Epstein Secrets

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212914 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

already would account for a would-be plaintiffs minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212981 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

already would account for a would-be plaintiffs minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221384 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

already would account for a would-be plaintiffs minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221481 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

already would account for a would-be plaintiffs minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00189770 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

already would account for a would-be plaintiffs minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where

ecently 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 Case 9:09-

already would account for a would-be plaintiff's minority status. Given the rule "against reading a text in a way that makes part of it redundant," Nat'l Ass'n of Home BuildersI, Defenders of Wildlife 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (citing TRW Inc. Andrews 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001)), and the canon that "where word

matter at hand."). We do not then reverse anytime we disagree with the result that the district court reaches. See First Penn-Pac. Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, 304 F.3d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 2002). Rather, "the [abuse-of-discretion] standard draws a line . . . between the unsupportable and the merely mistake

with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant [**58] relies." Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); see also Mayfield v. Nat'l Ass'n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 674 F.3d 369, 376-77 (4th Cir. 2012). "Failure of a party in its opening brief to challenge an alternate grou