In response to the global economic turmoil that began in late 2007, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Act) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. This report focuses on the reforms in Title II of the Act, which are intended to mitigate risks posed by the failure of systemically important financial institutions. Title II directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of these institutions and report on its findings. The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (First Report), and its second report on July 17, 2012 (Second Report). The AOUSC now submits this third report in compliance with section 202(e). This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center.

This report presents the results of the Federal Judicial Center's retrospective process-descriptive study of judge-involved supervision programs for offenders in the federal courts. It is part of a larger research effort to investigate how programs modeled on state and local drug and reentry court programs operate in the federal system. This report does not evaluate these programs, but describes the population served, the services provided, and, through official data, how the participants fared when compared with a group of similar offenders who were not in a program.

This report was prepared for the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence. Under the current version of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), prior consistent statements are admissible for their substance as well as for their rehabilitation only if they rebut recent fabrication because they occurred before the fabrication motive. If a prior consistent statement is admissible for credibility but not admissible for substance, the opposing party is entitled to a jury instruction. Because of perceived difficulties with such an instruction, an amendment to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) was proposed to the Evidence Rules Committee. This paper reports the results of an FJC survey of district judges on matters related to the proposed amendment.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") asked the Federal Judicial Center to survey transferee judges in multidistrict litigation proceedings about their experiences in coordinating with state judges. The purpose of the survey was to provide the committee and the JPML with information to assist in the development of practical resources to facilitate coordination between federal and state parallel proceedings in complex litigation.