Epstein Secrets

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

12 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162 United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286 ix EFTA00099950 United States v. Annahi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) 5, 7, 8 United States v. Annahi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), alrd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 5 United States v

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annahi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annahi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the