Epstein Secrets

s 2423(b) and 2422(b) require a minor victim, but they do not require that the defendant know that the victim is a minor. For example, in December, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006). Jones was charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexu

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

2423(b) and 2422(6) require a minor victim, but they do not require that the defendant know that the victim is a minor. For example, in December, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Jones , 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006). Jones was charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexu

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

2423(b) and 2422(b) require a minor victim, but they do not require that the defendant know that the victim is a minor. For example, in December, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Jones , 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006). Jones was charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexu

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

2423(6) and 2422(b) require a minor victim, but they do not require that the defendant know that the victim is a minor. For example, in December, the Fourth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Jones , 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006). Jones was charged with transporting a minor across state lines for sexu

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