Epstein Secrets

s in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States v. Campa, 459

only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Cas

States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 10 of 75 United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1128 (2006) 6 United States v. Contra Costa County Water Dist., 678 F.2d 90 (9th Cir. 1

State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 I

ues in this appeal. We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction to decide this interlocutory appeal before addressing the merits. United States. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005). We also review de novo the interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States I Campa, 459 F

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case: