Epstein Secrets

United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) 225 United States v. Nemesian, 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) 233 xviii EFTA000776

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975)). As such, "[a] defendant faces a high standard in seeking to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp.

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 153, 161 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 241 United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) 225 United States v. Nemesian, 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) 233 xviii EFTA000394

. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00039434 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) United States v. Fennell, 166, 169 179, 180 8, 20, 27 4

Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975)). As such, "[a] defendant faces a high standard in seeking to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (MN), 2019 WL 6702361, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp.

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame

United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823 (2d Cir. 1982) 105, 110 United States v. Napolitano, 552 F. Supp. 465 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 159 United States v. Nejad, 18 Cr. 224 (AJN), 2019 WL 6702361 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) 150 United States v. Nemesian, 824 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1987) 154 United States v. Nit

nited States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 54 xii EFTA00095079 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) 113, 114 United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) 120, 121 United States v. Feldman, 939 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2019) 6, 18, 22 United States v. Fennell, 496 F. Supp

3 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975)). Given this standard, "[a] defendant faces a high standard in seeking to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Nejad, 18 Cr. 224 (AJN), 2019 WL 6702361, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Untied States v. Post, 950 F. Supp. 2d

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are am

Tramunti, 513 F.2d 1087, 1113 (2d Cir. 1975)). As such, "[a] defendant faces a high standard in seeking to dismiss an indictment." United States v. Nejad, No. 18 Cr. 224 (AJN), 2019 WL 6702361, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Post, 950 F. Supp

mental ambiguity," however, "is the exception, not the rule." United States v. Sanvari, 669 F.3d 401, 407 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Fanner, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir. 1998)). A defendant cannot demonstrate fundamental ambiguity simply by showing that words used in a question are ame