Epstein Secrets

arey had on June 1, 2006, with ASA regarding a meeting earlier that day between representatives of the State Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of the meeting (Police Report at 87): In addition to the presence of other defense counsel, there was i

tate Attorney's Office and defense attorney Jack Goldberger (Police Report at 87). Omitted are the facts of t

2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11 th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 (2006); United States !Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (I I" Cir. 2004); United States "'Miranda, 348 17.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 20

tein had not agreed to any date. Finally, after multiple communications referring to various potential dates, on December 7, 2007, Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 4, 2008.150 E. Epstein Seeks Departmental Review of the NPA’s § 2255 Provision Relating t

e change of plea hearing had been postponed. In an email reporting this to Acosta and Villafaña, Sloman said that Epstein’s local defense attorney Goldberger had told Belohlavek the postponement was because the facts “did not fit the proposed state charge,” and that Belohlavek told Sloman she agreed with

a prosecutor 195 The Ashcroft Memo was issued before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), which struck down the provision of the federal sentencing statute that required federal district judges to impose a sentence

33401 this 7* day of December. 2007. ATIERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite

lve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Mono, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States v. Omega, 363 F.3d 1093 (1Is Cir. 2004); United States v.

33401 this 7e day of December, 2007. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite

olve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g.. United States,. Mono, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), oninforueinSigMl_h% 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States Gana, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States'. Miranda

line, convincing a Bay Area girl to send him sexually explicit pictures and video, then posting the content on his Snapchat account." The FBI "says Goldberg was arrested after authorities identified him as a man who was both posing as a fictitious 16-year-old boy named Ryan Strauss and as Ryan's sister,

weekend," but David Hennessy, "a criminal defense attorney for Sean Purdy and Caroline McCord - two of the people accused of being involved - said Booker has been 'putting forth a false narrative' about what happened. 'Mr. Booker was the instigator and the agitator; Hennessy said at a press conference

nishment for downloading and uploading child pornography, the greater the customer demand for it and so the more will be produced. United States' Goldberg. 491 F.3d 668. 672 (7th Cr.) (citations omitted), cert. denied,128 S.Ct. 666 (2007); see also Ge. 501 F.3d at 261 ("deterring the production of ch

ines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing." Id. at The second was the continuation of appellate review. While Booker held that sentences could no longer be reviewed de novo, it determined that appellate courts thereafter would apply a "reasonableness" standa

901-03. #27 444 F 3d 1215, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2006). #8 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 1278. Ct. 424 (2006). 429 See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 222 (2004). 430 Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d at 196. 31 Td. at 197 n.4. 432 The Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have ruled that Rule

a notes 483-493 and accompanying text. *65 Peter Goldberger, Statement on Behalf of the Nat'l Assoc. of Crim.