Epstein Secrets

ee Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. The search results suggest the "possibility that defendant could target an- other vulnerable victim." See United States v. Baker, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1135 (D.N.M. 2018) (where the defendant was alleged to specifically target "vulnerable women" and where he attempted to con

every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision was unanimously af- firmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. Peo- ple v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's

rand jury to attorney Jonathan Biran of the firm Baker Donelson to allow him to fulfill his obligations

Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia; and the U.S. Attorney's Office of the District of Maryland, where he served as the Chief of the Appellate Division. After leaving federal service, Mr. Biran served as the named partner in his own firm, Biran Kelly, before joining Baker Donelson as a partner. 5

ee Dkt. 11, Ex. 1 at 9. The search results suggest the "possibility that defendant could target an- other vulnerable victim." See United States v. Baker, 349 F. Supp. 3d 1113, 1135 (D.N.M. 2018) (where the defendant was alleged to specifically target "vulnerable women" and where he attempted to con

every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision was unanimously af- firmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. Peo- ple v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's