Epstein Secrets

party who is likely "to forgo suf- fering a contempt citation and appealing in favor of disclosure," United States I. Krane, 625 F.3d 568, 573 (9th Cir.2010). As the Seventh Circuit explained about the scope of the Perlman doctrine after Mohawk,"[o]nly when the person who as- serts a privilege is a nonl

ourt for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- venors filed interlocutory appeal. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Pryor, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal; (2) plea negotiations were not protected from di

ion is consistent with how our circuit and others have articulated the doctrine. See, e.g., United States v. Villasenor. 608 F.3d 467. 471-72 (9th Cir.2010); United Stales v. Yang, 286 F.3d 940.945-46 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Hyde, 37 F.3d 116. 120 n. 2 (3d Cit 1994); United States v. Santiago,

District of Arizona, 2009 WL 465028, Raner C. Collins, J., granted defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Government filed interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals, 637 F.3d 1068. reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc. 673 F.3d 1206. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, McKeown, Cir

or would have differed substan- tially. See, e.g., United States v. Snow, supra, 507 F.2d at 24; United States v. Farley, 607 F.3d 1294, 1335 (11th Cir.2010); United States v. Meacham, supra, 115 F.3d at 1495.96. We can place the blame for judicial preoccupa- tion with the word "dominant" on the Supreme

te and foreign commerce for the purpose of having sex with a minor. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years in pris- on. Defendant appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Posner, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) purpose of defendant's travel was to engage in illegal sexual conduct, (2) testimony of adult witnesses co