Epstein Secrets

informed. Petitioner's rights tinder the CVRA have not been violated. Therefore, her emergency petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNUED STAMS KITORNEY By: Assistant U.S. Attorney 99 N.E. 414 Street Miami. Florida 33132 Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HER

be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNUED STAMS KITORNEY By: Assistant U.S. Attorn

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

informed. Petitioner's rights under the CVRA have not been violated. Therefore, her emergency petition should be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES KITORNEY By: Assistant U.S. Attorney CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sen

be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES KITORNEY By: Assistant U.S. Atto

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted

vents. At this time, your ease is under investigation! If anyone is charged in connection with the investigation, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent Nesbitt Kuyrkendall, A. Marie Villafana Assistant United States Attorney EFTA00177308 Case 9:08

, you will be notified. Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta United States Attorney By: cc: Special Agent

e thing, the court's discussion of the scope of the right to confer was unnecessary because the court ultimately declined to issue mandamus relief. Dean 527 F.3d at 395. Also, in offering its view that this right applies pre- charge, it is noteworthy that the court, in purporting to quote the statute, omitted