Epstein Secrets

ed States v. Stokes, 733 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2013) 124, 132 United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) 228, 229, 231 United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) 180, 190 United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) 170 EFTA00099963 United States v. Sweig, 441

create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement." Salarneh, 152 F.3d at 120 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). This rule also extends to plea agreements that use the term "United States." See

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy." United States v. Salarneh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998). Because a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy." United States v. Salarneh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998). Because a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor

amenable to multiple meanings, or that an answer "might generate a number of different interpretations." Lighte, 782 F.2d at 375; United States v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2011) ("Simply plumbing a question for post hoc ambiguity will not defeat a perjury conviction where the evidence de

the indictment was committed by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy." United States v. Salarneh, 152 F.3d 88, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998). Because a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor