Epstein Secrets

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

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

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

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

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

8-39 (citing United States I. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States, Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States I Scisum, 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Governmen

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

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

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

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

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

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