Epstein Secrets

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

dant spent only 22 days in the United States, that the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) "were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong evidence against" the defenda

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

dant spent only 22 days in the United States, that the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) "were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong evidence against" the defenda

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

dant spent only 22 days in the United States, that the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) "were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong evidence against" the defenda

t something about their individual circumstances, suggests that `what is true in general is not true in the particular case ... '" United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut t

dant spent only 22 days in the United States, that the charges against the defendant (violations of International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Export Administration Regulations) "were serious and carried a potential for a significant period of incarceration" and that the "government has strong evidence against" the defenda