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

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

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 person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

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

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

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

that the person transported was, in fact, a minor, but need not prove that the defendant was aware of her minority. In conducting its analysis, the Jones Court relied upon cases interpreting sections of Title 21 relating to the distribution of drugs to a minor. See Jones at 540. Those cases have held that t

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