FEDERAL · 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(ip.</p> <p id="b600-10">On December 31, 2008, the Government filed a letter under seal, which Judge Wex-ler subsequently unsealed, indicating that the Government intended to use Petitioner’s Proffer admissions in the event the Petitioner triggered any of the exceptions to the Proffer Agreement signed by the parties. The Government explained the various ways under <em>Barrow </em>that the Petitioner could open the door to the admission of his proffer statements and requested “that the [Petitioner] be specifically advised about potential admission of his <span class="page-break">[561]</span>*561proffer statements prior to the commencement of trial.”</p> <p id="b601-5">Later that day, the Petitioner filed a letter responding to the Government’s December 31, 2008. The letter stated that the proffer statements should be suppressed because the Petitioner had never been advised of the holding of the <em>Barrow </em>case and that the “boiler plate, non-negotiable proffer agreement is unconscionable on its face particularly if the court permits this belated and distorted use of it.” The Petitioner further added that if the Government was allowed to use the proffer statements, the Government’s position would “clearly and reprehensibly deprive[ ] the [Petitioner] of the due process of law.”</p> <p id="b601-6">On January 5, 2009, the Petitioner filed a letter requesting an “emergency hearing” on the Government’s intended use of the Petitioner’s proffer statements.</p> <p id="b601 — Not Yet Available
21 U.S.C. § 841(ip.</p>
<p id="b600-10">On December 31, 2008, the Government filed a letter under seal, which Judge Wex-ler subsequently unsealed, indicating that the Government intended to use Petitioner’s Proffer admissions in the event the Petitioner triggered any of the exceptions to the Proffer Agreement signed by the parties. The Government explained the various ways under <em>Barrow </em>that the Petitioner could open the door to the admission of his proffer statements and requested “that the [Petitioner] be specifically advised about potential admission of his <span class="page-break">[561]</span>*561proffer statements prior to the commencement of trial.”</p>
<p id="b601-5">Later that day, the Petitioner filed a letter responding to the Government’s December 31, 2008. The letter stated that the proffer statements should be suppressed because the Petitioner had never been advised of the holding of the <em>Barrow </em>case and that the “boiler plate, non-negotiable proffer agreement is unconscionable on its face particularly if the court permits this belated and distorted use of it.” The Petitioner further added that if the Government was allowed to use the proffer statements, the Government’s position would “clearly and reprehensibly deprive[ ] the [Petitioner] of the due process of law.”</p>
<p id="b601-6">On January 5, 2009, the Petitioner filed a letter requesting an “emergency hearing” on the Government’s intended use of the Petitioner’s proffer statements.</p>
<p id="b601