USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1757707 Filed: 10/30/2018 Page 1 of 4 [ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 8, 2018] No. 18-3052 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________________________ IN RE: GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION ____________ ANDREW MILLER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. _____________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Columbia Grand Jury Action No. 18-GJ-34 (BAH) _______________________________ MOTION OF APPELLANT ANDREW MILLER TO ALLOT AT LEAST TWENTY MINUTES OF ORAL ARGUMENT TIME PER SIDE AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATION IN ORAL ARGUMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE CONCORD MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLC _______________________________ Pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rules 34 (c)-(e), Appellant Andrew Miller requests that the Court allot at least twenty minutes of oral argument time per side and hereby consents to the participation in oral argument of Amicus Curiae Concord Management and Consulting LLC Management and Consulting LLC and agrees to 1 USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1757707 Filed: 10/30/2018 Page 2 of 4 share a portion of Appellant’s 20 minutes (or more) with Concord as detailed below. 1. This case is scheduled for oral argument for November 8, 2018. 2. On October 29, 2018, the time for the argument was rescheduled from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 3. The time allotted for oral argument has not yet been established. Under Circuit Rule 34 (e), “counsel for the party supported by amicus curiae” may “consent” to the “participation” of amicus curiae in oral argument without leave of court unless “15 minutes or less per side is allotted for argument.” See Rule 34 (c). 4. The significance of the statutory and constitutional issues regarding the validity of the appointment of Robert C. Mueller, III as Special Counsel in this case and at least one other case involving amicus Concord cannot be overstated. Appellant submits that at least 20 minutes per side of argument time is warranted to properly address these important issues at oral argument. 5. Concord’s participation in oral argument is warranted in light of its unique stake in the Court’s resolution of this appeal, as reflected in the Court’s sua sponte order granting Concord leave to participate as an amicus. Additionally, Concord’s participation in oral argument would significantly assist the Court’s consideration of the statutory authority issues noted above. Concord’s briefing in the district court and this Court contains a comprehensive presentation of these 2 USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1757707 Filed: 10/30/2018 Page 3 of 4 issues and reflects a thorough consideration of the arguments and the relevant laws and precedents. 6. If the Court were to allot 20 minutes of argument time per side, Appellant consents to the participation of Amicus Concord and agrees to share 7 minutes of Appellant’s argument time with Concord for the specific purpose of arguing the statutory issues addressed extensively in Concord’s amicus brief. Counsel for Appellant will focus his argument on the constitutional issues addressed in his merits briefing. If the Court were to allot more than 20 minutes per side, Appellant will advise the Court of the additional time it consents to share with Concord. 7. If the Court were to instead allot 15 minutes of argument time per side, pursuant to Rule 34 (c), Appellant requests for good cause shown that Amicus Concord be permitted to participate in oral argument and be allotted 5 minutes of argument time. Respectfully submitted, Date: October 30, 2018 /s/Paul D. Kamenar Paul D. Kamenar 1629 K Street, N.W. #300 Washington, D.C. 20036 (301) 257-9435 paul.kamenar@gmail.com Counsel for Andrew Miller 3 USCA Case #18-3052 Document #1757707 Filed: 10/30/2018 Page 4 of 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE Pursuant to FRAP 25(d), the undersigned hereby certifies that on the 30th day of October, 2018, he caused the foregoing motion to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Pursuant to Circuit Rule 27(d), the undersigned also caused four copies of the foregoing motion to be hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court. The participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. The undersigned further certifies that foregoing motion complies with FRAP 27(d) (2) (A) and contains 431 words, as determined by Microsoft Word 2010 and complies with FRAP 32(a) (5)-(6) because it has been prepared with proportionally spaced font typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman. /s/ Paul D. Kamenar Paul D. Kamenar 4