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

purported mother were a substantial step toward that end. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir.2004). Spurlock described to "Mary" his desire to perform sex acts on her daughters, provided her with suggestions

no violation of 2422(b) & 2423 because no actual minor, court agrees and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted based on Showed up at meeting Helder. U.S. I Helder. Internet No information available. 2422(b) 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Sting Court held that 2422(b) requires actual 38874 (W.D. Mo

r error. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting 55 EFTA00226341 COURT . CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE ***U.S. I Hornaday, Internet Internet chat room "Loving Families" 2422(6); 392 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2004) Sting where people communicate about having sex with c

.g., U.S. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S. Pipkins, es al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004 (RICO conspiracy); U.S. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 th Cir. 2 4) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy charge

d no violation of 2422(b) & 2423 because no actual minor; court agrees and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted based on Showed up at meeting Helder. U.S. I Helder, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Internet No information available. Court held that 2422(b) requires actual 2422(b) Sting 38874 (W.D. Mo

., U.S. I Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. ~ Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 `11 Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336 9 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy char

ct. Defendant claimed no violation of 2422(b) & 2423 because no actual minor; court agrees and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted based on Helder. 2422(b); 2423(b) Not Consummated • • Showed up at meeting Sting 64 EFTA01729548 egIllit 1 CASES, --- Fs ILI - -- ' enc: , , • . -CR

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (76 Cir. 2006) (2423(b) Conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA01729485 U.S. v. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state cons

ct. Defendant claimed no violation of 2422(b) & 2423 because no actual minor; court agrees and defendant's motion to dismiss is granted based on Helder. 2422(b); 2423(b) Not Consummated Showed up at meeting Sting 64 EFTA00079477 COURT CASES , FAC:ILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. v.

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (sr Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11`" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA00079414 U.S. v. Jackson. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state con

) 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

at rooms, necessarily involves interstate communications and therefore constitutes the "use of facility of interstate commerce." United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2004). At trial, Defendant admitted that he communicated with "Conrad" using email and Internet instant messag

ime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States x Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

e simply by employing an intennediary to carry out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005