Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ry residence in New York. See A.88:21-24 (Tr.). Since May 2010, Appellant has been registered with the Sexual Offender Monitoring Unit (SOMU) of the New York Police Department. See A.88:21-89:3 ('Fr.). III. The Board's Recommendation On or about August 26, 2010, Appellant received notice that a SORA hearing had been sch
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ry residence in New York. See A.88:21-24 (Tr.). Since May 2010, Appellant has been registered with the Sexual Offender Monitoring Unit (SOMU) of the New York Police Department. See A.88:21-89:3 (Tr.). III. The Board's Recommendation On or about August 26, 2010, Appellant received notice that a SORA hearing had been sche
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ry residence in New York. See A.88:21-24 (fr.). Since May 2010, Appellant has been registered with the Sexual Offender Monitoring Unit (SOMU) of the New York Police Department. See A.88:21-89:3 ('It). III. The Board's Recommendation On or about August 26, 2010, Appellant received notice that a SORA hearing had been sche
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
ry residence in New York. See A.88:21-24 (Tr.). Since May 2010, Appellant has been registered with the Sexual Offender Monitoring Unit (SOMU) of the New York Police Department. See A.88:21-89:3 (Tr.). III. The Board's Recommendation On or about August 26, 2010, Appellant received notice that a SORA hearing had been sche
rd's Recommendation Could Not Be Proven By Clear and Convincing Evidence. 20 B. The Court Improperly Relied on the Board's Recommendation Where the Facts Cited Therein Were Disputed and No Further Evidence Was Presented. 25 C. Determining Appellant To Be a Level 3 Offender Based on Factors That Were Not Proven
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (140)
Entities connected to both the New York Police Department and the Facts Cited Therein
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON89 w/ the·4 w/ the
New York
LOCATION63 w/ the·4 w/ the
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION39 w/ the·4 w/ the
George W. Bush
PERSON39 w/ the·4 w/ the
Stephen Hawking
PERSON26 w/ the·2 w/ the
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON22 w/ the·4 w/ the
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON21 w/ the·4 w/ the
Melbourne
LOCATION20 w/ the·2 w/ the
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION16 w/ the·4 w/ the
Bill Richardson
PERSON15 w/ the·4 w/ the
New York City
LOCATION14 w/ the·4 w/ the
North Carolina
LOCATION13 w/ the·2 w/ the
Sarah Ferguson
PERSON9 w/ the·4 w/ the
Kentucky
LOCATION11 w/ the·2 w/ the
Brooks
PERSON9 w/ the·4 w/ the
Louisiana
LOCATION9 w/ the·2 w/ the
Legislature
ORGANIZATION7 w/ the·4 w/ the
Albany
LOCATION9 w/ the·2 w/ the
Jay Lefkowitz
PERSON6 w/ the·4 w/ the
Adriana Ross
PERSON6 w/ the·4 w/ the