Epstein Secrets

See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

1 EFTA00234527 States'. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

8-39 (citing United States I. Griffith, 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States, Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States I Scisum, 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Governmen

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

(citing United States v. Griffith , 284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002); United States v. Taylor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Scisum , 32 F.3d 1479, 1485-86 (10th Cir. 1994); United States v. Hamilton , 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1982)). Instead, the court concluded that the Gove

See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea