Document Mentions (4 shared documents)

EFTA00103380

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

03) 7 United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) 6 United States v. Salvagno, 314 F. Supp. 2d 115 (N.D.N.Y. 2004) 15 United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) 18 United States v. Stroh, No. 396 Cr. 139, 2000 WL 1832956 (D. Conn. Nov. 3, 20

d, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2010) 26 United States v. Benatar, No. 02 Cr. 099 (JO), 2002 WL 31410262 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2002) 26 United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) 28 United States v. Bohn, 330 F. Supp. 2d 960 (W.D. Tenn. 2004) 15 United States v

EFTA00078759

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

e defendant's offer to do so and the possibility that it might have some effect in the extradition proceeding."). 3 For example in United States v. Stanton, No. 91 CR 889 (CHS) 1992 WL 27139 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2002), the court observed: The government has been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service in

ovide refuge if in fact they are guilty of the offenses charged and chose to leave the jurisdiction of the United States."). 2 See United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 CR 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) ("[The Government argues that] the Swiss government will not recognize [defend

EFTA00089154

2 mentions1 same-page

Page ?Same page

missible in extradition proceedings in the United Kingdom, such a waiver is by no means binding, authoritative, or enforceable. See United States v. Stanton, No. 91 Cr. 889 (CHS), 1992 WL 27130, at *2 & n.1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 1992) (denying modification of defendant's bail where defendant indicated willi

immediately to the United States for arraignment, and that his country's Government committed to ensuring his appearance at trial); United States v. Bodmer, No. 03 Cr. 947 (SAS), 2004 WL 169790, at *1, *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2004) (setting conditions of bail where defendant arrested abroad had already c