Epstein Secrets

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103273 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103343 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103308 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103238 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00104652 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00105663 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00154640 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00085225 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00090494 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00092755 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning