the time has lapsed for them to petition for a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court. U.S. v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir.2010); U.S. v. Ayers, 386 Fed.Appx. 558 (6th Cir.2010); U.S. v. Dierker, 417 Fed.Appx. 515 (6th Cir.2011). What is left on appeal for Ayers, Faulkenberry, and Dierker are their amended sentences. That leaves Poulsen, whose conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit on August 25, 2011, such that he still has time to seek review by the Supreme Court. But the language of the policy makes clear that the type of finality espoused by the Principals — exhaustion of appellate review — is not required to trigger the dishonesty exclusion. Rather, the policy requires simply “a judgment or other fi 66, at **9-13 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v.
holding that the judgment or other final adjudication language of a dishonesty exclusion was satisfied by a criminal conviction holding that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding that guilty plea to crime of fraud satisfied judgment or final adjudication language of dishonesty exclusion