Epstein Secrets

ys Before: HONORABLE RONALD L. ELLIS United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of New York UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MARK BRENER, a/k/a "Michael,' CECIL SUWAL, a/k/a "Katie,' a/k/a "Kate," TEMEKA RACHELLE LEWIS, a/k/a "Rachelle," and TANYA HOLLANDER, a/k/a "Tania Hollander," Defendants

retion of the trial court, and a refusal to grant a continuance will be set aside only upon a showing of clear abuse of discretion. United States Jackson, 5t9 F.2d 517, 528 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985, 97 S.Ct 1682, 52 LEd2d 879 (1977); United States' Webb, 533 F2d 391, 396 (8th Cir. 1976

as charged only in runts VIII, was found guilty on Counts (con- spiracy involving trips to Nevada) and VII (Nevada trip of Bray) and acquitted on Counts VI and VIII (Nevada trips of Daw- son and Anderson respectively). He re- ceived two concurrent sentences of three years' imprisonment Both defendants

993), and "conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of facts, or legal conclusions masquerading as fact will not prevent dismissal." Jackson ■ BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 50, 1262- 1263 (11th Cir.2004) (citations omitted). 'To survive a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs must d

an & Goggin, Orlando, FL, Kimble Clark Bouchillon, Frost Tamayo Sessums & Aranda, P.A., Bartow, FL, Mime A. Hanna, Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, FL, Michael Charles Huddleston, Huddleston & Teal, P.A., DeLand, FL, for Defendants. Paul Prewitt, Daytona Beach, FL, pro se. ORDER MOODY, J. •1 THIS CAUSE c

CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION v. GONZALES Cue a. 475 F.Supp.24 775 (E.D.N. 2007) Plaintiff claims negligent supervi- sion and retention; (D) DENIED as to Counts VI and VIII of Plaintiffs Complaint; (E) DENIED as to Plaintiffs claim (or punitive damages. (2) Defendant Brother Antonio F. Anto- nucci's Motion f

fac- tors strorsly weighs in favor of transfer. Jackson I. Executive Airlines, Ina, Civ. No2000-121, 200

isrepresentation. 6. The Rescission and Punitive Dam- ages Counts are not Causes of Ac- tion The defendants contend that this Court should dismiss Counts VI and VII—for rescission of the note and for punitive damages—because each claim seeks specif- ic relief without asserting any claim for relief. (Me