Epstein Secrets

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. Reim, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S.'. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WI, 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual dama

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

n. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Rain, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual damage

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) th

11, 2010); U.S. I. Remo, 2009 WI, 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)• U.S. Ferenc', 2009 WI. 2579102, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. IS, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). In each of these cases, the refere