Epstein Secrets

" Id. Any suggestion that the government's search here was "particularly offensive" due to the location and duration of the search runs counter to the Supreme Court's admonitions in Johns and Montoya de Hernandez. It also effectively requires the government to supply every port of entry with the equipment and st

v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir.2004), the government's failure to address the issue does not prejudice Cotterman. See also United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 103-04, 127 S.Ct. 782, 166 L.Ed.2d 591 (2007). III. THE BORDER SEARCH [5] [6] The broad contours of the scope of searches at our

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

015) 124 United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 146 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)

d. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures ... such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

d second, it must "enable[)" a defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quotingHamling, 418 U.S. at 117). "[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federal

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

2015) 124 United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 146 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

d second, it must "enable[]" a defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Handing, 418 U.S. at 117). "[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federa

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

2015) 124 United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 146 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)

. at 538-39. "[L]ess drastic measures . .. such as limiting instructions, 52 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

d second, it must "enable[]" a defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation mark omitted) (quoting Handing, 418 U.S. at 117). "[A]n indictment parroting the language of a federa

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

7) 208 United States v. Raymonda, 780 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2015) 87 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 101 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 150, 155 xviii EFTA00095085 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 42 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.

the counts would waste judicial resources by requiring a second trial at 53 While Zafiro involved a motion to sever defendants, rather than counts, the Supreme Court's construction of Rule 14(a) applies in either case. See Page, 657 F.3d at 129 (relying on Zafiro); United States v. Gracesqui, No. 10 Cr. 74 (PKC),

d second, it must "enable[]" a defendant "to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108 (2007) (internal quotation 150 EFTA00095242 mark omitted) (quoting Handing, 418 U.S. at 117). "[AJn indictment parroting the l

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

015) 124 United States v. Reeves, et al., 16 Cr. 372 (VEC) 286 United States v. Remington, 208 F.2d 567 (2d Cir. 1953) 146 United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) 227, 235 United States v. Ricco, 549 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1977) 61 United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105 (3d Cir. 1975)