Epstein Secrets

pt. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting 48 EFTA00224182 COURT a CASES` FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE a 1 l'h Cir. U.S. I Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004) Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victims";

., U.S. I Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. ~ Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 `11 Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336 9 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy char

FTA01729530 COURT - , .. . AR -• A • R , ‘,,. ;FolOitilt• 4 ,F41/4001COMWAR 410 11 0 W : ' • :''' ' ''''CIT , . , 11'" Cir. Cir. U.S. v. Morton. 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004) • Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victim

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (76 Cir. 2006) (2423(b) Conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA01729485 U.S. v. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state cons

46 EFTA00079459 2.„. sl.s.w • 4 ... ' el.. ••. •• .- ,, ‘ IT lc: i - • '1O • • • '" P m. Y ,. • ,-... Stiisz< 111h Or. U.S. v. Morton. 364 F.3d 1300 (11" Cir. 2004) Internet Internet chat room "I love older men"; communication followed by telephone calls to several "victims";

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (sr Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11`" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA00079414 U.S. v. Jackson. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state con

n Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under §2422(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States v. Morton, 364 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004),judgment varied for Booker consideration, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006); United States v. Orrega, 363 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir.

e simply by employing an intennediary to carry out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005