Epstein Secrets

F.2d 51, 255. cert. denied, 1961, 387 U.S. 931 87 S.Ct. 2053. 18 L.Ed.2d 992; Aggers I United States, 8 Cir., 1966, I8 F.2d 44, 748, cart denied, Coates United States, 1967, 385 U.S. 1010, 7 S.Ct 719, 17 L.Ed.2d 548. We find no error, plain or otherwise, in the court's failure to fur- ther elucidate the meaning

pplying it, 1. _ is sufficient to establis the element of inducement. Williams United States, 271 F.2d 703, at . 7 707 (4th Cir. 1959), citing Ege United States, 242 F.2d 879 (9th Cir. 957). So, Austrew directly and principally—not merely by imputation—procured the tickets and induced the victims to go to

perform those acts, he has crossed the line toward persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See United Stales v. Ty- /earthy, 446 FM 458, 469 (3d Cir2006) (concluding that instant messages arrang- ing a meeting and appearing at the prear- ranged meeting plac

resulted in defendant's acquittal of the charge. under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 (the first. indictment) and defendant's conviction .for violation of 18 U.S.C-A. § 2422 (the second indictment). The defendant relies generally on three grounds in his appeal from the Judgment of conviction: "I. "The defenda

at p. 36 (1. Md.1961); also United States Hunt, 120 F.2d 592 (7th Cir.1941), cert. denied 314 U.S. 625, 62 S.Ct. 7. 86 L.Ed. 502 1 (1941); and Hughes United States, 114 F.2d 285 (6th Cir.1 40). An indict- ment such as this should not be set aside where its specificity is greater than that which the law requir

ns provided overwhelm- ing evidence of an attempt to entice, and that his traveling to a prearranged meet- ing place was a final substantial step); United Stales v. Blank, 431 F.3d 1104, 1106-07 (8th Cir.) (holding that the jury could find intent to entice a minor based on explicitly sexual talks followed b

between preparation and attempt by un- equivocally demonstrating that the crime will take place unless interrupted by inde- pendent circumstances." United Slates v. Nelson, 66 FM 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits that, when a de

nied, Caudle United States, 1958, 356 U.S. 921, S.Ct. 700, 2 LEd.2d 716, rehearing denied, 1958, 366 U.S. 964, 78 S.Ct. 991, 2 L.Ed.2d 1072. J United States, 896, 897, we [14] In McCroskey 8 Cir., 1965, 339 F. stated: "Thirty-f' years I in Johnson United States, 32 F2d 127, 130 (8 ir. 1929), list

e jury. At no time did counsel object to the original one-hour limitation given by the trial court. Judge Mattheispeaking for this court, said in Butler United States, 8 Cir:, 1963, 317 F2d 249, 257, 6 A.L.R.3d 582, 594: "It is axiomatic that the limitation of time for arguments of counsel is within the sound

lain• tiff has not shown where such transfer would be in the interests of justice. Plaintiff is not barred from recom- mencing this action against the United States in the appropriate district. The accident which forms the basis of this action occurred on December 16, 1960. Plaintiff is thus well within the tw

ctice of prostitution. or to give herself up to debauchery. or any other immoral practice, whereby any such woman or girl shall be transported in Interstate or foreign commerce, or in the District of Columbia or any Territory or ion of the United States— "Shall be fined not more than $3,000 or impris

having persuaded. in- duced, enticed and caused Miss Hull to go from Minneapolis to New York for the aforesaid purposes' Joan flail for travel in Interstate coin. mew* from .Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter- national Airport. Weld Chamberlain Field, District of Minnesota. to New York City, State of New York.

nduct as defined in It U.S.C. § 2423(0. with minor female., in violation of Tide United States Code, Section 2423(b), all In viobation of Title It, United Stases Code, Section 2427(e); wing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor female. to engage

United Sines, the State of Florida, and the Defendant soil) be sewed by the following proodum, THEREFORE, on the authority of It. Alexander Acosta, United Slates Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District foe these offenses shall be defined in favor of prosecuticm by the Stat

f civil or criminal liability or a waiver °forty jurisdktional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United Stale. 10. Except es to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under IS U.S.0 f 2255, as set (whin penigntph (St manta. neither Epstein's s

gain time he eamwd during his period of Incer«ration. I3. the ponies anticipate Nat this agreement will not be mede pan of any public record. if the United Slates receive, e Freedom of Information Act request or any compubory worm conunanding the disclosure of the agreement, int will provide notice to Epstein

." United States I. lordm, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez,. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russell° I. United States 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to ap

phrase. See, e.g., United States'. Garcia-M, 234 F.3d 217, 220 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); United States I. Yang, 128 F.3d 1065, 1069-70 (7th Cir. 1997); United Statosi. Ellis 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir. 1991); see also United States'. Hoschouer, 224 Fed. Appx. 923, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion);

er Defendant Epstein's defense of the civil actions filed against him violates the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States. The United States' position in this matter would be very helpful to the Court and, accordingly, the Court requests that the United States appear at the hearing. Base

tion apaisai him h irntinned for any offense that usis the 'objecter0e grandjuria inwangation, il may be by way of anInfonnwion sIgned and filai by the United States Anone); end hereby nives Ma rie to be Indktcd by e gnnd jury as ha any aie offense, lit tyy lff hie 6of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011809 EFTA0

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States,. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011863 EFTA00192909 Ca

or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported in Interstate or foreign commerce or mailed. 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (2002) (emphasis added). As with § 2423(b), however, Congress made significant changes to the statu

ection2d22(b); all in violation oflitIc IS, United Mahn Code, Section knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to travel in Interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sans./ conduct as defined in It U.S.C. § 2423(0. with minor female., in violation of Tide United St

SANBORN, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. STONE, Circuit Judge- This is an appeal from a conviction for violation of the White Slave Traffic Act, IS U.S.C.A. § 397 ct seq. Appellant urges here three claimed er- rors: (1) Improper restriction of cross- examination of a witness; (2) error in the charge to

ses the emotional and psychic harm suffered by the child"). New York I Ferber. 458 U.S. 747. 758-59 & trtr9-1011982) (citations omitted); see also United Slates Yuknavich. 419 F.3d 1302. 1310 (11th Cir.2005) ("possession of child pornography is not a victimless crime")• Goff. 501 F.3d at 259 ("Consum

tside the Guidelines, the judge will explain why he has done so." 127 S.Ct. at 2468. The Supreme urt most recently addressed sentencing in Gall United Stases. 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007), and Kimbroushi United States. 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007). F" Gall reviewed the reasonableness of a sentence falling far below the

ssed; (4) submit to searches based on reasonable suspicion; and (5) register with the state sex-offender registry. After the district court denied the United States's motion to reconsider the sentence and impose either a sentence within the Guidelines, or a sentence of at least one day in prison followed by a li

f § 2423(c). Adopted in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, § 2423(c) provides as follows: (c) Engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places. Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual con- duct with another person

1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3258-59. "411 11. Notably, this notion of "just deserts" or retribution is a distinct consideration from general deterrence. See United States' Foss. 501 F.2d 522. 527 (1st Cir.1974) (cited with approval in the legislative history of Section 3553(a)) ("[T]he @ 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim t

immoral purposes, such act is not causing such trip within the meaning of section 2 but is, if any crime, the one stated in section 3 of the Act, U.S.C.A. Title 18, § 399. The pertinent language in the two sec- tions is: Section 2. "Any person who shall knowingly • • • cause to be transport- ed • •

, § 2, cl. 2, as sources of that power.") (citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court has commented on the "very different applications" of the Interstate and Indian Commerce Clause powers, explaining that interstate commerce jurisprudence "is premised on a structur- al understanding of the unique rol