Judge Jonathan Hawley – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan Hawley has been tapped by the Biden Administration to replace Judge James Shadid, who will take senior status next month.

Background

A native of Central Illinois, Hawley was born in Peoria in 1971. He received a B.A. cum laude from the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1992 and a J.D. cum laude from DePaul University College of Law in 1997. Hawley then clerked for Judge Michael McCuskey on the Illinois Third District Appellate Court and then continued with McCuskey when the latter was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Hawley then clerked for Justice James Heiple on the Illinois Supreme Court.

Hawley subsequently joined the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Central District of Illinois.

In 2014, Hawley became a federal magistrate judge in the Central District of Illinois, where he still works.

History of the Seat

Hawley has been nominated for a future vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, which Judge James Shadid will vacate on September 27, 2024. On April 12, 2024, Illinois Senators Durbin and Duckworth recommended Hawley for the seat alongside state judges Katherine Legge and Christopher Doscotch and Assistant Public Defender Mohammad Ahmed . Hawley was nominated for the seat on July 3, 2024.

Legal Career

Before he became a judge, Hawley spent his entire legal career as an assistant federal public defender for the Central District of Illinois. Hawley rose to be Chief Public Defender with the office, in which capacity he represented the petitioner before the U.S. Supreme Court in a suit arguing that the Fair Sentencing Act, which reduced the disparity in penalties between powder and crack cocaine, applied to offenders who committed offenses before the effectiveness of the Act but were sentenced after. See Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (2012). The Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision. See id.

Hawley was also part of the legal team representing Benjamin Robers, arguing that the district court erred in awarding restitution in a mortgage fraud case based on the value lost by the bank from the sales of the properties rather than the value of the seizure of the properties. Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. 639 (2014). This time, the Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. See id.

Jurisprudence

Since 2014, Hawley has served as a magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. As a magistrate judge, Hawley writes reports and recommendations for district judges, supervises discovery disputes and settlements, and hears cases by consent of the parties.

Many of Hawley’s most notable cases arose from prisoner litigation alleging violations of their rights and/or negligence. In one case, Hawley found that prison doctors were not negligent in failing to diagnose a prisoner’s appendicitis, a decision affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. See Brown v. Osmundson, 38 F.4th 545 (7th Cir. 2022).

Among reversals Hawley has seen, the Seventh Circuit reversed his grant of summary judgment to a doctor who waited seven weeks to send a prisoner back to an orthopedic surgeon (the surgeon had previously recommended that the prisoner return after three weeks). See Zaya v. Sood, 836 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2016). In another case, the Seventh Circuit reversed Hawley’s dismissal of a prisoner’s lawsuit upon a finding that the prisoner’s submission included fraudulent statements. See Sanders v. Melvin, 25 F.4th 475 (7th Cir. 2022). The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the finding of fraud was clearly erroneous and that Hawley erred in failing to consider sanctions short of dismissal. See id. at 478.

Overall Assessment

During the confirmation process, Hawley may draw questions regarding some of his reversals as a Magistrate Judge. But, nonetheless, Hawley should be able to be confirmed if he avoids further controversy.

70 Comments

  2. Joe's avatar

    Lol. It is not worth taking that even remotely seriously. The work of the senate will continue.

    In most cases, the president isn’t even directly involved in these nominations. It’s largely up to home state senators and WH counsel staff. Biden is likely briefed on all the nominees before they go out, but he isn’t the one picking individual nominations with the exception of SCOTUS seats and maybe some of the Delaware seats.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Joe's avatar

    Speaking of Biden’s nominations, I think it’s worth taking to a moment to think about the remarkable job this WH has done. As of today, the senate has confirmed 205 nominees (1 SCOTUS, 43 appellate, 159 district plus the 2 international trade).

    There are 21 nominees on the floor ready for a vote plus 12 more than have been nominated. If you remove Kanter, Netburn, Shaw Wilder, and Jackson from consideration, that would mean the possibility for 234 confirmations by the end of the year if all are indeed confirmed.

    On top of that, there is the 3rd circuit seat plus 4 more district seats that are currently open. If Kanter and Netburn are withdrawn, that would mean the possibility for 7 more nominations that could be filled this year for a total of 241. This is assuming no new vacancies or new red state nominations.

    I think there will be a few more stressful confirmation votes (Mangi, Park, Campbell, and maybe a handful of district nominees) and probably not everyone will make it. But I think the odds of Biden surpassing Trump’s number of 234.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Jonathan Hawley was @Ethan’s pick from the start for this seat. He was my second pick but he is a solid pick & probably the most deserving. I was hoping Senator Hawley would be at the second panel of the SJC hearing Wednesday so we could see if he had any questions for a nominee with his namesake but most Republican senators skipped it after the contentious panel one with Ryan Park.

      Speaking of Hawley (The Senator not the nominee), that brings me back to my first choice for this seat. Mohammad Ahmed could still be considered for a seat in Missouri should VP Harris win the presidency. There are four vacancies in the state & it’s unlikely even Hawley (Again the senator not the nominee) & Schmidt will let that many current plus any future vacancies last for another four years. Perhaps a package deal can be worked out where Harris names a Republican to one of the seats who is to the left of Chad Meridth in exchange for filling all four seats, hopefully with one including Ahmed.

      This is the first White House race without a Biden, Clinton, Obama or Bush on the ticket since 1976. This is a true change election now. The video from Andrews Air Force Base last night with the prisoners returning underscores why elections matter. After Trump’s sh*t show interview in Chicago at the NABJ conference, I think there’s a real good shot Harris will win. That just leaves the senate which I now give Democrats a slightly better than 50% chance at holding. If the House passes the judges bill combined with a little luck with conservative judges leaving the bench for whatever reason, we could be looking at real balance in the judiciary by the end of 2028.

      As for the article urging a pause on Biden judicial nominees, I have one word for that… Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

      Liked by 3 people

  4. keystone's avatar

    Hawley’s hearing was kinda non existent. After Ryan Park, the senators cleared out for the second panel. I believe Kennedy was the only one who stuck around. He only chose to question the 2 women nominees and ignored the two male ones (one being Hawley and the other being the EDWI nom who miraculously got a RonJon sign off).

    As of right now, looks like a smooth confirmation. We will have to see if any concerns surface via the Senator’s post hearing follow ups.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Zack's avatar

    Don’t see any issues with this confirmation.
    Wanted to add one more thing on the Brindisi nomination, expect to see some of the issues litigated in his 2020 loss to Claudia Tenney to be brought up in the larger spectrum of non existent voting fraud/issues with machines, especially given the issues raised by his lawyer Marc Elias which in this case were valid ones but will be used to cast doubt on the validity of a Harris win.
    I fully expect there to be fireworks with his hearing and that he will be a party line vote in the lame duck session.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Zack's avatar

    On the judicial emergencies page, all four vacancies on the Eastern District of Missouri are now listed along with the ones in AK, several in LA etc.
    If Harris wins and we keep the Senate, the blue slip has got to go for all seats.

    Liked by 2 people

      • dawsont825's avatar

        Darn :/ but thank you for the information!

        I’ve never had that happen to me before on here. My only rationale is that my comment had a link in it, and maybe to protect the group/forum, Harsh doesn’t allow links from certain websites?? Idk

        @Dequan, you post writeups here from time to time, are you a moderator? Or does Harsh just give you permission to post the write-ups and that’s it?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea it usually only happens when it’s a link in it. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. Some links post with no issue. So whenever it happens we just say we got “Word Pressed”.

        No I am not a moderator here. Harsh asked me to do the write up for Amir Ali because he knows him personally & did not want a conflict of interest. I was honored he thought to ask me. Since it got such a positive reaction, he has asked me twice more to write the nominees articles. The judiciary is my passion so I’m honored anytime he ask me.

        He mentioned to me just last week he wants to get the “Judgepedia” up & running on here this year so for that I’ll probably be the main moderator. More to come on that.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. dawsont825's avatar

    Hey all, 

    I came across this article the other day, reliving all of Trump’s and McConnell’s ramming of CCA judges, and thought I would share it here and get all of y’all’s opinions. 

    The part of the article that really caught my attention was this part: 

    “The current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has said he will continue the blue slip policy for district court nominees, but not for circuit court nominees like Bianco or Park, since circuit courts represent multiple states. At present, none of the six Senators representing states within the Second Circuit (New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) are Republicans. Even this policy has not been followed strictly, as Andrew Brasher was confirmed to the Middle District of Alabama on May 1 despite Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) refusing to return a blue slip and voting no on his confirmation.” 

    If I can read and comprehend at all, I think a district court judge was confirmed with only one blue slip turned in from a home state senator (Sen. Turncoat… er, Sen. Shelby). So, by that same logic, couldn’t Sen. Durbin cite Brasher’s confirmation as reason he’s bypassing racist mee-maw Sen. Hyde-Smith or even Sen. Johnson’s blockade of Scott Colom and William Pocan, respectively?? 

    I’m not sure if the appointed senator from Alabama at the time (I think Luther Strange) turned in his blue slip with Sen. Shelby and then Doug Jones won the election, then subsequently refused to turn in his blue slip for him. With that said, I think there is a path forward to reforming blue slips to avoid unreasonable GOP senators blocking *all* moderate to liberal judges in their states. 

    With a new policy in place, Biden or a future Pres. Harris (please dear Lord) can bypass the more problematic senators (Sens. Johnson, Sullivan, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, Tuberville, Marshall, etc.,) and either work with the more reasonable ones (Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Moran, Cornyn, Britt, etc.,) or bypass them altogether. 

    Overall, I found it interesting that the GOP was able to hold a hearing on a nominee and confirm that nominee with only one blue slip turned in, so maybe there is hope. But with Durbin as the SJC Chairman, there is virtually no hope. Just more GOP faux outrage and letting unvetted campaign videos be shown in committee. Shameful 

    If there were ever a time for a coup d’etat that I support, it would be Whitehouse doing one on Durbin. A guy can dream…. 

    Like

  12. dawsont825's avatar

    Hey all, 

    I came across this article the other day, reliving all of Trump’s and McConnell’s ramming of CCA judges, and thought I would share it here and get all of y’all’s opinions. 

    The part of the article that really caught my attention was this part: 

    “The current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has said he will continue the blue slip policy for district court nominees, but not for circuit court nominees like Bianco or Park, since circuit courts represent multiple states. At present, none of the six Senators representing states within the Second Circuit (New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) are Republicans. Even this policy has not been followed strictly, as Andrew Brasher was confirmed to the Middle District of Alabama on May 1 despite Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) refusing to return a blue slip and voting no on his confirmation.” 

    If I can read and comprehend at all, I think a district court judge was confirmed with only one blue slip turned in from a home state senator (Sen. Turncoat… er, Sen. Shelby). So, by that same logic, couldn’t Sen. Durbin cite Brasher’s confirmation as reason he’s bypassing racist mee-maw Sen. Hyde-Smith or even Sen. Johnson’s blockade of Scott Colom and William Pocan, respectively?? 

    I’m not sure if the appointed senator from Alabama at the time (I think Luther Strange) turned in his blue slip with Sen. Shelby and then Doug Jones won the election, then subsequently refused to turn in his blue slip for him. With that said, I think there is a path forward to reforming blue slips to avoid unreasonable GOP senators blocking *all* moderate to liberal judges in their states. 

    With a new policy in place, Biden or a future Pres. Harris (please dear Lord) can bypass the more problematic senators (Sens. Johnson, Sullivan, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, Tuberville, Marshall, etc.,) and either work with the more reasonable ones (Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Moran, Cornyn, Britt, etc.,) or bypass them altogether. 

    Overall, I found it interesting that the GOP was able to hold a hearing on a nominee and confirm that nominee with only one blue slip turned in, so maybe there is hope. But with Durbin as the SJC Chairman, there is virtually no hope. Just more GOP faux outrage and letting unvetted campaign videos be shown in committee. Shameful 

    If there were ever a time for a coup d’etat that I support, it would be Whitehouse doing one on Durbin. A guy can dream…. 

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zack's avatar

    I also think in regard to district court blue slips that another issue is Manchin and Sinema would likely be a pain in the butt on confirming district court judges if the blue slip rule was ditched.
    IMO, I have no doubt that if Tillis is telling the truth on Ryan Park (and I still don’t trust him on that), they are the two Democratic senators he’s talking about.
    I just don’t see some of the Democratic senators who have come out or not against Mangi are going to do the same with Park.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Thomas's avatar

    I’m no fan of the Blue Slip and wouldn’t mind its abolishment. I’m also convinced, that a solution for filing judgeships in Red States with obstructionist senators have to be found. And that very soon.

    But I also wanted to note, that the perspective, that the Blue Slip is just a tool for senators to keep open seats vacant until there is a president from the own party, is not the entire one. As Lindsay Graham once said, it’s also important to have a word, when the president is from your own party. That explains the reclutance to abolish it from the Democratic side. And I also think, it’s not Dick Durbin alone, who determine that.

    So if you are from Scranton, Pennsylvania, you know a girl, you have not played in the sandbox with, as she’s a few years younger, and a boy you were at the same class in high school, and both would like to become federal judge in the area, and then the White House will tell you, that they nominate an upcoming liberal star from Fargo or Oklahoma City, because they never have the chance to become federal judge there, but they would surely move to the area, you are upset, but can do nothing, that is nothing you might like.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Anthony Myrlados's avatar

    Regarding Ryan Park: why is the White House continuing this charade of trying to get local Republican Senators to support their nominees? They don’t want ANY of your nominees confirmed. You want to know why? Because you two are on opposite sides of ideology. Republicans abolished the blue slips for circuit court nominees in 2018. They did that, not Joe Biden. Yet Biden continues to consult these 6th and 4th circuit Republican Senators. How do they respond? By lashing out, attacking his nominees, and lying about being consulted (when they don’t need to be consulted, and the White House is doing them a favor by asking for their advice). Stop trying to work with people who spit in your face when you take an extra step and consult them.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      To be fair, a lot of Republicans have been cooperative and endorsed good nominees. Deandra Benjamin (SC), Doris Pryor (IN), Dana Douglas (LA), Richard Federico (KS), and Cindy Chung (PA) were all fairly mainstream liberal nominees that we could’ve expected had the choice just been made by the White House or home state Reps. Even Joshua Kolar and Irma Ramirez were center left picks. With home state support all were confirmed fairly comfortably and without drama. The WH was right to get input in these cases because they got mostly good judges and got help in the senate

      The Tennessee senators as well as Rob Portman and Steve Daines all dug in their heels and they were rewarded with more liberal picks for their states. The flip side is that those confirmations were a lot more drawn out and difficult though.

      With Park, Kidd, and the two current Tennessee picks, I think the WH correctly realized that the home state senators weee never going to cooperate on a short time frame, so they just went ahead without giving them much thought.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jamie's avatar

        So I don’t know what went on with Portman TBH. He seems like a guy who would have cooperated in general. I don’t know if Brown just went to mat for Bloomekatz (who was his campaign attorney and close with his family). Bloomekatz could be at the top of the list for a SCOTUS nomination if Justice Kagan were to leave the bench with a Dem Senate.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Outside of Bloomekatz, Rob Portman was at least cooperative on district judges, four district seats in Ohio were filled in 2021/2022. I’m sure Hopkins was confirmed to the SDOH in the 2022 lame duck as Portman was heading for the exits and that Senator-elect (at the time) Vance was likely perceived as going to be far more difficult to work with on judicial nominees (I’m not sure if Vance put out a statement on Hopkins and if he did it was likely an “I’m not returning a blue slip on any nominee to the left of Alito” statement), and to get him confirmed while Portman was still a Senator and you still had the blue slips of two active Senators.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Frank's avatar

      The Trump administration did consult the Democratic senators, but neither them nor the Biden administration was under any obligation to abide to their wishes following the abolition of blue slips. Agree with Dequan though that the blue slip should be codified into law so that we can ensure a fair and representative judiciary for decades to come, and not have a hoard of partisan hacks being appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      Well yeah on Bloomekatz, but it’s surprising that Portman didn’t suggest someone less liberal that Biden would go with. The conclusion that makes sense to me is that Brown demanded Bloomekatz and just ran over Portman’s suggestions. It’s not that surprising, as Brown has been very liberal as a whole, only reluctantly moderating out of necessity in the past few years.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        There are certain circuit court seats where you can go with a consensus pick if it’s a purple or red state. But then there are certain states that have attorneys in them that you put on a circuit court the first chance you get.

        Rachel Bloomekatz in Ohio is one of those examples. You don’t pass up a nominee like her. I’ve guessed 9 of Biden’s circuit court picks & she was the easiest of the 9. She is straight out of central casting for the SCOTUS once put on a circuit court.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        Not saying you are wrong, and I’d put Ryan Park in the same category. Filling up the future SCOTUS shortlist is most important. As I said elsewhere, Bloomekatz is the best replacement for Kagan. But Portman would have been considered one of the more reasonable senators, and that seat would be one of them that is usually a consensus pick.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I have nothing against Alexandra Schimmer, & if there is another vacancy on the 6th for Ohio under a President Harris, I wouldn’t complain if she was the nominee. But you simply can’t pass up on Rachel Bloomekatz. If that means waiting a few more months & confirming her party line then so be it. And as you mentioned the same goes for Ryan Park.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        With JD as the senator there, there’s not going to be a consensus nominee. If there is Harris and a Democratic Senate, someone like Judge Carly Edelstein could get the nod in Ohio to replace Judge Karen Nelson Moore. There may be an issue with geography (Columbus having too many judges), but that matters less than it used to.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Jamie's avatar

    We seemed to conclude that there are few star nominees whom should be put on the circuit court by any means possible. Bloomekatz and Park are two of them.

    So who are your five top such nominees going forward? Let’s assume a Harris Presidency and a 50/50 Senate in 2025. They would have to be (a) confirmable, and (b) have serious SCOTUS potential. Bonus points if they are from a state with a GOP senator.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I guess your hypothetical is assuming Democrats maintain the majority. Otherwise the scenario is really null & void. Also I guess we are assuming the nominee wants to be a circuit court judge. I contacted Fred Smith when the vacancy on the NDGA opened up & encouraged him to apply but he gracefully said this isn’t the right time for him. So I will not include him despite him being in my personal top five.

      Assuming a Democrat majority, here are some of my must picks for circuit court vacancies;

      Deepak Gupta

      Scott Colom

      Deepak Gupta

      Nico Martinez

      Merritt McAlister

      Rochelle Mercedes Garza

      Melissa Murray

      Elizabeth Prelogar

      Ajmel Quereshi

      Allison Riggs (If she loses re-election to the SCOT-NC)

      Honorable mention for the following but I assume you wanted names of attorneys that aren’t current district court judges so I left them out.

      Dale Ho

      Monica Ramirez Almadani

      Jamal Whitehead

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Jaime

        Oh my bad. I’m traveling & just opened the post but didn’t scroll down to see the part about 50/50 senate. Yea in that case I agree Garza or Murray probably aren’t confirmable. Although I would add one caveat.

        A Harris 50/50 senate wouldn’t include Manchin or Sinema so nor would it include Democrat senators from Montana or Ohio running for reelection. So I wouldn’t completely rule it out. And to be honest if it’s the first year of a Harris administration it might be worth a shot if the nominees are a once in a generation type.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I just realized Deepak Gupta’s name was written twice. I meant to write Andrew Manuel Crespo the first time I wrote his name. So my list was…

        Scott Colom

        Andrew Manuel Crespo

        Deepak Gupta 

        Nico Martinez

        Merritt McAlister

        Rochelle Mercedes Garza

        Melissa Murray

        Elizabeth Prelogar

        Ajmel Quereshi

        Allison Riggs (If she loses re-election to the SCOT-NC)

        Like

  19. shawnee68's avatar

    @Dequan

    No, we don’t need law professors. We need people who actually practice law.

    A college campus is the last place we need to look for judges. They have too much baggage that is risky for red or purple state Democrats.

    You can achieve the desired results by selecting prospective judges with real life experience.

    That stuff they do on elite college campuses is foreign to the average American.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think the judiciary is better served when it is representative of the country. Only nominating judges from the same talent pool isn’t what I think is overall what is best for the judiciary. Now I wouldn’t say a large amount of judicial nominees should be law professors, but I do think we need some.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Louis Brandeis was a phenomenal Supreme Court justice. I don’t agree just because somebody decided to take their career in another direction to be a law professor instead of working for a big law firm or US Attorney, that means they won’t be a good judge. I think law professors such as John Rappaport, Jennifer Nou & the aforementioned Fred Smith would be talented judges.

        While I’m certainly no fan of Trump judges, I would say out of his 54 circuit court judges, Stephanos Bibas might be his finest pick. He was mostly a law professor prior. Reducing the talent pool by eliminating law professors would be a mistake.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Lot’s of people on here make judgments about people who choose to be a prosecutor. Of course there have been people like William Fletcher 9th Circuit -Civil Procedure professor at Berkeley and Guido Calabrese Torts ay Yale who are fine judges.

        I prefer the approach that Biden has chosen which is more public defenders on the appellate and district courts. That’s my preference.

        However, there are many law professors who have law degrees but who are not lawyers. That’s different than someone like Toby Heytens 4th Circuit who has actually practiced law.

        There’s lot of minefields when you get outside of customary law school education like (I hate to say this ) Critical Race Theory. I think it’s great but people go nuts and it’s easy to mischaracterize an academic’s intent in that area of study.

        So, perhaps it’s better to look at people who are actively working in the courts and not solely in academia.

        Liked by 1 person

      • JJ28's avatar

        And to @Dequan’s point, regardless of whether or not one personally likes Justice Kagan’s jurisprudence, let’s not forget she never served as a judge prior to being appointed to SCOTUS. Obviously, she was previously nominated to an appellate court, but never received a hearing, and spent all of her career in academia and in government. I consider her wholly qualified and as bringing a worthy perspective to the bench. I agree that too many judges with this background is too many, but it should not be a hindrance to a nomination either in my opinion.

        Liked by 1 person

  20. lilee2122's avatar

    So, four judicial emergencies in Missouri…The MO senators are not doing good by their residents. ..When Harris wins , the senators may well wish they had made the judicial appts with Biden..I can’t imagine Missouri going 4 more years lacking judges for these people….

    Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      It’s honestly pretty easy to imagine that, and at least there’s only one more senior-eligible judge on the court. With that said, despite McConnell leaving a ton of vacancies for Trump to fill, Obama managed to get GOP blue slips in his second term for 38/42 judgeships that opened before 2013. Of course, the worst Obama was dealing with were Paul, McConnell, Inhofe, Coburn, Cruz, Lee, and Johnson, while Harris would have 20-odd obstructionists of that caliber. The only seats he didn’t fill were a circuit and district seat in TX, a circuit seat in WI, and a district seat in NC that had been in conflict since 2005.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to dawsont825 Cancel reply