SE_OVERSIGHT_017720 --- PAGE BREAK --- Page 7 of 52 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 835, *846 The victims subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit seeking review of the district court's ruling. *4 Three months later, a Tenth Circuit panel rejected the victims' claims. >> Th

k Data Is Ruled Hlegal,” New York Times, May 5, 2015. This court decision was stayed three months later on August 27, 2015, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals on procedural grounds. By this time, however, the legal issue was rendered moot by Congress. See http://law justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts

5, 2015. This court decision was stayed three months later on August 27, 2015 by a 3-judge panel of HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_020381 --- PAGE BREAK --- 230 the U.S. Court of Appeals on procedural grounds. By this time, however, the legal issue was rendered moot by Congress. See http://law justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts

ffective com- pliance program, which includes due diligence of any pro- spective foreign agents. United States v. Kozeny, et al. In December 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a conscious avoidance instruction given during the 2009 trial of a businessman who was convicted of conspiring to viola

clude both synthetic equivalents of THC and THC occurring naturally in the cannabis plant. In its 2004 holding in Hemp Industries Association v. DEA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit enjoined DEA enforcement of this purported amendment and held that the THC listed separately from marijuana on Schedule I inclu

f interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions." Id. at 41, 43. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit applied Hubbell and Fisher in United States v. Ponds, framing the inquiry as concerning "an act of production th

tatement by Swami comparing women to dogs and condoning lightly slapping one's wife for disciplinary reasons.” I argued the appeal before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit consisting of three elderly conservative judges in Charleston, South Carolina. I could not imagine a group that would be less

Epstein friend and confidante, is battling to keep details of her settlement with an Epstein accuser sealed from public view. In a March hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Judge Jose A. Cabranes openly scoffed at Maxwell's attorney as he argued for secrecy. Yet here we are on the cusp of summer, a

2014 WL 164181, at •8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2014) ("The Court stays immediate disclosure of these materials to permit Defendant to make application to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for a more extended stay."); Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 54 (2d. Cir. 2019) (recognizing likelihood of future appeals in