Epstein Secrets

of jurisdiction because judge knew that she could depart downward. 19 EFTA00224153 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. I Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6s Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform o

., U.S. I Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. ~ Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 `11 Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336 9 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy char

t she could depart downward. 17 EFTA01729501 • COURT .. .... r %. • AS' - -.. *AMITY :. OO)$/g.PNOWNICAtI0N, ' ' , COAR.qE..- , U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (61h Cir. 2000 ) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (76 Cir. 2006) (2423(b) Conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA01729485 U.S. v. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state cons

at she could depart downward. 17 EFTA00079430 {nv , . ,..y..4 .,,p.th : I r . j"'T ' -77 SS aks24.2-2.(b: 74;11-. 1~.9 iwic.# U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (sr Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11`" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA00079414 U.S. v. Jackson. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state con

th Cir.2 ); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 227-29 (11th ir.2002); United States Farner, 251 F.3di 510, 513 (5th Cir.200 ; United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.2000). Page 7 *782 [1] To convict under § 2422(b). the Government must prove the following elements beyond a reasona

at rooms, necessarily involves interstate communications and therefore constitutes the "use of facility of interstate commerce." United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2004). At trial, Defendant admitted that he communicated with "Conrad" using email and Internet instant messag

e to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to

e simply by employing an intennediary to carry out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005