郭文贵上诉 · MOTION · ECF #16

Case: 26-1853, 08/05/2026, DktEntry: 16.1, (1 of 1) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): 26-1853 Caption [use short title]

Motion for: counsel to be relieved

Set forth below precise, complete statement of relief sought: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. GUO for counsel to be relieved as CJA appellate counsel, and have the Federal Defenders substituted as counsel.

MOVING PARTY: Miles Guo OPPOSING PARTY: United States of America

Plaintiff Defendant

Appellant/Petitioner Appellee/Respondent

MOVING ATTORNEY: Joshua L. Dratel OPPOSING ATTORNEY: AUSA Ryan B. Finkel [name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail] Law Offices of Dratel & Lewis United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York 29 Broadway, Ste. 1412, New York, NY 10006 26 Federal Plaza, 37th Floor, New York, NY 10278 (212) 732-0707, jdratel@dratellewis.com (212) 637-6612, Ryan.Finkel@usdoj.gov

Court- Judge/ Agency appealed from: The Honorable Analisa Torres, S.D.N.Y.

Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND INJUCTIONS PENDING APPEAL: Has movant notified opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has this request for relief been made below? Yes No Yes No (explain): Has this relief been previously sought in this court? Yes No Gov't position set forth at para 5 of defense counsel's Declaration.

Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

Opposing counsel’s position on motion: Unopposed Opposed Don’t Know Does opposing counsel intend to file a response: Yes _No Don’t Know

Is the oral argument on motion requested? Yes No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

Has the appeal argument date been set? Yes No If yes, enter date:

Signature of Moving Attorney: Date: 8/5/26 Service : Electronic Other [Attach proof of service]

Form T-1080 (rev. 10-23)

Case: 26-1853, 08/05/2026, DktEntry: 16.2, (1 of 3)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ------------------------------------------------------x Docket No. 26-1853 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee DECLARATION IN SUPPORT – against – OF MOTION TO BE RELIEVED

MILES GUO, Appellant. (filed electronically) -------------------------------------------------------x

JOSHUA L. DRATEL, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1746, hereby affirms under penalty of

perjury:

1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court since 1984, and have been

appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”) to represent Defendant-Appellant Miles

Guo in the above-captioned appeal. I make this motion to be relieved as Mr. Guo’s counsel, and

to substitute the Federal Defenders of New York as Mr. Guo’s appellate counsel.

2. I was appointed April 8, 2025, along with John F. Kaley, Esq., and Melinda Sarafa,

Esq., in the District Court to represent Mr. Guo with respect to sentencing and related

proceedings after he was convicted after trial and dismissed his retained counsel. I am counsel

of record on this appeal because I filed the Notice of Appeal (Dkt 1.1).

3. Mr. Guo was sentenced June 29, 2026, to a prison term of 360 months, and was

ordered to forfeit $889 million (Dkt 856). The Judgment was filed July 2, 2026 (Dkt 860). Mr.

Guo is currently serving his sentence at Federal Correctional Institution Schuykill.

4. I have spoken with Danny Habib, Chief of the Federal Defenders’ Appeals Unit, and

he has informed me that the Federal Defenders are willing and able to represent Mr. Guo on his

appeal. The Federal Defenders represented Mr. Guo at his presentment in 2023, but were

replaced by retained counsel. However, Mr. Guo has filed for bankruptcy and qualifies for

Case: 26-1853, 08/05/2026, DktEntry: 16.2, (2 of 3)

appointed representation (as he did in the District Court following trial).

5. I have also been in contact with Assistant United States Attorney Ryan B. Finkel, who

requested that this motion include the government’s position stated as follows: “The

Government does not oppose [the] motion to withdraw as counsel for Mr. Guo's appeal. We also

do not oppose the appointment of replacement counsel for Mr. Guo pursuant to the Criminal

Justice Act. While the Government takes no position on who that counsel should be, it is the

Government's position that the appointment should be made according to the Second Circuit’s

established procedures under its CJA plan, as opposed to a substitution of counsel of Mr. Guo’s

request.”

6. Mr. Guo has confirmed with Ms. Sarafa and me directly that he wishes to have me

(and Mr. Kaley and Ms. Sarafa) relieved as counsel, and to have the Federal Defenders as

counsel for his appeal. Given the number of potential pretrial, trial, and sentencing issues

involved, the complexity of the case (including the voluminous record of litigation and

discovery), Mr. Kaley, Ms. Sarafa, and I are in agreement that review and representation by new

counsel would be appropriate in this case.

7. That is reinforced by the fact that we were appointed only during the sentencing

phase, and for that purpose. In that context, the Federal Defenders have the capacity and

resources to handle an appeal this complex, and with a record of this magnitude: the discovery

consists of 46 separate hard drives totaling 71 terabytes of data.

8. In addition, the appointment of counsel in the District Court was also affected by the

number of attorneys on the CJA panel (particularly those with firm resources) who would be

conflicted out of representation of Mr. Guo. An appeal of this magnitude would also require

devotion of significant CJA resources, which would be obviated by representation by the Federal

Case: 26-1853, 08/05/2026, DktEntry: 16.2, (3 of 3)

Defenders.

9. There is also precedent for appointment of the Federal Defenders for an appeal. In

United States v. Avenatti, 19 Cr. 373 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y. 2019), the Federal Defenders substituted

on appeal for retained trial counsel. Likewise, the Federal Defenders were substituted on appeal

in United States v. Martignoni, Docket No. 94-1187 (also a complex fraud prosecution), United

States v. Edwardo-Franco, 885 F.2d 1002 (2d Cir. 1989) (complex drug-trafficking prosecution),

and United States v. Long, 917 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1990) (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act [“RICO”] prosecution).

10. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Court relieve me as Mr. Guo’s

counsel – and, if necessary, relieve Mr. Kaley and Ms. Sarafa as well, even though they do not

appear on this Court’s docket in the case – and substitute the Federal Defenders as Mr. Guo’s

appellate counsel.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court grant the motion to relieve me,

as well as Mr. Kaley and Ms. Sarafa, as counsel for Mr. Guo on this appeal, and substitute the

Federal Defenders of New York as counsel for Mr. Guo.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief. 28 U.S.C. §1746. Executed August 5, 2026

/S/ Joshua L. Dratel

JOSHUA L. DRATEL