Back to Network
6
Shared Docs
6
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
Document Mentions (6 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and] the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-part
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." ( Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss thei
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and] the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-part
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and] the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-part
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NPA. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not panics to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and] the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-parti
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and) the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-part
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
tioners responded, "That's correct, Your Honor." (Id. at 5.) One week after the status conference, on August 21, 2008, the Court entered the agreed Protective Order, (DE26,) and the Petitioners were provided with a copy of the NM. More than a month later, on September 25, 2008, Petitioners did not dismiss their
restitution award. However, rather than seeking a writ of mandamus under the expedited procedure in the CVRA, the victims filed a "regular" appeal. The Court of Appeals began by deciding that "crime victims are not parties to a criminal sentencing proceeding [and) the baseline rule is that crime victims, as non-part
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (246)
Entities connected to both Protective Order and The Court of Appeals
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON14 w/ Protective·29 w/ The
United States
LOCATION11 w/ Protective·31 w/ The
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON11 w/ Protective·21 w/ The
the Southern District
LOCATION10 w/ Protective·21 w/ The
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION10 w/ Protective·18 w/ The
LB
Leon Black
PERSON9 w/ Protective·17 w/ The
Bradley Edwards
PERSON8 w/ Protective·18 w/ The
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON7 w/ Protective·18 w/ The
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Protective·18 w/ The
Paul Cassell
PERSON6 w/ Protective·18 w/ The
FBI
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Protective·16 w/ The
Prince Andrew
PERSON8 w/ Protective·14 w/ The
Kenneth Marra
PERSON10 w/ Protective·12 w/ The
Eric Trump
PERSON7 w/ Protective·12 w/ The
Martha Stewart
PERSON8 w/ Protective·11 w/ The
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON6 w/ Protective·12 w/ The
Julie K. Brown
PERSON3 w/ Protective·14 w/ The
Michael Jackson
PERSON6 w/ Protective·11 w/ The
Second Circuit
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Protective·10 w/ The
Cynthia Nixon
PERSON7 w/ Protective·10 w/ The