ON-1 has already determined dim our sultstanube arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. h.pinein is not nu:timed were "compelling.- I Inwever. in euniradielion In Mr. Sloman's assertion that CliQS had provided an independent. de unto review. CMS; made clear that it did nol. du sit. indeed.

) has already determined that our Substantive arguments regarding why a federal prosecution of Mr. 149nein is not unrranied were - compelling.- I Inwever. in contradiction to Mr. Sloinairs acsenion that CLOS had provided an independent. dr ;uwn review. CFOS made clear that it did not tin so. indeed. r

eady tleierntined that our 7:tilothinet..t: arson:ems regualing why a federal proseeuti In t . !Vs. Itpsotin is not oar:anted wen: "compc•Ilin;.- I Inwever. in contr.:diction to Mr assertion that CEOS had proviths,1 an indent:lid:Mt. de Punt roele.. •. CFOS made clear t.tal tt t. i ma. do ND. indeed.,