Epstein Secrets

ves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11 th Cir. 2008); a

stitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2

tatutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins w

07743 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

tatutory text. CBS, Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Venture, 245 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Castroneves, 2009 WL 528251, *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009), citing Reeves v. Astrue 526 F.3d 732, 734 (11th Cir. 2008); and Smith v. Husband 376 F.Supp.2d at 610 ("When interpreting a statute, [a court's] inquiry begins w

13267 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by