Epstein Secrets

2:44 PM NOT A CERTIFIED COPY Case 9:08-cv,80736-KA.ocurnen\ 48-5 Emered on FLSD Do.03/21/2011 I I :sentenced not later y,an October 26, 2007-. the UnitedjStates bas 110 objection to J;:pstein seJfsreporting to begin ~rving hls sentence ·not later than January 4, 2008. • 12. Epstein agrees that.he will no

lty and to ·provide compensation in the tQanner aescribed ab()ye, ifEpsteirt successfully fulfills allt>fthe tenns ~ _conditi9M of this agreement, the United Stat~s 1,1~0 agrees that it will niH institute: BilY criminal charges against any potential ~~onspirators ofEpstein, inclµding but not limited toi Sarah Ke

offense includcs; ;but is net limitadto; a conviction liy a foderabor miUtary'tribunal,-including courts-martial conducted by the Armed Forcos of tho United Status,, >and includes a conviction-orentry of a ploa of',guilty or nolo contendere resulting in a-sanctiun in anyistato of dio United-States or other juris

he gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. Ifthe United States receives a Freedom ofInformation Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein

ll.· .. attempt to obstruct justice, or ... to threaten, injure, or intimidate, a prospective witness or juror." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(t)(2)(B); see also United States v. Friedman, 837 F.2d 48 (2d Cir. 1988). The Bail Reform Act lists four factors to be considered in the detention analysis: (1) the nature and circ

text of the agreement purports to bind “the Government.” See Annabi, Tl\ F.2d at 672. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) (“Defendant’s argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it

as evidence. See Fed! R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility' of their obtaining monetary damages through either a ci

lculation of the offense levels under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) §§ 2G2.I and 2G2.2 (1998).FNI I FNI I. The 1998 edition of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual was applied in this case due to concerns about possible ex post facto problems that might arise from subsequent amend

prft—H... 12/18/2007 EFTA00191996 Page 13 of 13 77 Fed.Appx. 371 77 Fed.Appx. 371, 2003 WL 22331999 (C.A.6 (Ohio)) (Cite as: 77 Fed.Appx. 371) United States' Lyckman, 235 F.3d 234, 237-40 (5th Cir.2000). The term "sadism," which is the most relevant to this case, is defined as the " infliction of pain u

ent when it is based on consent from a third party whom the agents reasonably believed (even if erroneously) to have common rt.over the premises. United Stater 979 F.2)77, 79 (6th Cir.1992) (quoting Illinois Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 110 S.Ct. 93, III L.Ed.2d 148 (1990)). B. Attempted Enticement of A M

See United States Soto-Beniquez, 356 F.3d I, 52 (1st Cir.2004) ("Any possible prejudice to [defendant] from the government's non-compliance [with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32] was cured by the district court's two-week continuance to give defense counsel an ad- equate opportunity to respondlo the gove

ense may make arguments attacking the credibility of victims, the Government is free to argue that these witnesses are, in fact, victims of a crime. Cl United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 807 (2d Cir. 1994) (explaining that prosecutors may also "respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity

y this form of testimony, as explained above. To the extent Raymond stands for such a broad proposition, it is contrary to the law of this Circuit. See United States v. Joseph, 542 F.3d 13, 21-22 (2d Cir. 2008), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 276 n.14 (2d Cir.

hallenge. "Although the Government did not present 71 EFTA00088873 evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the USB drive, Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) permits authentication based on Mlle appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of t

mate, including but not limited to, eligibility for gain time credit based on standard rules and regulations that apply in the State of Florida. At the United States' request, Epstein agrees to provide an accounting of the gain time he earned during his period of incarceration. 13. The parties anticipate that t

evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a c