Epstein Secrets

tates must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh , 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han , 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect

e is under twenty-one. United States v. Pruitt , 763 F.2d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1985). In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Third Circuit's Hamilton decision, supra : There is, however, a precise analogue to this statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 et seq. (White Slave Traffic Act), which prohi

tates must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh , 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han , 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect

e is under twenty-one. United States v. Pruitt , 763 F.2d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1985). In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Third Circuit's Hamilton decision, supra : There is, however, a precise analogue to this statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 et seq. (White Slave Traffic Act), which prohi

States must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor19 when he crossed state lines." United States' Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States I Han, 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Section

made is under twenty-one. United Stalest Pruitt, 763 F.2d 1256, 1261 (11th Cir. 1985). In reaching this decision, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Third Circuit's Hamilton decision, supra: There is, however, a precise analogue to this statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 et seq. (White Slave Traffic Act), which prohib

ted with the intent to enga pi in illicit sexual conduct. c," See, e.g., United States Bredimus, 52 F.3d 200, 208 (5th Cir.2003); United States Hersh, zy F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir.2002); nited States Gama he, 156 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1998); United States I Vang, 128 F.3d 1065, 1068 (7th Cir.1997)

ll Dulien Steel Prod- ucts, 5 Cir., 1957, 40 F.2d 414 (tempo- rary restraining order i ued after notice) differs from Sims Greene, I believe that the Third Circuit's interpre- tation better follows the words and in- tent of the Rule.' Follow' g the type of relief granted in in Sims Greene, I would hold that th