5
Shared Docs
2
Same-Page
5 / 5
Mentions
h Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones , 471 F.3d at 538-39 (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 (1
e activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States v. Prince , the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire" where the West Virginia statues also lacked a definition. Prince , 515 F.2d 564, 5
h Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones , 471 F.3d at 538-39 (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 (1
e activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States v. Prince , the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire" where the West Virginia statues also lacked a definition. Prince , 515 F.2d 564, 5
h Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones , 471 F.3d at 538-39 (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 (1
Page: EFTA02857732_p3 →e activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States v. Prince , the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire". Prince , 515 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 1975). FI2 In 1946, the Supreme Court defin
Page: EFTA02857732_p7 →h Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones , 471 F.3d at 538-39 (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 (1
Page: EFTA02857763_p3 →e activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States v. Prince , the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire". Prince , 515 F.2d 564, 566 (5th Cir. 1975). Fl In 1946, the Supreme Court define
Page: EFTA02857763_p7 →h Circuit soundly rejected the argument, citing the other circuits reaching the same conclusion. Jones , 471 F.3d at 538-39 (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 (1
Page: EFTA02857810_p3 →e activity was not "sexual enough" to qualify as "prostitution." Title 18 carries no definition of "prostitution." In United States v. Prince , the Fifth Circuit approved of the generic definition "sexual intercourse for hire" where the West Virginia statues also lacked a definition. Prince , 515 F.2d 564, 5
Page: EFTA02857810_p7 →Entities connected to both Griffith and Fifth Circuit

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON
Marc Rich
PERSONLeon Black
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
Julie K. Brown
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONEmmy Taylor
PERSON
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON
Alexander Acosta
PERSONEvans
PERSONMaria Farmer
PERSON