11
Shared Docs
11
Same-Page
11 / 11
Mentions
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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
efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma
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 Artis and F. App's

Michael Jackson
PERSON
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATION
Julie K. Brown
PERSONMartin Weinberg
PERSON
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Anderson
PERSONthe Southern District
LOCATION
George Mitchell
PERSON
New York
LOCATIONSalameh
PERSONFierro v. Taylor
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
U.S. Virgin Islands
LOCATION
Alexander Acosta
PERSON
The Palm Beach Post
ORGANIZATION
Michael Cohen
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Gotti
PERSON
Harry Reid
PERSON