EFTA00207677Set 9
2006-07-2636p12,694w
statute in effect
at the time of the alleged conduct applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL
144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S.yjigaga ... Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); see also U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip
Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Ca1. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. v. Reno
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00207677.pdf
EFTA01100005Set 9
2006-07-2643p14,726w
statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct
applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga ... Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009);
see also U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01100005.pdf
EFTA00725795Set 9
2010-02-113p1,131w
post facto laws ($50,000 rather than $150,000), see United
States v Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (ED Cal, 2010) (indicating that the statute in
effect at the time ... obligations but still contest that the plaintiff was injured, see
United States v Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the
letter from Mr Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00725795.pdf
EFTA00725792Set 9
2010-02-113p1,232w
post facto laws ($50,000 rather than $150,000), see United
States v Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (ED Cal, 2010) (indicating that the statute in
effect at the time ... obligations but still contest that the plaintiff was injured, see
United States v Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the
letter from Mr Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00725792.pdf
EFTA00725790Set 9
2010-02-112p977w
amount of damages ($50,000
rather than $150,000) see United States v Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (ED Cal,
2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... separate element from the element that a predicate
violation occur, see United States v Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate
element) and the letter from Mr Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00725790.pdf
EFTA00721999Set 9
2010-03-056p2,015w
rather than $150,000) under ex post
facto laws, see United States v. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010)
(indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... obligations but still contest that the
plaintiff was injured, see United States v. Scheidt, supra (finding each to be
a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00721999.pdf
EFTA00189955Set 9
2010-03-056p2,043w
rather than $150,000) under ex post
facto laws, see United States'. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010)
(indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... obligations but still contest that the
plaintiff was injured, see United States I. Scheidt, supra (finding each to be
a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00189955.pdf
EFTA00586230Set 9
2010-02-112p856w
amount of damages ($50,000
rather than $150,000) see United States v Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (ED Cal,
2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... separate element from the element that a predicate
violation occur, see United States v Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate
element) and the letter from Mr Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00586230.pdf
EFTA00725771Set 9
2010-02-112p851w
amount of damages ($50,000
rather than $150,000) see United States v Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (ED Cal,
2010) (indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... separate element from the element that a predicate
violation occur, see United States v Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate
element) and the letter from Mr Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00725771.pdf
EFTA00213246Set 9
2010-03-2929p9,525w
Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); see also
U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v.
Renga ... statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct
applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00213246.pdf
EFTA00207722Set 9
2010-03-2929p9,495w
Epstein, 2009 WL 383383 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2009); see also
U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v.
Renga ... statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct
applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00207722.pdf
EFTA00213279Set 9
2010-03-056p2,041w
rather than $150,000) under ex post
facto laws, see United States v. Scheidt 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010)
(indicating that the statute in effect at the time ... obligations but still contest that the
plaintiff was injured, see United States v. Scheidt, supra (finding each to be
a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00213279.pdf
EFTA01099943Set 9
2006-07-2632p10,791w
statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct
applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WI. 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.CaI. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01099943.pdf
EFTA01099901Set 9
2006-07-2631p10,619w
statute in effect at the time of the alleged conduct
applies. See U.S. v. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010);
U.S. v. Renga
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01099901.pdf
EFTA00233188Set 9
2009-09-0121p5,713w
rather than $150,000) under ex post
facto laws, see United States'. Scheidt, 2010 W.L. 144837 (E.D. Cal., 2010)
(indicating that the statute in effect at the time
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00233188.pdf