Epstein Secrets

o "full and timely restitution," likewise presupposes the initiation—and indeed perhaps the maturation or even conclusion—of criminal proceedings. Black's, for instance, defines the term "restitution," in relevant part, to mean "[c]ompensation for loss; esp., full or partial compensation paid by a cri

ment was filed. The Majority brushes aside the fact that the term "case" can mean both a judicial case and an investigative case on the basis that Black's first defines "case" as a civil or criminal proceeding and only second as a criminal investigation. Maj. Op. at 1207. IS But since when is statut

t omits it in another ... , it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion."); t Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S. Ct. 296, 300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983) (declining to read a term appearing in two subsections of a statute to have the same m

ictim of a criminal offense are restitution. See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) (defining restitution

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

ictim of a criminal offense are restitution. See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) (defining restitution

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

ictim of a criminal offense are restitution. See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) (defining restitution

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

ictim of a criminal offense are restitution. See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) (defining restitution

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a

ictim of a criminal offense are restitution. See Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) (defining restitution

lusion."' United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to a