Epstein Secrets

299 (11* Cir. 2003); United Stalest. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Burgess, 175 F.3d j261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11* Cir. 2005); United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United Stalest Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (116 Cir. 2004), i

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language"

338 F. 1299 (11* Cir. 2 3); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11* Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States, Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language

d 1299 (11'h Cir. 2003); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3d 261 (116 Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States' Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (I Cir. 2004)

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's' decision in United States Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language"

299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004),

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in eases whcre there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language"

(11* Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (II* Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I I° Cir. 2005); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 2002). United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004)

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Muriel!, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Mum!! court wrote that, under the "plain language

9 (11° Cir. 2003); United States it Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess,175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004)

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Mini! court wrote that, under the "plain language

9); United States' Panfil, supra, 338 I 1299 (116 Cii 2003); United States v. 1999); United &awl Burgess, 175 .3d r61(II.Ci 1999); United States! Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States Root, 296 3d 1222 (11° Cir. 200 ). United States! Murrell, 368 II3d 1283 (114 Cir. 2004), is i

gainst strict liability, especially since it applies in cases where there is no sexual contact at all with any person, let alone with a real minor. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in United States Murrell, supra, reflects this same understanding of the statute. The Murrell court wrote that, under the "plain language"