Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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