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

xceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. See North Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2008).12 Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, it is not

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

xceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. See North Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2008).12 Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, it is not

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

xceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. See North Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2008),I2 Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, it is not

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

xceed the harm suffered by the opposing party if the injunction issued; and (4) an injunction would not disserve the public interest. See North Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1217 (11th Cir. 2008).12 Because a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, it is not