Epstein Secrets

ed, PAUL I. PEREZ United States Attorney By: s/Douglas Molloy DOUGLAS MOLLOY Assistant United States A

t 756. In Hicks, we extended that reasoning to § 2423(b)'s prohibition of travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. 457 F.3d at 841. Helder and Hicks control here, and apply with equal force to the third statute under which Spurlock was convicted: attempt to know- ingly transfer obscen

tual minor must be involved, the govern- ment proved no violation of federal law. This argument is foreclosed by our deci- sions in United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir.2006), and United States v. Hicks, 457 FM 838 (8th Cir2006). In Heftier, we concluded that an actual minor victim is not r

meeting site. (Affidavit attached). 02- 14080 Douglas Bourdon I [None] Use of internet to entice m

crime. See United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (j1 di Cir. 2002); United States' Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 9a9 (10th Cir. 2005); United Stalest. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States'. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

to the California Attorney General's Office re. Douglas Daniel Clark v. Warden (serial killings known as

ates (mother charged with drowning her five children) 2002-2004 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in U.S. v. Helder (serial mailbox bombings in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa) 2003 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Prince Willia

uoted from the opinion of Chief Justice Stone in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 163, 63 S.Ct

) engaged in conduct that constitutes a substantial step towa commission of the crime. See United States Farner. 251 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir.2001); Helder, 452 F.3d at 755. Whether Defendant had the requisite culpability for the underlying offense can be addressed by inquiring whether Defendant inte

meeting site. (Affidavit attached). 02- 14080 Douglas Bourdon 1 [None] Use of intemet to entice mi

ime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States x Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

meeting site. (Affidavit attached). 02- 14080 Douglas Bourdon 1 iNonei Use of intemet to entice mi

thrrime. See nited States v. Root, 296 t3d 1222, 1227-32 ( 1°' Cir. 2002). United States Sims, 428 3d 945, 959 (10° Cir. 1 005); United States I Helder, 45213d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States !Meek, 366 3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, overb