State Bar Court of California

Hearing Department

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING

ACTUAL SUSPENSION

Case Number(s): 12-O-17976

In the Matter of: VICTOR DIAZ MIRELES, Bar # 249298, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).

Counsel For The State Bar: R. Kevin Bucher, Bar #132003,

Counsel for Respondent: Victor Diaz Mireles, Bar #249298,

Submitted to: Settlement Judge.

Filed: July 10, 2013.

<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED

Note:  All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.

A.  Parties' Acknowledgments:

1.    Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 1, 2007.

2.    The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.

3.    All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals."  The stipulation consists of 11 pages, not including the order.

4.    A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."

5.    Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".

6.    The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."

7.    No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.

8.    Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):

<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.

checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: three billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order.  (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.)  If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.

<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".

<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.

B.  Aggravating Circumstances [for definition, see Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct, standard 1.2(b)]. Facts supporting aggravating circumstances are required.

checked. (1) Prior record of discipline [see standard 1.2(f)]

checked. (a)                  State Bar Court case # of prior case 09-O-16936, 09-O-16272, 11-O-10128(Inv.).
checked. (b)                  Date prior discipline effective December 2, 2011.
checked. (c)                  Rules of Professional Conduct/ State Bar Act violations: Rules of Professional Conduct, rules 3-110(A) [failure to perform with competence, two counts], 3-700(D)(2) [failure to promptly return unearned advanced fees, one count], and 4-100(a) [failure to deposit client funds in a trust account, one count]. See attachment, page 8.
checked. (d)                  Degree of prior discipline Two years’ suspension, stayed, two years of probation, and actual suspension of 15 months and until a showing of proof of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c) (ii).
<<not>> checked. (e)    If Respondent has two or more incidents of prior discipline, use space provided below. .

<<not>> checked. (2) Dishonesty:  Respondent's misconduct was surrounded by or followed by bad faith, dishonesty, concealment, overreaching or other violations of the State Bar Act or Rules of Professional Conduct.

<<not>> checked. (3) Trust Violation:  Trust funds or property were involved and Respondent refused or was unable to account to the client or person who was the object of the misconduct for improper conduct toward said funds or property.

<<not>> checked. (4) Harm:  Respondent's misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

<<not>> checked. (5) Indifference:  Respondent demonstrated indifference toward rectification of or atonement for the consequences of his or her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (6) Lack of Cooperation:  Respondent displayed a lack of candor and cooperation to victims of his/her misconduct or to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation or proceedings. 

checked. (7) Multiple/Pattern of Misconduct:  Respondent's current misconduct evidences multiple acts of wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct. See attachment, page 8.

<<not>> checked. (8) No aggravating circumstances are involved.

Additional aggravating circumstances: .

C.  Mitigating Circumstances [see standard 1.2(e)]. Facts supporting mitigating circumstances are required.

<<not>> checked. (1)    No Prior Discipline:  Respondent has no prior record of discipline over many years of practice coupled with present misconduct which is not deemed serious.

<<not>> checked. (2)    No Harm:  Respondent did not harm the client or person who was the object of the misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (3)    Candor/Cooperation:  Respondent displayed spontaneous candor and cooperation with the victims of his/her misconduct and to the State Bar during disciplinary investigation and proceedings. 

<<not>> checked. (4)    Remorse:  Respondent promptly took objective steps spontaneously demonstrating remorse and recognition of the wrongdoing, which steps were designed to timely atone for any consequences of his/her misconduct. 

<<not>> checked. (5)    Restitution:  Respondent paid $   on   in restitution to   without the threat or force of disciplinary, civil or criminal proceedings.

<<not>> checked. (6)    Delay:  These disciplinary proceedings were excessively delayed.  The delay is not attributable to Respondent and the delay prejudiced him/her.

<<not>> checked. (7)    Good Faith:  Respondent acted in good faith.

<<not>> checked. (8)    Emotional/Physical Difficulties:  At the time of the stipulated act or acts of professional misconduct Respondent suffered extreme emotional difficulties or physical disabilities which expert testimony would establish was directly responsible for the misconduct.  The difficulties or disabilities were not the product of any illegal conduct by the member, such as illegal drug or substance abuse, and Respondent no longer suffers from such difficulties or disabilities.

<<not>> checked. (9)    Severe Financial Stress:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered from severe financial stress which resulted from circumstances not reasonably foreseeable or which were beyond his/her control and which were directly responsible for the misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (10) Family Problems:  At the time of the misconduct, Respondent suffered extreme difficulties in his/her personal life which were other than emotional or physical in nature.

<<not>> checked. (11) Good Character:  Respondent's good character is attested to by a wide range of references in the legal and general communities who are aware of the full extent of his/her misconduct.

<<not>> checked. (12) Rehabilitation:  Considerable time has passed since the acts of professional misconduct occurred followed by convincing proof of subsequent rehabilitation.

<<not>> checked. (13) No mitigating circumstances are involved.

Additional mitigating circumstances: See attachment, page 8.  

D. Discipline:

checked. (1)           Stayed Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years.
<<not>> checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii) Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .
checked. (b) The above-referenced suspension is stayed.

checked. (2) Probation:  Respondent must be placed on probation for a period of , which will commence upon the effective date of the Supreme Court order in this matter.  (See rule 9.18, California Rules of Court.)

checked. (3) Actual Suspension:

checked. (a) Respondent must be actually suspended from the practice of law in the State of California for a period of two years.
checked. i. and until Respondent shows proof satisfactory to the State Bar Court of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct
<<not>> checked. ii. and until Respondent pays restitution as set forth in the Financial Conditions form attached to this stipulation.
<<not>> checked. iii. and until Respondent does the following: .

E.  Additional Conditions of Probation:

<<not>> checked. (1)   If Respondent is actually suspended for two years or more, he/she must remain actually suspended until he/she proves to the State Bar Court his/her rehabilitation, fitness to practice, and learning and ability in the general law, pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii), Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.

checked. (2)                  During the probation period, Respondent must comply with the provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.

checked. (3)                  Within ten (10) days of any change, Respondent must report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar and to the Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Office of Probation"), all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code.

checked. (4)                  Within thirty (30) days from the effective date of discipline, Respondent must contact the Office of Probation and schedule a meeting with Respondent's assigned probation deputy to discuss these terms and conditions of probation. Upon the direction of the Office of Probation, Respondent must meet with the probation deputy either in-person or by telephone. During the period of probation, Respondent must promptly meet with the probation deputy as directed and upon request.

checked. (5)                  Respondent must submit written quarterly reports to the Office of Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the period of probation. Under penalty of perjury, Respondent must state whether Respondent has complied with the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter. Respondent must also state whether there are any proceedings pending against him or her in the State Bar Court and if so, the case number and current status of that proceeding. If the first report would cover less than 30 days, that report must be submitted on the next quarter date, and cover the extended period.
In addition to all quarterly reports, a final report, containing the same information, is due no earlier than twenty (20) days before the last day of the period of probation and no later than the last day of probation.

<<not>> checked. (6)   Respondent must be assigned a probation monitor. Respondent must promptly review the terms and conditions of probation with the probation monitor to establish a manner and schedule of compliance. During the period of probation, Respondent must furnish to the monitor such reports as may be requested, in addition to the quarterly reports required to be submitted to the Office of Probation. Respondent must cooperate fully with the probation monitor.

checked. (7)                  Subject to assertion of applicable privileges, Respondent must answer fully, promptly and truthfully any inquiries of the Office of Probation and any probation monitor assigned under these conditions which are directed to Respondent personally or in writing relating to whether Respondent is complying or has complied with the probation conditions.

<<not>> checked. (8)   Within one (1) year of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent must provide to the Office of Probation satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session.
checked.
No Ethics School recommended.  Reason: Respondent attended a session of Ethics School, and passed the test given at the end, on March 21, 2013, as a condition of his probation in his prior discipline in case no. 09-O-16936.

<<not>> checked. (9)   Respondent must comply with all conditions of probation imposed in the underlying criminal matter and must so declare under penalty of perjury in conjunction with any quarterly report to be filed with the Office of Probation.

<<not>> checked. (10) The following conditions are attached hereto and incorporated:

<<not>> checked. Substance Abuse Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Law Office Management Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Medical Conditions.
<<not>> checked. Financial Conditions.

F.   Other Conditions Negotiated by the Parties:

checked. (1)                  Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination:  Respondent must provide proof of passage of the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, to the Office of Probation during the period of actual suspension or within one year, whichever period is longer.  Failure to pass the MPRE results in actual suspension without further hearing until passage. But see rule 9.10(b), California Rules of Court, and rule 5.162(A) & (E), Rules of Procedure.
<<not>> checked. No MPRE recommended.  Reason: .

checked. (2)                  Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  Respondent must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 30 and 40 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (3)   Conditional Rule 9.20, California Rules of Court:  If Respondent remains actually suspended for 90 days or more, he/she must comply with the requirements of rule 9.20, California Rules of Court, and perform the acts specified in subdivisions (a) and (c) of that rule within 120 and 130 calendar days, respectively, after the effective date of the Supreme Court's Order in this matter.

<<not>> checked. (4)   Credit for Interim Suspension [conviction referral cases only]:  Respondent will be credited for the period of his/her interim suspension toward the stipulated period of actual suspension. Date of commencement of interim suspension: .

checked. (5)                  Other Conditions: Respondent was ordered to take the MPRE as a condition of his prior discipline in case no. 09-O-16936. Taking and passing the examination in fulfillment of that order prior to the effective date of discipline in the present matter shall be deemed to satisfy the MPRE condition set forth in this stipulation.

Attachment language (if any):.

ATTACHMENT TO

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION

IN THE MATTER OF: VICTOR DIAZ MIRELES, State Bar No.  249298

STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-O-17976

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified statutes and/or Rules of Professional Conduct.

Case No. 12-O-17976 (State Bar Investigation)

FACTS:

1. By order entered on November 2, 2011, and effective December 2, 2011, based on a stipulation between Respondent and the State Bar of California, the Supreme Court of California suspended Respondent from the practice of law for 15 months, and placed him on a disciplinary probation with terms and conditions in effect for two years. The Supreme Court served the order on the date it was entered and Respondent received a copy of the order.

2. On December 1, 2011, a probation deputy in the State Bar’s Office of Probation sent a letter to Respondent, reminding him of the terms of his disciplinary probation. On December 15, 2011, Respondent met with the probation deputy, who again explained to him the terms of his disciplinary probation.

3. The Supreme Court order required that Respondent comply with the terms and conditions of his probation, including:

a) Respondent was required to submit to the State Bar’s Office of Probation a report for each calendar quarter during the probationary period, not later than ten days following the end of the calendar quarter, i.e., by each January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of the probationary period;

b) Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of the discipline, satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar’s Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session;

c) Respondent was required to provide to the Office of Probation within one year of the effective date of the discipline, satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar’s Client Trust Accounting School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session;

d) Respondent was required to comply with all provisions and conditions of Respondent’s Participation Agreement with the Lawyer Assistance Program ("LAP") unless Respondent terminated from LAP prior to his successful completion of the program, including requesting LAP to provide quarterly reports to the office of probation;

e) Respondent was required to obtain psychiatric or psychological treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker not less than two times per month, and to furnish proof of compliance with each quarterly probation report.

4. Respondent submitted his first quarterly probation report on May 14, 2012, over one month late. Respondent submitted his second quarterly report on July 12, 2012, two days late, and his third quarterly report on October 12, 2012, two days late.

5. Respondent did not provide to the Office of Probation, within one year of the effective date of the discipline, satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar’s Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. He did, however, attend Ethics School on March 21, 2013, over three months late.

6. Respondent did not provide to the Office of Probation, within one year of the effective date of the discipline, satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of the State Bar’s Client Trust Accounting School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. He did, however, attend Client Trust Accounting School on March 22, 2013, over three months late.

7. LAP reported to the Office of Probation that Respondent did not comply with all provisions and conditions of Respondent’s Participation Agreement with the Lawyer Assistance Program ("LAP") Due to privacy concerns, LAP did not specify the nature of the failure to comply in their reports to the Office of Probation.

8. In order to fulfill the LAP conditions of his probation, Respondent was required to request that LAP submit quarterly reports to the Office of Probation. Respondent requested the reports due April 10, 2012, July 10, 2012 and October 12, 2012 late, and therefore LAP did not provide the first two reports to the Office of Probation until August 2, 2012, and the third report on October 10, 2012.

9. Respondent did obtain psychiatric or psychological treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker two times per month, but did not furnish proof of the treatments with any quarterly probation report that he submitted. His psychological and psychiatric providers did, however, provide periodic reports indicating Respondent was receiving treatment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

10. By failing to timely submit his first three required quarterly probation reports, by failing to timely complete Ethics School and Client Trust Accounting School, by failing to comply with LAP conditions, by failing to timely request that LAP submit reports to the Office of Probation on a quarterly basis, and by failing to furnish proof of psychological and psychiatric treatment with each quarterly probation report, Respondent failed to comply with all conditions attached to his disciplinary probation, in willful violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Prior Record of Discipline (Std. 1.2(b)(i)): Respondent has a prior record of discipline in three separate client matters for misconduct occurring between September 2008 and August 2009, involving failures to perform with competence, failure to refund unearned advanced fees, and failure to deposit funds into a client trust account. He received a two-year stayed suspension, two years of probation, and actual suspension of 15 months and until a showing of proof of rehabilitation and present fitness to practice and present learning and ability in the law pursuant to standard 1.4(c)(ii)., effective December 2, 2011.

Multiple Acts of Misconduct (Std. 1.2(b)(ii)): In the present matter Respondent has violated multiple conditions of his probation.

ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

Pre-filing stipulation: Respondent is entitled to mitigation for entering into a full stipulation with the Office of Chief Trial Counsel prior to the filing of charges, thereby saving State Bar Court time and resources. (See Silva-Vidor v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1071, 1079 [where mitigative credit was given for entering into a stipulation as to facts and culpability].)

AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.

The Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct provide a "process of fixing discipline" pursuant to a set of written principles to "better discharge the purposes of attorney discipline as announced by the Supreme Court." (Rules Proc. of State Bar, tit. IV, Stds. for Atty. Sanctions for Prof. Misconduct, Introduction (all further references to standards are to this source).) The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings and of the sanctions imposed are "the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession." (In re Morse (1995) 11 Cal.4th 184, 205; std. 1.3.)

Although not binding, the standards are entitled to "great weight" and should be followed "whenever possible" in determining level of discipline. (In re Silverton (2005) 36 Cal.4th 81, 92, quoting In re Brown (1995) 12 Cal.4th 205, 220 and In re Young (1989) 49 Cal.3d 257,267, fn. 11.) Adherence to the standards in the great majority of cases serves the valuable purpose of eliminating disparity and assuring consistency, that is, the imposition of similar attorney discipline for instances of similar attorney misconduct. (In re Naney (1990) 51 Cal.3d 186, 190.) Any discipline recommendation different from that set forth in the applicable standards should clearly explain the reasons for the deviation. (Blair v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 762, 776, fn. 5.)

Respondent repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of his disciplinary probation. Standard 2.6 provides that culpability of a member of a violation Business and Professions Code 6068(k) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending on the gravity of the offense or harm, if any, to the victim, with due regard to the purposes of imposing discipline set forth in standard 1.3. In the present case, given Respondent’s repeated and multiple acts of misconduct, his prior discipline including actual and stayed suspension, and lack of substantial mitigation, actual suspension for the present misconduct is appropriate.

Standard 1.7(a), provides if a member is found culpable of professional misconduct in any proceeding in which discipline may be imposed and the member has a record of one prior imposition of discipline, the degree of discipline imposed in the current proceeding shall be greater than that imposed in the prior proceeding unless the prior discipline was so remote in time to the current proceeding and the offense for which it was imposed was so minimal that imposing greater discipline in the current proceeding would be manifestly unjust.

The stipulated level of discipline is consistent with standards 2.6 and 1.7(a). In the present case, Respondent has violated multiple terms of his probation. He has failed to comply with LAP, and he has failed to comply with the terms of his probation regarding psychological and psychiatric treatment designed specifically for the purposes of rehabilitation. His prior actual suspension could have expired as early as March 2, 2013, but he remains suspended until he can prove his fitness to practice law pursuant to Standard 1.4(c)(ii).

The recommended discipline of three years’ stayed suspension, with three years of probation and two years’ actual suspension, is appropriate to the gravity of the offense and is adequate to protect the public, the courts and the legal profession.

COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of March 22, 2013, the prosecution costs in this matter are $2,865.00. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.

SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES

Case Number(s): 12-O-17976

In the Matter of: VICTOR DIAZ MIRELES

By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.

Signed by:

Respondent: VICTOR DIAZ MIRELES

Date: 6/15/13

Respondent’s Counsel:

Date:

Deputy Trial Counsel: R. Kevin Bucher

Date: 6/24/13

ACTUAL SUSPENSION ORDER

Case Number(s): 12-O-17976

In the Matter of: VICTOR DIAZ MIRELES

Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:

checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.

<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.

The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)

Signed by:

Judge of the State Bar Court: George E. Scott, Judge Pro Tem

Date: 7/9/13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]

I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of Los Angeles, on July 10, 2013, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):

STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND

ORDER APPROVING

in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:

checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:

 VICTOR D. MIRELES

10842 LAMENTIN CT.

SAN DIEGO, CA 92124

<<not>> checked. by certified mail, No. , with return receipt requested, through the United States Postal Service at , California, addressed as follows:

<<not>> checked. by overnight mail at , California, addressed as follows:

<<not>> checked. by fax transmission, at fax number . No error was reported by the fax machine that I used.

<<not>> checked. By personal service by leaving the documents in a sealed envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or a person having charge of the attorney’s office, addressed as follows:

checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:

Ronald K. Bucher, Enforcement, Los Angeles

I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on July 10, 2013.

Signed by:

Julie Gonzales

Case Administrator

State Bar Court