Epstein Secrets

tes v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the gra

ources to dealing with numerous frivolous claims. For example, any assault that occurs in a federal prison could be charged as a federal offense.'3 The Bureau of Prisons also has its own administrative remedies for resolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that 'See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within

ates v. BP Products North America, Inc 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong , 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)( quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes , 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the g

rces to dealing with numerous frivolous claims. For example, any assault that occurs in a federal prison could be charged as a federal offense. F13 The Bureau of Prisons also has its own administrative remedies for resolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that Petitioners urge would require AUSAs t

tes v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *11, citing United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)(quoting Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). Allowing claims like Petitioners' to proceed would open the inner workings of that prosecutorial discretion and the gra

sources to dealing with numerous frivolous claims. For example, any assault that occurs in a federal prison could be charged as a federal offense.' The Bureau of Prisons also has its own administrative remedies for resolving prisoner disputes. Construing the CVRA in the way that 'See 18 U.S.C. § 113 (assault within