Epstein Secrets

tates v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en bane) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SJF) (

Thus, the defendant's claim that she no longer has access to certain evidence is not a proper basis to dismiss the Indictment. See United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091, 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) ("A bare allegation that records have been lost or destroyed, which might relate IS The Government notes t

12 United States v. Anderson, 772 F.3d 969 (2d Cir. 2014) 162 United States v. Annabi, 10 Cr. 07 (CM) 286 ix EFTA00099950 United States v. Annahi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985) 5, 7, 8 United States v. Annahi, 771 F.2d 670 (2d Cir. 1985), alrd, 867 F.2d 1425 (2d Cir. 1988) 5 United States v

States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SW) (A

bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annahi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the

States v. DiGregorio, 795 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) 155 United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) 54 United States v. Dornau, 356 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) 73 United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) 236 United States v. Drago, No. 18 Cr. 0394 (SW) (A

bind other districts. To the contrary, there are affirmative indications in the text that the NPA applies only to the USAO-SDFL. Accordingly, under Annahi, the NPA is only binding on the USAO-SDFL, and the defendant's motion fails as a matter of law. 2. The Defendant Has Offered No Evidence That the