Epstein Secrets

substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures.' Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401 (quoting Ming He, 94 F.3d at 792); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 737 (1980) ("the supervisory power does not extend so far" as to "confer on the j

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

substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures.' Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401 (quoting Ming He, 94 F.3d at 792); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 737 (1980) ("the supervisory power does not extend so far" as to "confer on the j

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

bstitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures.'" Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401 (quoting Ming He, 94 F.3d at 792); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 737 (1980) ("the supervisory power does not extend so far" as to "confer on the j

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

substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures.' Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401 (quoting Ming He, 94 F.3d at 792); see also United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 737 (1980) ("the supervisory power does not extend so far" as to "confer on the j

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