Epstein Secrets

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

hone call was between states) or purely intrastate in nature ( i.e. , the telephone call was made to another telephone within the same state)."). In Drury , the defendant used his land-line telephone to call an undercover agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Ge

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

hone call was between states) or purely intrastate in nature ( i.e. , the telephone call was made to another telephone within the same state)."). In Drury , the defendant used his land-line telephone to call an undercover agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Ge

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

hone call was between states) or purely intrastate in nature ( i.e. , the telephone call was made to another telephone within the same state)."). In Drury , the defendant used his land-line telephone to call an undercover agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Ge

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

hone call was between states) or purely intrastate in nature ( i.e. , the telephone call was made to another telephone within the same state)."). In Drury , the defendant used his land-line telephone to call an undercover agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Ge

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury, the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the d

Circuit has ruled that evidence of the use of a telethone satisfies the element of using a facility or means of interstate commerce. United States.. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (the term "facility of interstate commerce ... establishes federal jurisdiction whenever any "facility of int

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury, the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the d

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

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

unpersuaded: The calls were not accidentally or incidentally placed, but rather were made knowingly to further a scheme. . . . Accordingly, whether Drury knew or intended that they would travel across state lines is immaterial. Id. at 1313. In Drury , the Eleventh Circuit did not address whether the

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