The best white-collar criminal defense/appellate lawyer in California, perhaps in the USA, is John Keker, bar none. But he doesn't take a lot of loser cases, like NTEK's Foley's. I would bet Foley first tried to hire Keker and got turned down so he had to resort to this guy (Riordan) who is more willing to take on loser cases, like Foley's and this one he recently lost in a very similar pursuit for bail pending appeal:
"9th Circ. Denies Bail For AUO Execs In Price-Fixing Case
Share us on: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn By Melissa Lipman 0 Comments
Law360, New York (January 25, 2013, 4:23 PM ET) -- The Ninth Circuit refused Tuesday to let two AU Optronics Corp. executives out on bail while they appeal their price-fixing convictions, ruling that the defendants hadn't shown they were likely to succeed in overturning or substantially shortening their sentences. Note: this is exactly the same problem Foley is going to have. Inability to show a significant legal dispute exists on appeal.
AUO President Hsuan Bin Chen and former Vice President Hui Hsiung have been trying to convince the Ninth Circuit to release them while they challenge their convictions and matching three-year sentences.
But a three-judge panel denied those requests, ruling that there was no proof that the two men would succeed in getting prison terms shorter than the amount of time they would spend in jail while the appeal proceeds.
"Appellants have not shown that these appeals raise a 'substantial question' of law or fact that is likely to result in reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process," the court said.
A spokeswoman for the DOJ declined to comment on the ruling. Attorneys for Chen and Hsiung were not immediately available for comment Friday.
The two were each sentenced in September after a jury found they conspired with LG Display Co. Ltd., Toshiba Corp. and other electronics companies to artificially inflate the prices of LCD panels.
Though prosecutors had asked for 10-year prison sentences, the judge sentenced the two to 36 months in jail and ordered them to pay $200,000 in fines. AUO was fined $500 million over its alleged role in the scheme.
The two defendants had argued they should be freed while they appeal their convictions both because they are not flight risks and because they have raised legitimate questions challenging the March conviction. The AUO executives claim that the government overstepped its authority by applying U.S. antitrust law abroad.
But the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the request, saying that the appeal would likely go nowhere.
The claim that the government overreached its territorial authority by prosecuting the pair fails under U.S. law, prosecutors said in a court filing. The government pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that prosecutors can bring charges related to foreign conduct that was meant to substantially impact the U.S. market.
The defendants also did not properly raise their extraterritoriality-based objection at the trial court level, so they cannot raise it on appeal, the prosecutors said.
The government also reiterated earlier arguments that both men, who are Taiwanese nationals with homes in Taiwan, might attempt to flee the country. Chen is not a U.S. citizen and faces deportation after his prison sentence is finished, and Hsiung, though a naturalized U.S. citizen, has lived in Taiwan since 1996, the prosecutors said.
Taiwan has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
Judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton and N. Randy Smith sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.
Hsiung is represented by Christopher T. Handman and Elizabeth B. Prelogar of Hogan Lovells. Chen is represented by Michael A. Attanasio and Jon F. Cieslak of Cooley LLP and Dennis P. Riordan, Donald M. Horgan and Ted S. Jones of Riordan & Horgan.
The cases are U.S. v. Hsiung, case number 12-10492, and U.S. v. Hsuan Chen, case number 12-10493, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."
AI
