Epstein Secrets

se discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Mi/berg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S

riminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involv

.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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

17847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis I) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 3 EFTA00221643 Case

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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

17847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis I) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 3 EFTA00222644 Case

.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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

17847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis I) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 3 EFTA00222678 Case

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. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory 'shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

17847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis I) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is cl

g., Lopez I. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. I Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation impervi

7847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis .1) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 3 EFTA00175707 Case

e.g., Lopez' Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. I. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

17847, at *1-2 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 10, 2005) (Francis I) (staying federal civil action in favor of "a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the Instant action," noting that "the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is cl