Epstein Secrets

a of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.") (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Because Petitioners seek remedies not authorized by the CVRA's plain language, their requests should be denied. What's more, th

heme," provides "strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly") (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) 10 EFTA00085718 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 En

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an `elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed 'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an `elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute exp

pressly." United States States v. Menzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

pressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the