Epstein Secrets

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government"' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unit

er necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by the Government was intentional and deliberate to gain a strategic advantage. Here, as in Lovasco, any pre-indictment delay was the result of the Government's continuing investigation of the case. The Lovasco Court held that the investigative de

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

8) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 40 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 35 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 35 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Alzmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 112 United States v. Ahmed, 10

8) 105 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 45 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 18, 21 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 52, 53, 54, 55 United States v. Mahabub, 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 174, 176, 177 United S

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 53 EFTA00095145 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

) 152 United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) 65 United States v. Lopez, 944 F.2d 33 (1st Cir. 1991) 21, 26 United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977) 76, 79, 80, 82 United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (MN), 2014 WL 4243657 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014) 266, 268, 269 Unite

ndant could establish any actual prejudice—which she cannot—such prejudice would be "necessary but not sufficient" to establish a due process claim. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 790. The defendant's motion fails because she has not demonstrated the other necessary element to prevail: that the claimed delay by t

d and common objectives. Both Counts Three and Five are charged under the same statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States. But going beyond this "general level" of similarity, the statutory objectives of the two counts differ. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 669. Count Three is a c

peculation, with the apparent presumption that absent evidence would necessarily favor the Defendant, is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. See United States v. Long, 697 F. Supp. 651, 657 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (no prejudice where there is "no way of knowing what [an absent witness's] testimony would have been

t have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay." Maxwell, 534 F. Supp. 3d at 317; see, e.g., United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 785-86, 788-90 (1977) (reversing dismissal for pit-indictment delay where a material defense witness had died); United States v. Sny