Epstein Secrets

288597 (S.D.N.Y. May I, 2007) 29, 36 Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186 (2d Cir.1993) 5 Velez, No. 3:10CR147 JBA, 2010 WL 4929266 (D. Conn. Nov. 30, 2010) 3 Vickers, 708 F. App'x 732 (2d Cir. 2017) 28, 31 Von Foelkel, 136 F.3d 339 (2d Cir. 1998) 26 Walia, No. 14-CR-213 (MKB), 2014 WL 3734522 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25

608. 621 (2d Cir. 2003)). United States v. Gross, 15-cr-769 (MN), 2017 WL 4685111, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017). As this Court then recognized, the Second Circuit has consistently relied on the same start and end dates of a conspiracy to find that differing trial proof did not affect a constructive amendment

at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 26, 2002); United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Rivera, 844 F.2d 916, 923 (2d Cir. 1988). The Second Circuit has held that language nearly identical to that in Epstein's NPA is not enough to overcome the presumption in favor of sin

ites change the Court's conclusion that the NPA does not bar the charges against her. As the Court explained in its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Second Circuit held in United States v. Annabi that "[a] plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is

upp. 3d 619, 629 (ED. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM), 2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253 (WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. Ju

. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) 14 United States v. Sensi, No. 08 Cr. 253, 2010 WL 2351484 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010) 5 United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA) (HKS), 2014 WL 1838255 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) 15 Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist., 49 F.3d 886 (2d Cir. 1995)

uit's acknowledgment that the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment must be analyzed under Landgraf. Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 54-58 (2d Cir. 2017). 3 No Landgraf analysis was performed, nor was Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision discussed, in United States v. Brown, 800 F

x, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999) (examining "structure and legislative history" as part of first Landgraf step). And as the government acknowledges, "the Second Circuit has considered both the text of the statute and the legislative history" at the first Landgraf step. Opp. 28 (citing In re Enterprise Mortgage Acce

0028976 --- PAGE BREAK --- years ago that may be applicable to dozens of people in multiple places including a foreign country. United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A, 2014 WL 1838255, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014), also does not help the government. This case concerned a one count indictment in 20

dates ranges for each count, stretching from approximately four days to four months. These date ranges are well within the boundaries permitted by the Second Circuit and other federal courts, and have been supplemented with additional details provided by the Government Id., at *4 (emphasis added). To date, the o