Epstein Secrets

S.Ct. 962, 85 LEd. 4416, and Douglas I. City of Jeannette, supra. 01 We think a more likely explanation of the use of this phrase is that the Su- preme Court had in mind such cases as Hague v. C. I. 0., supra, in which it ap- peared that plaintiffs seeking to hold peace- ful meetings and to distribute lit

ate act. For this he was adjudged by the Circuit Court to be in contempt, and put in custody of the United States marshal. Thereupon he applied to the Supreme Court for leave to file a petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, which the court denied. The act was held to be unconstitutional because, am

als. II. IL 21 Generally, we review a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Noriega, 117 FM 1206, 1211 (11th Cir.1997), cat denied 523 U.S. 1060, 118 S.Ct. 1389, 140 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). When the motion to dismiss the indictment c

s claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

ccess creates a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States" Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. 696 F.2d at

led that the term "conviction" in § 4B1.5(a) was ambiguous. The court noted that the it term is not defined in § 4B1.5(a), relying on nguage from the Supreme Court's decision in Deal United States. 508 U.S. 129, 131-32, 113 S.Ct. 1 3, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993) ("It is certainly correct that the word 'conviction' c

gh there are certainly some similarities between this case and DeWitt, we believe that the in- stant case is controlled by our decision in Martinez- Noriega. In Martinez-Noriega, the plea agreement •864 stipulated that the defendant's base offense level was 20, pursuant to § 2D1.1. 418 F.3d at 810. The

s claim that would entitle him to relief." Id, (abrogating and quoting Conley I. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The Supreme Court rejected the notion that "a wholly conclusory statement of claim [can] survive a motion to dismiss whenever the pleadings le[ave] open the possibili

access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. Ma 696 F.2d