Epstein Secrets

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sir»is , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell , 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Snow , 507 F.2d 22, 24 (7th C

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transport

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sn»is , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell , 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Ellis , 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir.1991); United States v. Snow , 507 F.2d 22, 24 (7th C

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transport

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

72 (7th Ci/.1997); United States 1. Meacham, 115 F.3d 14882.1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States Sirois, 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States' Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the trans rt

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 d

Circuit has ruled that evidence of the use of a telethone satisfies the element of using a facility or means of interstate commerce. United States.. Drury, 396 F.3d 1303, 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (the term "facility of interstate commerce ... establishes federal jurisdiction whenever any "facility of int

rr arrerween 5MMArnbr 30.2003 MAYMY xeCf CUNT NAOMI OEM «OM BANK OF AMER CORP BAC 10.000 74.4974

222.1000 INSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS NC 02 STATELM PERICO Minh 1.2003 MOWN March 29.2003 ACCOArt ma* 049-51880 281 Mama Map On ne LAST STAMOrt 'Drury 28.2003 grl CCSOZPM SYMMOM a_ IN USE IS) Dom Amuse DIM AMOUNT 03/10/03 INTERNAD3NAL BUSINESS ISM 20003 0.1500 3.000.00 MACHINES 03AP C

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 d

th Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham, 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois, 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transpor

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transport

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose of the transport

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

Cir.1997); United States v. Meacham , 115 F.3d 1488, 1495 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sirois , 87 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir.1996); United States v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 1079, 1082-83 (5th Cir.1995) ("[I]t is not necessary EFTA02857818 to a conviction under the [Mann] Act that the sole and single purpose o