Epstein Secrets

y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig,. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States I. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor I. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig,. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have

ke plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in accordance with general principles of contract law." United States I. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835 (5th Cir. 1998); see also Taylor I. Singletary, 148 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 1998) ("When enforcing an immunity agreement, we l

. 25 EFTA00208008 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 26 of 29 Cooper, 70 F.3d 563, 567 (10th Cir. 1995); Craig. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Cob. 1999)). The Government, however, seeks to escape from the general rule that illegal plea arrangements can be in

that violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not block judicial review. See, e.g., United States' Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. 1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States' Hyles, 521 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir.