Epstein Secrets

bsection (a)(8)'s general right to fair treatment by reference to the subsections (and their constituent rights) that precede it. See, Johnson it United States,559 U.S. 133, 139,130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines meaning ...."); Pi Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U.S. 250, 255, 120 S.

iple— which dates back centuries—that "the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case." 1/ United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (citing Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 454, 19 L.Ed. 196 (1869)). 23 *12

aw is clear, at least for Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel purposes, that a "prosecution" does not begin with the criminal complaint's filing. See P. United States v. Alvarado, 440 F.3d 191, 199-200 (4th Cir. 2006) ("The filing of a federal criminal complaint does not commence a formal prosecution."); see als

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

son who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or im

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212914 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Ent

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

son who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or im

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212981 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Ent

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

son who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or im

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221384 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Ent

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

son who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or im

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221481 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Ent

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

son who travels in interstate commerce or travels into the United States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or im

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00189770 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Ent

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