MURILLO

v.

NORTH CAROLINA

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007)
  …es of interstate commerce. Similarly, cellular telephones, even in the absence of evidence that they were used to make interstate calls, have been held to be instrumentalities of interstate commerce.” (citations and emphasis omitted)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838, 120 S.Ct. 101, 145 L.Ed.2d 85 (1999). Thus, the district court did not err in determining that § 2422(b) reached Evans’s conduct and in denying Evans’s motion to dismiss Count Four. III. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Evans’s convictions.…
• United States v. Carl M. Drury, Jr., M.D., 344 F.3d 1089 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …(emphasis in original). However, the majority in this case, like the only other circuit court decision addressing § 1958(a)’s “facility in interstate commerce” requirement, United States v. Weathers, 169 F. 3d 336, 341-42 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 838, 120 S.Ct. 101, 145 L.Ed.2d 85 (1999), concludes otherwise. My colleagues begin their analysis by accurately noting that there is a discrepancy between the language of § 1958(a), which speaks of “facilit[ies] in interstate commerce,” and the languag…

  ← 1 / 2 →