Epstein Secrets

ment deemed was a "reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) at * 2. The government announced to the court 29 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARR

tes v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the gra

ment deemed was a "reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) at * 2. The government announced to the court 29 EFTA00078863 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62

tes v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the gra

ment deemed was a "reasonable procedure to give effect to this chapter that does not unduly complicate or prolong the proceedings." United States v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) at " 2. The government announced to the court 29 EFTA00230094 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62

ates v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996Xquoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the gra