Back to Network
USI Film Products
ORGANIZATIONthe Office of the United States Attorney for Such- and-Such District
ORGANIZATION3
Shared Docs
0
Same-Page
3 / 3
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
2 mentions
Page EFTA00020264
am); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the United States Attorney for Such- and-Such District" in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed. Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The pr
Page: EFTA00020264 →Page EFTA00020273
9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so
Page: EFTA00020273 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00022094
am); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the United States Attorney for Such- and-Such District" in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed. Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The pr
Page: EFTA00022094 →Page EFTA00022103
9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so
Page: EFTA00022103 →2 mentions
Page EFTA00029543
am); United States v. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x 268, 270 (2d Cir. 2004). Those are common shorthand. A plea agreement need not painstakingly spell out "the Office of the United States Attorney for Such- and-Such District" in every instance to make clear that it applies only in the district where signed. Maxwell asks this Court to draw the opposite conclusion. The pr
Page: EFTA00029543 →Page EFTA00029552
9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past conduct, courts must so
Page: EFTA00029552 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (86)
Entities connected to both USI Film Products and the Office of the United States Attorney for Such- and-Such District
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON30 w/ USI·3 w/ the
United States
LOCATION28 w/ USI·3 w/ the
LA
Landgraf
PERSON25 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION23 w/ USI·3 w/ the
FBI
ORGANIZATION22 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Reid Weingarten
PERSON21 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON21 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Eric Holder
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
WA
Walker
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Vernon
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Leahy
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
SC
Schneider
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Bridges
PERSON20 w/ USI·3 w/ the
TR
Tracy
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Napolitano
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Dodge
ORGANIZATION19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Hernandez
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
Medina
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
NE
Nejad
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the
SA
Sampson
PERSON19 w/ USI·3 w/ the