Back to Network
9
Shared Docs
5
Same-Page
9 / 9
Mentions
Document Mentions (9 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10t
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
have not been merely incidental to the trip. EFTA00229910 United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Yang , 128 F.3d 1065, 1072 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10t
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
al activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States I. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove that
that the defendant knowingly persuade, induce, or entice someone to engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity. 11 EFTA00234527 States'. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to a
2 mentions
Page EFTA02857524_p11
system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts, 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (1 I th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, •3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (fmding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to ar
Page: EFTA02857524_p11 →Page EFTA02857524_p17
ctivity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove that
Page: EFTA02857524_p17 →Sponsored
2 mentions
Page EFTA02857732_p6
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
Page: EFTA02857732_p6 →Page EFTA02857732_p9
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha
Page: EFTA02857732_p9 →2 mentions
Page EFTA02857763_p6
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
Page: EFTA02857763_p6 →Page EFTA02857763_p9
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha
Page: EFTA02857763_p9 →2 mentions
Page EFTA02857810_p6
ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to
Page: EFTA02857810_p6 →Page EFTA02857810_p9
activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha
Page: EFTA02857810_p9 →Sponsored
Mutual Connections (176)
Entities connected to both Garcia-Lopez and Strevell
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON15 w/ Garcia-Lopez·17 w/ Strevell
United States
LOCATION15 w/ Garcia-Lopez·14 w/ Strevell
LB
Leon Black
PERSON15 w/ Garcia-Lopez·13 w/ Strevell
Jennifer Lopez
PERSON15 w/ Garcia-Lopez·12 w/ Strevell
EV
Evans
PERSON12 w/ Garcia-Lopez·14 w/ Strevell
Mortensen
PERSON14 w/ Garcia-Lopez·9 w/ Strevell
EL
Ellis
PERSON14 w/ Garcia-Lopez·9 w/ Strevell
Alexander Acosta
PERSON10 w/ Garcia-Lopez·13 w/ Strevell
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON8 w/ Garcia-Lopez·15 w/ Strevell
Cleveland
LOCATION10 w/ Garcia-Lopez·13 w/ Strevell
Criminal Division
ORGANIZATION9 w/ Garcia-Lopez·13 w/ Strevell
GL
Gerald Lefcourt
PERSON8 w/ Garcia-Lopez·14 w/ Strevell
Costa Rica
LOCATION7 w/ Garcia-Lopez·15 w/ Strevell
Northern Region
LOCATION9 w/ Garcia-Lopez·12 w/ Strevell
HA
Hayward
PERSON13 w/ Garcia-Lopez·8 w/ Strevell
Griffith
PERSON11 w/ Garcia-Lopez·9 w/ Strevell
RB
Roy Black
PERSON8 w/ Garcia-Lopez·12 w/ Strevell
AS
Ann Sanchez
PERSON8 w/ Garcia-Lopez·12 w/ Strevell
Jacksonville
LOCATION10 w/ Garcia-Lopez·9 w/ Strevell
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON10 w/ Garcia-Lopez·9 w/ Strevell