Epstein Secrets

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

of Confinement 29 CONCLUSION 33 EFTA00103381 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Jackson v. Goon!, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433 (D.N.J. 2007) 19 United States v. Banki, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010), aff'd, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

al. See, e.g., United States v. Namer, 238 F.3d 425, 2000 WL 1872012, at •2 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000); Chins, 2013 WL 3802012 at *2; United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433, 443 (D.N.J. 2007) ("The inability to extradite defendant should he flee weighs in favor of detention."). Beyond being imposs

ng United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), and United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), as "not on point and not persuasive," and distinguished the defendant for a number of reasons, including the

u 6443111 JBE2 1 F I i t 8.255B3Reg EFISSeat 35 56 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Jackson v. Goon!, 664 F. Supp. 2d 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 27 United States v. Abdullahu, 488 F. Supp. 2d 433 (D.N.J. 2007) 19 United States v. Bank!, 10 Cr. 008 (JFK), Dkt. 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2010), aff'd, 369 F. App'x 152 (2d Cir. 2