d Cir. 1997) 15 United States v. Valle, No. 12 Cr. 847 (PGG), 2013 WL 440687 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2013) 3 United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1983) 16 United States v. Welch, 368 F.3d 970 (7th Cir. 2004) 30 United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) 6, 8 Yates v. State, 171

pp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik

, 2 00 7) 15 National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (200 4) 19 Nat 7 Assoc. of Homebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2 002) 17 iii EFTA00071557 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 30 New York Tunes Co. v. Dep't o/•.Justice, No. 14 Ch,

the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meyer v. Bush, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13626 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) 7 Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 14 Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep't ofAgric., 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 14 N.Y. Tim

, 2 00 7) 15 National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (200 4) 19 Nat 7 Assoc. of Homebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2 002) 17 iii EFTA00075440 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 30 New York Tunes Co. v. Dep't o/•.Justice, No. 14 Ch,

he Government has no way of enforcing it, making it inconsequential in the analysis.'). See generally United States v. Cook, 442 F.2d 723, 724 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (rejecting, without discussion, execution of a waiver from any country as a condition in bail determination); United States v. Lee, 79 F. Sup

ed, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Congress did not intend to auth

v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2021) 9 Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 6 Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S Immigration & Customs Enft, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167637 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) 9 Neb. Press A

pp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik

the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242 (1977) 6 Meyer v. Bush, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13626 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993) 7 Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) 14 Multi Ag Media LLC v. Dep't ofAgric., 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 14 N.Y. Tim

, 2 00 7) 15 National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (200 4) 19 Nat 7 Assoc. of Homebuilders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2 002) 17 iii EFTA00088674 Case 1:20-cv-00833-PAE Document 25 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 30 New York Tunes Co. v. Dep't o/•.Justice, No. 14 Ch,

pp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2012) 14 Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146 (D.D.C. 2004) 20 Kimberlin v. DOJ, 139 F.3d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 13 Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. v. U. S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 407 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 19 Kubik

s an "'appendage of the court" and it "depend[s] on the judiciary in its role as an investigative body." United States v. Seals, 130 F.3d 451, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41, 49 (1959)). As relevant here, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia has

t natural reading" of the statute is "to construe `any offense involving' by reference to the elements of the offense at issue." 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). The court then gave an illustrative example of a case in which a defendant travels in interstate commerce, commits a

v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2021) 9 Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 6 Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S Immigration & Customs Enft, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167637 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) 9 Neb. Press A

ity of Bellingham 780 P,2d 272, 275-76 (Wash. App. 1989) (collecting cases). See also Bur. of Nat'l Affairs v. U.S. Delft. of Justice 742 F.3d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (holding that personal appointment materials, such as calendars and daily agendas for the convenience of Assistant Attorney General, are not

09). Courts have long consulted official CRS summariesto assess legislative intent, see, e.g., &nig Pension Ben. Guar. Com. 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984); fIRECI'V Inc. I. Cignarella No. I. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 W 1252261 at *7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005); Clokesav St. Francis Hoso. & Healthcare No.

ries Inflicted by Epstein. In general, "The compensation and remedy due a civil plaintiff should not be delayed? Gordon v. FDIC, 427 F.2d 578, 560 (D.C. Cir. 1970). Epstein has not discussed Jane Doe's interest in prompt compensation — much less demonstrated that his alleged interests• in a stay somehow

rts have long consulted official CRS summaries to assess legislative intent, see, e.g., Rettig v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 744 F.2d 133, 145 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1984) DIRECTV Inc. v. Cionarella No. Civ.A 03-2384, 2005 WL 1252261 at 7 (D.N.J. May 24, 2005)' Clohessy v. St Francis How. & Healthcare No. 98-C-

v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6267 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2021) 9 Nat'l Ass 'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 309 F.3d 26 (D.C. Cir. 2002) 6 Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. U.S Immigration & Customs Enft, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167637 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) 9 Neb. Press A