Epstein Secrets

estlands Water District ("Westlands") sued Amoco Chemical and Amoco Reinforced Plastics Company ("ARPCO"), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. ARPCO, like Torlon, is a subsidiary of Amoco Chemical. The complaint alleged that ARPCO designed, manufactured, and sold defective

tates District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, No. 1:87-CV-1165-RHEL Robert H. Hall, J., denied motion as untimely. Plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Fay, Circuit Judge, held that district court abused its discretion in sealing court record in previous litigation without showing of extraordinar

rrently with one another, but c secutively to the sentences in Counts I-IV. & 'The Honorable H. Kenneth Wanstlin. United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri (I, 2] We note initially that a review of the trial transcript shows that Rich was vigorously defended at trial and belies the sugge

in the Unit- ed States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, H. Kenneth Wangelin, J., of violating the Mann Act, and they appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gibson, Chief Judge, held that: (1) evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions; (2) where tape recordings in Government's possession did not

493 F.3d 63, 2007 WL 1 I. 114 1965536, C.A.2 (N.Y.), July 06, 2007(Docket No. 07-2 7-cr.) ...illegal aliens. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York Thomas C. Platt , J., ordered defendants detained. Defendants appealed. 3 Holding: The Court of Appeals Reena Raggi , Circuit Judge, he

, J., of seven counts of violating federal child exploitation statutes, and was sen- tenced to 168 months in prison. Defendant appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals. Colloton, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) convictions did not require proof that the intended victim was an actual mi- nor, as long as defendant be

rather than create a split of authority, this Court should follow the Fifth Circuit's holding in Dean (and the view of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia) and conclude that the CVRA extends rights to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 under the facts of this

restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not panics to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and] the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parti