Epstein Secrets

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

also U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. I (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. Reim, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S.'. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WI, 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832,

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

e U.S. I. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)• U.S. . Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

lso U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.CaI. Jan. II, 2010)- U.S.'. Rena, 2009 WI, 2579103, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). U.S.' Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply