DOJ-OGR-00018803.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 205 of 264 1646 LC 7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross first couple of incidents, which I think would be, as you're suggesting, time frame inconsistent. MR. PAGLIUCA: I think you admitted those already, your Honor. THE COURT: See? I'm consistent. MR. PAGLIUCA: You are. Yes, you are. Yes, you are. The Court admitted paragraph 21, I think, as the -- 21 and 27. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PAGLIUCA: And where we started getting -- THE COURT: 21 and 27. 27 is called incident two. MR. PAGLIUCA: Right. THE COURT: And then 33, I'm not saying an inconsistency. I'll sustain there. MR. PAGLIUCA: 39 —-—- THE COURT: And to the extent it is, because it could somehow be read as part of a time frame that's off, it's consistent with her -- it falls within the time frame she testi To the extent there's 401 relevance, it's point the first incident described in this compl 2002, that you've already gotten in, which is that this and her testimony is that it took pl fied to; it's not specific as to which incident this is. cumulative of the laint took place in ace in 2001. Next. MR. PAGLIUCA: But also to that point, your Honor, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 —-- that DOJ-OGR-00018803