Epstein Secrets

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under II Government Ex

sed upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the district court. As to the dismissal of Northern Counties, the appellate court rejected Northern Counties' argument that the amendment related back under Rule 15(c). The District of Columbia Circuit relied in part upon a Fifth Circuit case, Williams'. Un

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

sed upon the statute of limitations, which was granted by the district court. As to the dismissal of Northern Counties, the appellate court rejected Northern Counties' argument that the amendment related back under Rule 15(c). The District of Columbia Circuit relied in part upon a Fifth Circuit case, Williams I. U

at this brief phone conversation was not a proper notification of her rights under the CVRA. D.E. 311 at 17-18. The Government never suggested that S/A Slater's phone conversation with Jane Doe No. 3, in January — February 2007, constituted compliance with notifying her of her rights under the CVRA. Agent S

tially the same facts and theories as those in the earlier one." M. 1305-06. As to the dismissal of Northern Counties, the appellate court rejected Northern Counties' argument that the amendment related back under Rule 15(c). The District of Columbia Circuit relied in part upon a Fifth Circuit case, Williams I. U