60 United States v. Alfisi, 308 F.3d 144, 155-56 (2d Cir. 2002) (Sack, J., dissenting) (arguing that paymen

al justice." 7°? Indeed, 289 75 F.3d 1275, 1283-84 (8th Cir. 1996). 20 [dat £283. 291 Td. (citing United States v. Cuthbertson, 630 F.2d 139, 146 (3d Cir. 1980)). 292 548 A.2d 408, 415 (Vt. 1988). 293 Td. at 413. 294 Td. at 414-15. 295 Iq. 296 Fd. at 415. 297 Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 55

refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them”); Securities and Exhange Comm’n v. Graystone Nash, Inc., 25 F.3d 187, 190 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[t]he [defendant’s] dilemma of choosing between complete silence and presenting a defense [in a civil case] does not fatally infect the rig

fusion arising from the cases being at different stages of litigation. See Borough of Olyphant v. PPL Corp., 153 Fed. Appx. 80, 2005 WL 2673489 (3d Cir. 2005) (a case cited by Defendant, the Court noted that it has discretion to deny a motion to consolidate “if it would cause delay in one of the case

(I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386

13 CONCLUSION 13 Certificate of Service 15 ii EFTA00018998 --- PAGE BREAK --- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal ofHughes, 633 F.2d 282 (3d Cir. 1980) 2 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). 2, 3 Doe v. Indyke, Case No., 20-cv-00484 (S.D.N.Y.) 6 Giuffre v. Maxwell, 325 F. S

e does not involve any government overreaching by taking advantage of an unsophisticated defendant." United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531, 1539 (3d Cir. 1996). Instead, Epstein and the USAO-SDFL sought to maneuver around the statutory commands of the CVRA. Now that their maneuver has failed, Epstein

se." United States v. Rivera, No. 13 Cr. 149, 2015 WL 1540517, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2015); see, e.g., United States v. Merlin, 349 F.3d 144, 155 (3d Cir. 2003) (holding that Government did not violate Brady obligation in failing to turn over tapes in BOP possession because "the BOP was not part of th