11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (11th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUSIO
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
the defendant should be housed where he can be secured at all times: a federal correctional center. The defendant faces a presumption of detention, Pretrial Services has recommended detention, and victims of the defendant seek his detention. Because there are no set of conditions short of incarceration that can
ly applies to those who attempt to purchase underage sex, not merely the pimps of actual exploited children") (citing United States v. Roberts, 174 F. App's 475 (1 I th Cir. 2006) (in which defendant was convicted under sections 1591(a) and 1594(a) even though no actual children were involved)). CONCLUS
Entities connected to both Pretrial Services and F. App's

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Michael Cohen
PERSON
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATIONMartin Weinberg
PERSON
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION
Michael Jackson
PERSON
Harry Reid
PERSONBoustani
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Geoffrey S. Berman
PERSON
George Mitchell
PERSON
Reid Weingarten
PERSON
New York
LOCATION
Julie K. Brown
PERSONZarrab
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION
Richard M. Berman
PERSONEmmy Taylor
PERSON