    [Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 15]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                    S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 15

                         CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                  APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                                JANUARY 24, 2024

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. J-118-2

                                   ----------

                                    PART 15

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                                                    S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 15

                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                  APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION
                                   __________

                                JANUARY 24, 2024
                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-118-2
                                   __________

                                    PART 15
                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                    ------

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    57-724 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota               Ranking Member
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           TED CRUZ, Texas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    LAPHONZA BUTLER, California          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

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
    Graham, Hon. Lindsey O...........................................     7
    Cornyn, Hon. John................................................     4
    Lee, Hon. Michael S..............................................     6

                              VISITING INTRODUCERS

    Romney, Hon. Mitt, U.S. Senator from Utah
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Wyoming...................     3
    Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from Nebraska....................     2
    Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., U.S. Senator from Wyoming...............     4

                                    NOMINEES

    Allen, Hon. Ann Marie McIff......................................    11
        Questionnaire................................................    30
        Responses to written questions...............................    71
        Additional materials.........................................   114

    Bazis, Hon. Susan M..............................................     9
        Questionnaire................................................   115
        Responses to written questions...............................   171
        Additional materials.........................................   216

    Gonzalez, Ernest.................................................    10
        Questionnaire................................................   217
        Responses to written questions...............................   283
        Additional materials.........................................   317

    Meriweather, Hon. Robin Michelle.................................    14
        Questionnaire................................................   325
        Responses to written questions...............................   371

    Rankin, Hon. Kelly Harrison......................................    12
        Questionnaire................................................   423
        Responses to written questions...............................   507
        Additional materials.........................................   550

    Schydlower, Hon. Leon............................................    13
        Questionnaire................................................   551
        Responses to written questions...............................   602
        Additional materials.........................................   631

                               NOMINATION HEARING

                                   ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 2024

                                  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, Booker,
    Padilla, Ossoff, Welch, Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Hawley, Kennedy,
    and Tillis.
        Also present: Senators Barrasso, Fischer, and Lummis.

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

        Chair Durbin. The hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee
    will come to order. Today we have six judicial nominees. Judge
    Susan Bazis, nominated to the District of Nebraska. Mr. Ernest
    Gonzalez, nominated to the Western District of Texas. Judge Ann
    Marie McIff Allen, nominated to the District of Utah. Judge
    Kelly Rankin, nominated to the District of Wyoming. Judge Leon
    Schydlower--I hope I pronounced that correctly--also nominated
    to the Western District of Texas. And Judge Robin Meriweather,
    nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Congratulations
    to all the nominees and their families.
        As Senator Cornyn pointed out last week, several Senate
    Republicans, including himself and Senator Cruz, have
    identified well-qualified candidates for district court
    vacancies in their States. In fact, each of today's district
    court nominees has received blue slips from their Republican
    home State Senators. So I'd like to thank my colleagues from
    Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as President Biden
    for this good-faith bipartisan effort to fill these vacancies.
        I took that approach myself during the Trump
    administration, and I pointed out that we filled all eight
    district court vacancies in Illinois during those 4 years. Many
    of my Democratic colleagues did the same. Those efforts in
    today's panels are further proof that blue slip tradition can
    work as intended when we have bipartisan cooperation. I
    continue to urge my colleagues to make similar efforts in their
    States.
        I'm now going to turn to Senator Graham for opening
    remarks.
        Senator Graham. If it's okay, Mr. Chairman, could we hear
    from our two colleagues, and I'll make an opening statement so
    they can go on about their business. Certainly short, but let
    them go and do--speak.
        Chair Durbin. I invite Senator Fischer and Senator Barrasso
    to speak. Who's first? Senator Fischer, please.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    Ranking Member Graham. I'm here to express my support for Judge
    Susan Bazis as she pursues confirmation to the judicial vacancy
    in the United States District Court for the District of
    Nebraska. I was honored to recommend Judge Bazis for this
    position to the White House last year.
        Judge John Gerrard, who previously served in this seat,
    assumed senior status last year. He has served Nebraskans
    justly and faithfully for the past three decades. Judge Gerrard
    leaves behind an incredible legacy. He must be followed by an
    exemplary candidate with undeniable skill and integrity, and
    Judge Bazis is exactly that.
        She has a keen legal mind, and tremendous expertise and
    competence in applying the law. She has decades of experience
    as an attorney, a judge, and a public servant. Judge Bazis is
    exceptionally qualified. The American Bar Association Standing
    Committee recommended her unanimously as ``well qualified''--
    the highest possible rating. Her record speaks for itself.
    Judge Bazis has served as a Federal magistrate judge for the
    District of Nebraska for 7 years. She's already highly familiar
    with the court, its processes, and its immense caseload.
        Unlike other district courts across the country, Nebraska's
    district judges intentionally use the court's magistrate judges
    to their fullest extent. This ensures maximum efficiency for
    the court. Judge Bazis is accustomed to a busy docket of cases
    she must address quickly and thoroughly. This has prepared her
    well for the demands of Nebraska's Federal bench.
        Over the course of her lengthy career, Judge Bazis has had
    well-rounded experience in both criminal and civil law. Before
    she was selected for her current position, she was a Nebraska
    county court judge for Douglas County for nearly a decade. Her
    experiences not only reflected in her legal abilities, but also
    in her fair-minded temperament, her professional character, and
    her integrity.
        As part of her role as a magistrate judge, Judge Bazis has
    demonstrated initiative and skill in a broad range of areas.
    Not only does she work tirelessly to administer justice
    impartially, but she works to make the court system more
    productive and effective. She focuses on ensuring security in
    the courts, and using technology to increase judicial
    efficiency. She's also a member of the Consortium of Tribal,
    State, and Federal Courts, where she works to improve the
    working relationship among the courts. She's dedicated to
    strengthening public trust in the judicial system and expanding
    access to that system.
        Judge Bazis' qualifications and commitment to upholding our
    laws and our constitution. Leave no questions about her ability
    to take on this role as a Federal judge. Her confirmation to
    Nebraska's Federal bench is also urgently needed to ensure that
    we fill this outstanding vacancy in a timely manner.
        I encourage all of my colleagues to enthusiastically
    support this nomination. I offer my sincere congratulations to
    Judge Bazis for this honor, and I unequivocally recommend her
    for this seat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Fischer. Of course, we're
    happy to have you here and as part of the program. We
    understand that the schedules of all of our visiting Senators
    sometimes don't allow them to stay for the hearing, but we
    appreciate your being here.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Now, I'm recognizing the Senators from
    Wyoming. Senator Barrasso.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    Committee for giving me this opportunity, and it's a great
    honor to join Senator Lummis in introducing Judge Kelly Rankin
    at this hearing today. I want to share my great appreciation to
    you personally, Mr. Chairman. For almost a year, we have talked
    about this well-qualified and bipartisan nominee, and now that
    the White House has made the nomination, I want to thank you
    for expediting the process, and thank you for all of your
    efforts.
        I wholeheartedly support the nomination of Kelly Rankin.
    I've known him for many years. Great to see his wonderful
    family here today as well. I'd like to recognize his wife,
    Cindy, is here. She's a speech pathologist at Cheyenne
    McCormick Junior High and Central High School. Many of you may
    also recognize the two sons that are here; both participated as
    Senate pages. They went on the Senate floor with us.
        Harrison, currently a junior at the University of Wyoming,
    participated as a page sponsored by Senator Mike Enzi, and I
    sponsored Sam as a page in 2021. Sam is currently a freshman at
    the University of Wyoming. Now, Kelly's mom, Mandy, worked here
    in the Senate for many years, working with then Wyoming Senator
    Malcolm Wallop.
        As you can tell, Kelly Rankin's roots to our great State
    run deep. He's a Wyoming native, born and raised in Sheridan,
    went on to attend the University of Wyoming, where he earned
    his bachelor of science degree and a law degree. His life has
    been dedicated to public service; greatly respect Kelly
    Rankin's knowledge of the laws, dedication to the Constitution.
        For nearly 30 years, he has been a respected member of the
    Wyoming State Bar, served at almost every level of government,
    and he's going to bring years of valuable experience to the
    Federal bench. Judge Rankin started his career as a deputy
    county attorney, spent nearly 18 years prosecuting cases in
    State and Federal courts.
        In 2008, he was confirmed by the Senate with a voice vote
    to serve as U.S. attorney for Wyoming. He went on to work as
    the counsel for the then Democrat Governor of Wyoming, Dave
    Freudenthal. And I should add that Kelly has significant
    bipartisan support. Governor Freudenthal and Wyoming Democrat
    Governor Mike Sullivan both strongly support the nomination.
    And Governor Sullivan was also President Bill Clinton's
    Ambassador to Ireland.
        Currently, Kelly serves as the chief United States
    magistrate judge. Mr. Chairman, Judge Rankin has my full
    support, his impressive record, incredible professionalism, and
    unwavering commitment to the Constitution will make him a great
    member of the Federal bench. I ask each of you to support and
    quickly pass his nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lummis.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Lummis. Chairman, and Ranking Member Graham, I
    wholeheartedly join my colleague, Senator Barrasso, and thank
    you for the opportunity to introduce Judge Kelly Rankin to this
    Committee. I could not be more supportive of Judge Rankin's
    nomination to the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Wyoming.
        For the last 11\1/2\ years, Judge Rankin has served the
    people of Wyoming as a magistrate judge, deciding matters in
    criminal and civil cases, spanning from Cheyenne in southeast
    Wyoming to Yellowstone National Park in the northwest. He has
    even been called upon by the Districts of Colorado and New
    Mexico to assist with caseloads in those jurisdictions. He's
    the past United States attorney, an important matter of public
    service, also, counsel to the Governor and Park County attorney
    in Cody, Wyoming.
        While Judge Rankin has a wealth of experience in the law
    and the administration of justice, it is his judicial
    temperament and character that are most impressive. A judge
    must be quick to listen, slow to speak, and have an innate
    drive to understand all sides of an issue. Through all the
    opportunities I've had to interact with Judge Rankin over the
    years, I have found that he is a fine exemplar of all these
    qualities. Most importantly, I believe Judge Rankin will
    faithfully interpret the U.S. Constitution, the laws enacted by
    Congress and the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and the
    10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
        I also believe he will continue to be a committed public
    servant to the people of Wyoming, and a very impressive member
    of the judiciary of whom you will be proud. I'm certainly proud
    to recommend Judge Rankin for your consideration. I join
    Senator Barrasso in enthusiastic support of his nomination, and
    I'm happy to take any questions from this Committee. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lummis. We welcome our
    friends who've spoken on behalf of the nominees. We know they
    have to leave, but you're always welcome at the Committee. Now
    we have Senator Cornyn who will introduce Mr. Gonzalez and
    Judge Schydlower.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing
    me to introduce these two outstanding consensus nominees from
    Texas, Judge Leon Schydlower and Ernest Gonzalez.
        Judge Schydlower has been nominated to fill the vacancy in
    the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas.
    Actually, El Paso is closer to the Pacific Ocean than it is to
    the eastern tip of Texas, which is Beaumont, to give you an
    idea of where it's located. It's way out there.
        This nominee has a unique and extremely impressive resume
    that illustrates his long-standing commitment to the rule of
    law and the people of this great country. Since 2015, he's
    served as a U.S. magistrate judge, which we heard a lot about
    here a moment ago. As a magistrate judge, he has helped resolve
    complex discovery matters, held hundreds of hearings, and
    earned the respect of the El Paso Bar for his work.
        As though being a magistrate judge isn't enough
    responsibility, especially one located on the U.S.-Mexico
    border, Judge Schydlower has also served in the U.S. Air Force
    Reserve Judge Advocate Corps since 2010. He currently holds the
    rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
        Before his current role as a magistrate judge, this nominee
    spent part of his career in private practice handling complex
    Federal criminal defense cases, commercial litigation, and
    international business disputes. While in private practice,
    Judge Schydlower continued to pick up cases on what is called
    the Criminal Justice Act Panel.
        As my colleagues know, CJA attorneys ensure that criminal
    defendants get the representation that they are entitled to
    under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United
    States. Before returning home to Texas, Judge Schydlower also
    served as a special assistant United States attorney for the
    U.S. Attorney's Office in Hawaii.
        And I'd like to note that this nominee has served in not
    just one, but two branches of the United States military. From
    1996 to 2004, he served in the U.S. Navy and attained the rank
    of lieutenant before he was honorably discharged. I know he'll
    have to field some tough questions today, but I promise I won't
    ask Judge Schydlower whether he prefers the Air Force or the
    Navy.
        On a personal note, I enjoyed speaking to the judge about
    his military service and hearing about the service of his
    father, who I understand who is watching from home. Judge
    Schydlower's father retired as a colonel in the United States
    Army--mine retired as a colonel in the United States Air
    Force--and Judge Schydlower saw a living example of what it
    means to serve the country with distinction. So Judge, welcome
    to you and your family, and congratulations.
        I also have the privilege of introducing Ernest Gonzalez,
    who's been nominated to fill the vacancy in the Del Rio
    Division for the Western District of Texas. Those who aren't
    familiar with Texas geography, El Paso and Del Rio have some
    heavy dockets because of their proximity to the U.S.-Mexico
    border. So these are very important positions that are being
    nominated for today.
        Mr. Gonzalez has spent most of his career in public service
    as well. He currently serves as a senior advisor to the
    Department of Justice's Criminal Division as part of the
    Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Section. Before that, he served
    for two decades as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern
    District of Texas, where he managed one of the largest dockets
    of any Federal prosecutors in the Department of Justice.
        With over 230 jury trials, Mr. Gonzalez investigated and
    prosecuted some of the most dangerous cartel members around the
    world. He became one of the Nation's most prolific cartel
    prosecutors in the process. Mr. Gonzalez previously served for
    3 years as a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas in
    Del Rio, and 6 years as the assistant district attorney in
    Bexar County.
        Throughout his career, Mr. Gonzalez has prioritized
    training our law enforcement partners in other countries to
    establish strong bilateral cooperation on shared law
    enforcement and national security matters. One of the things I
    appreciate about Mr. Gonzalez is his commitment to helping
    train young prosecutors and law enforcement personnel.
        As we all know, it's harder and harder for lawyers to get
    trial practice in courtrooms. It's easier in the criminal
    dockets than it is in the civil dockets these days, but I think
    it's absolutely essential that we continue to train the next
    generation of advocates in our courts, and Mr. Gonzalez has
    spent quite a bit of time doing that.
        He graduated from the University of Texas at San Antonio in
    1987, and the Thurgood Marshall School of Law in 1993. His
    temperament, his knowledge of the law, and ability to handle a
    large docket will serve the Del Rio Division of the Western
    District well. So Mr. Gonzalez, congratulations to you and your
    family on this nomination, and I look forward to supporting
    your nomination.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Next is Senator Lee,
    here to introduce Judge McIff Allen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. LEE,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
    here today, and I'm so grateful to President Biden for his
    willingness to nominate Judge Anne Marie McIff Allen to the
    U.S. District Court for the District of Utah.
        I've known Judge Allen for 30 years. She and I were law
    school classmates. And Judge Allen, even back then, had the
    perfect temperament for a judge, never drawing attention to
    herself, always prepared. She had a steady, quiet, and always
    dignified approach, one that inspired respect from all of her
    classmates. We, over time, got to know Judge Allen's husband,
    and soon came to realize that they were the power couple.
        You know, there were a small handful of people in law
    school who were married to another law student, but the Allens
    were the power couple of our law school. Randy was a year ahead
    of us, and we always went to Randy for sage-wise advice, which
    he always had. He's very smart. I told them at the time, ``It's
    almost not fair for the two of you to be married to each other.
    You're going to mess up the gene pool for everybody else's
    kids.''
        And speaking of that gene pool, we're pleased here to have
    all three of the Allen's kids, and as well as the spouse of
    their two married kids. We've got Matthew and his wife Louisa,
    and we've got Lauren and her husband Will. And we have Eliza,
    and we're looking for that someone special out there someday.
        The Allens also apparently have more in common with Judge
    Rankin than I would've realized because like Judge Rankin,
    Judge Allen has two children who have served as Senate pages.
    Lauren and Eliza were both here as pages. I was frankly kind of
    offended that Matthew never expressed interest, but we'll take
    that up for a different day. In any event, the Allens are here
    in full support. I've asked them to serve in the same role as
    Taylor Swift in the cheering section of a Chief's game. That'll
    be sure to happen.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Allen brings a wealth of experience and background to
    this as a practicing lawyer, as someone who's served in the
    public and private sector, as someone who's been the general
    counsel of Southern Utah University, who's handled clients and
    matters in a wide range of civil, criminal, and family court
    matters, and as someone who brings a wealth of experience as a
    judge over the last few years.
        She is very well suited for this position, and if
    confirmed, will be filling a role that will be stationed in
    Southern Utah, our first full-time post for that position from
    the outset, being based in St. George, Utah. So, it's without
    hesitation and with great pleasure that I introduced Judge Ann
    Marie McIff Allen to this Committee. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Romney was
    unable to join us in person today, but he asked the statement
    of introduction and support for Judge McIff Allen be entered
    into the record, which will happen without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. We have one other nominee that I'd like to
    personally introduce. Today, we'll hear from Judge Robin
    Meriweather, nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
    Judge Meriweather received her undergraduate degree from the
    University of Michigan, and her J.D. from Yale Law School.
        After graduating law school, she clerked for then Judge
    Merrick Garland on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
    Circuit. Judge Meriweather then entered private practice at
    Jenner & Block here in DC, focusing on complex civil litigation
    and matters involving constitutional, statutory, and regulatory
    claims.
        She joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
    Columbia in 2007, where she spent 6 years serving as deputy
    chief of the civil division; 2017 became a magistrate judge on
    the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In her
    time on the bench, she's presided over several trials and has
    issued more than a thousand orders. Congratulations, Judge
    Meriweather to you and your family. I look forward to hearing
    your testimony.
        And now as the nominees approach the table, I would ask
    Senator Graham if he has any 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. I'll be very
    quick. Sort of two good news stories and one not so good. Good
    news is that the Committee has been able to work with the White
    House, through you, to get qualified nominees from red States,
    and I appreciate my colleagues for being able to do that. Mr.
    Chairman, I know you're instrumental in getting some of these
    people over the line, so thank you. And to my colleagues, I
    really do appreciate that, it's good for the Committee.
        Next week, some good news. This Committee will come
    together in a bipartisan way to push hard against the social
    media companies in this country that are pretty much
    unregulated, unaccountable. And I look forward to that hearing
    big time, and I appreciate you working with us to put that
    hearing on. So if you're doing nothing next week, next
    Wednesday, you might want to watch this because I think
    there'll be some good information coming about from the hearing
    as to what the country needs to do to deal with social media.
    We're also involved in negotiations about Ukraine, Israel,
    Taiwan, and a border.
        Not so good news: Behind me, I have two charts, and I'll be
    quick.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Graham. The average number of people paroled during
    the Obama-Trump Presidency was about 5,600. This was supposed
    to be done on an individual case-by-case basis. Two unique
    factors, one, unique humanitarian need or a special benefit to
    the country, by Statute, is supposed to be an individual
    analysis. As you can see from the charts behind me, the Biden
    administration has had a 20,000 percent increase in parole.
    They've paroled over 800,000 people in FY 2022, over 800,000
    people in FY23. Calendar FY23 was about 1.2 million.
        This has got to stop. This is an abuse of the law. There's
    a lawsuit pending about blanket parole, but I cannot in good
    conscience vote for a bill that does not restrict and bring the
    Biden administration back in line with the law when it comes to
    parole. This has been abused way too long. Over 2 million
    people have been paroled into the country. And here's my
    concern: no matter what you do with asylum, and we've done some
    really good stuff on the asylum reform, expedited removal, if
    the parole tool is not addressed, it can undercut everything
    we've achieved.
        So, Mr. Chairman, to you and your colleagues, I would like
    to get a deal on the border that will open up money for
    Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, but we have to deal with the abuse
    of parole to get there. And the proposals on the table are
    short of what I think we need. So I just want to bring it to
    your attention that I think every Republican is committed to
    making sure that parole is not being abused, will not be abused
    in the future as it has been in the past. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Graham, you've been forthright in
    your position on this issue, and I respect you for it. I'm not
    a party to the actual negotiation that's taking place. There
    are three Senators who are involved in it, and it's being led
    on your side by, I think, someone who's respected by your
    members, and I respect him as well. And I hope that they can
    come forward with a proposal. I don't know what it will include
    in terms of parole or any other issue, and I'll wait and see
    that that comes forward.
        One of the areas that is contingent on this effort is the
    aid to Ukraine. If you're following it in the news, you know
    that they're fighting for their lives, and they're falling
    behind in terms of the volume of warheads and other things
    being thrown at them. I wear this little lapel pin and others
    like it as a reminder of my commitment to the Ukrainian people
    against Vladimir Putin.
        I hope we can work out these issues on border security and
    other issues still pending. But remember, this is a matter of
    life and death for thousands of people in Ukraine who are
    fighting every day for their survival. So we'll, at this point
    ask the nominees to come forward to the witness table to be
    sworn in. Please remain standing when you arrive at your chair.
    You've seen this done before. Will someone please close the
    door? Thank you very much. Please raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect that all nominees,
    thank goodness, have answered in the affirmative, and each will
    now have an opportunity to make an opening statement. Judge
    Bazis, please proceed with your opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN M. BAZIS, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
                     STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
                          DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

        Judge Bazis. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and Ranking Member
    Graham, as well as all of the other Members of the Judiciary
    Committee for holding this hearing today. I want to thank
    President Biden for nominating me, and I want to thank my home
    State Senators Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts for their support
    of my nomination. I want to further thank Senator Fischer for
    her kind words today. I also want to thank Judge Gerrard for
    taking senior status, for if that had not happened, I would not
    be here today.
        I would not have gotten here without the love and support
    of my family. I want to thank my mother who, unfortunately,
    passed away 12 years ago. My mother was an extraordinary woman
    who instilled in me, as well as all of my siblings, a strong
    work ethic to always treat others how you want to be treated.
    She would've loved to have been here today, and I know she is
    here with me in spirit. Thank you to my father and stepfather
    who passed away long before my mother, who both taught me that
    hard work pays off, and that you need to have some fun along
    the way.
        I want to thank my husband, who I have been happily married
    to for the last 24 years. We became friends in high school, and
    he has been my biggest cheerleader and supporter in everything
    I've done ever since then, and I would not be here today
    without his love and support. To his mother, I want to thank
    her for her love and support, and really stepping in as a
    second mother to me after my mother passed away. I will never
    be able to truly express how much that has meant to me, and I
    appreciate all her love and support.
        I also want to thank all of our friends who have supported
    me during this process. To everyone watching at home, the rest
    of my family; all of my brothers and sisters, and their
    spouses, as well as my nieces, nephews, cousins, and my last
    living aunt who will turn 100 in April--so happy early
    birthday, Aunt Pat--thank you for all your love and support,
    and I would not be here without you.
        I want to thank all of the lawyers that I have worked with
    who have mentored me in my career. I have been fortunate to
    work with and learn from some of the best and brightest lawyers
    in Nebraska. I would not be here without meeting and learning
    from each and every one of you.
        I want to thank my State court family that I worked with
    for almost 10 years. This includes not only the judges I worked
    with, but all of the staff and lawyers that made the highest
    volume court in the State operate smoothly every single day. I
    want to express how I truly appreciate all of the support you
    have given me throughout my time as a State court judge, as
    well as the presiding judge of that court, and through this
    process.
        I also want to thank my Federal court family, which also
    includes the staff and lawyers who keep the Nebraska Federal
    Courts running smoothly every single day, and for all of their
    support that they have given me throughout this process. It
    means the world to me.
        I also want to give a special thanks to my judicial
    assistant, my courtroom deputy, and my law clerk for their
    support during this process, and for everything they do each
    and every day for me. It has been an absolute pleasure to work
    with all of you so closely for the last 7 years. I look forward
    to the Committee's questions. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Bazis. Mr.
    Gonzalez.

     STATEMENT OF MR. ERNEST GONZALES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
                         STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                   FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

        Mr. Gonzales. Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, thank
    you for scheduling today's hearing. It is a privilege to appear
    before this Committee. Thank you, Senator Cornyn for your very
    kind introduction. I'm sincerely grateful to Senator Cornyn and
    Cruz, my home State Senators, for their steadfast support and
    endorsement of my nomination as a district court judge. I would
    also like to thank President Biden for this nomination, which
    is truly an honor.
        I am acutely aware that this opportunity is a result of the
    exemplary values instilled by my parents, Ramiro and Enedelia
    Gonzalez. As immigrants and former farm workers with a sixth-
    grade education, my parents sought a better life for themselves
    and their seven children in this great Nation. Their emphasis
    on diligent study and education as a gateway to broader
    opportunities has been a guiding principle for me. Despite
    their passing, their spiritual influence continues to provide
    unwavering guidance.
        Allow me to introduce my wife, Leticia, whose constant
    support has been a source of inspiration throughout our many
    years of marriage. Our pride and joy, our daughter, Chelsea,
    who recently achieved her master's degree, and dedicates
    herself to serving the visually challenged community as a low
    vision therapist.
        Allow me also to acknowledge my brother, Jose Luis
    Gonzalez, an assistant United States attorney in the El Paso
    Texas office, and his wife Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, as well as my
    sister, Dr. Elizabeth Gonzalez, and my niece Catherine. I would
    like to express my gratitude to their unwavering, steadfast
    support. I would also like to extend my thanks to my siblings
    and others that are watching back home. My 81-year-old mother-
    in-law, Gloria, and the prayer partners at St. Mark's Catholic
    Church for their constant prayers.
        Recognition is also due to my colleagues at the Narcotics
    and Dangerous Drug Section here in Washington, DC, and the U.S.
    Attorney's Offices in the Eastern and Western District of Texas
    for their support. I am indebted to the role models throughout
    my legal career with special acknowledgements to the U.S.
    attorneys and the district judges in the Eastern and Western
    Districts of Texas for their invaluable guidance.
        Senators, I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. Judge
    McIff Allen.

               STATEMENT OF HON. ANNE MARIE McIFF ALLEN,
            NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

        Judge Allen. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and Senators. Thank you for your invitation to appear
    before you today as you consider my nomination as a district
    court judge for the District of Utah. I acknowledge the
    important constitutional checks and balances that this
    Committee's work embodies. I am grateful to President Biden for
    his nomination. Thank you, Senator Lee, for your warm
    introduction. I am humbled by your, and Senator Romney's,
    support.
        I appreciate the support of my fellow southern Utah judges,
    lawyers, court staff, and everyone at home. My parents, Kay and
    Renee McIff, have both passed on, but are with me in spirit.
    They were born and raised in southern Utah farming families who
    were part of the western pioneer legacy.
        My father's early childhood was spent in a home with no
    indoor plumbing, and they plowed their fields with a horse
    because there was no money for a tractor. My mother's parents
    were beekeepers on the southwest desert of Utah, and both
    families had to start over from scratch after the fathers, my
    grandfathers, returned from service in the Second World War.
    But they had great wealth in the values of integrity, faith,
    and hard work, and if confirmed, I will be so pleased to serve
    in the same place where these special people lived their lives.
        My dad eventually became a lawyer in southern Utah, and
    when I was a small girl, he would often bring me to court with
    him. The reverence and decorum of the courtroom left a strong
    impression on me from an early age. Every day now in my
    southern Utah courtroom, I remember those lessons, and I work
    to stay true to the values of fairness and dignity that I
    witnessed as a young girl sitting next to my dad.
        Thank you also to the entire McIff and Allen families who
    are uniformly filled with rock solid contributors. My husband
    of 30 years, Randy Allen, is here with me today. He has been my
    best friend and biggest supporter since we met in the college
    library so many years ago. All of my children and their spouses
    are here, and I am grateful to them for traveling across the
    country to be with me.
        My son, Matthew, is in medical school, and his wife Louisa,
    is in law school. My daughter, Lauren, is also in law school,
    and her husband, Will, will start medical school in the fall.
    My daughter Eliza, is an undergraduate student in nursing. They
    are all great people, and it is my privilege to be their mom.
        I love the people of the State of Utah, and of this great
    country, and I have no agenda other than to serve as an
    honorable judge. I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge. Judge Rankin.

     STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY HARRISON RANKIN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

        Judge Rankin. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and distinguished Members of this Committee. It is an
    honor to appear before you. I want to extend a hardy thank you,
    special thank you, to Senators Barrasso and Lummis, and their
    staffs, for their support. And thank you, Senator Barrasso, and
    Senator Lummis, for the very kind introductions this morning. I
    thank President Biden for this profound honor of his
    nomination. I would also like to extend my deep appreciation to
    Governor's Dave Freudenthal and Mike Sullivan, for their
    tremendous support. Without the generous support of each of
    these people, I would not be here today.
        I have several family members with me this morning. First,
    my wife, Cindy; she has been the love of my life and partner in
    all things for the last 30 years. I can't thank her enough for
    her love and support during our journey together.
        My two amazing sons, Harrison and Sam, are here from
    college. They are so excited to be back on Capitol Hill today.
    I'm so proud of my boys and all their life journeys, and thank
    you for keeping your dad grounded at all times. My mother,
    Mandy, and father, Jerry, are also here. My parents instilled
    in me the value of hard work, treating everyone with kindness,
    and the importance of public service. Their unwavering support
    and love have brought me here today.
        My sister, Emily, is here. She is a remarkable attorney
    with a remarkable career of service to others, and she's an
    even better mother to her 10-year-old son. My brother, Mike, is
    with us. He too is an attorney. He also is a retired FBI agent
    following a decorated period of service and career of service
    to our Nation. Today, he provides his security expertise to the
    NFL. He too is an incredible father. Thank you each of you for
    being here, and thank you for your love and support.
        I also want to extend a heartfelt thank you to my other
    family members who are watching from afar. Please know that I
    very much appreciate all your love and encouragement, and I
    would not be here without each of you.
        And to my amazing court family, I also would not be here
    without you. This includes my incredible judicial colleagues.
    Thank you, each of you, for your counsel, mentorship, and
    friendship. I want to especially recognize and honor the
    distinguished career of Judge Nancy Freudenthal. She's the
    seventh district judge in our court's 134-year history, and the
    first woman to serve in that role. It's an honor to be
    nominated to take her place. Judge, thank you for your service
    to our court and Nation.
        And a special thanks to our terrific clerk of court, Maggie
    Botkins, and her staff. I'm fortunate to work with each of you.
    I also want to acknowledge my wonderful chamber staff, John,
    Joe, and Neon, and all of our former law clerks for their
    friendship and many meaningful contributions to our court.
        I want to extend a special thank you to all of the
    dedicated and hardworking attorneys of the Wyoming State Bar. I
    am proud to be a Wyoming lawyer. There are many others who have
    had a profound impact on me. To all of you, thank you.
        And finally, to those who have passed along your prayers
    and well wishes, your support is very much felt and
    appreciated. Thank you to the Committee for holding this
    hearing today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Judge Rankin. Judge Schydlower. Did I
    get close in pronouncing your name correctly?
        Judge Schydlower. Very close, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, please----
        Judge Schydlower. Schydlower.
        Chair Durbin [continuing]. Proceed.

             STATEMENT OF HON. LEON SCHYDLOWER, NOMINEE TO
    SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
                                OF TEXAS

        Judge Schydlower. Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,
    and distinguished Members of the Committee. I cannot express in
    words how honored I am to be before you this morning. Senator
    Cornyn, thank you for that wonderful and gracious introduction
    and your reference to my father. I'm profoundly grateful to you
    and Senator Cruz for recommending me to President Biden. I
    would also like to thank the Texas Federal Judicial Evaluation
    Committee who screens, evaluates, and recommends Federal
    judicial candidates to Senators Cornyn and Cruz. And finally, I
    thank President Biden for nominating me to be a United States
    District Judge for the Western District of Texas.
        With me this morning is my family. My wife, Lisa, is my
    life partner, best friend, and love of my life. We were high
    school sweethearts, and we've been married 27 years. She's been
    my ultimate rock and support. I would not be here without her.
    Our oldest daughter, Katrina, is here; she's a third-year law
    student in Houston. Our younger daughter, Alexandra, is here.
    She just graduated from Texas A&M last month, and our youngest,
    Dan, is here. He's a freshman at the University of Texas.
        My parents, Manuel and Elizabeth, are watching live from El
    Paso, and I'd like to thank them for all the love and support
    they've given me my entire life. My dad spent his life pursuing
    service of this country and his community. A pediatrician, he
    retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel after 20 years of
    service, and spent the remainder of his career as a medical
    school professor and dean of admissions.
        He was and is my inspiration for military and public
    service. My mom is the heart and soul of our family. My brother
    and sister are watching from Texas, and I thank them for the--
    their love and support. I also thank my father- and mother-in-
    law, Hank and Cindy Felix, for their nearly lifelong support
    and love.
        Finally, I'd like to thank my court family, including my
    judicial colleagues and friends for their mentorship and
    friendship. I pay special tribute to my close-knit chambers
    family, Erica Portillo and Veronica Medina, for their
    unbelievable professionalism, excellence and dedication.
    Erica's been with me 17 years now. I also thank the rest of my
    family members and friends watching from El Paso and around the
    country.
        And finally, I'd like to say I'm honored to nominate to
    fill the seat of United States District Judge Philip R.
    Martinez, who we lost tragically and prematurely at the young
    age of 63 in 2021. I thank President Biden for nominating me to
    fill Judge Martinez's shoes, and I know at the outset, I will
    never truly fill them. I look forward to answering the
    Committee's questions.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Judge Meriweather.

             STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN MICHELLE MERIWEATHER,
                      NOMINEE TO SERVE AS JUDGE OF
               THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

        Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and all Members of the Committee for giving me the
    privilege of appearing before you, and for considering my
    nomination. I also would like to thank you, Chair Durbin, for
    the kind words of introduction. Thank you to President Biden
    for the honor of this nomination.
        I am grateful to have the support of my family and friends
    today, both with me here and watching virtually from Michigan,
    Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, the Carolinas, and a few other States
    in this country.
        I am particularly delighted to share this moment with my
    father, Jesse Meriweather, who traveled here from Romulus,
    Michigan undeterred by sleet and snow. My father and my late
    mother had an unshakeable belief in my potential, pride in my
    achievements, and a commitment to giving me a chance to pursue
    my dreams. Through education and hard work, they strove to give
    me opportunities that exceeded what they could have dreamed of
    when they were children. Without that foundation, I would not
    be sitting before the Committee today.
        I would also like to introduce my husband, Jay Bonds, who
    after 17 years of marriage and many life changes, remains my
    true-life partner and true friend. My 10-year-old daughter is
    also present here with me today. She brings joy and pride to my
    heart.
        Since I began my legal career as a law clerk 25 years ago,
    through my time in private practice, the Justice Department,
    and as a magistrate judge, I have worked with extraordinary
    judges, attorneys, paralegals, and staff who have mentored,
    inspired, trained, and supported me. I lack the time to list
    them all by name, but they have each touched my life in many
    ways, and made me a better judge, lawyer, and person.
        I also greatly appreciate my wonderful colleagues and the
    staff at the District Court for the District of Columbia who
    support and collegiality throughout my time as a magistrate
    judge has been invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge and
    thank my current and former law clerks, some of whom are
    present today, and my amazing current and former courtroom
    deputies.
        It has been an honor to serve as a magistrate judge in the
    District Court for the District of Columbia, and it would be an
    honor to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Federal
    Claims.
        Thank you again to the Committee. I look forward to
    answering your questions today.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Meriweather. Every
    nominee goes through a long investigation and questioning
    process. So the abbreviated experience today should be no
    reflection on the fact that they've filled out questionnaires
    and answered many questions to reach this point. The major
    question, which most of us have is for Judge McIff Allen, and
    that of course, is some insight into Mike Lee as fellow law
    student. We just wonder if he was as shy, reserved then as he
    is now? We'll hold that question.
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Durbin. Judge, you've spent a significant time
    serving the State of Utah as both a prosecutor and criminal
    defense attorney. There's often concern on this Committee as to
    whether or not someone ends up prejudiced one way or the other
    after going through those experiences. Can you tell me what you
    learned, and how you would balance your experience with the
    cases that you may face?
        Judge Allen. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I credit
    as one of the good fortunes of my legal career that I had a
    significant stint as both a criminal defense attorney and as a
    prosecuting attorney.
        When I was a criminal defense attorney, I was tempted to
    believe that that was certainly the more difficult role. And
    then when I became a prosecutor, I understood that there were
    plenty of difficulties in both roles, plenty of challenges, and
    plenty of opportunities to do good in the law. So I am grateful
    that I had the perspective that both of those roles brought,
    and I think it has made me a stronger judge, and will continue
    to benefit and inform my perspective if I'm so fortunate to be
    confirmed for this role.
        Chair Durbin. Mr. Gonzalez, let me follow up with the same
    type of questioning. Over the course of 29 years, as a
    prosecutor, you've tried more than 250 jury trials to verdict,
    more than 120 State jury trials, and more than 135 Federal jury
    trials, a more amazing and remarkable amount of a courtroom
    experience.
        And so the question obviously is, would a criminal
    defendant appearing before you believe he has even a fighting
    chance for justice? What's your answer?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, he would, Chairman. Every time I
    approach a case, I approach a case as an individual case. I
    evaluate the case individually. I evaluate the evidence
    individually. I evaluate the individual that's before me, and I
    make an assessment and a judgment as to how to proceed with
    that case. And I think that that would serve me well as a
    judge. I would be able to look at the case, judge the case,
    judge the individual in front of me, and enforce the law
    impartially and fairly.
        Chair Durbin. Judge Bazis, I've been looking through here
    for the statement about your experience. You've tried
    approximately 150 cases to verdict in courts of record. As a
    State court judge for nearly 10 years, you've presided over 545
    cases, and as a Federal magistrate judge since 2017, presided
    over 5 trials. Tell me about that experience as you move
    forward to a district court level.
        Judge Bazis. Well, obviously, I have had a lot of trial
    experience, both as a judge and as a litigator. That all has
    prepared me to be in a court that has trials, and being able to
    use all of that experience that I have gained to--and in our
    district, we are having trials both civil and criminal, and we
    have a very heavy docket. And so that experience that I already
    have would serve me well if I'm so fortunate to be confirmed to
    the district court.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Meriweather, you're moving
    to or want to move and aspire to the Court of Claims, which is
    a little different world than you've been serving in as
    magistrate. What are the major differences?
        Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Chair Durbin. The biggest
    difference between the district court and the Court of Federal
    Claims is that the Court of Federal Claims solely hears cases
    brought against the United States that are civil. So, there is
    no criminal docket. I currently have a criminal docket as a
    magistrate judge.
        Conveniently, my background before becoming a magistrate
    judge was entirely civil in nature. I have 25 years, if you add
    it all up together, of experience doing complex civil
    litigation, and that has prepared me very well, should I be so
    fortunate to be confirmed, to be a judge on the Court of
    Federal Claims.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. I'll just say in closing, Judge
    Rankin, I've had many conversations with Senator Barrasso about
    your background. And I've reviewed it carefully, and I think
    that the White House has made a good choice, and I'm glad that
    you're here. And thank you Judge Schydlower as well. I'm going
    turn to Senator Cornyn at this point.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you pointed
    out, it's a long road to get here. A lot of scrutiny, a lot of
    vetting. Both Judge Schydlower pointed to the Federal Judicial
    Evaluation Committee that Senator Cruz and I have appointed; a
    bipartisan committee of the best lawyers in the State of Texas
    who evaluated both Mr. Gonzalez and Judge Schydlower's
    credentials, and recommended them to us.
        And we agreed with that recommendation, and made that
    recommendation to the President, and he nominated each of these
    outstanding candidates. So once again, it demonstrates we can
    actually get along and get things done here in a bipartisan
    way, and I'm really very pleased with both of these
    nominations.
        But Mr. Gonzalez, Chairman Durbin, pointed out your
    extensive trial experience and Judge Bazis talked about hers.
    You know, as a recovering judge and lawyer myself, I have a
    strong bias that judges ought to have tried as a lawyer jury
    trials before they take the bench and then preside over those
    trials. But can you talk a little bit about that experience,
    and what sort of insight that's given you that you will now use
    in your capacity as a Federal district judge?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Sure. It's been mentioned that I've had all
    these jury trials, and obviously I've been successful in
    prosecuting large drug conspiracies, international drug
    conspiracies, and traveled all over South America doing this.
        But I don't do these things alone. A jury trial requires a
    team. So I've always been very fortunate to surround myself
    with other individuals that are part of my team. And not only
    do they learn from me, as you mentioned, as a mentor, to that
    individual, but I also learned from them because those
    individuals also bring their own set of skills. And it's a team
    effort.
        So what I've learned through my trial experience is it's
    not one person alone. It takes a team. Not only your co-
    counsel, your second chair that's with you, putting the case
    together, trying the case, convincing the jury, but also your
    staff that works behind the scenes. Your paralegals, your legal
    assistants, your IT people setting up your presentation.
        Throughout my tenure now, almost three decades,
    presentation of a case to a jury has changed. When I first
    started, we had an ELMO, and we flopped that thing and we've
    flopped the evidence on the ELMO, and that's all we had. Now we
    have PowerPoints, and we have all this electronic equipment to
    use to present evidence to a case. So I would look for
    individuals that had that kind of talent to surround myself so
    that we could present the case more efficiently and more
    concisely so that the jury would understand what we were doing.
        So although those numbers may seem like they're large
    numbers of jury trials, I didn't do that alone. I did it with a
    great group of people surrounding me.
        Senator Cornyn. Judge Schydlower, both you and Mr. Gonzalez
    have been nominated to border courts, and I'm not sure most of
    the Members of the Committee really fully understand the nature
    of the docket that you have in El Paso and that you have in Del
    Rio. Could you describe the docket that you have?
        Judge Schydlower. Yes, Senator Cornyn. We are on the Texas-
    Mexico border, and El Paso is the epicenter of a lot of what
    goes on there. Our docket is overwhelmingly criminal, as you
    might imagine, and it's always been since dating back to the
    1970's. It's probably 75 to 80 percent criminal.
        So, what we as judges have to do is bear that in mind.
    We've got to take the cases as they come to us, we process
    them, and we close them, bearing in mind, though, that there is
    a civil docket on the other side that we need to get to and we
    have to get those cases accomplished.
        So, it's twofold handling an enormous criminal docket,
    which is nonstop, but at the same time taking care to ensure
    that our responsibility to handle the civil docket is done.
        Senator Cornyn. A lot of drug and immigration cases.
        Judge Schydlower. That's correct, along with gun cases and
    human smuggling cases.
        Senator Cornyn. And Mr. Gonzalez, I'm not sure people
    appreciate the personal danger associated with doing
    prosecuting drug cartels like you've done. Could you spend 30
    seconds explaining what that's meant in your personal
    experience?
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. I've been personally threatened
    on five occasions. On two occasions, I had to move out of my
    home with my wife and child, and live outside of my home for
    several months at a time. My wife and my daughter have always
    been supportive and never questioned my dedication to public
    service, my dedication to doing this job.
        But it is a dangerous job, and I have had the occasions of
    being threatened on five occasions and twice, having to be
    deputized as a U.S. Marshal to carry a gun, to wear a
    bulletproof vest at all times, being escorted to court and
    home. And changing my way of life; taking a different route
    home, turning on my alarm when we're at home, not just at
    night. So, yes, it is a dangerous role to be a drug prosecutor
    on the border.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cornyn. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the nominees
    may know if they've watched prior nomination hearings like this
    one, I want to begin my questioning by discussing what I
    consider is an important issue for the Federal judiciary, and
    that's the topic of clerk diversity. Not just diversity of
    folks who are serving on the bench. I'm speaking to law clerks
    that provide an invaluable service.
        As many of the candidates who appear before us know from
    personal experience, serving as a Federal clerk can be a
    powerful start to a legal career, whether you stay in the
    public service side or whether you pursue a private sector
    career. Young lawyers with the opportunity to receive important
    guidance and mentorship from a judge is a tremendous help,
    especially early in a career.
        But too often, the statistics show us that diverse young
    lawyers are not afforded the same opportunities to clerk
    despite being equally qualified for these positions. And with
    that said, my question for each of you is this: Do you believe
    diversity within the judiciary is important? If so, why? If
    not, why not? And what would you do if confirmed to contribute
    to the diversity within your chambers? We'll start with Judge
    Bazis.
        Judge Bazis. Thank you. I do think diversity is important
    for the whole court system, from staff to judges, because I
    think it's important that the community sees that there are
    people like them that are within the court system. I think it
    gives some credibility to the court system from that
    perspective. And as to clerks, I think it is important to have
    different perspectives and views within your chambers. And so
    for me, if I was fortunate to enough to be confirmed, I would
    cast a wide net in order to interview a diverse group of
    people.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. For some of the same reasons, Senator. I
    think for three basic reasons. I think that diversity in the
    judiciary, as well as law clerks, brings with it different
    perspectives. Different perspectives from different walks of
    life to the issues that the court has to deal with on a daily
    basis.
        Second, it gives the public confidence that their interest
    and their views are going to be considered by the court
    seriously and fairly. And lastly, diversity in the judiciary as
    well as in law clerks exemplifies the diversity that exists in
    this great Nation, and it also is reflective of the community
    that we have to serve.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Judge Allen. Thank you for your question, Senator. I agree
    with the comments of my fellow nominees, and I would add that I
    believe, and in my experience, diversity brings strength. I
    have had the great privilege of having mentored over the course
    of many years a diverse set of individuals from all walks of
    life. I would continue that commitment in my chambers, were I
    to be confirmed.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Judge Rankin. Senator, Thank you for your question. I, too,
    agree with my fellow nominees. Diversity is important. It's a
    reflection of who we are as citizens of this great country.
    It's a reflection of the litigants that come before us in the
    courtroom. During my nearly 12 years as a magistrate judge, I
    routinely hire folks of different backgrounds and experiences.
    Our chamber staff is diverse, and it's an opportunity for
    different experienced people to come before the court and work
    for the court. So I do think it's important that I would
    continue in that effort, if so lucky to be confirmed.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Judge Schydlower. Senator, I join what my colleagues have
    said already. I would also add that there are opportunities for
    judges to attend functions where they can have one-on-one
    communication with law students. I attended one last April that
    was open to everybody, but there was a particular reach out to
    underrepresented communities in law schools where the judges
    had a chance to sit down, explain what judges are looking for
    when they interview law clerks, and give the law students ideas
    about the tools that they might need to make them the most
    qualified candidates when the time came for applying for law
    clerkships.
        Senator Padilla. Okay.
        Judge Meriweather. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my
    colleagues about the importance of diversity. It helps bolster
    public confidence in the courts. I believe the courts are a
    place where people want to be heard. And when a person
    appearing in court sees that the people who are listening to
    what they are presenting to the court come from a variety of
    backgrounds and experiences, I think that enhances their
    ability to feel confident that they will be heard fairly and
    impartially, and will not be disregarded because of what their
    life experiences are, where they come from, where they reside,
    or other unique aspects. So, I really believe that diversity
    helps with that.
        In terms of what I would personally do if confirmed as a
    magistrate judge, I have hired law clerks from a variety of
    backgrounds and experiences. If confirmed to the Court of
    Federal Claims, I would hope to continue to do so.
        In addition, I have repeatedly participated in panels that
    try to bring awareness about clerkship opportunities to law
    students here in DC, to hopefully expand the applicant pool so
    that students who perhaps might not have personal connections
    to attorneys and judges can learn what a clerkship entails and
    hear from judges about how they can perhaps better position
    themselves to have a chance at such a wonderful job
    opportunity. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman. I neglected to make unanimous
    consent request with involving some letters in support of Mr.
    Gonzalez's nomination. May I make those?
        Chair Durbin. Of course.
        Senator Cornyn. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask unanimous
    consent that letters from the League of United Latin American
    Citizens, the Hispanic National Bar Association, and the
    Mexican American Bar Association of Texas be made part of the
    record. They all relate to Mr. Gonzalez's nomination and
    confirmation.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection. So ordered.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Judge Allen, getting back to Senator Durbin's
    original question. Can you just confirm to the Committee that I
    was a very mousey wallflower, unopinionated, and afraid to
    express myself in law school?
        Judge Allen. Thank you, Senator. I wish I could do that.
        Senator Lee. It was worth a try. Worth a try.
        Chair Durbin. Reminder that the witness is under oath.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lee. You've been involved in, as a lawyer and as a
    judge, about 75 trials. Is that right?
        Judge Allen. Correct.
        Senator Lee. A lot of cases never make it to trial. They
    either settle before they get there, or in many cases, they're
    resolved by a dispositive motion. In many cases, summary
    judgment is evolved. The parties get to the point after
    conducting discovery that they conclude there's no genuine
    issue of material fact, and one of them files a motion for
    summary judgment.
        When there's a close case or an arguably close case on a
    Rule 56 motion, do you have any opinion on what's worse,
    granting a meritorious dispositive motion on a Rule 56 or
    failing to grant one that is meritorious?
        Judge Allen. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question, and
    I'm certainly cognizant of the dilemma that you have posed
    there. And I can tell you that I find no virtue in either
    option that you've given me. I have litigated summary judgment
    motions as a lawyer. I have ruled on them as a judge, and it is
    my intention in all of those circumstances to get it right. It
    is not my inclination to take the easy way out. And getting it
    right on summary judgment is a heavy lift.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        Judge Allen. But I study the issues carefully, and I'm
    aware that some believe that having one's day in court is the
    automatic out in a close case.
        Senator Lee. And what do you mean by that when you say,
    ``having one's day in court''?
        Judge Allen. Meaning denying the motion for summary
    judgment.
        Senator Lee. And thus allowing the case to proceed to
    trial?
        Judge Allen. Correct. If you deny the motion for summary
    judgment, the case proceeds. I think some believe it will
    likely settle, and so that's the safer option.
        Senator Lee. So is that what you referred to a minute ago
    when you said, ``the easy way out''?
        Judge Allen. Correct.
        Senator Lee. Because it's easier to deny the motion for
    summary judgment than to grant. Why is that?
        Judge Allen. Well, because it takes a lot of heavy lifting
    to carefully review the filings, and to write the significant
    order in support of a granting of a motion for summary
    judgment.
        Senator Lee. So that's more likely to involve an opinion
    rather than just a simple order saying there's----
        Judge Allen. Correct. And judges with busy dockets--I think
    everyone wants to get it right, of course. But judges with busy
    dockets may err on the side of caution and say, ``Let me deny
    the motion. That's just a really quick order.'' But I believe
    that the more courageous approach is to carefully consider
    those issues and really to make the ruling that is demanded by
    the law and the facts.
        And were I to be so fortunate as to be confirmed into this
    role, I would continue my commitment to not taking the easy way
    out, and to making the brave decision in whichever manner the
    law and the facts support, and then standing behind that,
    whatever comes.
        Senator Lee. So, if I understand you correctly, there,
    neither one is more defensible than the other. They're both
    bad. They're both equally indefensible, but----
        Judge Allen. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. The temptation is greater to deny
    the motion.
        Judge Allen. In my experience, that is absolutely the case,
    Senator.
        Senator Lee. And so as it in other words, the judge needs
    to look out for that temptation among judges because if you do
    that, the case may well settle long before it gets to trial.
        Judge Allen. Correct.
        Senator Lee. By the way, what tends to take more time? Your
    average criminal case, or your average civil case, or is there
    a difference?
        Judge Allen. In the judicial or in the lawyering context?
        Senator Lee. In the judicial context.
        Judge Allen. In my experience, civil cases have more
    nuances, more heavy lifting in terms of the handling of those
    matters. Certainly, all are important, and I give full
    attention to all matters before me, but they usually have the
    more dense subject matter in terms of preparation.
        Senator Lee. Right. Some of that probably relates to the
    prevalence of the dispose of motion in civil litigation, not as
    much of that, you have other kinds of motions?
        Judge Allen. Certainly. Certainly.
        Senator Lee. All right. I see my time's expired. Thank you.
    I was hoping you could confirm the wallflower thing, but, you
    know, worth a shot.
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Durbin. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Congratulations to each of you. Judge
    Meriweather, you've been nominated to the Court of Federal
    Claims. Is that right?
        Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. How many motions have you argued in the
    Court of Federal claims?
        Judge Meriweather. I have argued hundreds of motions
    involving complex civil claims in numerous courts. The Court of
    Federal Claims is not one of those courts.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, the answer's zero?
        Judge Meriweather. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. How many cases have you tried in the
    Court of Federal claims?
        Judge Meriweather. I have tried a civil case in the
    District Court for the District of Columbia. Most of my cases
    have been resolved on motions. None of those cases have been in
    the Court of Federal Claims, although they involve similarly
    complex matters under civil laws.
        Senator Kennedy. So, the answer's zero?
        Judge Meriweather. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Tell me the grounds for granting a new
    trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
        Judge Meriweather. All of the trials in the Court of
    Federal Claims are bench trials, and the Court of Federal
    Claims, although it is not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure, its rules mirror those rules when applicable. So,
    it's my understanding that the same rules that would apply in
    the district court are also applied in that context. But if I
    were presented with a motion for a new trial, should I be
    confirmed as a judge on the Court of Federal Claims, I would of
    course consult the rules of the Court of Federal Claims.
        Senator Kennedy. So what are the grounds for granting a new
    trial?
        Judge Meriweather. My understanding is that a new trial,
    you would have to comply with the applicable rules.
        Senator Kennedy. I know that, but what are they? What are
    the grounds? You said that the rules are identical to the Court
    of Federal Claims and Federal District Court. I'm not sure
    that's accurate, but just tell me what are the grounds for
    granting a new trial in the Court of Federal Claims?
        Judge Meriweather. Senator, that is not an issue I have had
    occasion to consider before, despite my extensive civil
    experience and my familiarity, not only with the Federal Rules
    of Civil procedure, but I've also reviewed the Rules of the
    Court of Federal Claims. But if I were presented----
        Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry----
        Judge Meriweather. Go ahead.
        Senator Kennedy. No, you go ahead. You go ahead.
        Judge Meriweather. I did not mean to speak over you,
    Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. That's Okay. You go ahead, and I want you
    to finish your answer.
        Judge Meriweather. So I would, if I were presented with
    that question, should I be confirmed, I would, again, consult
    the rules and follow the precedent.
        Senator Kennedy. All right. Let me be sure, Judge, I
    understand your testimony. Can you tell me one single ground
    for granting a new trial in either a Federal District Court or
    the Court of Federal Claims as we sit here today?
        Judge Meriweather. Yes. If there were gross misapplication
    of the law, certainly a litigant would argue for----
        Senator Kennedy. Anything else?
        Judge Meriweather [continuing]. A new trial.
        Senator Kennedy. They're like six or seven of them. Can you
    tell me any others?
        Judge Meriweather. Trials are so infrequent in the civil
    context, and I have--although I have presided over bench trials
    and a jury trial, I have not been presented with a motion to
    have a new trial----
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Judge Meriweather [continuing]. So I've not----
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. What's a contract of adhesion?
        Judge Meriweather. Senator, I'm familiar with contract law.
    The concept of contracts of adhesion----
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. You're going to see a lot of that.
    That's what Federal Court of Federal Claims does. What's the
    contract of adhesion?
        Judge Meriweather. Senator, the Court of Federal Claims
    does handle a lot of procurement cases. Those typically turn on
    interpretations.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, but I'm going to run out of
    time. What's the contract of adhesion? If you don't know, just
    tell me.
        Judge Meriweather. Senator, despite my extensive civil
    experience, including dozens of cases that include contract
    cases, I have not dealt with the question of what a contract of
    adhesion. But should it be presented to me, I would----
        Senator Kennedy. Sure. You'll look it up. Okay. Do you
    remember a case judge called United States v. Allen?
        Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. You were reversed in that case, weren't
    you?
        Judge Meriweather. I made a pretrial detention decision
    for, I believe, five defendants. I believe that Judge Allen was
    one of the defendants for whom the district judge disagreed----
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am, but you were reversed?
        Judge Meriweather. My pretrial detention ruling, I believe
    was.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a case called United
    States v. Johnston?
        Judge Meriweather. I have had multiple United States v.
    Johnston. Are you referring to the pretrial detention matter?
        Senator Kennedy. Well, in this case, you had a defendant
    who was charged with traveling with intent to engage in illegal
    sexual conduct with a kid, and the defendant also testified
    that he, ``had a sexual interest in minors,'' and even had a
    sexual relationship with his daughter. Do you remember it now?
        Judge Meriweather. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. And you were reversed in that case,
    weren't you?
        Judge Meriweather. I made a narrow decision in Johnston
    that he should be released for 21 days----
        Senator Kennedy. Yes.
        Judge Meriweather [continuing]. And placed on home
    incarceration----
        Senator Kennedy. Right.
        Judge Meriweather [continuing]. So that he could get cancer
    treatment that he had been unable to----
        Senator Kennedy. You----
        Judge Meriweather [continuing]. Receive.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Wanted to let him go out for
    21 days. Is that correct?
        Judge Meriweather. I don't think that's an accurate
    characterization.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, that's what the district court judge
    said. The district court said no way am I letting this guy out
    on the street for 21 days.
        Judge Meriweather. The district court judge concluded that
    his life was not at risk because he had had the medical
    appointment that he had not had when he appeared before me,
    before the appeal. So, under those new facts, the factual
    predicate from my temporary release decision no longer existed.
        Senator Kennedy. That's not the way I read it, Judge. Do
    you remember a case called United States v. Voucher and United
    States v. Patel? You were reversed in those cases, too, from
    trying to let somebody go, weren't you?
        Judge Meriweather. In those two cases, my flight risk
    assessment under the Bail Reform Act, I believe, was reversed
    by the district judge.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I'm out of time. Thanks, Mr.
    Chairman, for your indulgence.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. Judge Meriweather, I just want to
    tell you that I get nervous every time Senator Kennedy starts
    asking these legal questions. I'd flunk. All right. So thank
    you, and you did very well. I want to just congratulate all of
    you for being here, and express my gratitude to you for the
    service that you provide and the service you hope to give.
        I want to start with Judge Bazis. I was a former public
    defender, so I really appreciate that as part of your resume.
    In your capacity as a judge, how does the experience you had as
    a public defender and as you know, many public defenders now
    being nominated, and also, many prosecutors, that criminal
    justice background is obviously helpful. But how does it inform
    you in your responsibilities as a judge?
        Judge Bazis. In a couple of ways. First, the experience
    that I gained by being a public defender and the trial
    experience that I received, I would've not gotten anywhere
    else----
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Judge Bazis [continuing]. Quite honestly, so. And having to
    be prepared in every single case because every case I had was
    set for trial, and that was about a thousand cases per year in
    the Public Defender's Office. So that experience, obviously, to
    a trial judge was very helpful.
        Also, knowing and understanding the procedures within the
    courts to apply those. But also I appeared after leaving the
    public defender's office in front of a lot of judges, and there
    were things I liked they did, and things that not so much. And
    so, what my clients wanted and what I wanted was someone who
    was going to be fair and impartial, listened to the facts of
    the case, feel that the lawyers and the defendant were being
    heard, as well as the prosecutor, and making a just, and fair
    determination. And so that's what I've tried to do for the last
    17 years as a judge.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. And Mr. Gonzalez, you were a
    prosecutor--or are, so same question. You know, you've got in
    the judicial system, you're defending or prosecuting, and it's
    a shared experience even though you're on opposite side. So
    just tell the Committee, if you would, how your experience as a
    prosecutor would inform you in the role of the decider.
        Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, Senator. I've been fortunate to--
    everywhere that I've gone, I've had a very robust docket. So
    I've carried a lot of cases. My last case review had 150 cases,
    900 defendants. That gives me the opportunity to communicate
    with opposing counsel, listen to their views, listen to the
    person that they're representing, their views and what is it
    that they don't understand. And sometimes I've had the
    opportunity to converse with the defendants and explain the
    criminal justice system, explain the sentencing manual, the
    sentencing guidelines to them.
        So, I get a good idea of what a defense attorney goes
    through in representation of that defendant, and as a judge, I
    would be sympathetic to that. I would be sympathetic to the
    role that the defense attorney has to play, as well as the
    prosecutor. Having the experience that I have of over three
    decades, I would use that experience. And I've also been before
    a lot of judges, and I've seen some judges with compassion, and
    caring, and kindness. And I would probably model myself after
    them, and try to be fair, and impartial, and everything.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. And Judge, is it Schydlower?
        Judge Schydlower. Yes, sir.
        Senator Welch. Yes. And you've had a lot of Federal court
    litigation experience, and just tell us how you would see
    yourself acting in the role of judge?
        Judge Schydlower. Well, the best predictor of how it would
    be as a district judge is the last 8 years that I've served as
    a U.S. magistrate judge. And 8 years ago, I had to transition
    from being an advocate who loved trying cases to being a
    neutral arbiter. And that was a transition. I loved being a
    lawyer, and I loved trying cases. But I set that aside, and I
    made that determination before I became a judge that I would
    have to set that aside. And I think it's been a good
    transition, and I'm proud of the record that I've had.
        Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
    all of the nominees. Thank you all for being here. Judge Bazis,
    if I could just start with you. I want to ask you about this
    case, United States v. Bartunek, I think it is, from 2017. Do
    you remember this case?
        Judge Bazis. I do.
        Senator Hawley. This is a case in which you granted
    pretrial release to the defendant. It was a child pornography
    case. Does that sound right?
        Judge Bazis. Yes.
        Senator Hawley. Now, you said in your responses to the
    panel's questions that the defendant had no criminal
    convictions, and had lived in Nebraska his entire life, and
    that he owned the home he was living in, and was employed.
        I understand, however, at the time that you granted him
    release, the Omaha Police Department had an open investigation
    regarding the sexual assault of a 7-year-old child, in which he
    was the suspect, and that was in the presentence report. So
    just walk me through your thinking.
        Judge Bazis. During the hearing, I asked for additional
    information from the Government and they couldn't give it to
    me. So we didn't have a lot of facts in regards to that. So the
    facts and circumstances, there was no additional information
    that was provided to me at that time.
        Senator Hawley. So you didn't know he was the subject of
    the investigation?
        Judge Bazis. There may have been a mention, but the
    question I had was, well, what does that mean? Has there been a
    report made? Is he truly the suspect, or was his name just
    mentioned? What were the circumstances? And at that point in
    time, there was no additional information that could be given.
        Senator Hawley. I see. So it looks like to me, according to
    the revised PSR, ``the Omaha Police Department has an open
    investigation regarding the sexual assault of a 7-year-old
    child,'' who's then identified with initials, in which the
    defendant is the subject. But you're saying that that--you
    thought that that was not sufficient in order to guide your
    judgment?
        Judge Bazis. Was that the presentence report, which would
    have happened after sentencing versus the pretrial report,
    which is what I would get prior to bond setting,
        Senator Hawley. ``Offers the following objections to the
    revised PSR; the defendant objects to the inclusion of any
    reference,'' and then it goes on to quote this material about
    the sexual assault. So you're saying you didn't have that
    information?
        Judge Bazis. Correct. That would've been after sentencing.
        Senator Hawley. Okay. So you weren't aware that?
        Judge Bazis. At sentencing. Prior to sentencing, after a
    plea, is when that information would----
        Senator Hawley. Okay. So when you granted pretrial release,
    you were not aware that he was under investigation for the
    assault of a 7-year-old?
        Judge Bazis. Based on what you're saying, and that's a PSR,
    then no.
        Senator Hawley. Well, I'm asking is your memory any
    different? I mean, I can give these questions to you for the
    record, if that would be more helpful. I just want to clarify
    the facts because I just want to make sure. If you're telling
    me you didn't know about it, that's a very different thing.
        Judge Bazis. Well, I don't believe I did.
        Senator Hawley. Okay. Well, I tell you what, I'll give you
    some questions for the record on this, and that way--so that
    you don't have to just rely on your memory.
        Judge Bazis. And I can go back and look at the presentence
    report----
        Senator Hawley. That'd be great. That would be great.
        Judge Bazis [continuing]. And the pretrial report, which
    would tell me that.
        Senator Hawley. Great. Fair enough. Thank you. Judge
    Meriweather, let me just ask you in my short remaining time
    here. I think Senator Kennedy was asking you about this case,
    United States v. Johnson, where you recommended the release of
    a sexual predator to get medical treatment. Is that right? Do I
    have the right case?
        Judge Meriweather. Senator, I recommended a 21-day--a
    temporary release for medical treatment after holding multiple
    hearings, and giving the Government multiple opportunities to
    get Mr. Johnson to his appointments. Because as I noted in the
    opinion, I thought the charges were deeply disturbing. I take
    very seriously the danger to the community.
        And I found when I balanced the four factors that I had to
    consider under the Bail Reform Act, that it was only his
    history and characteristics, which was that at the time that
    issue was before me, he had an urgent need for diagnostic and
    cancer treatment. That----
        Senator Hawley. Let me just add--I'm sorry to interrupt
    you. I'm almost out of time. I just want to make sure I
    understand the sequence because I might, as to my questions in
    Judge Bazis, I might not have the sequencing right. So you can
    correct me here.
        So I thought the Government filed an emergency appeal of
    your release order, and you were overturned by the DC District
    judge because for among other reasons, the predator here had
    been caught in a sting operation. He'd admitted to sexually
    abusing his 8-year-old daughter. He had been previously court
    martialed for molesting a child when he was in the Air Force.
    That child was his adopted daughter, and he claimed to have
    sexually molested other children.
        And the Government thought that releasing him was a
    terrible idea. The district court agreed with him--them rather,
    agreed with the Government. So, I just wonder, in light of all
    of that, as you look back on it now, do you think it was a bad
    decision to recommend release for him?
        Judge Meriweather. Two things. First, all of the abuse that
    was alleged was horrific. The charges that were in front of me
    did not involve the molestation of his daughter, which I
    believe had happened 15 years earlier. And my decision was not
    based solely on the nature of the charges, that's but one of
    four factors that the Bail Reform Act required me to consider.
        The factual predicate, as I highlighted in that opinion, I
    found it very challenging to even entertain the idea of
    releasing someone charged with such heinous crimes, as well as
    someone who had a history, decades earlier, of abuse.
        But I found that his own interest and self-preservation
    would--paired with stringent conditions, being under the
    custody of his wife for a limited period of time, and only
    allowed to leave his home to go to the doctor in order to get
    the timely cancer treatment that he needed. That despite three
    opportunities, he was unable to get through no malicious intent
    of the Government----
        Senator Hawley. Can I just ask this, Mr. Chairman, it's my
    last question. Can I just ask, I thought that he was getting
    cancer treatment, but your judgment was he wasn't getting--not
    for the right kind, but he was getting treatment. Is that
    accurate?
        Judge Meriweather. No. That was the change between my
    ruling and the time of the reversal. I gave the Government
    three opportunities to take him to the doctor, and I kept him
    detained. Despite it, he did not get to the doctor. I ordered
    him temporary released so that he could see a cancer
    specialist, because cancer is a time-sensitive issue, as many
    of us know with loved ones who are survivors of cancer. And
    then the next day, he got to the doctor.
        Had he been to the doctor, I would not have released him
    for 21 days. I didn't feel that he needed a specific doctor,
    which was the facts that were presented to the district judge.
    It was that he sees any doctor so that he could timely have his
    cancer addressed. Unfortunately, that did not happen before he
    saw me.
        So, I made the very difficult decision of ordering
    temporary release under stringent conditions so that could
    happen. It then happened, and so the need for it no longer
    existed. Had he seen the doctor before I ruled, I would have
    denied his motion, and I would've ordered that he remained
    detained.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you for that explanation, Judge. I just
    note here in the notes when you disclosed this case, which you
    did to the Committee, you said, ``A significant factor in my
    ruling was that jail officials had repeatedly failed to
    transport the defendant to medical appointments, and he had a
    private physician who could properly conduct testing and
    treatment.''
        You did not release him--using that word in its entirety--
    but it was for home treatment, home incarceration, for this
    period of time. Is that correct?
        Judge Meriweather. Yes. That's correct, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. I believe that's all the
    Senators who are going to be attending this hearing. And I want
    to thank all the nominees, and their family and friends for
    their patience during this.
        One quick logistical note. Questions for the record will be
    due to the nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, January 31. And the
    record will likewise remain open until that time to submit
    letters and materials. With that, the meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]