Epstein Secrets

422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States'. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (I I* Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 115 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United Stalest Grego, 363 F.3d 1093 (II* Cir. 2004); United States'. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (I I lb Cir. 200

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004),judgment varied for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11° Cir. 2

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

§2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 2004),judgnwru vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 006); United States I Orrega, 363 I3d 1093 (116 Cir. 2004); United States91 Miranda, 348 I3d 1322 (II6 Cirj003); Unit

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These rums met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compro