Epstein Secrets

als. II. IL 21 Generally, we review a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Noriega, 117 FM 1206, 1211 (11th Cir.1997), cat denied 523 U.S. 1060, 118 S.Ct. 1389, 140 L.Ed.2d 648 (1998). When the motion to dismiss the indictment c

f while in custody of city police and for alleged ille- gal transportation of his person into an- other state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Kloeb, J., rendered judgment dismissing complaint with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that order dismissi

gh there are certainly some similarities between this case and DeWitt, we believe that the in- stant case is controlled by our decision in Martinez- Noriega. In Martinez-Noriega, the plea agreement •864 stipulated that the defendant's base offense level was 20, pursuant to § 2D1.1. 418 F.3d at 810. The

)(4XB); Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 32(cX1), 18 U.S.C.A.; U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(bX3), 18 U.S.C.A. •373 On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Before GUY and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges; and LAWSON, District Judge.' FN' The Honorable David M. Lawson, United States District Judge f

access creates a presumption in favor of openness of court records, which "must be balanced against any competing interest advanced." United States Noriega, 752 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (S.D. Fla.1990). For example, courts may look to see whether the records sought are for illegitimate purposes. Ma 696 F.2d

tigations while the victims were minors, but completely eliminate those protections the moment one of the victims turned 18. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida confirmed this position and specifically rejected the plaintiffs' contrary argument. See Doe I. Francis. No. 5:03 CV 260, 2005 WL 950623