a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Mune!, 368 17.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

nder § 2422(b) requires a finding only of an intent to entice, not an intent to perform the sexual act following the persuasion); United States v. Murrell. 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir2004) (stat- ing that the underlying conduct that 2422(b) criminalizes is the persuasion of the minor, rather than t

d sexual conversations, tried to entice the victim by representa- tions about his car, house, and money, and went to a prearranged meeting place); Murrell, 368 F.3d at 1288 (holding that the evidence was sufficient where the defen- dant traveled two hours to meet a minor for sex in exchange for money,

nt can be found guilty of that offense only if...the defendant believed that such individual was less than (18) years of age..."); United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (I I1° Cir. 2004) (§ 2422(b) requires that the defendant knowingly target a minor). Importantly, then, all the elements must be

der to sustain a conviction. In particular, § 2422(b) requires that the defendant specifically intended to target a minor. ke,ligh, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]o prove an attempt the government must first prove that [defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific

ce, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.’ United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

e statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts r

nt can be found guilty of that offense only if...the defendant believed that such individual was less than (18) years of age..."); United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (§ 2422(b) requires that the defendant knowingly target a minor). Importantly, then, all the elements must be

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) `requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

e, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.' United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) `requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

COn59MMAn. niVehIllte a tarry Out the transactions contemplated by the foregoing Company Resolutions. RESOLVED, that all actions taken and expanses Murrell neonatal: by the And:awed &goods: in connection with the Accounds) or the Agreements are hereby oath 441, approved are confirmed in ail e•ospects.

in by 9 his investigator again for any more questions or anything 10 or any packages that he may deliver to you -- 11 A. They have to go to Mr. Murrell. 12 Q. I was going to say, have him contact your 13 attorney. 14 MR. MURRELL: Packages? Are we expecting a 15 delivery of something? 16 DE

dence he did not want to encounter the Alessis during his stay in Palm Beach. I then spoke with Mr. Alessi in the presence of his attorney, Donnie Murrell. Mr. Alessi stated that he was employed for eleven years with Mr. Epstein. He originally was hired as a part time employee and then moved up into a

th the purported 13 year old girl, but with an undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts between Murrell and the agent occurred in internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F Vry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl'

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States ' Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

facility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

(e.g. with himself or a third party), without then actually committing any sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (1 I th Cir. 2004). See also United States'. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to cri

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

rder to sustain a conviction. In particular, § 2422(b) requires that the defendant specifically intended to target a minor. age, a, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]o prove an attempt the government must first prove that [defendant], using the intemet, acted with a specific

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

•COuniniscant Pp. 116 1 2 O. That never happened? 3 A. Never happened. 4 O. You mentioned that Mr. Epstein put you in 5 contact with Mr. Murrell, 18 that Correct? MR. °UPTON: Fag. 7 THE 14119690: Hot Hr. Crinkle.. • BY MR. METMELSICINt • O. Huh? 10 A. It wasn't Mr. Epstein. 11 O.