ory. The art work suspended on the walls, made by Estrada himself, mirror these same themes. Between monolo

er, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law.'" United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 72 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). If the two offenses at issue are both conspiracies charged under the same statute, then the multiplicity inqui

onetheless, the agents' understanding of the objective facts, albeit mistaken, is the baseline for determining reasonable suspicion. See Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.20 II) ("Even if an officer makes a mistake of fact, that mistake `will not render a stop illegal, if the objective f

w email from Ms. Ederi re: 3/11/09 meeting notes; research re: la and[; telephone conference with Ms. Eden re: above issues; review email from Ms. Estrada re: new counsel and Mr. Herman's cases. Review email from Ms. Ederi rem. 3.1 .2 .4 .5 3.4 35.00 1,085.00 70.00 140.00 175.00 1,190.00 3

re: same. Review email from Ms. Ezell re: photographs. Exchange emails with Ms. Sheehan re: NS ens and attaching latter. Review email from Ms. Estrada attaching settlement; review attachment; review email from Ms. Ezell re: settlement; review email from Ms. Ederi re: same. Telephone conference wi

sberg to Mr. Critton re: 9/25 settlement; review and send replies between team; telephone conference with Mr. Eden re: same; review email from Ms. Estrada . rc: deposition of r. Riley, etc.; review email from Ms. Ezell re: settlement clarification; review email from Ms. Ezell re: tolling agreement;

review and revise sealed responses; review email from Ms. Ezell re: same. OOP Review email from Ms. Sheehan re: client; review a email from Ms. Estrada attaching joint scheduling report; review email from Ms. Sheehan re: same; review reply from Ms. Ezell; review email from Ms. Eden re: availabilit

re: morning's hearing; review reply from Ms. Eden; telephone conference with Ms. Ederi re: same and re: client's situation. Review email from Ms. Estrada rc: dinaialtyp review email from Ms. Estrada 01.0S/y; review email re: illitaikipie; review email from Ms. Ederi re: availability over next ten

Ms. Ederi re: same. 9/15/09 30608 Review email re: set depositions; review email from General Ms. Ezell to team re• same; review email from Ms. Estrada attaching withdrawal of cross-notice; send emails to team re:Sai review replies from Ms. Ezell; review entails attaching cross-notices; review ema

mbers as sheen In the diagram telex 1 9.+3 3,C WeekI —13 Viceit We. 3 Week I rto 43 Fp sr rr I TAM AN 28 TABLETS (dosprenone and ethinyl Estrada) 4 BE SURE YOU HME READY AT ALL TIMES: MOTHER KIND OF BRTH CONTROL (such as condoms a summon's) to use as a back.tp n case you mss rills. AN EXTR

/01, Lovelace). Back to Top COUNTERTERRORISM 16 Alleged 'Anti-Trent Members Charged in Houston With Drug and Gun Trafficking KIAH (CW-39) (07/01, Estrada) and KRIV (Fox-26) (07/01, Kite) reported that 16 people, including foreign nationals, have been charged with drug and gun crimes as alleged members

s being held without bail pending his court appearance. Additional reporting was provided by KHON (FOX-2) (11/14, Macedonio) and Island News (11/14, Estrada). Virginia Man Linked to Fourth Cold Case Killing WRC (NBC-4) (11/14, Wagner) reported that Alan Wilmer Sr. has been linked to a fourth cold case k

om China and warning that ignoring it could be perilous. Continued Reporting: Allegations of China Harassment Surface in Texas KIAH (CW-39) (11/20, Estrada) reported that the Chinese government is facing allegations of cyberstalking, physical intimidation, and harassment against Chinese citizens, natura

NAME UNIT 1. 6 .7603 r0496 eh Alt ng tr 13. 7 9 70-- Og i NAIKE UNIT REG # ket 74 9: nsi Lin can nit 14. 60 6lictlitra . 4-/ 7aa-ac 9 Estrada, A IP "' 3/653.2053/ `Trei /Thirds, J I SO 4159 Oa . :e E' er- it 8595 ary 4,A:orz >'-s 7. eriXon7 L Xci 19- 8. 6167 - 05-1/43

ited States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) 62, 72 United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00103012 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2

. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, `unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law."' (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a

ited States v. El-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) 62, 72 United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00099954 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2

r. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, `unless the charged offenses am the same in fact and in law."' (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a

ited States v. E!-Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d 600 (N.D. Ohio 2001) 23 United States v. Elsbery, 602 F.2d 1054 (2d Cir. 1979) 62, 72 United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2003) 259 United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966) 80 EFTA00077619 United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2

. 2006) ("A claim of multiplicity cannot succeed, however, 'unless the charged offenses are the same in fact and in law."' (quoting United States v. Estrada, 320 F.3d 173, 180 (2d Cir. 2003)). Although the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect against simultaneous prosecutions for the same offense, a