Epstein Secrets

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00100636 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00066315 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00089372 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

ead start should she decide to flee. See United States v. Zarger, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00091747 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

potential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

r, No. 00 Cr. 773, 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA01659420 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant

ential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

ential sentence, the more probable the flight risk is, especially considering the strong case of the government . . . .") (quoting United States v. Alindato—Perez, 627 F. Supp. 2d 58, 66 (D.P.R. 2009)). Here, the defendant is facing a statutory maximum of decades in prison. This fact alone would provide

000 WL 1134364, at *1 8 EFTA00018513 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 4 Filed 07/02/20 Page 10 of 10 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000) (Gleeson, J.) (rejecting defendant's application for bail in part because home detention with electronic monitoring "at best . . . limits a fleeing defendant