Epstein Secrets

privilege of nondisclosure un- der state law"); Ross I. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 599 (6th Cir.20

ed guilty to state charges based on the same conduct and has not withdrawn those pleas. See, e.g., United States I. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (admitting guilty plea from state court in federal pro- ceeding). The victims intend to admit the correspondence to prove violations of the Act al

ng domestic drug interdiction checkpoints "does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports"): United States v. Ross. 456 U.S. 798. 823. 102 &Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (explaining that while the Fourth Amendment gives protection to containers in domestic ve

.3d 116. 120 n. 2 (3d Cit 1994); United States v. Santiago, 837 F.2d 1545. 1548 (11th Cir.1988); United States V. Gaviria, 805 F.2d 1108, 1112 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Niver, 689 F.2d 520, 526 (5th Cir.1982); United States V. Mr, 592 F.2d 735, 739-40 (4th Cir.1979). [13] In his dissent, Judge

vid M. Rosen, Ant. U. S. Atty., ar- gued, Robert D. Kingaland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellee. Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and ROSS and WEBSTER,' Circuit Judges. GIBSON, Chief Judge. This case involves charged violations of the Mann Act arising out of certain inter- state acti

ely on the defendant's status as a U.S. cit- izen is firmly estallished by our precedent. See, e.g.. United States Walczak, 783 F.2d 852, 854 (9th Cir.1986) (holding that jurisdiction over a U.S. citizen who violated a federal statute while in Canada los proper under the nationality principle); McKee!