Epstein Secrets

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible."' Id. at 60 (quoting Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196 (quoting United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355 (I I th Cir. 2010) (en banc))). The primary basis for Bridges' holding— legislative history supporting a narrow interpretation—

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres