Epstein Secrets

See supra p. 33. FN 10. See supra n. 2. FN I 1. Defendant's reliance on United States v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the Eighth Circuit determined that the defend- ant had breached a cooperation agree- ment, thus permitting the government to prosecute him for the

t breached agreement by false testimony as to his additional involvement in drug deal); United States v. Britt, 917 F.2d 353, 355-56, 360-61 (8th Cir.1990) ( defendant agreed to fully and com- pletely cooperate with the United States and, * over the course of a year, had several debriefings, recor- ded

umption In favor of public access to the courts. Brown I. Advantage Engineer- The doctrine of ancillary

which `substantially increases the oppor- tunity for potential adverse•s to obtain the information' ".); Carter Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1450, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1990) (Fed.Cir.1990) (en bane), superseded in non-relevant part. Pub.L. No. 103-424, § 9(c). 108el at. 4361 (1994), as recogniz in Mudge . United Stat

in Shafer. In addition, Defendant has not even alleged that he would be prejudiced by the equita- ble tolling. See Baldwin County Welcome Cir. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (discussing prejudice to the defendant as a factor the court must consider when determin

dismissed based on the statute of limitations with no discussion of a criminal conviction as a prerequisite. See Andes v. Knox, 905 F.2d 188 (8th Cir.1990) (victim's claim barred by the statute of limitations though she did not know who had actually done the wiretapping until he pleaded guilty); Bro