Epstein Secrets

. Meanor, 442 U.S. 500, 508, 99 S.Ct. 2445, 61 L.Ed2d 80 (1979) (internal quota- tion marks omitted). Our case is not an interlocutory appeal, but the Supreme Court's cases in that field are instructive because they reinforce the narrowness of a defendant's ability to chal- lenge the Government's decision to purs

approved. Even assuming that irreparable harm is a factor that may the Government% authority to proceed with a prosecution, for example, the Su- preme Court has allowed those appeals only in very limited circumstances. For example, the Double if pardy Clause, see U.S. Cont. amend. ("Igor shall any pe

rturn a denial of concurring in part and dissenting in part). such relief. Id. We also keep in mind the In the case before us, the organizations' Supreme Court's admonition that any in- voter education and registration efforts are junction regarding government functions is unquestionably protected from unwar

y are more ap- propriately ft to state factfinders and be- cause the involve hypothetical circum- stances.. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED. LYNNE, District Judge, dissenting: In my opinion the discussion and affirm- ance of the district court's denial of an injunction are inappropriat

mage. This is a fraction of meritorious child pornography cases. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children testified that, in light of the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Ninth Circuit decision, prosecutors in various parts of the country have expressed concern about the continued viability of previ

ely unreasonable. While undertaking this calculus, we are not limited to considering only the factors expounded upon by the district court; as the Supreme Court has made clear Section 3553(arremains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will guide appel

. We hold only that a sentence of probation, without a single day in jail or any period of supervised release is an unreasonable one. VACATED and REMANDED. C.A.11,2008. U.S. I. Pugh F.3d --, 2008 WL 253040 (C.A.11 (Ala.)) 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00192140 Page I

re, .'s treatment records from the Parent-Child Center, Inc. and Dr. Serge Thys are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00182846 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009

nt. We express no opinion as to the ad- missibility of any statements made by Wood either before or after the breach of the contract. REVERSED and REMANDED. C.A.I I (Fla.),1986. U.S. v. Wood 780 F.2d 929 O 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Page 4 haps://web2.westlaw.com/pr