Epstein Secrets

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case

18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Mil

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case

18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Mi

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One district court within the Eleventh Circuit, facing the identical issue with a pending state prosecution, recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing] a stay in a case

18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). When it comes to statutory construction, the mandatory nature of the word "shall" is well-settled. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Mil

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One District Court within the Eleventh Circuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "regaining" a stay in a case . . . where . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Doe

S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). The word "shall" means that the statute's command is mandatory and not subject to a Court's discretion. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory 'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Mi