Epstein Secrets

Read full article » Madoff Trustee Fights Bid To Pause Foreign Clawback Ruling The trustee for Bernie Madoffs fraudulent investment firm has asked the Second Circuit not to stay its decision that he can claw back billions in Ponzi scheme proceeds transferred between foreign parties, saying defendants' planned U.

appeal is unlikely to succeed. 1 document attached I Read full article » THIRD CIRCUIT 3rd Circ. Says Immigration Board's Examination Fell Short The Third Circuit Friday revived a bid from an Indonesian national to avoid deportation, finding that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to mention many pieces

e's the only one who takes the blame for what happened").3 The government further asserts that Ms. Maxwell's position is not supported by subsequent Second Circuit cases that apply Annabi. (Opp. 5-6). But this argument simply begs the question. Although courts in this Circuit have applied Annabi to evaluate whe

ere the new charges are the same as the dismissed charges.' These exact circumstances are now before the Court with respect to Counts Five and Six. The Third Circuit directly addressed these same facts in United States v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 544-52 (3d Cir. 2002), holding that "when a United States Attorney ne

ers, Inc., Petitioners-Ap- pellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. No. 474, Docket 95-6119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Aug. 81, 1996. Decided Oct. 17, 1996. Government appealed from order en- tered in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri

request a sampling of voting records can hardly be EFTA00191853 806 770 FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d SERIES described as a purely administrative act. The Third Circuit has highlighted this as- pect of a prosecutor's duties: We recognize that the decision of the Attorney General, or a prosecuting attor- ney, to ini

uit's acknowledgment that the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment must be analyzed under Landgraf. Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 54-58 (2d Cir. 2017). 3 No Landgraf analysis was performed, nor was Congress' rejection of the retroactivity provision discussed, in United States v. Brown, 800 F

x, 527 U.S. 343, 355-57 (1999) (examining "structure and legislative history" as part of first Landgraf step). And as the government acknowledges, "the Second Circuit has considered both the text of the statute and the legislative history" at the first Landgraf step. Opp. 28 (citing In re Enterprise Mortgage Acce

hneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015), in which the court rejected the defendant's comparison of § 3283 to the statute in Bridges. To the extent that the Third Circuit rejected a "necessarily entails" approach to § 3283, it appears to have done so without considering the line of Supreme Court cases interpreting th

ocess require the federal government to fulfill it. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996). The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the South

so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and principles of contract interpretation, the Court concludes that they did not. In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held: "A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively a

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

ocess require the federal government to fulfill it. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996). The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the South

so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and principles of contract interpretation, the Court concludes that they did not. In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held: "A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively a

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

ocess require the federal government to fulfill it. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971); United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 558 (2d Cir. 1996). The question here is not whether the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had the power to bind the U.S. Attorney for the South

so. Applying Second Circuit precedent and principles of contract interpretation, the Court concludes that they did not. In United States v. Annabi, the Second Circuit held: "A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively a

ssed at length how the text, context, and history of § 3283 show that Congress intended courts to apply the statute using a case-specific approach. The Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015). The Court sees no reason to depart from the reasoning

ongressional determination, blocking defense efforts to obtain pretrial discovery about government witnesses. For example, in United States v. Coppa, the Second Circuit overturned the district court's approval of a scheduling order requiring the government to identify its witnesses in advance of trial. +3? The distri

identify victim impact information as a possible basis for an upward departure and the government conceded that a sentencing remand was appropriate. The Third Circuit has expressly declined to follow Dozier. In United States v. Vampire Nation, +78 the Third Circuit held that, in light of the Supreme Court's 429 4

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration U.S. Attorney's Office U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit EFTA00032909 --- PAGE BREAK --- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of

change Commission Small Business Administration U.S. Attorney's Office U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit EFTA00032909 --- PAGE BREAK --- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Justice

representing parents and the University of Southern California. Read full article » Couple Can Get Separate Trials In Fraud Suit, 3rd Circ. Says The Third Circuit has ordered a new trial for a woman convicted alongside her husband in Pennsylvania federal court in a benefits fraud case after finding that she'd

.S. Attorney's Office U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Homeland