Epstein Secrets

hese fundamental facts, we cannot ["•139] know whether particular promotions decisions raise even a circumstantial inference of discrimination. See Cline v. Roadway Express, Inc., 689 F.2d 481, 485 n.4 (4th Cir. 1982); accord Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S. Ct. 1089,

ns, Jr., WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellants. Lisa Schiavo Blatt, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Armand Derfner, D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN. Charleston, South Carolina; Ann K. Wiggins, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &

ection in appro- priate circumstances. See, e.g., Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co., 337 U.S. 86, 98, Co,274 U.S. 445, 69 S. 968, 98 L.Ed. 1281 (1949); Cline Prink Dairy 451, 4 Ct. 681, 71 L.Ed. 1146 (1927); I Pierce Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 5 , 45 S.Ct. 671, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925); Hygrade

Adam Augustine Caner, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thom

tances, and upon clear showing that an injunction is neces- sary in order to prevent irreP ble injury. Cf. Hygrade rovision Co. Sherman, supra; Cline Fnnk Dry , supra; Spielman Motor Sales Co. Dodge, supra. 1 And in the exercise of the and discretion, which guides the determination of court

taken and now appellants move us to order a stay of the removal pending disposition of the appeals from the orders dismissing the equity suits. Appellees, in response, show that ap- pellants have given bail bonds on remov- al calling for their appearance in the Michigan District to answer the indict-