   273
    Senator Cruz.................................................   284
    Senator Cotton...............................................   289
    Senator Tillis...............................................   302

Responses of Hon. Irma Carrillo Ramirez to questions submitted 
  by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   312
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   313
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   322
    Senator Lee..................................................   324
    Senator Cotton...............................................   332
    Senator Tillis...............................................   343

            LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. ANA DE ALBA

Alliance for Justice (AFJ), May 16, 2023.........................   351
Aramayo, Albert, May 15, 2023....................................   353
Baltodano, Hon. Hernaldo J., May 12, 2023........................   355
Busani, Raquel M., May 12, 2023..................................   357
Chittick, Hon. Hilary A., retired, May 12, 2023..................   361
Devencenzi, David A., May 11, 2023...............................   363
Dolas, Hon. Mary D., May 11, 2023................................   364
Former colleagues Tamara L. Lyles, Matthew W. Quall, and Scott J. 
  Ivy; May 12, 2023..............................................   366
Fresno County Probation Department, Fresno, California, May 15, 
  2023...........................................................   367
Fresno County Superior Court, California, judges Hon. Amy K. 
  Guerra, Hon. Monica Diaz, and Hon. Irena A. Luna; May 12, 2023.   369
Green, Gary L., May 9, 2023......................................   371
Kelley, Hon. James A., Jr., May 12, 2023.........................   373
Lee, Mao, May 15, 2023...........................................   375
Meegan, Lauren, May 12, 2023.....................................   377
Orozco, Hon. Gary R., May 16, 2023...............................   379
Robinson, Jeffrey T., May 14, 2023...............................   381
Santos, Hon. Virna L., May 10, 2023..............................   382
Snyder, Hon. Sandra M., May 12, 2023.............................   384
Taylor, Charles Trudrung, and Mark L. Creede, May 12, 2023.......   386
Volanti, Jenny, May 14, 2023.....................................   388

       LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), April 29, 2022.........   389

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Ana de Alba...............................................   391
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Irma Carrillo Ramirez.....................................   392

 
              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2023

                              United States Senate,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. 
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Blumenthal, Hirono, 
Padilla, Ossoff, Welch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, 
Cotton, Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will come to order. Today, we will hear from two 
nominees: Judge Ana de Alba, nominated to a California seat on 
the Ninth Circuit; and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated 
to a Texas seat on the Fifth Circuit. Congratulations to the 
nominees and their families. I also want to thank the 
California and Texas Senators for working with the White House 
to fill these important vacancies. Before we move to 
introductions, I'll turn to Ranking Member Graham for opening 
remarks.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
        A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Number one, I 
thought the hearing yesterday was outstanding. And the 
regulatory approach where you license AI companies with a 
regulatory agency that can, you know, has the talent and the 
authority to kind of rein them in, seems to be a smart way to 
go. I have that same approach with Senator Warren, with social 
media.
    So, I hope this Committee can continue to work together and 
come up with a product that maybe our other colleagues will 
latch onto. So, I thought it was a great hearing. You'll get a 
letter from us pretty soon about the Durham report. Whether you 
like Trump or not, what happened in the FBI is just mind-
boggling. You had a document called the Steele dossier, Mr. 
Chairman, used to get a warrant against Mr. Page and keep an 
investigation alive. That was a bunch of Russian 
disinformation, and it was used time and time again.
    And the FBI was told numerous times that it's not reliable 
and they kept using it anyway. And you mentioned yesterday that 
there's nothing new in the Durham report. Well, the Durham 
report, unlike Mr. Horowitz, who did a great job, I thought, 
said there was never a reason to open the investigation to 
begin with.
    So, what we have is a situation where the FBI and the 
Department of Justice used information from a foreign--agents 
of a foreign government to get a warrant against American 
citizens, a citizen, and put a cloud over the Trump Presidency 
and tried really, in my view, to politically affect the outcome 
of the 2016 election.
    They got caught. They wanted it to be true, Mr. Chairman. 
And when they were told it may not be true, they completely 
ignored it. It's Republicans today. It could be Democrats 
tomorrow. So, I'm hoping that the Committee would bring Mr. 
Durham in and let him explain to us his report, because I think 
it is substantially different.
    And, I would just say this. During the Mueller 
investigation, I, along with Senator Tillis and Senator Coons, 
introduced legislation that the Special Counsel could not be 
removed without cause, because I wanted to make sure that Mr. 
Mueller could look and find out whether there's any ``there'' 
there, even though I was supporting President Trump.
    Now that it's all over, this is J. Edgar Hoover stuff. And, 
if this Committee doesn't bring Mr. Durham in and let him 
explain to us what he did for all those years, I think we 
missed an opportunity to learn, and take corrective action. So, 
I hope you would entertain that idea. Thank you.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, could I--could I just 
mention----
    Chair Durbin. Sure.
    Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Something along that same 
line? I agree with Senator Graham. I think this is a profound 
assault on some of the most important institutions of our 
Government. The American people simply think that there is a 
deep state conspiracy against political opponents and it's 
incredibly dangerous. I couldn't agree more with Senator Graham 
that this is--this cuts both ways.
    And while people may like the idea that it was President 
Trump that was a target of this, these same abuses could easily 
be turned on other political opponents in the future. So, I 
hope we do the best we can to cut this cancer out of some of 
our most important institutions. And in that vein, I would hope 
that we'd get Director Wray to come in and testify about the 
things he has done to try to correct these--against these 
abuses.
    And the statement I read from the FBI said that they 
believe that the same sorts of abuse would not have occurred 
had these measures been in place at the time. I know Director 
Wray is a little allergic to publicity, like any other self-
respecting Director of the FBI, but I do believe it's really 
important for us to be able to ask him questions, hard 
questions, and have him reassure the American people that the 
appropriate measures have been put in place.
    And finally, I have not weighed in on the Hunter Biden 
story before, but what we saw happen with 50 members of the 
intelligence--former members of the intelligence community 
claim that the investigation of Hunter Biden was, in part, a 
product of Russian disinformation, undercuts the credibility of 
the intelligence community.
    Again, I'm on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 
I think our intelligence community plays a vital role in 
keeping our country safe. But this sort of mixture of politics 
and policy, particularly with the FBI, and now with the 
intelligence community, is profoundly dangerous. And I'm 
concerned about it.
    I hope we get--I hope we have a public airing of this so 
the American people can see us doing our jobs, because they're 
going to want to see some accountability and they're going to 
want to see some course correction. And I think they deserve 
it. Thank you for a moment.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Obviously, we see 
the Durham report differently, but I do want to make several 
points here that are important for the record. As Attorney 
General Garland committed during his confirmation hearings, and 
reiterated at later hearings, there would be no interference 
with Durham's investigation's independence.
    That is a striking contrast from efforts by President Trump 
and Attorney General Barr to politicize ongoing investigations. 
In other words, Mr. Durham was given resources and time 
necessary, that he thought was necessary, to complete his work.
    Second, when it comes to the FBI, three times now, since 
I've been Chairman, the Director of the FBI has sat in the 
chair, took the oath, and answered our questions. He'll be in 
again in the fall, for that purpose, and I think that should be 
a regular occurrence. That is our oversight responsibility. If 
that's a line of questioning which any Member wishes to pursue, 
that will be their opportunity.
    So now, we go to our nominees. And Senator Padilla, you 
have an introduction to make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INTRODUCING HON. ANA DE ALBA, NOMINEE TO 
      BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    Senator Padilla. Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member Graham. It is an honor to, 
once again, introduce Judge Ana de Alba to the Committee, 
President Biden's nominee to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals. Judge de Alba is joined today, once again, by her 
family. I want to welcome them to Washington, to the Capitol, 
and to this Committee.
    Judge de Alba is a proud daughter of immigrants from 
Mexico. Judge de Alba was born in Merced, California, and grew 
up in a family of farmworkers. A first-generation high school 
graduate, she went on to earn both her bachelor's degree and 
her J.D. from UC Berkeley.
    After graduating, she built a successful career in private 
practice in the Central Valley of California, where she focused 
on complex commercial litigation while maintaining a robust pro 
bono practice.
    She also went on to establish a Workers' Rights Clinic for 
low-wage workers to learn their rights and seek legal advice.
    In 2018, Judge de Alba was appointed as a Superior Court 
judge for Fresno County, where she served until 2022. I was 
proud to introduce her before this very Committee at the time 
when President Biden nominated her to serve as U.S. district 
court judge for the Eastern District of California, to which 
she was confirmed.
    In the time since, she has proven to be more than just a 
qualified jurist. She's continued to demonstrate an expansive 
breadth of legal knowledge and an unwavering commitment to 
public service.
    Now, this Committee we're asked to ask ourselves this 
question, who do we want to preside over our Nation's laws? Who 
do we want deciding some of the most difficult and vexing legal 
questions for our communities? When President Biden entered 
office, he made it clear that, of course, he'd be selecting 
judges from some of the most brilliant legal minds this country 
had to offer. But, he also called on us to build a Federal 
judiciary that reflected the diversity of the country that it 
serves.
    We were striving for a court system that looks like 
America, and we appreciate full well why. Because it brings 
different perspectives to the table, it enriches deliberations, 
and it builds trust in the judicial system, especially among 
underrepresented communities. And, that's especially important 
now at a time when public faith in the judiciary continues to 
be challenged.
    But, it's also particularly important for communities, who 
don't often see themselves represented in positions of power, 
to know that there's a legal backstop they can trust to protect 
their rights in a court of appeals.
    So, not only do we know that someone as knowledgeable, as 
passionate, and as intelligent as Judge de Alba would be the 
ideal candidate for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we also 
know that it absolutely matters to have a daughter of 
immigrants, with the life experience that she brings, to serve 
in this capacity. And we know that it matters to have the 
perspective of the first Latina to sit on the Eastern District 
Court to now serve the largest of all 13 Federal appellate 
courts.
    She's dedicated, she is fair, and universally respected by 
her colleagues. And, I can think of few candidates as 
qualified, as prepared for this role as Judge de Alba. I urge 
my colleagues to advance her nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Senator Cornyn to 
introduce Judge Ramirez.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF TEXAS, INTRODUCING HON. IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, NOMINEE 
    TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and Ranking 
Member Graham, for allowing me to introduce Judge Irma Carrillo 
Ramirez, who's been nominated to serve on the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
    As I mentioned to you privately, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Ramirez 
is sitting here today and will be confirmed to the Fifth 
Circuit as a result of a process that Senator Cruz and I have, 
by which people who apply for these Federal judicial positions, 
both district court and appellate court, agree to go through 
the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee, a bipartisan 
committee of some of the best lawyers in the State of Texas. 
And, Ms. Ramirez came out number one in that process.
    And consequently, Senator Cruz and I recommended her to the 
President, and we were delighted that the President accepted 
our recommendation. He was not obligated to do so. But, as I 
mentioned to you privately, this is an example of how I think 
the process should work, with collaboration, consultation, and 
by consensus.
    But, let me just mention Judge Ramirez's story. It's pretty 
remarkable. She was born in the small town of Brownfield, 
Texas, just south of Lubbock. And, she was raised on a ranch in 
the even smaller town of--is it Tokio? It's T-O-K-I-O. I've 
been a--I was born in Texas, lived there my whole life, but I'd 
never heard of Tokio, Texas. So, it must be a small town. And 
then she became a self-proclaimed town kid at age 10.
    In many ways, Judge Ramirez's life and career exemplified 
the American dream. She's a proud daughter of Mexican 
immigrants, a fact she takes deep pride in. Matter of fact, her 
dad came to this country through the Bracero Program, and he 
worked in the cotton fields in West Texas. According to Judge 
Ramirez, her dad would say, ``Study hard so you don't have to 
work in the fields like I do.'' I think a lot of immigrant 
parents have felt the same way and conveyed the same message to 
their children.
    Clearly, Judge Ramirez took her father's advice. In 1986, 
she received her undergraduate degree from West Texas State 
University, which is now called West Texas A&M. She went on to 
earn her jurist doctor from Southern Methodist University 
Dedman School of Law in 1991. After she completed her law 
degree, Judge Ramirez began working at the prestigious Dallas 
firm of Locke Purnell Rain and Harrell.
    She went on to serve as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the 
Northern District of Texas, where she established herself as a 
top-level prosecutor, working on both civil and criminal cases. 
Having carved out a reputation in the Northern District as a 
great advocate, Judge Ramirez was selected by a highly 
competitive merit selection panel to be a U.S. magistrate judge 
for the Northern District of Texas, where she's served since 
2002, and she's earned the respect of virtually every person 
with whom she has crossed paths, including myself and Senator 
Cruz.
    As a magistrate judge, Judge Ramirez has been recognized by 
her peers in the Northern District Bar for her outstanding 
contributions to the law. She's received numerous awards, 
including the Dallas Hispanic Bar Association's La Luz 
Achievement Award and the SMU Dedman School's Law Distinguished 
Alumni Award.
    She's been assigned approximately 2,450 civil cases for 
full case management and has been the presiding judge for more 
than 440 consent cases. Magistrates can't try those cases 
without the consent of the parties, which to me is a great vote 
of confidence of the bar that they would allow the magistrate 
judge to do that, as opposed to kicking it upstairs to the 
district court.
    Judge Ramirez has also worked with the U.S. Attorney, the 
Public Defender's Office, and the Probation Office to improve 
reentry efforts at the Federal level for first-time, low-level 
offenders, something we've worked on here in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, and to try to help people turn their lives 
around and lead healthy and productive lives.
    Judge Ramirez's work has served as a model around the 
country. If confirmed, I'm confident she'll bring the same 
passion, commitment, and fidelity to the law that we've seen 
throughout her career. You can tell that Texas is very proud of 
Judge Ramirez, not only by the Texans who are seated in the 
audience cheering her on, but I'm eager for our Senate 
colleagues to hear more about her career and qualifications.
    And, I hope that at the end of today's hearing, that all of 
our colleagues will agree that Judge Ramirez is exceptionally 
qualified for a seat on the Federal bench. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Let me personally 
thank you, and Senator Cruz, for your efforts to work with the 
White House to find this nominee. Many of us, Senator Graham 
and myself, believe in what's known as the blue slip process, 
which basically says that Senators will have some say in terms 
of the judges that are chosen in their States. There are 
critics of that process, as you know.
    I want to overcome that criticism with results where we can 
have bipartisanship in the selection of judicial nominees, and 
this is a good example. So, thank you very much for being part 
of that.
    Let me ask the two nominees to come forward to the table, 
please. Standing for just one moment, raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Please take your seats. And we 
give you each 5 minutes to say hello, introduce family and 
friends, and any other comments you think appropriate. Judge de 
Alba.

   STATEMENT OF HON. ANA DE ALBA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
           STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member 
Graham, and all of the Members of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, for holding today's hearing. I would also like to 
thank my home State Senators Feinstein and Padilla, for their 
unyielding support and encouragement, and President Biden for 
this nomination.
    I last sat before you fielding questions regarding my 
desire to serve in one of the busiest districts in this Nation. 
Since being confirmed, I have had the great privilege of 
serving the people of California's Eastern District. A district 
that serves almost 8 million residents, encompasses six large 
urban areas, and extends over 87,000 square miles.
    I inherited a docket which, at last count, had 1,156 cases. 
While on the Eastern District, I have issued over 1000 orders. 
I have done this with great pride and humility, understanding 
that my role on the bench is that of service. It is with that 
same belief that I come before you now as a nominee seeking a 
position on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
    Here with me are my best friend, Francisco, and our 
daughter. We are so very fortunate to get to be parents to this 
amazingly kind and intelligent person. I only hope to be able 
to make her as proud today as she makes us feel daily. Cheering 
me on from California is the rest of my family.
    In late February, after having survived a bout of liver 
cancer, my oldest brother, Fernando, received a liver 
transplant. Unfortunately, the transplant resulted in more 
complications than expected, and our family is home supporting 
Fernando, his wife, and his children, as he navigates this new 
world. Despite this, they are watching and supporting me, from 
afar. Thank you, and I love you.
    I would also like to thank my courtroom deputy, Mamie 
Hernandez, and my law clerks, who have been my tireless support 
system by helping me stay atop of my caseload during my 
biweekly travel, to and from San Francisco, for Fernando's 
appointments. And finally, I would like to thank my friends, 
and former colleagues, who have sent their well wishes 
throughout this process. I feel your support here with me 
today. Thank you. Senators, I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge. And now Judge Carrillo 
Ramirez.

 STATEMENT OF HON. IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 
       UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

    Judge Ramirez. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member 
Grassley, the Members of the Committee, for the honor of 
witnessing, firsthand, the process by which the Senate performs 
its constitutional duty to advise and, if appropriate, consent 
to the President of the United States.
    Thank you to my home State Senators for their support, 
Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz. And thank you, Senator Cornyn, 
for those exceedingly kind remarks. I'd also like to thank the 
President of the United States for the honor of this 
nomination.
    With me today, I have my husband of 37 years, Adam. 
Although we have lost our parents, we still have a very large, 
extended, and rowdy family, and they are watching. We thank 
them for their love and support. We are also very fortunate to 
have many dear friends, and some are here with me today: 
Mildred Benson, Vicki Blanton, Hilda Galvan, Dennise Garcia, 
Teresa Guerra Snelson, Stacey Jernigan, Nancy Koenig, Robbie 
Partida-Kipness, and Sarah Saldana.
    Time will not permit me to thank all of the people who have 
been part of this journey. But I would like to recognize, and 
thank, in particular, two groups of people: the lawyers with 
whom I served, at Locke Purnell Rain Harrell and the United 
States Attorney's Office; and, the judges of the Northern 
District of Texas, with whom I have served for the past 21 
years. They have modeled excellence, adherence to the highest 
ethical standards, and a commitment to the rule of law. I have 
learned much from them, and I thank them for that.
    I'd also like to thank all of the staff members who have 
supported us in our work, the court family, and, in particular, 
my courtroom deputies, my staff attorneys, and my law clerks. 
One is here today. Finally, I would like to thank the Dallas 
legal community which funded the scholarship which allowed me 
to attend law school. I'd also like to thank the Texas 
community for its outpouring of support, and those who've paved 
the way before me so that I could be here today. I look forward 
to your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Ramirez. Each of 
us will ask 5 minutes' worth of questions, and I'll start.
    I noticed that your work with the reentry program is part 
of your professional responsibility. We all know that people 
once sentenced, or separated from family and friends, and 
denied many rights, and we hope that they will view this 
experience in a positive way and change their lives afterwards. 
Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. What lessons have 
you taken from your experience, in terms of recidivism, and how 
to avoid it?
    Judge Ramirez. The biggest lesson has been some of the 
obstacles that people face when coming out of prison: housing, 
employment, support, substance abuse, mental health. There are 
many struggles that I was not aware of, and the reentry program 
has provided a means to help people address these issues so 
that they can live law-abiding, healthy lives.
    The program has taught me so much, Senator, more than 
anything, about the power of redemption. People truly do want 
to do better and live healthy lives. Sometimes they just don't 
know how.
    Chair Durbin. I think that's a very valid point. Also, I'll 
note, for the record, that both you, and the nominee from 
California, have been judged ``qualified,'' by the American Bar 
Association. So, there's no question about your experience in 
terms of your life and also your integrity. So, I thank you for 
being here.
    Judge de Alba, there was a point in your life when you were 
in private practice and established a Workers' Rights Clinic. 
Why did you do that and what was the result?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, when I was a young child, I worked 
in the fields with my mother. And my parents were immigrants 
from Mexico. They had no education. We were field workers. Just 
to make ends meet, all of us had to work in the fields, my 
brothers included. One summer, my mother didn't get paid. She 
was promised paid--she was promised to be paid next week, and 
it kept happening: ``We'll pay you next week. We'll pay you 
next week.''
    At the end of the summer, the rancher filed for bankruptcy, 
and so there was no pay. That summer, we went without school 
clothes. So, for that school year, we didn't have school 
clothes. And it stuck with me, for various reasons. One, I 
recall--vividly recall my mother crying in the bathroom. Like, 
I heard her. She hid it from us, but I could hear her crying.
    And it just, also, so happened to coincide with--I have 
three older brothers--with the youngest of the three older ones 
having a growth spurt. So, my poor brother had to go through 
the eighth grade with high waters because he outgrew his pants. 
And as much as my mom tried to undo the hem to get them to be 
long enough, it wasn't enough. He grew about three inches that 
summer.
    So, it was that kind of experience that I had that led me 
to figure out a way, just if we could give people information. 
The clinic didn't take cases. The clinic didn't represent 
individuals. It just gave them information to know what their 
legal rights were. So, it was a lived experience that I had 
that helped me put this together.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn now to 
Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you. Congratulations to both of you 
and your families. Judge Alba, are you familiar with--do you 
remember the case, United States v. Hernandez-Fields? It's a 
child pornography case?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, yes. I vaguely remember that case.
    Senator Graham. Okay. According to my records here, the 
defendant was convicted of receiving and distributing child 
pornography, including images of children being sexually 
abused, images of young minors, as young as toddlers, having 
objects inserted into their bodies in a sadistic manner.
    The sentencing guidelines range from 78 to 97 months. The 
Government asked for a 97-month sentence. The parole officer 
originally recommended 111 months, but then revised it down to 
66 months. And apparently, the defendant told the parole 
officer they had no sexual interest in children. That seems to 
defy the facts of the case. You imposed a sentence of 66 
months. And, I would encourage the Members of the Committee to 
look at the record, if they so choose. Why did you do that?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, as a Federal district judge, 
whenever I impose a sentence, I am required to do an 
individualized assessment. I need to look at the factors at 18 
U.S. Code Section 3553(a), as well as looking at the probations 
presentence report, any objections there, too, the requests 
from the defense, and from the Government, any victim impact 
statements, and any letters in support or--in that situation, 
as well, any----
    Senator Graham. In that regard, do you remember the 
Government telling the court the defendant's conduct reveals 
that he is an extreme risk to minors? Do you remember that?
    Judge de Alba. I don't recall the specifics, Senator, but I 
do know that I am required to do an individualized----
    Senator Graham. Yes.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. Assessment, and I did look at 
everything that was provided to me in that case, as I'm 
required to by both Ninth Circuit precedent, Supreme Court 
precedent, and the factors at 18 U.S. Code 3553(a).
    Senator Graham. Are you aware of the fact that when he told 
the parole officer he has no sexual interest in children, that 
he had told psychologists and law enforcement the opposite? Do 
you believe this defendant had no sexual interest in children?
    Judge de Alba. Do I independently believe that?
    Senator Graham. Yes. I mean, as a judge, did you buy what 
he was saying?
    Judge de Alba. No, Senator.
    Senator Graham. Okay. All right. Do you remember a case 
involving taking a GPS monitoring device off a defendant who 
was convicted of helping his brother evade capture? His brother 
had killed a police officer, Corporal Singh, and he had been 
wearing this monitoring device for 4 years. You decided to 
replace--or, take the monitoring device off of this defendant 
without a hearing. Do you recall that?
    Judge de Alba. I do not recall that case, Senator.
    Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me begin with a 
question for Judge de Alba. Judge, you served for several years 
on the bench, both at the State, and now, at the Federal, 
level. But, before that, you worked for about 10 years as a 
civil litigator where you gained tremendous experience in the 
courtroom, everything from complex work for paid clients, as 
well as extensive pro bono work on behalf of indigent clients. 
How will your work as an appellate judge be informed by your 
experience as an advocate in the courtroom to date?
    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Currently, as a 
sitting Federal district judge, part of my job is quasi review 
in nature. I do review the findings and recommendations that 
are provided to me by the magistrates. I also review any 
bankruptcy decisions that are appealed. So, in that regard, I 
am already looking at decisions by other judges, making sure 
that we apply the correct standard of review, and doing things 
of that nature.
    As a young attorney, and as an attorney throughout my 
career, I have always been cognizant of the importance of, 
frankly, being credible with the court, and making sure that 
what I write, and what I say, I can tie back to the law, tie 
back to the facts. And I think, especially as an appellate 
judge, that is extremely important because we are limited to 
the record that is provided to us, so that when we write our 
orders or our decisions, they can be tied back to that record.
    In addition, currently on the Federal bench, as well as on 
the State court bench, I had a lot of exposure to First 
Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and 
Eighth Amendment issues, as well as a wide array of issues in 
the civil arena, as well, which I know will help me extensively 
on the Ninth Circuit. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. The next question I'll ask, of 
both of our nominees today, is one that I ask every chance I 
get, and that is on the topic of diversity. Not just the 
importance and the value of diversity broadly, not just the 
importance and value of diversity in the judiciary, and not 
just on the importance and value of diversity for those who 
seek to serve on the bench, but throughout the courtroom and, 
in particular, law clerks.
    As both of you probably can appreciate, law clerks play an 
important role in chambers. And a good law clerk experience is 
oftentimes the foundation or a launching pad, frankly, to a 
successful career, whether it's in public service or in private 
practice. But, too often, women and minority law students are 
overlooked when it comes to quality law clerk opportunities or 
experiences.
    Let me begin with Judge Ramirez. First of all, do you agree 
with what I've just expressed? And if so, what steps would you 
proactively take to advance diversity in your chambers, should 
you be confirmed?
    Judge Ramirez. Senator, over the past 21 years, I've been 
fortunate to work with many talented law clerks. They have come 
from very diverse backgrounds, different parts of the country, 
different law schools, different socioeconomic backgrounds, 
different races, different national origins, different faiths, 
and no faiths, different sexes, different sexual orientations, 
different ages, and different ranges of experience.
    They've all had some traits in common. They've all been 
very bright, talented lawyers. They've been very hard workers. 
They have been good writers, and they have been dedicated to 
the rule of law, and to helping me do my job as best as I can. 
I have learned something from each and every one of them, and I 
thank them for their service.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. And we would expect that to 
continue, should you be confirmed. Judge de Alba, same 
question.
    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Senator. Similarly, I--granted, 
I've only had one set of law clerks, but it has been a 
tremendous experience. We have had a very open-door policy in 
my chambers. That was from day one. I wanted them to feel 
comfortable to come to me and ask questions, not only about the 
cases that we're working on, but about their future, their 
careers, what it is that they wanted to do.
    And, I have found that doing that really does make a 
difference. And they have been telling, for example, their 
friends, or their law school, ``You know, Judge de Alba is 
great. You know, you should get people to come and apply to 
work with her. They would have, you know, a wonderful 
experience,'' which I think makes people who otherwise may not 
think that a judicial clerkship is for them, actually come and 
apply.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. And then, Mr. Chair, just in 
closing, I will ask to enter into the record--I believe they're 
already part of the record, but would like to acknowledge 
letters of support for Judge de Alba's nomination from the 
Fresno County Chief Probation Officer, and Assistant District 
Attorney, Deputy District Attorneys, retired magistrate and 
Superior Court judges, sitting Superior Court judges, and many 
others. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Without objection.
    [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To begin with, I'd 
like to ask unanimous consent to offer this letter of 
endorsement by the Hispanic National Bar Association into the 
record for Judge Ramirez's nomination.
    Chair Durbin. Without objection.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Senator Cornyn. So, Judge, I feel like I know you pretty 
well by now, at least, professionally, but I'm intrigued by 
your family's story. Your dad was part of the Bracero Program. 
As Ms. Saldana will know, as a former Director of ICE and 
former U.S. Attorney, we've struggled with immigration issues 
for the whole time I've been in the Senate, and even before 
that.
    But, tell me a little bit--I'm not going to ask for your 
policy advice or recommendations, but I'm just wondering if you 
can talk a little bit about your family's experience with that 
program.
    Judge Ramirez. My father came to this country in the late 
50s under the Bracero Program from Mexico to work in the cotton 
fields of West Texas. That's where he met my mother. Her family 
was from South Texas and had settled in that area, and also 
worked those cotton fields.
    As you noted, Senator, I remember as a child, very vividly, 
him telling me, ``Estudia, mi hija'' -- ``Study, so that you 
don't have to work in the fields like I do.'' And, my summers 
spent hoeing cotton in those fields only served to reinforce 
this message. Becoming a judge, or even a lawyer, was so far 
beyond his hope of an inside job for me, that we couldn't begin 
to imagine it, much less dream it.
    Senator Cornyn. And by ``inside job,'' you mean a job where 
there was air conditioning?
    Judge Ramirez. Absolutely.
    Senator Cornyn. I know that's motivated many of us to 
pursue our education, is the opportunity to work indoors in air 
conditioning in the hot Texas summers. By the way, how big is 
Tokio, Texas? What's the population?
    Judge Ramirez. I'm not sure it's there anymore beyond the 
sign, the Anderson's Grocery long ago fell down, and so did 
the----
    Senator Cornyn. How many people were there when you lived 
there?
    Judge Ramirez. Maybe about a dozen.
    Senator Cornyn. Okay. Well, that maybe explains why I had 
not previously heard of it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much. Congratulations.
    Judge Ramirez. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Apparently just in time. So, I ask the 
following two initial questions of all nominees on any of the 
Committees on which I sit. So, I will ask the two of you the 
initial questions, and I'll start with a response from you. So, 
since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted 
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical 
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
    Judge de Alba. I have not, Senator.
    Judge Ramirez. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered 
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
    Judge de Alba. I have not, Senator.
    Judge Ramirez. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. For Judge de Alba, pro bono 
work. In your time in private practice, you averaged 250 to 300 
hours of pro bono service per year. That is significant. And 
this service included helping create a monthly Workers' Rights 
Clinic to help employees understand their rights, representing 
individuals in favor--in front of administrative bodies, and 
counseling nonprofits on relevant parts of the law. Why was--
or, is pro bono work so important to you being a lawyer?
    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Senator. When I was an attorney--
actually, I became an attorney with this idea that if we could 
provide just a little bit of information to folks, just if they 
knew their legal rights, that could give them a little bit of a 
leg up. It could just put them on even footing. It could get 
them to be able to help themselves a little bit better.
    A little bit earlier, I told a story about my mother not 
getting paid after working an entire summer and the rancher 
filing for bankruptcy. Had she known that she could have 
become, maybe, a creditor on that----
    Senator Hirono. Mm-hmm.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. You know, on his bankruptcy----
    Senator Hirono. Mm-hmm.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. Maybe she could have gotten 
some money.
    But for me, it's extremely important to be able to just 
give a little bit of information back. And as an attorney, I 
always, you know, felt that that bar card that I had was almost 
like a superpower. Right? It took me 5, 10, 15 minutes to 
explain to someone their legal rights, but it could literally 
change their life. And so, to me, it felt like it was the least 
I could do.
    Senator Hirono. So, you created a Workers' Rights Clinic. 
Where was--was it at your law school, or at a law school, or 
where?
    Judge de Alba. So, no, in Fresno, there wasn't a clinic 
created. So, what I did was, I created a clinic with Legal Aid 
At Work. It's a nonprofit organization in San Francisco. They 
had numerous clinics throughout the State, with the Consulate 
of Mexico, and Fresno, who had been my client, my then-law 
firm, and CCLS, Central California Legal Services.
    And, all of us got together one Thursday a month to provide 
free legal services, just information. I then would take cases 
pro bono if it was just a quick, you know, Berman hearing or a 
hearing before the labor commissioner.
    Senator Hirono. So, do you think that all of the pro bono 
work that you did will really inform your approach to being a 
judge on the Ninth Circuit? And if so, how?
    Judge de Alba. It certainly does. It has informed 
everything I've done. In fact, it has informed me as an 
attorney. It informed me as a Superior Court judge. And 
certainly, it has informed me as a Federal judge. And, I think 
that will carry through at the appellate level, as well.
    There are a lot of individuals who file their appeals pro 
se, especially individuals who are incarcerated. And I think 
having that in the back of my mind, remembering that not 
everybody can afford an attorney, not everybody can necessarily 
have the help, will definitely help me be more understanding 
and patient, frankly, when I'm reviewing all those documents.
    Senator Hirono. Can I ask you both, very briefly, because I 
am running out of time--in my view, diversity on the bench is 
really important. Can you talk a little bit about what your 
thoughts are about diversity on the bench, both of you, very 
briefly?
    Judge de Alba. Sure. I agree with you. I think diversity is 
important because it has a role modeling function to it. I said 
this the last time I was here: ``If you can see it, you can be 
it.'' And, you know, as a person who didn't have a bed to sleep 
in until I was 15, it's really nice to be able to say, ``Look, 
now this is the second time I sit before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, hoping to be confirmed.''
    Senator Hirono. Ms. Ramirez.
    Judge Ramirez. A judiciary that is representative of the 
community it serves instills confidence in our system of 
justice, and it reaffirms the American dream that the daughter 
of a Bracero can be nominated to sit on a United States Court 
of Appeals. Before I was a judge, a little girl asked me if 
girls could be judges, too. And the hundreds of students that 
I've spoken to since then only confirms that what I show them 
speaks far more loudly than what I say to them.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hirono. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you 
for being here. Judge de Alba, in the case of United States v. 
Tanner Joel Hernandez-Fields, you sentenced a defendant who had 
pled guilty to child pornography charges. Now, the initial 
presentence report, prepared by the Office of U.S. Adult 
Probation and Parole, recommended a sentence of 111 months, and 
a later report recommended a downward departure from that, a 
sentence of 66 months. The guidelines range was 78 to 97 
months, and hence the downward departure.
    Now, the prosecution noted, disagreeing with the second 
presen-tence report, that the defendant's conduct revealed that 
he was an extreme risk to minors, given that he had 
demonstrated a sexual interest in minors even after having been 
arrested by law enforcement, and having been subjected to the 
criminal justice system, as a result. And, they went on to 
explain how he had repeatedly acted on his interest in minors.
    They pointed out, moreover, that they disagreed with the 
second presentence report, and the recommendation for the 
downward departure, based on the fact that there was a 
discrepancy. And a discrepancy between what the defendant had 
said to some people and what he had said to others.
    Here's what the Government pointed out, quote: ``The 
discrepancy between what the defendant apparently told the 
probation officer who prepared the presentence report, that is, 
that he does not have a sexual interest in children, and what 
the defendant previously stated to law enforcement and the 
psychologist who prepared a report of his defense, to whom, he 
said, that he does have a sexual interest in children, and was, 
in fact, comforted by viewing child pornography.''
    Now, can you explain why you made the decision to depart 
from the guidelines, notwithstanding this discrepancy between 
what he had admitted to the psychologist and what he claimed 
was the case to the probation officer preparing the report?
    Judge de Alba. Senator Lee, as I mentioned earlier, I am 
required to look at many factors when I sentence a defendant. 
Anytime I impose a sentence, I'm required to look at factors 
under 18 U.S. Code Section 3553(a), the Ninth Circuit, as well 
as Supreme Court precedent also require that I look at, as you 
stated, the presentence report. I also need to look at any 
requests from defense----
    Senator Lee. Sure. Yes, I understand that. I'm just asking 
about this case, so.
    Judge de Alba. And I know, Senator, that you mentioned that 
there was the discrepancy there because he said, before, ``I'm 
not interested in kids,'' and, ``I am interested in kids.'' I 
don't recall that that was the reason for the request for 
departure from Probation. So, I don't think Probation believed 
him, and I don't think that that's the reason why they 
requested the downward departure.
    Senator Lee. He sexually assaulted a child and you gave the 
downward departure, notwithstanding the fact that he admitted 
to this ongoing--he admitted to, and engaged in, conduct 
consistent with his ongoing sexual attraction to minors. What's 
the--do you recall your basis for the departure?
    Judge de Alba. No, Senator. What I was saying is I got the 
impression that you were explaining to me that the reason that 
Probation departed was because he said he wasn't attracted to 
minors, and that was not my understanding of why they requested 
further----
    Senator Lee. Okay. What was your reason? What was your 
reason?
    Judge de Alba. So, Senator, I look at everything. I have to 
look at everything that's presented to me, and it's after 
looking at everything, that I make that determination. I have 
to do an individualized assessment of everything that comes 
before me.
    And, I can tell you, as an example, 2 or 3 weeks ago, I 
sentenced a different defendant, who was sexually trafficking 
minors, to the full amount, which was, I think, 232 months at 
the time. So, it's an individualized assessment. There isn't 
one specific thing that, you know, changes my mind, one way or 
the other.
    I have to do what the law requires me to do, frankly, what 
the legislature requires me to do, what the Supreme Court 
requires me to do, and what the Ninth Circuit requires me to 
do, and that is, to give an individualized assessment to each 
defendant in each case.
    Senator Lee. No, I understand that. But in order to 
downward depart, you've got to find something about the case 
that takes the case outside the heartland. Here you have a 
child sex predator who sexually assaulted a child. So, that's 
what I want to know, is, what was it about this specific case 
that took this case outside the heartland of warranting a 
downward departure?
    Judge de Alba. I don't recall specifically what it was. I 
do recall that it was--if I recall correctly, I believe I 
sentenced him in line with what Probation requested as to the 
second report, but I don't recall what the downward departure 
request, what the basis was.
    Senator Lee. Okay. I see my time's expired. I may ask you 
about that, and a couple of other things, in written follow-up. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    I'm going to ask unanimous consent to enter in the record 
summaries of 4 cases here, which speak to this question of the 
sentencing experience of Judge de Alba. United States v. 
Zuniga, a case this last year--this year, involving coercion to 
engage in sexual activity with a minor. You, Judge de Alba, 
sentenced the defendant to prison for 36 months, followed by 
120 months of supervised release. The exact sentence requested 
by the Government.
    In United States v. Nicoll, defendant was found to have 
violated the terms of his release by possessing, without 
authorization, sexually explicit material of a minor. You 
imposed a 24-month sentence, followed by 231 months of 
supervised release, as recommended by the Government.
    At this point, Senator Cotton, I believe, is next.
    Senator Cotton. Today, we're holding another confirmation 
hearing. We do this a lot, so, it can seem routine, but it's 
not. I want to tell a story about why it's so important that 
this Committee thoroughly vet all nominees.
    Yesterday afternoon, we received the welcome news that 
Rachael Rollins, a radical pro-criminal, Soros prosecutor, is 
resigning in disgrace from her perch as the U.S. Attorney in 
Massachusetts. Over 18 months ago, my colleagues and I warned 
that Rollins was unfit to serve as a U.S. Attorney. My Democrat 
colleagues refused to listen, and every single one voted to 
confirm her nomination on a party-line vote.
    It was the first time in 28 years that we'd held a roll 
call vote on the U.S. Attorney nomination. The last time was in 
1993, when Janet Napolitano earned a roll call vote for her 
role in smearing Justice Clarence Thomas, which this Committee 
continues to do to this day, this afternoon, even.
    This vote was a rare case, of course, but Rollins was 
uniquely unqualified. Her opposition was neither partisan nor 
reactionary. During the same session on this Committee, we 
deadlocked on her nomination. We also voice voted another 8 
U.S. Attorney nominees.
    Rollins' record, however, was different. Professionally, 
she openly said her goal, as a prosecutor, was to dismantle the 
criminal justice system from the inside. She also described the 
U.S. criminal justice system as, and this is a quote, ``A cruel 
and oppressive force of injustice.'' As a District Attorney, 
she refused to allow her prosecutors to enforce laws against 
fentanyl trafficking, breaking and entering, resisting arrests, 
or malicious destruction of property, among other crimes.
    But, her problems were not limited to her abysmal 
professional record. Rollins' temperament and judgment was also 
in question. We learned of a curious case of road rage where 
Rollins forced another vehicle out of the merge lane, 
threatened the driver, and turned on sirens--that, for some 
reason, she had in her car--before she sped off through a red 
light.
    When a local news crew asked her about the incident, 
Rollins threatened the news crew, as well, saying, and this is 
a quote, ``I'll call the police on you and make an allegation, 
and we'll see how that works with you.''
    Rollins' record was clear at the time. She'd thought the 
rules didn't apply to her, that she could use law enforcement 
as a weapon against anyone who questioned her, and any 
criticism of her record was racist. My colleagues ignored those 
red flags, and every Democrat voted in lockstep for her.
    Before long, Rollins used her newly confirmed position as 
Federal prosecutor for her own personal and political benefit, 
violating numerous laws. She even improperly accepted, and 
failed to disclose, gifts of lavish travel from groups where 
she had no personal connection.
    I referred Rollins for an investigation by the Department 
of Justice Inspector General, and just minutes ago, the 
Inspector General released a damning report--over 150 pages of 
findings of wrongdoing. Just a short sampling: Rollins used the 
office to launch a bogus investigation, and then leaked it to 
the press to influence a District Attorney election. Rollins 
used the office to get free tickets to the Boston Celtics. 
Rollins repeatedly lied to the Inspector General during the 
investigation.
    It's no surprise that someone who refused to enforce the 
law, also refused to abide by it. Rollins is now running out of 
office, one step ahead of the Sheriff. Good riddance.
    To the nominees here today, you're nominated to lifetime 
appointments, so the stakes are even higher. I'll submit 
questions to both of you in writing, and I would respectfully 
request that you submit your answers promptly.
    To other Biden officials, including at the highest levels 
of the Department of Justice, who continue to similarly abuse 
their positions, accountability will be coming for you, too.
    I also note, the Inspector General referred Rollins to the 
Department of Justice for a criminal investigation. And yet 
again, the politicized Biden Department of Justice refused to 
investigate its own political cronies, declining prosecution of 
a woman who repeatedly lied to the Inspector General.
    And in the meantime, including this past week, my 
Democratic colleagues continue to force radical nominees 
through, on party-line votes. I hope that they will--that this 
humiliating episode of support for the disgraced Rachael 
Rollins will give my Democratic colleagues a change of heart, 
and they'll begin taking their role in vetting Joe Biden's 
nominees a little more seriously.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge de Alba, 
Judge Ramirez, congratulations to you both.
    Judge de Alba, do you think--I want to wax a little 
philosophical here. Do you think a person's race should be used 
to harm that person?
    Judge de Alba. No, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. How about you, Judge Ramirez?
    Judge Ramirez. No, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge de Alba, do you think that a 
person's race should be used to help that person?
    Judge de Alba. No, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. How about you, Judge?
    Judge Ramirez. No, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge de Alba, why is that?
    Judge de Alba. Well, as a legal standard, Senator, we try 
to look at people just based on either--if we're in a criminal 
position, we're looking at them for what they've done. In a 
civil matter, it usually doesn't come into account, so. And 
also, it's something they don't necessarily control, so, it 
seems unfair.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge Ramirez.
    Judge Ramirez. The Constitution provides for equal 
protection for all.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge de Alba, this has been in the 
news a lot lately, and you'll probably see it, if you're 
confirmed to the Court of Appeal. Tell me about the Dormant 
Commerce Clause.
    Judge de Alba. Senator, in my--I'm somewhat familiar with 
the Commerce Clause, which is found in Article I of the 
Constitution.
    Senator Kennedy. It was a big Supreme Court case. It just 
came out of your State.
    Judge de Alba. And, I apologize, Senator. You know, in my 
11 years of practice, and my 5 years on the bench, I have not 
dealt with the Dormant Commerce Clause. But, if I am so 
fortunate enough to be confirmed and have to deal with it in 
the future, I would certainly----
    Senator Kennedy. You would look it up?
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. Research it and, yes, be 
prepared.
    Senator Kennedy. All right. Then just tell me about the 
Commerce Clause, in general.
    Judge de Alba. So, my understanding about the Commerce 
Clause, like I stated, Senator, is that it is under the Article 
I of the Constitution, and it allows the legislature to create 
laws that allow for movement, and things, related to commerce 
in the United States. So, anything crossing State lines, things 
like that.
    Senator Kennedy. So, it allows Congress to regulate 
commerce?
    Judge de Alba. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. Between whom?
    Judge de Alba. Between States, for example. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm. Anybody else?
    Judge de Alba. It's not coming to mind right now, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. You're familiar, Judge, 
I'm sure, with the Fourth Amendment and the warrant 
requirement? What's--just for the record, what's the warrant 
requirement?
    Judge de Alba. The warrant requirement requires--so, Fourth 
Amendment says that we are not subject to unreasonable searches 
and seizures. So, in order for someone to, for example, enter 
our home, there needs to be a warrant. And, in order to get a 
warrant, an officer has to, under oath, state that there is 
probable cause to believe that either a crime has been 
committed or there is a crime afoot, and that they have to 
describe, with particularity, the place to be searched.
    Senator Kennedy. And, that's based on the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Correct?
    Judge de Alba. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let's suppose that Florida passed a 
law and said, ``We don't agree with the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment and 
warrant requirement. We're really concerned about the power of 
the State, and we're going to ignore the warrant requirement. 
That no police officer has the right to come in your home, 
probable cause or otherwise, unless you agree to it.'' Would 
that be legal?
    Judge de Alba. Well, Senator, I'd have to--it's somewhat of 
a hypothetical question, but, I would----
    Senator Kennedy. That's a very real question. It happened 
before. Would that be legal?
    Judge de Alba. I would have to look at it a little bit more 
carefully. But, you know, on first blush, my concern would be 
that under the Article VI, the U.S. Constitution is the supreme 
law of the land----
    Senator Kennedy. Yes.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. So, we have to follow it.
    Senator Kennedy. What if Florida said, under the State 
Constitution, we're doing this? Is the Supreme--U.S. 
Constitution always--or the Supreme Court's interpretation of 
the U.S. Constitution always prime a State Constitution?
    Judge de Alba. I have not dealt with that issue in----
    Senator Kennedy. There's a big case out of your State that 
deals with this issue. Are you familiar with the Pruneyard 
case?
    Judge de Alba. The Pruneyard case, I am familiar with.
    Senator Kennedy. Tell me the holding of that.
    Judge de Alba. The holding of that was, it had to do with 
individuals who wanted to----
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, but, just tell me the holding. I 
remember the facts. Tell me the holding.
    Judge de Alba. The holding was that the Takings Clause 
didn't apply to individuals outside of a shopping center who 
wanted to protest or be----
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, but, the Supreme--the point I'm 
trying to make is that the U.S. Supreme Court, in that case, 
said that the California Constitution primes the Federal 
Constitution. Didn't it? Isn't that what it said?
    Judge de Alba. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. So, you want to go back to your answer 
about the Florida hypothetical I gave you?
    Judge de Alba. As I stated, Senator, if I had a little more 
time to look at it, and really think about it, I would be able 
to come up with something.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Judge.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Congratulations, to each of you, on your nominations.
    My questions today--Judge Alba, I'm going to come to you. I 
want to talk with you a little bit about the Virgen-Mendoza 
case. And, you released an illegal immigrant from GPS location 
monitoring after he was convicted for helping his brother. The 
brother had murdered a police officer, and Mendoza helped his 
brother evade law enforcement.
    So, to justify your decision, you relied on the words of 
this defendant, that he said, he would never flee, and he would 
never leave his family, because he wanted to avoid a 21-month 
sentence. But, he had helped his brother to evade law 
enforcement. And, the fact that he repeatedly lied during this 
investigation should have been something that was going to make 
him ineligible for being released from location monitoring.
    So, we are seeing a terrible rise in violent crime in this 
country, especially in larger cities. And, I just cannot 
imagine how you could have justified releasing this person from 
location monitoring after he had helped a cop-killer evade 
arrest. Can you explain that to me?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, I'm not 100 percent sure if I 
remember this case. As I mentioned earlier, I have 1,156 on my 
docket. But if I do remember correctly, is this the one where 
ICE also had location monitoring on him?
    Senator Blackburn. I know that he had location monitoring 
on him, and that you allowed it to be removed, and you wrote a 
lengthy order on this, granting that removal. You never 
mentioned the fact that the defendant's brother had murdered a 
police officer, which is ultimately why the defendant was 
convicted in the first place.
    So, it appears that that was not a fact that was important 
to you, in your process. And, I think it's--we just have to 
look at what is happening with crime in our cities. And, your 
decision that was here, to remove that and to allow this guy to 
go forward, I mean, we have such a problem with people that are 
trying to evade law enforcement. Let me move on.
    I know that Senator Lee asked you about the Hernandez-
Fields case. And, I had looked at this case. I do not see how 
you could justify your decision there. But, the fact that this 
is someone who had demonstrated, for many years, his sexual 
interest in minors by obtaining and viewing images of children 
being sexually abused, this was a known fact to you.
    So, did all of this not give you any pause as to what was 
happening? Did--when you looked at these sentencing guidelines, 
and when you looked at the filing on this person, did his 
interest in minors not give you any pause? Because human 
trafficking sexual--sex trafficking, what is happening to women 
and children that are coming across that border, what we are 
seeing happen to these individuals, how could you possibly, 
possibly support release?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, as I said, I have to make an 
individualized assessment, based on everything that is 
presented to me. It wasn't supporting release. I did give him 
66 months, plus a lengthy sentence following--a supervised 
release following----
    Senator Blackburn. Yes.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. His 66 months in custody. I had 
been a juvenile court judge prior to coming to the Federal 
bench. So, I fundamentally understand how this impacts youth, 
and how this impacts the public.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, though, your approach on the 
sentencing guidelines is what has concerned me, as I reviewed 
those two cases: one dealing with law enforcement, one dealing 
with children.
    I've got one other question for you. You gave an interview 
with Super Lawyers magazine some years ago, and you described 
yourself as, ``a lefty liberal from Berkeley.''
    And my concern would be how people can look at you and say, 
``We trust that this is someone who's going to be fair and 
impartial,'' if that is your description of yourself, your 
judicial philosophy. So, do you still consider yourself to be a 
lefty liberal from Berkeley?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, respectfully, that was, quote, ``in 
jest,'' because that's what my former law firm partners 
referred to me as, because I attended Berkeley as both an 
undergraduate and a law student. But, as to the core part of 
your question, it has more to do with the fact that the type of 
judge that I will be is the type of judge that I have been.
    I have been fair. I do individualized assessments. I do 
look at every case as I'm required to look at it: on an 
individualized basis. And, I would continue to do that. I do 
apply the law to the facts, and I apply and adhere to all 
binding precedent.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Since this case 
has been brought up 2 or 3 times, I made a point of reading a 
summary of it. United States v. Virgen-Mendoza, as I understand 
it, the defendant in the case was requesting the removal of one 
of his two location monitoring devices, that he was wearing.
    Over the course of 4 years, the defendant had been subject 
to wearing two ankle monitors: one from the Federal agency, 
ICE, the other from Pretrial Services Office. You granted the 
defendant's motions, and granted the removal of one device.
    And, you noted, in your order, that the defendant had been 
residing in California for 22 years, had three U.S. citizen 
children and a spouse, was not in removal proceedings, had an 
active Visa application pending, had continually complied with 
all conditions of release over a prolonged period of time, and 
had never missed a court date.
    I think that sheds a little more light on what the decision 
was. When he left, he was wearing the more restrictive device 
that limited his territory that he could legally occupy. So, 
you took one of the ankle devices away. That seems to be--does 
that refresh your memory of the case?
    Judge de Alba. It does, Senator Durbin, so, thank you for 
that. Yes. He had two ankle monitors. The request was to have 
one removed. And, if I remember correctly, I think Probation 
was actually in support of that, that one of them be removed, 
so----
    Chair Durbin. Thank you.
    Judge de Alba. Thank you for clarifying.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla. You've already--Senator 
Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, to both of 
you. Judge Ramirez, I want to congratulate you on your 
nomination. You were last before this Committee in 2016, at 
that time in contemplation of an appointment for the U.S. 
district court in Dallas. So, you are an exemplar of the old 
adage, patience is a virtue.
    And, I will also say that your nomination is an example of 
what we can accomplish when the process operates, and when the 
White House works cooperatively with the Senators from a home 
State.
    As you are well familiar, as are other Members of this 
Committee----
    [Video source malfunctions.]
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. John Cornyn and I, together, 
have established a bipartisan Federal Judicial Evaluation 
Committee that consists of very well-respected members of the 
bar throughout the State of Texas. For every judicial vacancy 
that occurs in Texas, we publicly post the vacancy.
    We invite applications from anywhere within the State, and 
then the members of the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee 
review those applications, interview the nominees. Those who do 
well in that first process, then go and sit down with John 
Cornyn and with me.
    You and I have had the chance to visit, at length, and the 
result, for over a decade, in terms of, at least, my tenure 
here, has been consistently excellent judges nominated to the 
Federal courts, and to both the Federal district courts and the 
Federal courts of appeals, for the State of Texas.
    [Video source resumes.]
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. So, I thank your service. And, I 
think, given the debates----
    [Video source malfunctions.]
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. And rumblings over blue slips in 
this Committee, I think this is an illustration of how the 
process can work, and work well. When the White House decides 
to disregard the views of the home State Senators, and approach 
it in an antagonistic manner, that can be an example of how the 
process does not work well.
    I want to turn to our other nominee today, Judge de Alba. 
And, I want to start with a case that has been asked about 
quite a bit, but I want to go back and revisit it. U.S. v. 
Conrado Virgen-Mendoza. The defendant was an illegal alien. He 
was subject to deportation. He assisted his brother to evade 
law enforcement for several days after his brother shot and 
killed a police----
    [Video source resumes.]
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. Officer during a routine traffic 
stop. So, this was not a minor criminal matter.
    The defendant's role included: concealing the truck that 
the killer was driving when he killed the officer; helping 
dispose of the loaded firearm the killer used to murder the 
police officer; driving the killer through Stanislaus, San 
Joaquin, and Merced counties to find a place to conceal him; 
and, lying to, and delaying, law enforcement efforts to locate 
the killer, as he moved closer to Mexico.
    By the defendant's own admission: he was a Mexican citizen 
with close family members in Mexico; he was illegally in the 
United States; and, he had previously been removed from the 
border.
    He had every incentive not to stick around and get 
convicted. And yet, somewhat inexplicably, you granted the 
defendant's motion to remove the GPS location monitoring 
device, assigned by a prior judge, that the defendant had 
previously worn for about 4 years. Before granting that motion, 
did you hold a hearing?
    Judge de Alba. I do--hi, Senator. I do not believe that I 
did. I did review all of the motions that were submitted in 
support. I would also like to note, Senator Cruz that----
    Senator Cruz. So, let me ask you, why didn't you hold a 
hearing?
    Judge de Alba. Because I had all of the papers that I 
needed to review, but also, I----
    Senator Cruz. So, is it typically your practice to hold a 
hearing on more difficult questions, or closer questions?
    Judge de Alba. Not necessarily, Senator. You have to 
understand that, in our district, I have 1,156 cases on my 
docket. Ideally I----
    Senator Cruz. How frequently do you hold hearings?
    Judge de Alba. Ideally, I could hold them--it just depends. 
We're pretty busy. We have a lot of trials, as well.
    Senator Cruz. So--but, the fact that you didn't hold a 
hearing suggests that you viewed this as a pretty 
straightforward question. Let me ask you something. There was 
some discussion, with the Chairman, about an ICE monitoring. 
What are the differences between location monitoring by 
Pretrial Service and ICE?
    Judge de Alba. So, Senator, my understanding was that the 
ICE location monitoring was actually more extensive. And, if I 
recall correctly on this case, I think Pretrial Services--and, 
as I said, I've issued over 1,000 orders--also recommended that 
it be removed.
    Senator Cruz. So, I find it quite remarkable that someone 
who assisted in hiding a murderer--who killed a police 
officer--that you would, without even holding a hearing, say, 
take off his ankle monitor, even though he was an obvious 
flight risk, and an illegal alien.
    And, there is a real difference: Pretrial Service 
monitoring, the defendant is allowed to leave his residence 
from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and the defendant is monitored daily. In 
contrast, ICE has location monitoring in place to facilitate 
attendance at administrative immigration proceedings, not to 
ensure compliance with its orders in this criminal case. ICE 
doesn't directly monitor the defendant, rather, a Government 
contractor, BI Incorporated, monitors.
    How do you explain to the citizens that monitoring an 
individual who had already helped one person, who'd murdered a 
police officer, was not a priority, apparently, in your court?
    Judge de Alba. I wouldn't describe it as, ``not a 
priority.'' But, Senator, as well, the fact that the ankle 
monitor was removed does not mean that Pretrial Services 
doesn't check in on him. He still has to report to Pretrial 
Services as scheduled.
    Senator Cruz. Could he have returned to Mexico?
    Judge de Alba. I'm sorry?
    Senator Cruz. Could he have returned to Mexico?
    Judge de Alba. I doubt it, because ICE had the other 
monitor on him.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Welch.
    Senator Welch. Thank you. I want to give Judge de Alba an 
opportunity to respond to any of the questions that you were 
asked about your cases and sentences.
    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Senator Welch. Other than saying 
I do take an individualized approach, I do take my job very, 
very seriously, especially when it comes to sentencing. Those 
cases regarding child pornography are especially difficult, as 
well.
    As I stated to Senator Blackburn, prior to becoming a 
Federal district judge, I was a juvenile court judge. So, I 
see, firsthand, the impact that----
    Senator Welch. Mm-hmm.
    Judge de Alba [continuing]. These sorts of cases have on 
children. That being said, I am required, and I do take it 
seriously, to review 18 U.S. Code Section 3553(a) factors, as 
well as the Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Supreme Court 
precedent, on making these individualized assessments.
    It is not my job to rubber stamp what the Government 
requests, what Probation requests, or what the defense wants. I 
have to look at every case for what it's worth, and that's what 
I do in every single case that I impose a sentence.
    Senator Welch. Let me ask you another question. You did a 
lot of work prior to your service on the bench as a litigator, 
and how does that experience inform your work as a judge, both 
on the Superior Court and, obviously, on the Federal court?
    Judge de Alba. Thank you, Senator. I have always known I 
was very, very fortunate to work at a firm where they taught 
me--the managing partner at that firm, his father, happened to 
be a judge on the Fresno Superior Court. And so, for him, it 
was always, always very important to teach us, as young 
attorneys, the importance of being honest with the court in 
every single instance, so that we can build up our credibility. 
And so, as a young attorney, that's always been my practice.
    And, I've also always gotten along well with opposing 
counsel. I've always, you know, been able to work through very 
difficult cases, factually difficult cases, and yet I am able 
to get, you know, through them well with working with others. 
That would serve me very well on an appellate bench, given that 
it's a three-panel situation.
    So, I know that my former experience working in a law firm 
with partners, having to get their agreement on taking my, for 
example, contingency cases, is going to help me also on the 
appellate bench.
    Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Judge Ramirez, I'm 
really happy about you receiving the support of Senators Cornyn 
and Cruz. That's a very powerful recommendation.
    You've had about three decades of legal experience as a 
litigator, and on the bench. From your work as a magistrate, in 
particular, which, obviously, is different responsibilities 
than what you would have on the Federal court bench as a judge. 
Can you elaborate on how that experience will inform your 
future service?
    Judge Ramirez. Over the past 21 years, I have managed 
approximately 2,900 cases between the consent cases and the 
pretrial management cases. I have issued almost 5,000 opinions, 
either memorandum, opinions, and orders, and findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations. And, I've ruled on more than 
16,500 motions.
    Part of the work that I've done is appellate in nature. For 
example, in the Social Security arena, litigants appeal adverse 
administrative decisions, and it is actually an appeal to the 
district court. Likewise, in the habeas arena, we review State 
court proceedings under a deferential standard. All of these 
experiences will inform my work on the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, should I be so fortunate to be confirmed.
    Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Judge Ramirez, 
Judge de Alba, congratulations on your nominations, and 
welcome. And congratulations to your families, and loved ones, 
as well. Judge de Alba, Judge Ramirez, in that order, please, 
will you pledge to faithfully apply the law with impartiality 
and without regard for your personal policy or political 
preferences?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, I have done that and will continue 
to do that, yes.
    Judge Ramirez. I do, Senator. I believe my record shows 
that I have done that over the past 21 years.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, both. And question, for you 
both, again, please, beginning with Judge Ramirez. Why, in your 
view, are First Amendment protections, including those of 
press, speech, assembly, so vital in our society?
    Judge Ramirez. As the Supreme Court has recognized, those 
are important fundamental rights. They were so important to the 
Framers of our Constitution that they were placed in the First 
Amendment.
    Senator Ossoff. Judge de Alba?
    Judge de Alba. They are the bedrock of our democracy. We 
need freedom, for example, of the press, so we know what is 
going on. We need freedom of speech, so that we can speak to 
those grievances that we feel that we have. We need to be able 
to petition our Government. We need the right to assemble, so 
that we can come together if there is a need to discuss any 
issues. So, it is fundamentally important. And, to echo what 
Judge Ramirez said, it's no--it didn't just happen that it's 
the First Amendment.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, both. And final question, 
beginning with you, Judge de Alba, please. Sixth Amendment 
protections and the precedent established in Gideon v. 
Wainwright, establishing a right to counsel. Why is that so 
important in our judicial system, particularly for indigent 
defendants?
    Judge de Alba. Senator, if we're going to take somebody's 
life and liberty away, we better make sure we got it right--
that we have the right person, that they committed the crime 
that we are alleging that they committed. And oftentimes, the 
individuals who come before the court may not know how to 
represent themselves.
    So, it is extremely important that they have someone in 
their corner to help them navigate the criminal proceeding. 
It's also important, their right to a speedy trial, their right 
to, you know, a jury of their peers. And so, I think it is an 
extremely important right that should be, and continue to be, 
protected.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Judge de Alba. Judge Ramirez?
    Judge Ramirez. I have often stated to our public defenders 
and our defense bar, when I've spoken to them, how important 
the work they do is to our adversarial system of justice. Only 
by testing the Government's case, can justice truly be 
administered. I believed that as an Assistant United States 
Attorney, I believe that as a judge.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, both. Congratulations, again. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. And, I want to 
thank the two nominees for coming before us today. At least one 
of you has had that experience before. This becomes somewhat 
routine from this side of the table because of the hundreds of 
nominees who come through.
    And yet, we need to remind ourselves, today and every day, 
that what we are doing here is literally a validation of that 
Constitution which we've all sworn to uphold and defend, to 
make certain that this branch of government, the judicial 
branch of government, brings to its leadership men and women 
who are qualified.
    Of course, this is one of the unusual things in our 
Government--that it's a lifetime appointment. There are terms 
for Senators and Congressmen, but this is for the rest of your 
life, if you choose. And, we certainly hope, when you are 
confirmed, you will choose to do that.
    And, those who witness it may wonder, why do you only spend 
5 minutes per Senator? Surely, you can't take a measure of a 
person in that short period of time. You see many different 
approaches of the Senators in terms of questioning. It is their 
own personal inclination. But, I will tell you that a lot of 
work, as you know better than anyone, has gone into the 
preparation of your coming before this Committee.
    Background checks in detail, disclosures from you in 
detail, reviewed over and over by some of the men and women who 
are sitting behind me. It's a long process that culminates in 
this actual public hearing. I want to thank you, both, again, 
but, also your family and friends who joined you today. I'm 
sure it means a lot to have them in your corner cheering you 
on. So, we may have some written questions coming your way, and 
if we do, I hope you'll respond to them as quickly as possible.
    I thank you, again, congratulate you for this stage of the 
process. We hope to move on to the next stage with dispatch. 
And with that, the Senate Judiciary Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]