Epstein Secrets

I lb Cir. 2003); United States'. 7illmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11* Cir. 1999); United States1 &mill, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11* Cir. 2003); United Stalest. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Burgess, 175 F.3d j261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11* Cir. 2005);

losed abruptly when its profitable real estate department announced it was leaving the firm. The third case centers on the flagship accounting firm Arthur Andersenthat went bankrupt after the Enron scandal of 2001. In my initial study of compromised work, (2) I chose these cases because they apparently represented

Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Panfll, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States it Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess,175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005);

losed abruptly when its profitable real estate department announced it was leaving the firm. The third case centers on the flagship accounting firm Arthur Andersenthat went bankrupt after the Enron scandal of 2001. In my initial study of compromised work, (2) I chose these cases because they apparently represented

ates Pang supra, 338 3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003)." " There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under Garrett, 190 3d 1220 (116 Cir. §2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 20

losed abruptly when its profitable real estate department announced it was leaving the firm. The third case centers on the flagship accounting firm Arthur Andersenthat went bankrupt after the Enron scandal of 2001. In my initial study of compromised work, (2) I chose these cases because they apparently represented