Epstein Secrets

her sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are int

tates must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor" when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (1 1 th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han, 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

es must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor F19 when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh , 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han , 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

ates must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor M when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh , 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han , 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

tates must prove that the defendant "had formed the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor when he crossed state lines." United States v. Hersh , 297 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir. 2002). See also United States v. Han , 230 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant could be convicted of violating Sect