Epstein Secrets

estimony at trial can be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 613, and so can be the proper subject of a Rule 17(c) subpoena. United States v. Ferguson, No. 3:06-CR137(CFD), 2007 WL 4577303, at •3 (D. Conn. Dec. 26, 2007) (holding that prior inconsistent statements of testifying witnesses are "prop

omitted). Although the Nixon Court did not decide whether this four-part test applies to subpoenas served on third-parties in particular, courts in the Second Circuit have almost unanimously applied Nixon to subpoenas served on third-parties. See, e.g., United States v. Pena, No. I5-CR- 551 (AJN), 2016 WL 8735699

d 1038 (5th Cir. 1972). [FN17] U.S.—Packard 1 Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 44 S. Ct. 257, 68 L. Ed. 596 (1924). [FN18] Fla.—Gulf Theatres'. State ex rel. Ferguson, 133 Fla. 634, 182 So. 842 (1938). [FN191 U.S. Hartirader 1. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148, 19 S. Ct. 119, 43 L. Ed. 399 (1898). [FN20] Fla.—Coleman Greene

ers, Inc., Petitioners-Ap- pellees, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellant. No. 474, Docket 95-6119. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argued Aug. 81, 1996. Decided Oct. 17, 1996. Government appealed from order en- tered in the United States District Court for the Eastern Distri

ates District Court for the Western District of Washington;*1102 Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR- 03-00406-L. Before HUG, FERGUSON, and McKEOWN, Cir- cuit Judges. Opinion by Judge McKEOWN; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON. C 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. hap

, 259 F. 35, 38, and De- moth United States, 144 F. 363, 366, 6 I.R.A., .S., 424, 7 Ann.Cas. 121; by the decision of the Circuit Court of ala of the Second Circuit in Reed ■ United States, 2 Cir., 96 F2d 785, 787, rtlorarl denied 305 U.S. 612, 59 S.Ct. 71, 83 LEd. 399; and by the rulin of the Supreme Court

st, LLP, San Francisco, CA, William S. Berland, Ferguson & Berland, Berkeley, CA, for Defendants. ORDER

it as a pattern of racketeering activity"); see also Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co.. 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that the Second Circuit "has never held a period of less than two years to constitute a substantial period of time"). Second, the criminal activities allegedly committed

years' imprisonment. (Third Comey Decl. (Dkt. No. 59) 1 8; 20 Cr. 330, Judgment (Dkt. No. 696)) On July 7, 2022, Maxwell appealed her conviction to the Second Circuit. (Third Comey Decl. (Dkt. No. 59) 1 9) Maxwell seeks, inter a "a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct and alleged evidentiary issues." (a)

t purposes where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could decide in the non-movant's favor." Beyer v. County of Nassau, 524 F.3d 160, 163 (2d Cir. 2008). "When no rational jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party because the evidence to support its case is so slight, there is no genuine

and Local Civil Rule 56.1 statements are not required." N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 872 F. Supp. 2d 309, 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Ferguson v. FBI 1995 WL 329307, at •2 (S.D.N.Y. 7 EFTA00038658 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:17-cv-03956-PGG Document 64 Filed 06/25/24 Page 8 of 20 June 1,