Event Details

This document is page 'ix' from a legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous U.S. court cases with their legal citations and corresponding page references within the larger document. The cases cited span from 1926 to 2017 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.

This document is page 'iv' of a 113-page legal filing, specifically Document 59 in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. The page is a table of contents outlining legal arguments concerning standard of review, procedural errors, and the District Court's application of a sentencing adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1.

This document is page xii of a Table of Authorities from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It lists various court cases and federal statutes (U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code) that are cited as legal precedent or authority within the main document, along with the corresponding page numbers where they are referenced.

This document is page 11 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, dating from 1926 to 2022, which are cited within the main document. Each citation includes the case name, legal reporter information, and the page numbers where the case is referenced.

This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.

This document is page 55 (PDF page 70) of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The text presents a legal argument regarding the 'Landgraf test' and statutory interpretation, specifically arguing that the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) was not intended to apply retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a proviso that would have allowed it to cover conduct predating the enactment. The page relies on various Supreme Court and Circuit Court citations to support the argument that rejected legislative proposals are significant indicators of congressional intent.