Epstein Secrets

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 Campo, 459 F

kins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). HI. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction ov

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 Campo, 459 F

kins'. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). HI. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction ov

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

dkins' Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). But we review for clear error factual findings made by a district court. Morrissette-Brown'. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). III. DISCUSSION We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that we have jurisdiction o