Epstein Secrets

eak; review email from Ms. Ezell re: sentencing agreement telephone conference with Mr. Josefsberg, Ms. Ederi, Ms. Sheehan, and Ms. Ezell re: Mr. Lelkowitz's fax; telephone conference with OR Ms. Eden, Ms. Ezell, and Ms. Sheehan re: non-prosecution agreement (NPA),Iat and other related issues; review

w email from Ms. Ederi re: 3/11/09 meeting notes; research re: la and[; telephone conference with Ms. Eden re: above issues; review email from Ms. Estrada re: new counsel and Mr. Herman's cases. Review email from Ms. Ederi rem. 3.1 .2 .4 .5 3.4 35.00 1,085.00 70.00 140.00 175.00 1,190.00 3

on 150 per incident; review email from Ms. Sheehan re: Mr. Scarola's motion and amicus; review email forward from Ms. Sheehan re: email from Mr. Letkowitz to Mr. Josefsberg re: no-contact assurance; reply re: same; research re: Mr review email from Ms. Ezell re: Mr. Scarola's motion; review reply from

re: same. Review email from Ms. Ezell re: photographs. Exchange emails with Ms. Sheehan re: NS ens and attaching latter. Review email from Ms. Estrada attaching settlement; review attachment; review email from Ms. Ezell re: settlement; review email from Ms. Ederi re: same. Telephone conference wi

1982), and that complete accuracy is of "crucial importance," United States v. Kopstein, 759 F.3d 168, 172 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Lefkowitz, 284 F.2d 310, 314 (2d Cir. 1960)). Portions of the requested instruction were unresponsive, portions were redundant, and portions were legally ina

er, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'" United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). If the two offenses at issue are both conspiracies charged under the same statute, then the multiplicity inqui