Epstein Secrets

ation, but it later appeared that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole perio

n, but it now appears that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus the only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw the plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period," suc

oner, she would have explained why this proposed disposition did not begin to reflect "the seriousness of the offense " 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States v.

equitable claim Epstein has for specific performance of the non-prosecution agreement disappears. Other cases reach similar conclusions. See, e.g., Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60 (Colo. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole peri

/2011 Page 6 of 25 historically had broad authority to fashion equitable remedies . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). The Eleventh Circuit has expressly required district courts to fashion appropriate equitable remedies when plaintiffs have proven a violation of statutory provisions. S

n, but it now appears that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus the only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw the plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period," suc

itioner, she wood have explained why this proposed disposition did not begin to reflect "the seriousness of the offense" 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2XA). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings belare sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States v.

n, but it now appears that would be an illegal sentence in this case, and thus the only adequate remedy is to allow defendant to withdraw the plea); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (because "neither the prosecutor nor the trial court have authority to modify or waive the mandatory parole period," suc

itioner, she wood have explained why this proposed disposition did not begin to reflect "the seriousness of the offense" 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2XA). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings belare sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States v.

(holding that complete rescission of plea agreement was only permissible remedy when defendant was induced to enter plea based on mistake of law); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 966 (Colo. 1990) (noting that if plea was induced by illegal promise, proper remedy was defendant's option to withdraw from plea agr

intentions, partial rescission would pose a significant risk of harm to certain victims, which must be considered in crafting an equitable remedy. The Eleventh Circuit has admonished courts considering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substan