Epstein Secrets

eral Reporter. Use Fl CTA6 Rule 28 and Fl CTA6 1OP 206 for rules regarding the cita- tion of unpublished opinions.) United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert D. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 924435. July 26, 1993. On Appeal from the United St

ury was entitled not only to disbelieve his testi- Page 6 mony but, in fact, to find that the o site of his testimony was true. See United States Martinez, r F.3d 371, 374-75 (11th Cir.1996); United States Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314-15 (11th Cir.1995). us, Deverso's testimony in his own defense, couple

he issue and determined travel is not necessary to sustain such a conviction. In United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a conviction under Section 2422(b) where the defendant sent e-mails proposing oral sex and attempted to set up meetings with minor females

er of EFTA00175292 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 19 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 19 Martinez v. White, 492 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2007), (emphasis added). 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 "merely provides a cause of action for damages in 'any appr

damus relief in the court of appeals under 18 U.S.C. § 3771(dX3). Relying upon appellate court decisions from other circuits, including Stewart, the Sixth Circuit found that § 3771(e)'s definitional requirement that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proxim

rc "merely a statement of assertion or concession made for some independent purpose," and may be controverted or explained by the party who made it. Martinez I Bally's Louisiana, Inc., 244 F.3d 474, 476-77 (51° Cir. 2001), citing McNamara v. Miller, 269 F.2d 511, 515 (D.C. Cir. 1959). In contrast, a judi