Epstein Secrets

simply subjects the defendant to a more severe penalty in light of Congress' concern about the sexual exploitation of minors. Cf. United States v. Figueroa, 165 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that, if a criminal statute's language is unclear, its scienter requirement is presumed to be met once an

legislature's authority to define an offense includes the power `to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition."' Id. (quoting Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957)). The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the legislative history, finding that the statute "protects children from sexual abus

simply subjects the defendant to a more severe penalty in light of Congress' concern about the sexual exploitation of minors. Cf. United States v. Figueroa , 165 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that, if a criminal statute's language is unclear, its scienter requirement is presumed to be met once an

legislature's authority to define an offense includes the power `to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.'" Id. (quoting Lambert v. California , 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957)). The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the legislative history, finding that the statute "protects children from sexual ab

simply subjects the defendant to a more severe penalty in light of Congress' concern about the sexual exploitation of minors. Cf. United States v. Figueroa , 165 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that, if a criminal statute's language is unclear, its scienter requirement is presumed to be met once an

legislature's authority to define an offense includes the power `to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.'" Id. (quoting Lambert v. California , 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957)). The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the legislative history, finding that the statute "protects children from sexual ab

simply subjects the defendant to a more severe penalty in light of Congress' concern about the sexual exploitation of minors. Cf. United States v. Figueroa , 165 F.3d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that, if a criminal statute's language is unclear, its scienter requirement is presumed to be met once an

legislature's authority to define an offense includes the power `to exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.'" Id. (quoting Lambert v. California , 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1957)). The Tenth Circuit also agreed with the legislative history, finding that the statute "protects children from sexual ab