Epstein Secrets

ment that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses); see also United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that judge was not compelled to impose a concurrent sentence where judge had erroneously represent

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

ment that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses); see also United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that judge was not compelled to impose a concurrent sentence where judge had erroneously represent

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

ment that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses); see also United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that judge was not compelled to impose a concurrent sentence where judge had erroneously represent

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20

ing in United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944 (761 Cir. 1996) — the case on which Petitioners primarily rely -- is entirely confused and off-base. In Walker, the issue was whether defendant, who was serving a sentence for a federal parole violation when he was indicted on a new federal charge, was entit

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285 (Fla. 1930); AVVA-BC, LLC v. Amiel, 25 So.3d 7, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) ("[W]here a party seeking rescission has discovered grounds

ment that called for court to unlawfully sentence the defendant by treating two misdemeanor offenses as felony offenses); see also United States v. Walker, 98 F.3d 944, 946-47 (7th Cir. 1996) (concluding that judge was not compelled to impose a concurrent sentence where judge had erroneously represent

recognition of the contract as subsisting or any conduct inconsistent with an intention of avoiding it, have the effect of an election to affirm. Hendricks v. Stark, 99 Fla. 277, 285, 126 So. 293, 296-97 (Fla. 1930) (internal quotation omitted); see, e.g., United States v. Baird, 218 F.3d 221, 230-31 (3d Cir. 20