Epstein Secrets

intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11 di Cir. 2004); United States Houston, 177 Fed. Aepx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); Chilled States' Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (11* Cir. 2005); United States' Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); an

r, J. dissenting). United States'. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

s intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11i6 Cir. 2004); United States Houston, 177 Fed. Ari,. 57 (11th Cir. 2006); United States! Searcy, 418 F.3d 193 (11th Cir. 2005); United States Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (116 Cir. 2005 ; and

or, J. dissenting). United States' Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

nded 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); United States it Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (le' Cir. 2005);

, J. dissenting). United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c