Epstein Secrets

entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005); Kenna v. U

n decision, this position appears to place the Department in violation of a binding court ruling that extends rights to thousands of crime victims in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. And more generally, the Depart- ment’s position simply has no grounding in the clear language of the CVRA. My first questio

Td. at *2. '2 Td. (However, ‘the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime.”” (quoting In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005))). '3 Of course, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution as part of his sentence until he has been found

that implementing such an approach would be difficult.*” Presumably the Justice Department has already been providing such rights in at least Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to comply with the Fifth 197 See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(b), (e) (2012). 198 A more substantial summary of the case is availabl

27, 2007). ' Td. at 2. at 2 Id. ("However, "the CVRA does not grant victims any rights against individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005))). (quoting Jn re 3 Of course, a defendant cannot be ordered to pay restitution as part of his sentence until he

that implementing such an approach would be difficult. 7° Presumably the Justice Department has already been providing such rights in at least Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi to comply with the Fifth [*95] Circuit's 2008 ruling in In Re Dean, which held that the CVRA extends rights to victims before defen