Back to Network
6
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
Document Mentions (6 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
8-39 (citing United States I. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States, Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States I Scisum, 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Governmen
Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA02857732_p3
(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove
Page: EFTA02857732_p3 →Page EFTA02857732_p6
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
Page: EFTA02857732_p6 →2 mentions
Page EFTA02857763_p3
(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove
Page: EFTA02857763_p3 →Page EFTA02857763_p6
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
Page: EFTA02857763_p6 →2 mentions
Page EFTA02857810_p3
(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove
Page: EFTA02857810_p3 →Page EFTA02857810_p6
lular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleventh Circuit was u
Page: EFTA02857810_p6 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (149)
Entities connected to both Jacksonville and Scisum
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON682 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
LB
Leon Black
PERSON164 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON151 w/ Jacksonville·6 w/ Scisum
United States
LOCATION126 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
Marc Rich
PERSON121 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON107 w/ Jacksonville·3 w/ Scisum
Joe Biden
PERSON104 w/ Jacksonville·2 w/ Scisum
Palm Beach
LOCATION84 w/ Jacksonville·2 w/ Scisum
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION80 w/ Jacksonville·4 w/ Scisum
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON65 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON66 w/ Jacksonville·6 w/ Scisum
Philadelphia
LOCATION62 w/ Jacksonville·6 w/ Scisum
New York
LOCATION61 w/ Jacksonville·3 w/ Scisum
Barry Diller
PERSON60 w/ Jacksonville·3 w/ Scisum
Alexander Acosta
PERSON52 w/ Jacksonville·6 w/ Scisum
Palm Beach County
LOCATION53 w/ Jacksonville·4 w/ Scisum
Palm Beach Police Department
ORGANIZATION53 w/ Jacksonville·3 w/ Scisum
Colorado
LOCATION50 w/ Jacksonville·3 w/ Scisum
RB
Roy Black
PERSON39 w/ Jacksonville·7 w/ Scisum
Cleveland
LOCATION37 w/ Jacksonville·6 w/ Scisum