Epstein Secrets

s] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

s] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

s] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

s] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

s] motives in traveling was to engage in a sexual act with a minor."); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th