Epstein Secrets

another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See also Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. Unikd Stales, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

lve this prototypical fact pattern. See. e.g. United States v, Morton 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in liaht 21 Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States v. Ortega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11h Cir. 2004); United States v.

n another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See so Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. UnitekStates, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

lve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Mono, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States v. Omega, 363 F.3d 1093 (1Is Cir. 2004); United States v.

in another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See s2 liftmen HufT, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen'. United Stales. 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

olve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g.. United States,. Mono, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light of Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), oninforueinSigMl_h% 144 Fed. Appx. 804 (2005); United States Gana, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir. 2004); United States'. Miranda

.7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen 'United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". . .an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be foun

2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11 th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 338 (2006); United States !Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (I I" Cir. 2004); United States "'Miranda, 348 17.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 20

going determination, it is not necessary to examine the further contention of appellant that the judgment should be versed under authority of of Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1 . The judgment is reversed and the caw remanded with directions to enter judg- ment of acquittal. SANBOR

ines, must consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing." Id. at The second was the continuation of appellate review. While Booker held that sentences could no longer be reviewed de novo, it determined that appellate courts thereafter would apply a "reasonableness" standa