EFTA00015303Set 8
22p5,018w
States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) 2, 15
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) 9, 10
United States v. Oshatz, 700 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y ... limited purpose.'" Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2216 (quoting United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435,
443 (1976)).
In Smith v. Maryland, the Court ruled that the government
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00015303.pdf
EFTA00178967Set 9
2007-07-17267p61,953w
citizen has no expectation of privacy (see, e.g., United
States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)), or telephone toll records (Smith v.
Maryland, 442 U.S
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00178967.pdf
EFTA01713166Set 10
2007-07-1740p9,766w
citizen has no expectation of privacy (see, e.g., United
States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)), or telephone toll records (Smith v.
Maryland, 442 U.S
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01713166.pdf
EFTA00999402Set 9
2014-10-317p3,798w
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New
Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). A taxpayer may deduct ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred during
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00999402.pdf
EFTA00102999Set 9
2019-03-26239p78,398w
Miller,
116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir. 1997) 252, 292
United States v. Miller,
425 U.S. 435 (1976) 116, 117, 119
United States v. Miller,
911 F.3d
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00102999.pdf