te would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

3 05 2010 Page 29 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 29 meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

ecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonst

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

AO to do so, it is not in accord with the principles of justice. Indeed, as noted, just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court underscored this point in Santos and Cuellar. The Court made clear that prosecutorial discretion does not provide the USAO cart blanche to expand criminal statutes as they seek to

criminal statute could support both a narrow or broad application of the federal criminal law, "the tie must go to the defendant." United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. and Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S (June 2, 2008), Slip Op. at 6. 2 February 25, 2003 Trafficking in Persons National Security Presi

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

. Da Watch Shift: Lt. reported I/M's Cave #86164-054(Codes #108/113), Contreras #89520-053(Code #113), Fernandez #86824-054(Codes #115/331), Santos #86638-054(Code #108), placement on the Special Housing Unit. Correctional assignments Internal, Attorney Conf., SHU #4, 10-South #2, Rec. Off

or ceased to be in effect). Lender will retain these payments, and 001124280960 • YORX.Singe iIITdy4 MMWV,MOy Mac UNI1ORM INSTRIAMENT WITH MIAS Santos =maw a/1/9 lotencial Seivices Cilkamit 3.2.101.06 MI Fenn 3033 1001 VMP6A111111141 el 01).0D Pao 1 21 EFTA00151397 will use these payments

ecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal criminal law—powerfully demonst

) 14 United States v. Reuter, 463 F.3d 792 (7th Cir. 2006) 9, 10 United States v. Sanchez, 30 F.4th 1063 (11th Cir. 2022) 13 United States v. Santos, No. 21-10381, 2022 WL 1196761 (5th Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) 13 United States v. Skys, 637 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2011) 16 United States v. Suarez, No.

wing sexual assault: A longitudinal test of a new model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84. 1257-1269. Froth. B. C.. Dcitsch. S. E.. Santos. A. B.. Gold. P. B.. Johnson. M. R.. Mciskt. N.. et al. (2000). Procedural and methodological issues in tekpsychiatry research and program developme

ity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail over Plaintiffs view. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

y Ws o prat* • Soda, Soar*. Mortar; an an Alimaficabon card numbs: ornate' and coarnby or other partninanhbouid document natimaay or realdance and Santos phcrograpd or antsW seadvard. EPSTEIN (name informadod provided herein Is financial ioiftsadon written no atit40461841IS person op. • certify

. Da Watch Shift: Lt. reported I/M's Cave #86164-054(Codes #108/113), Contreras #89520-053(Code #113), Fernandez #86824-054(Codes #115/331), Santos #86638-054(Code #108), placement on the Special Housing Unit. Correctional assignments Internal, Attorney Conf., SHU #4, 10-South #2, Rec. Off

t cannot be shown that Mr. Epstein violated any of the three federal statutes identified by prosecutors. As the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar make clear, federal law may not be stretched in that manner, and the current federal investigation relies, as its foundation, on imperm

out your statement LOS Francis' Sweets It. (the firma LOS Finned Sonoma. is a muter of al prnapal uonty, comm.:Sty and options nehrges UM inertial Santos and LOS Bari, USA are rdeect sLbsciareesct LOS A6 aid itthelas of WS 5costhes MC 1MFiml frarenal statement n hobble upon request Term's enecutro

ation about your statement LB5 Fromial Sewn Mc. (Me Firma UGS I Wartctal Sonde), n a meryter ol alprndpalØy, canmcdty and cobra «hraes U0S inameal Santos and MS Bart USA re naked mbsdri•sd UPS AG rd ofhtalas of U3S Sean U.0 1MFiml frontal statement rt nvrbbkaearrearrest 1he Fern's ~cane offces re a

the article, Derek Myers, 31, told staff of the House's ethics subcommittee during an interview Wednesday that while he was trying to get a job in Santos' congressional office in late January, he sent at least seven $150 payments to Santos' director of operations, Vish Burn. The article indicated that