AUSA - taking questions

howell
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:58 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by howell » Sat Apr 21, 2018 5:39 pm

Thank you so much for doing this. You have provided a lot of helpful info.

I doubt there's a clear answer on this, but how are pay determinations made? It looks like you start with # of years out of law school, and that puts you in a band on the AD pay scale. But after that, is there a floor one could expect? I'm more interested in what I think are secondary markets, but experience in any market would be helpful. $50-60k ranges are pretty broad. Even a minimum of some kind (e.g., "Almost no one starts out below the 25th percentile.") would be helpful.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:45 pm

@ dc clerk: this is a really interesting question. Short answer is, as you suspected, this probably varies a lot by district, USA, and DOJ guidance. Longer answer: I have not seen people being forced to bring cases they don't believe in, but how far that goes is fact-specific. You have a fair amount of discretion, within constraints. You have to get approval to bring/decline a case, how to plead it, and for a sentencing recommendation really out of the ordinary. I personally have not found this constraining, but I don't have a problem deferring to authority and I haven't been in a position where I didn't have faith in that authority.

My experience is that USAOs don't have any interest in cases with serious proof issues so if you think a case is weak, you will get approval to decline (unless you're missing something). Getting approval to decline a case before indictment is much easier than dismissing after indictment. But if the case really goes south, you will generally get approval to offer a better deal to plead it out, or in drastic situations to dismiss.

So if you don't believe in a case in that you really don't think the proof is there, I would be very very surprised if you were forced to keep that case/take it to trial. I can't say it would never happen, depending on your supervisors/USA and the nature of the case. But it hasn't happened in my experience.

If you don't believe in prosecuting a given category of cases (like you don't agree with mandatory minimums in drug cases) that's going to be a lot tougher. Anecdotally I know of AUSAs who won't handle certain categories of cases, but you can't generally walk in your first day at a USAO and say "by the way, I won't prosecute X type of cases;" it's more about being somewhere for a while and carving out a niche for yourself where you can avoid the cases you don't want to do by filling up your caseload with more congenial one.

If you don't believe in a given case in that you think there's proof, and you don't have an issue with the kind of case in general, but you don't agree with prosecution in that particular case - something particularly sympathetic about the defendant or an issue with the agency - then you'd have to make your case to your boss. That's going to be super fact specific and will depend on the kind of case, your position in your office (what kind of social capital do you have built up?), what is your boss like, and what the current office/DOJ priorities are. Here the solution is more likely to be some kind of break in charging/sentencing than not prosecuting at all, though. (FWIW, I can think of only two cases where I wished I didn't have to prosecute someone, based on their individual situations, but they also really clearly committed the offenses and faced consequences regardless of my choices. I feel sympathy for lots and lots of defendants, but that's different from feeling badly about prosecuting them.)

In your case(s), the fact that the government took a case weak enough to lose a motion for acquittal suggests to me either that there is some kind of policy/directive to pursue a particular category of cases/defendants regardless of proof issues, to send a consistent message on a particular issue; or that particular AUSA/office missed issues that arose down the road. (Or possibly you're in DC or somewhere else where the USAO also plays the role of state prosecutor? Because IME talking to state prosecutors, it is much more common for state prosecutors to roll the dice on weak cases than it is for federal prosecutors, for a whole lot of reasons.)

I think a couple of things to keep in mind are: 1) the perspective from chambers really is different. You have more of a bird's-eye view and see both sides more objectively. So what looks like a weak case to you may not have looked that way to the AUSA when they were deciding whether to charge. 2) It sounds like you're looking at weak cases and assuming the AUSA was stuck with the case. It may be that the AUSA saw the weaknesses in the case but wanted to bring the case anyway, probably for reasons that won't show up in the pleadings (like: the defendant has been a chronic bad actor and it was worth a shot at getting them off the street; the office wants to try to support prosecutions in areas they haven't previously done, and need to start bringing the cases to see how the court will interpret a given statute/apply it to the situations they see arising in their district - those cases may start off by getting shot down but that will provide guidance on how to succeed going forward; agency buy-in).

FWIW, though, I know former state prosecutors who've said they felt they had more discretion in the state than they do in the federal system, I think mostly because of the close supervision over things like accepting/declining and plea agreements. My impression is that state prosecutors often have a lot of flexibility to be creative with pleas in a way that you don't in the federal system, and to dismiss cases; personally this doesn't bother me, probably mostly because I've never been in that position so don't know any benefits I'm missing, but I also think the close supervision reduces charging/sentencing disparities.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:15 pm

@ howell - I don't have a ton of info but fwiw, I haven't seen anyone start out below the 25th percentile. I hear that pay is at the discretion of the USA, although both offices I've worked in have paid me at exactly the same level (between 25th percentile and midpoint), and the few people whose pay I know are at the same percentile that I am. (When I talk about USA discretion, I mean how the office decides to allocate the funding it has to all its people - like having fewer people and paying them more vs. having more people and paying them less - rather than the USA deciding to start one person at a higher percentile than another. But I fully admit I'm mostly speculating based on rumors).

dc clerk

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by dc clerk » Sun Apr 22, 2018 8:07 am

Thank you so much--this is unbelievably helpful. It has been hard to find good information online about the job and I can't exactly talk to the AUSA's here while I'm working. Even just you walking through the steps of what you do with a case is exactly what I have been looking for.

A few more things:

How often and in what circumstances to AUSA's work with law enforcement (using that term broadly--if that's a term of art, I don't mean it) before an indictment? For example, does someone from your office ever confer with an investigator before an arrest? Are you ever part of the investigative process, or do you always just get a folder full of evidence that the investigating agency compiled?

Do you have any book recommendations for someone interested in federal prosecution? I read the Chickenshit Club and enjoyed it. So many of the books I find are about mass incarceration, racism, etc. and I'm more interested in books either (1) tailored to prosecutors and how they do the job, or (2) about prosecutors with an emphasis on legal stuff.

I am going to be doing civil defense litigation directly following my clerkship, and the offices I'd like to be in do not hire people directly out of law school / clerkship. Do you have any advice for what I could be doing professionally to either (1) increase my chances of getting hired, or (2) hone skills that would help me be an effective AUSA? I have entertained the thought of doing pro bono or CJA criminal defense stuff if my firm will allow it, but I'm not sure if that's a bad idea if I eventually want to be on the other side.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:45 am

We work with law enforcement ALL the time. That’s a huge part of the job. Depending on the office and kinds of cases it gets, you will still get a file full of evidence compiled by the agency after the fact, so to speak (a reactive case), where the crime has been completed and the defendant is known or in custody. You still work with law enforcement on those cases, but usually tracking things down that already exist. But you run investigations with agents ALL the time, and it’s a huge part of the job. Those investigations might be small and not take very long, or they might be huge and go for years, depending on your office and the kind of case and how much experience you have. Law enforcement are also often your primary witnesses at trial/other proceedings, so you work super closely with them in those contexts as well.

(An example: a colleague of mine recently retired after 30 years. At the retirement party 2 people from my office gave speeches, and then agents from about 7 different agencies.)

I actually don’t know of a lot of relevant books. One decent one is Convictions by John Kroger. I disagree with a fair amount of what he says and the second half of the book is more an advertisement for his run for local office than anything else, which got old. But the first part of the book about getting into the USAO and discussion of some of his cases was good.

Advice: get as much trial/courtroom experience as you can. Offices understand that people coming from biglaw don’t know the criminal side of things (very well), but really want to see court readiness (at least compared to other biglaw applicants - you’ll never beat an ADA on court experience but they have other hurdles to overcome). Doing pro bono or CJA stuff, to the extent you can, is totally great. I know a lot of former PDs who are AUSAs and I haven’t run into any office who’s reluctant to hire them, so don’t worry about being on the wrong side (it’s often seen as a good thing to be able to think like a defense lawyer). And offices know that criminal defense is one of the ways a civil litigator is going to get into court. At the very least be able to convince an office that this is what you really want, to be in court.

Also getting to know people with USAO experience is big. Ideally you will get to know someone who used to work in the office you’re applying for, but even if there’s no direct connection, having a reference who knows the job and can say they think you’d be good at it is very helpful.

WilliamFaulkner
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:35 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by WilliamFaulkner » Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:26 am

I am about to head to a T10 with a significant scholarship. What is a well-trodden path to get to where you are, and what advice would you give to a 0L?

User avatar
Rink
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:51 am

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Rink » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:37 pm

Do you have any thoughts about people transitioning in from local county prosecutor offices? I'm not sure I'd ever want to (currently my long-term goal is to work for a particular county after my current location), but I also know very little about the USAO. If you've seen it happen, how much experience do the people have when they come in? Would it be more likely coming from the state AG's office?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:12 am

This sort of answers both questions, I think -

Well-trodden path #1:
- clerk (district court is usually more useful than COA, even if the latter is more prestigious, unless you're going to try to push exclusively for appellate (but there are very very few of these positions))
- work for a biglaw firm for ~5 years and get as much court experience as you can (people frequently say do white-collar defense, which is probably helpful for some districts, but not necessary for all of them, and civil work with lots of pro bono court time might even be better than white collar and no court - at least in a lot of offices)
- get to know as many former AUSAs as you can
- apply anywhere and everywhere

Well-trodden path #2:
- work as a county/state prosecutor for like 3-7 years and get tons of felony trial experience (you could probably also work as a PD, actually)
- get to know AUSAs in your district
- apply for openings in that district

Keep in mind though that a given office tends to prefer one path over the other, and IME an office that hires state prosecutors will also hire some biglaw people, but an office that really likes biglaw credentials may not have much interest in hiring county/state people. This tends to be a function of office culture, nature of the caseload, and the preference of the USA.

For current students, I also think it's a really good idea to intern for a USAO while you're in law school - my sense is that a lot of offices like to see that, and I've even seen a number of people end up hired by offices they interned for. You still have to do all the rest of the stuff, interning doesn't guarantee anything, but especially in offices that value ties/local connections, it can help.

Rink, hiring of county prosecutors is really office specific. My former office did this a ton; my current office used to do this a lot but hasn't done it as much recently. Lore is that the big fancy district that borders my current office only hires out of biglaw, but I know they just hired an ADA who's done a ton of felony cases in an area they have a lot of issues with. I've also seen hiring out of the AG's office, again for particular areas (like money laundering stuff or health care fraud), but I haven't seen an absolute preference for the AG's office over county. A lot will depend on your experience and the USAO's needs. (E.g. if they're looking to replace a violent crimes AUSA who retired I could see a lot of offices going for a county prosecutor rather than a biglaw refugee.) But again, some hiring people will want only biglaw types.

TransferHopeful17
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2018 2:29 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by TransferHopeful17 » Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:23 am

First, thanks for doing this. It's great to get your insight.

Do you see much movement from Main Justice to USAOs? And does it come from some divisions as opposed to others? This doesn't fit either of the well-trodden paths you listed, so I am curious how rare that kind of path would be.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:50 am

Personally, I haven’t seen much movement from Main Justice to the USAO, although I have seen some. I think in part that’s because at my offices you’d be moving from DC to, well, let’s just call them less major metros, so unless you have ties to the area you’re maybe less likely to want to do that (Main Justice also pays better). I have seen it more the other way around, USAO —> more specialized work in the Criminal division in DC. But I know it’s possible (my former office hired a MJ person who did a detail there first, and I’ve run across some former MJ people at trainings). So IME it’s a less well-trodden path, but it may be much more common in other districts.

The movement I have seen has generally been from non-Criminal division to USAO, actually, but I haven’t seen enough of a pattern to identify typical outcomes.

Ausaapplicant

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Ausaapplicant » Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Have you seen anyone actually fail a background check? I know these kinds of questions can be annoying, with little certainty, just wondering if you’ve actually seen it go down.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Tue May 01, 2018 11:59 am

I haven’t seen any AUSAs fail. A legal assistant did fail, and I got the impression that if the writing is on the wall that that’s going to happen, they contact you to kind of give you a heads up and suggest that you might prefer to withdraw your application rather than be found to fail.

(I don’t know exactly what this person did to fail, but scuttlebutt was that she flat out lied about stuff.)

Ausaofferee

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Ausaofferee » Thu May 03, 2018 10:24 pm

So I’ve cleaned a bit from elsewhere in the thread, but I received a verbal offer and am now filling out the SF86. Any idea what I can expect? I probably have one of the more complex backgrounds (not failure worthy but things that might take some time—not sure if that’s now or during the 14 month). I’m looking for timing, I suppose, as well as when things will occur (ie after preliminary start or before). Fine if you don’t know, of course.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Thu May 03, 2018 11:33 pm

Congratulations!! (Curious about where you ended up...)

Once you submit the SF86, you will get contacted by someone for an interview (the interviewers are usually retired FBI agents) where they will ask you stuff about your background. If you have actual complications (like you have foreign family members) they will definitely ask you about those things. Otherwise I think they just ask you a lot of the questions again in person to have you affirm them personally (and probably make sure your answers are consistent). I think they asked me mostly about drug use and criminal convictions. (I don't have any, they just wanted me to say that out loud to another person. And it was really weird how when they start asking "are you SURE you never..." your brain goes all goofy and you start thinking, "I don't THINK I ever... but does this one thing count?? [that totally doesn't count]." They were super nice and non-intimidating but I got the tiniest glimpse of how people could give false confessions.)

You'll also get contacted about a drug test. You have a fairly short window of time to complete that for obvious reasons, I think 48 hours. They located a nearby facility to go to (some urgent care places do a side business in drug testing and you get to sit there with people whose jobs make them test every so often).

I think you have to get fingerprinted? I might be misremembering but I think that's the case.

You may well hear from employers/friends/family/etc about how this random FBI person contacted them about you. They contact LOTS of people. They contacted my 1L internship supervisor, for instance. They will try to talk to someone who can say you live where you live, but they're realistic about whether that will happen (I was hired from a clerkship in a city I moved to for the clerkship where I knew no one, I lived in a apartment and no one I knew had ever been there. Also the complex doesn't let the FBI come in to talk to neighbors about you. The FBI dude knew that from previous background checks and it wasn't an issue that I couldn't produce a neighbor to verify I lived there and wasn't, I don't know, building bombs on my balcony.)

That's about it. I'm not positive about the timing and what's done when, b/c getting hired through the honors program means you get hired in November for a job to start the following fall, so there's lots of time to get everything complete before you start. I was always told you had to pass the check before you could even get a start date, but have had someone insist that there's a preliminary required part and then the rest of it can be done after you're working (not sure I trust the source though). I'm 95% certain the drug test and interview at least have to happen before you start. I also have the impression that 8-12 weeks is a fair estimate for how long before you can start working, but it can vary depending on what's in your background. I know people have been delayed sometimes when it takes longer to track stuff down (again, usually this is foreign ties) so there is certainly some kind of hard requirement for before you can even start.

howell
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:58 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by howell » Fri May 04, 2018 8:46 am

AUSA anon wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 11:33 pm
I think you have to get fingerprinted? I might be misremembering but I think that's the case.
Yes, fingerprints should be involved. I just got designated as a SAUSA, and I had to do this, so I assume real AUSAs will have to do this too.

User avatar
Adso
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Adso » Sun May 06, 2018 4:28 pm

Are you familiar with the USAO in DC? If so, have you seen AUSAs starting in their Superior Court Division move on to the criminal divisions of other USAOs?

Guest

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Guest » Sun May 06, 2018 8:13 pm

Any insight on the timeline for AUSA spots posted on USAJobs? Like do they wait to review applicants on a rolling basis or do they wait for postings to close? I know some agencies do it differently.

I imagine it’d be really strange to hold off on reviewing applications for 1.5 months and let them just pile up?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Sun May 06, 2018 9:03 pm

Adso wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:28 pm
Are you familiar with the USAO in DC? If so, have you seen AUSAs starting in their Superior Court Division move on to the criminal divisions of other USAOs?
I know it has a different kind of caseload because of its role as the equivalent of state prosecution for DC, but I don't know a great deal about people moving from there to other offices. I think I've heard of people doing it/it's possible, and being part of the federal system is definitely useful - I would think you would present kind of like a local ADA but with a bit of an insider edge, where your experience in court is what's going to make you attractive. So a district that's all about the biglaw pedigree might not be as interested, depending on what kind of qualifications you had before you started. But I don't think you're precluded from anything at all and might have some advantage.
Guest wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 8:13 pm
Any insight on the timeline for AUSA spots posted on USAJobs? Like do they wait to review applicants on a rolling basis or do they wait for postings to close? I know some agencies do it differently.

I imagine it’d be really strange to hold off on reviewing applications for 1.5 months and let them just pile up?
Not sure why that would be strange - in every instance that I know of where there's a posted opening with a closing date, that's exactly what they've done. I don't think the system you use to apply even kicks the applications over to the office before the closing date (my experience has been that at/after the closing date you get an e-mail telling you that your application has been referred - or not, if you don't meet the basic qualifications - and then the office actually starts reviewing candidates; the application software/website stuff is all centralized and not controlled by individual offices, so when you hit submit the office you're applying to doesn't see it yet). It's not actually any easier to review things on a rolling basis because you forget what you read/what you were looking for - it's usually easier to sit down with a big stack and review them all at once (as practical - it takes longer than one sitting). I think, too, the office wants to look at an entire pool before making decisions - it's not like biglaw or clerkship hiring if they're hiring one person and they interview a person they like, they'll just hire them then and be done.

Of course there are offices who accept applications on a rolling basis and they would do things differently. But if there's a specific opening on USAjobs it's posted with a closing date, and they don't look at apps until the closing date (though they usually move fairly quickly thereafter).

Guest

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Guest » Mon May 07, 2018 1:37 pm

AUSA anon wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:03 pm
Adso wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 4:28 pm
Are you familiar with the USAO in DC? If so, have you seen AUSAs starting in their Superior Court Division move on to the criminal divisions of other USAOs?
I know it has a different kind of caseload because of its role as the equivalent of state prosecution for DC, but I don't know a great deal about people moving from there to other offices. I think I've heard of people doing it/it's possible, and being part of the federal system is definitely useful - I would think you would present kind of like a local ADA but with a bit of an insider edge, where your experience in court is what's going to make you attractive. So a district that's all about the biglaw pedigree might not be as interested, depending on what kind of qualifications you had before you started. But I don't think you're precluded from anything at all and might have some advantage.
Guest wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 8:13 pm
Any insight on the timeline for AUSA spots posted on USAJobs? Like do they wait to review applicants on a rolling basis or do they wait for postings to close? I know some agencies do it differently.

I imagine it’d be really strange to hold off on reviewing applications for 1.5 months and let them just pile up?
Not sure why that would be strange - in every instance that I know of where there's a posted opening with a closing date, that's exactly what they've done. I don't think the system you use to apply even kicks the applications over to the office before the closing date (my experience has been that at/after the closing date you get an e-mail telling you that your application has been referred - or not, if you don't meet the basic qualifications - and then the office actually starts reviewing candidates; the application software/website stuff is all centralized and not controlled by individual offices, so when you hit submit the office you're applying to doesn't see it yet). It's not actually any easier to review things on a rolling basis because you forget what you read/what you were looking for - it's usually easier to sit down with a big stack and review them all at once (as practical - it takes longer than one sitting). I think, too, the office wants to look at an entire pool before making decisions - it's not like biglaw or clerkship hiring if they're hiring one person and they interview a person they like, they'll just hire them then and be done.

Of course there are offices who accept applications on a rolling basis and they would do things differently. But if there's a specific opening on USAjobs it's posted with a closing date, and they don't look at apps until the closing date (though they usually move fairly quickly thereafter).
Darn. Well, I had hoped applying early might have my application reviewed sooner than the close date. I applied for the SDCA position on usajobs, but the vacancy is open for about 2 months. I imagine in that time they’ll get well over 1000 applications. That’s the norm, right? I can’t imagine there’s any way to destinguish myself from the heap of materials that’ll likely flood HR on the close date. Any advice other than submitting well-written application materials? FWIW, I’m at another federal agency currently not practicing criminal law, though I have a few years experience as a prosecutor in a huge metro ADA office.

angryhedgehog
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:19 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by angryhedgehog » Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:41 am

Thanks for taking questions OP -- the information here is really helpful.

In your opinion, which (type of) writing sample would be preferable, (a) opinion/bench memo from district court clerkship on a non-criminal law topic with more complex but primarily legal analysis, or (b) pretrial motion from practice from a run of the mill CJA guns and drugs case?

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am

I would say the motion - it's more like what you would be doing as an AUSA.

angryhedgehog
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:19 pm

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by angryhedgehog » Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:07 pm

AUSA anon wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
I would say the motion - it's more like what you would be doing as an AUSA.
Thanks for the quick reply OP!

User avatar
Rink
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:51 am

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by Rink » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:21 pm

We (very rural county with DA's office of 2 people and like 13 total law enforcement) just had a 4-hour visit from three AUSAs and an FBI agent telling us how much they would LOVE to take our gun/drug/trafficking cases off our hands for us. They've literally never accepted a case we've offered. Do you ever take local cases or is it really just if a local agency stumbles across a big trafficking ring or whatever?

Were AUSAs as a group embarrassed by the Bundy trial failures in OR and NV? Because that shit had real consequences out here in Rural America where those assholes are heroes to about half of the population and it kinda felt like the Feds went lol oh well.

AUSA anon

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by AUSA anon » Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:00 pm

My current office takes local cases ALL the time, but my previous office almost never did. Here, it’s part of a desire not to sit up in a silo isolated from what’s going on in the rest of the community we all live in, and to maintain good relationships with local prosecutors/law enforcement. But it’s also a function of having tons of local guns and drug cases so plenty are amenable to federal prosecution. Also the state and federal law enforcement agencies are all intertwined and work together on tons of stuff. So we don’t take, like, DUIs or simple drug possession, but we take plenty of gun and drug trafficking cases. Also CP.

My previous office had an overwhelming caseload of matters that were exclusively under federal jurisdiction, so had a different kind of mission and didn’t generally take state cases.

I haven’t actually heard any AUSAs ever talk about the Bundy stuff, except maybe a passing reference in national training. I followed the case a tiny bit but have no idea what really went wrong. My sense is that people don’t talk about it because ouch, that must have sucked for them, but I also don’t think anyone feels it reflects on other offices. I think most of the time the attitude is “there but for the grace of god,” unless someone actually has inside info showing how there were stupid mistakes that could have been avoided (I think most people have been in the position of having a case unravel, or have seen it at close range).

(That is just my personal opinion, though. I haven’t heard anything like “did you see what those boneheads in OR did!” but I can’t say no one had that reaction.)

JakeTapper
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:04 am

Re: AUSA - taking questions

Post by JakeTapper » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:13 pm

Do you recall how long the background check took after the FBI interview? Or any information re: where that would be in the process?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests