Was the Jury Erroncously Instructed That the Government Only had to Prove
That Sexual Activity Was a "Motivating Purpose" for Transportation of Persons
Across State Lines When Proof that the Dominant Intent for the Travel was Illicit Sexual
Conduct is required by Precedent of this Court to Preserve the Right to Interstate Travel,
Require the Prosecution to Prove its Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Maintain
State Authority in the Punishment of Purely Local Activity?

Was the Jury Erroneously Instructed That the Government Only had to Prove That Sexual Activity Was a 'Motivating Purpose' for Transportation of Persons 1-3 Across State Lines When Proof that the Dominant Intent for the Travel is Illicit Sexual Conduct is required by Precedent of this Court to Preserve the Right to Interstate Travel, Require the Prosecution to Prove its Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Maintain State Authority in the Punishment of Purely Local Activity?