language in [the CVRA] was agreed to."). °! 150 Cong. Rec. H8208-09 (daily ed. Oct. 6, 2004). °2 150 Cong. Rec. $10910 (daily ed. Oct. 9, 2004). % Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted); accord United St

at crime victims receive "as much of the report as possible without infringing on specific privacy concerns held by criminal defendants"). 408 In re Kenna, 453 F.3d at 1137. DAVID SCHOEN HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017686 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 52 of 78 2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *933 409 _ and presumably they wi

to situations where victims seek "relevant" contents of the presentence report to make a victim impact statement at sentencing. Second, the victim in Kenna sought the entire presentence report. The Ninth Circuit pointedly observed: "We note that Kenna refused the district court's offer to consider disclo

Death Penalty Act) (1996); Pub. L. No. 105-6 (Victim Rights Clarification Act) (1997); and Pub. L. No. 108-405 (Justice for All Act) (2004). 262 Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); and Justice for All Act.

protect victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice s

nment's files"); cf. In re Slier, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a general

een but not heard. The Crime Victims' Rights Act sought to change this by making victims independent participants in the criminal justice process." Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for C.D. Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, because the CVRA is remedial legislation, courts should interp

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

mous rul- ings that crime victims were entitled to reg- ular appellate review. See In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005); Kenna v. US. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Ca., 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Walsh, 229 Fed.Appx. 58, at 60 (8rd Cir. 2007). My next ques

protect victims' rights and ensure their involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4th Cir. 2007); Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice s