Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
ng into a settlement agreement.")); United States v. Drier, 682 F. Supp. 2d 417, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (same); see further United States v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ("The purpose of the conferral right is not to give victims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (167)
Entities connected to both Craig v. People and N. Am. Inc.
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON16 w/ Craig·8 w/ N.
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON16 w/ Craig·7 w/ N.
Kenneth Marra
PERSON16 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
United States
LOCATION14 w/ Craig·7 w/ N.
WA
Walker
PERSON16 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
Bradley Edwards
PERSON14 w/ Craig·7 w/ N.
Marc Rich
PERSON15 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
GA
Garcia
PERSON15 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON14 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
Paul Cassell
PERSON12 w/ Craig·7 w/ N.
the Southern District
LOCATION13 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
RU
Rubin
PERSON14 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON12 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
FISTOS & LEHRMAN
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
George W. Bush
PERSON11 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.
S.J. Quinney College of Law
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Craig·4 w/ N.
Kenna
PERSON6 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
Alan Dershowitz
PERSON5 w/ Craig·7 w/ N.
Moussaoui
PERSON6 w/ Craig·6 w/ N.
Fifth Circuit
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Craig·5 w/ N.