Epstein Secrets

07743 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

minal punishment." Siegel, supra at 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11i° Cir. 2000). 18 EFTA00207741 must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v

13267 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

minal punishment." Siegel, supra at 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. See U.S. v. Futrell 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11i° Cir. 2000). 18 EFTA00213265 must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. See also U.S. v

83860 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

criminal punishment." Siegel, supra at 1260. The Eleventh Circuit is in agreement with the Second, Third, Eighth, Ninth, and ■. Circuits. See U.S. Futrell, 209 F.3d 1286, 1289-90 (11ih Cir. 2000). 18 EFTA00183858 must order restitution to each victim in the full amount." Id, at 1260. Scc also U.S.