Epstein Secrets

t 756. In Hicks, we extended that reasoning to § 2423(b)'s prohibition of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. 457 F.3d at 841. Helder and Hicks control here, and apply with equal force to the third statute under which Spurlock was convicted: attempt to know- ingly transfer obscen

tual minor must be involved, the govern- ment proved no violation of federal law. This argument is foreclosed by our deci- sions in United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir.2006), and United States v. Hicks, 457 FM 838 (8th Cir2006). In Heftier, we concluded that an actual minor victim is not r

ad, Jr., Fed. Public Defend- er, on the brief), for appellant. Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kan- sas City, MO, argued (Bradley J. Schloz- man, U.S. Atty., Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. COLLOTON, Circuit Judg

d. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, argued (Ray- mond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defend- er, on the brief), for appellant. Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kan- sas City, MO, argued (Bradley J. Schloz- man, U.S. Atty., Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before COLLOTON,

me. See United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States I Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 919 (10th Cir. 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

witz would write to tell the Justice Department that "Epstein never targeted minors." Letter from Gerald Lefcourt & Alan Dershowitz, July 6, 2007 to U.S. Atty.'s Office for the S.D. Fla (attached as Exhibit 30). Now, nearly a decade later, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the minor girls who

) engaged in conduct that constitutes a substantial step towa commission of the crime. See United States Farner. 251 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir.2001); Helder, 452 F.3d at 755. Whether Defendant had the requisite culpability for the underlying offense can be addressed by inquiring whether Defendant inte

e damage, and the statute is either unconstitutional or the attorney is transcending his authority under a valid statute. *525 Francis G. Caffey, U.S. Atty., of New York City (William C. Fins. Vincent H. Rothwell, and Cornelius J. Smyth, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants. Root, Clark,