Epstein Secrets

memorandum: "Article 3 of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and France provides in pertinent part that "There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State". While this Ankle does not require the extradition of a national to

5, 2000 WL 1872012 (6th Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) 19 United States v. Patrick Ho, 17 Cr. 779 (KBF), Dkt. 49 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2018) 28 United States v. Petrov, 15 Cr. 66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) 7, 8 United States v. Rowe, 02 Cr. 756 (LMM), 2003 WL 21196846 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003)

rating "that the court overlooked information or incorrectly applied the law," or that failure to reconsider "would constitute manifest injustice." Petrov, 2015 WL 1102286 at *3. DISCUSSION Having already raised numerous arguments in its briefing and oral argument at the initial bail hearing in this

France of April 23, 1996 provides that "[t]here is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the power to surrender a national of the United States if, in its discretion, it deems

reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66 (LTS), 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting the "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's pre

rench Code of Criminal Procedure for matters not dealt with under the Treaty. 9. Article 3(1) of the Treaty provides: "There is no obligation upon the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State, but the executive authority of the United States shall have the powe

dered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing."); see also United States v. Petrov, No. I 5-CR-66- LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting "Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previou