Epstein Secrets

f 27 claiming the protection has voluntarily disclosed work product to a party not covered by the work-product doctrine." United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008). Perhaps recognizing the difficulty inherent in its position under these well-recognized general principles, the Governme

0 applies in federal proceedings to statements made in connection with prior state pleas"); see also United States v. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting the admission of a guilty plea from state court in a federal proceeding). 2 Because Epstein's lawyers are claiming that the correspond

view would still "tend to iron out sentencing differences." Id. C 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00192128 Page 6 ' F.3d --, 2008 WL 253040 (C.A.11 (Ala.)) (Cite as: — F.3d —) Booker further held that in performing this review, we must measure "reasonableness" agains

ely on the defendant's status as a U.S. cit- izen is firmly estallished by our precedent. See, e.g.. United States Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 854 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada los proper under the nationality principle); McKee!

ks. Page 4 haps://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?sv-Split&prft=HTMLE&ifm=NotSet&mt... 6/8/2009 EFTA00182793 Page 2 of 11 Westlaw. 162 F.3d 832 162 F.3d 832 (Cite as: 162 F.3d 832) C United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ra

allis, 28 F.3d 1399, 1409 (5th Cir.1994); United States v. Fitch, 964 F.2d 571, 574 (6th Cir.1992); United Stales v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352, 354 (8th Cir.1986). F1418. United States v. Tilley, 964 F.2d 66, 70 (Id Cir.1992) FN19. Dallis, 28 F.3d at 1409; Tilley, 964 F.2d at 70; United States v. Crawford,