Epstein Secrets

t will adequately pro- tect and secure for the defendant the ben- efit of his bargain under the nonprosecu- tion agreement if he is entitled to it." Bailey, 34 F.3d at 691; see Bird, 709 F.2d at 392 (same). Here, Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield may interpose the Agreement (as a defense to conviction) in

ea immunity from prosecution, but to provide him with a shield against successful prose- cution, available to him as a defense"); United States v. Bailey, 34 F.3d 683, 690- 91 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that an agree- ment "not to prosecute" protected the de- fendant from "the inherent risk of convic- tio

is ca- pacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County, et aL, Defendants- Appellees. Nos. 82-4427, 83-2581. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1984. Decided Sept. 3, 1986. Citizen and organizations promoting voting rights of Americans with ethnic backgrou

t- ing that the underlying conduct that 2422(b) criminalizes is the persuasion of the minor, rather than the sexual act it- self); United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir2000) (observing that "Congress has made a clear choice to crim- inalize persuasion and the attempt to per- suade, not t

ward Raymond EGE, Joseph Boyd and Joseph Victor luio, Appellants, UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 14955. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit April 1, 1957. Rehearing Denied May 15, 1957. One defendant was convicted of transporting woman front California to Arizona for purposes of pros

th Cir.2 ); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 227-29 (11th ir.2002); United States Farner, 251 F.3di 510, 513 (5th Cir.200 ; United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.2000). Page 7 *782 [1] To convict under § 2422(b). the Government must prove the following elements beyond a reasona

Robert W. Ware, United States Marshal for the Southern District of California, Appel. ken. Mime. Nos. 895, 596. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Nov. 5, 1958. Accused, who had been indicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for alleged- t mailing cir

to do so," criminalizes both the enticement and the attempted enticement, but not the ac performance of the sexual activity. United States"! Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.2000) (intent to commit the sexual act is not required to prove attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activi

y Op. Serv. 11,330, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,672 (Cite as: 504 F.3d 737) H U.S. Sinerius C.A.9 (Mont.),2007. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Emil SINERIUS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-30327. Argued and Submitted March 9, 20

00179125 omitted). However, the act of production privilege applies only if the production would be "testimonial" and "incriminating." Butcher v. Bailey, 753 F.2d 465, 469 (6th Cir 1985) (citing United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612-13 (1984)). Production of documents may be testimonial in any of

pkeeper, and the trial court had allowed that evidence to be admitted at trial over the defendant's assertion of the attorney-client privilege. The Ninth Circuit wrote that once the attorney made the strategic choice to take possession of the evidence—a step which was not necessary to evaluate the significanc