Automated Summary
Key Facts
Darryl Felder was convicted of attempted persuasion, inducement, enticement, and coercion of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Special Agent Jared Tauzier conducted an undercover operation using a fake profile named 'Andrea' on the Pure dating app to identify individuals with sexual interest in children. Andrea repeatedly informed Felder she was 15 years old, and Felder continued to attempt to meet her. Felder agreed to meet Andrea at a local McDonald's, where he was arrested. Felder appealed his conviction on two grounds: that jury instructions were flawed and that evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The Fifth Circuit denied both claims and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
- The appellant Darryl Felder claims the district court abused its discretion by denying his special jury instruction request. He argued that the actus reus verbs in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)—persuade, induce, entice, and coerce—require the defendant to act 'with the intent to transform or overcome the will of a minor.' The court applied the standard for jury instruction abuse of discretion, noting that the Fifth Circuit's pattern jury instructions provide a 'safe harbor' and are a 'correct statement of law.' The court affirmed the denial of the requested instruction.
- Felder challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, specifically arguing that no reasonable trier of fact could find he genuinely believed he was attempting to persuade an actual minor rather than engaging in consensual role-play. Under plain-error review, Felder must show the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt. The court found abundant evidence pointing to his guilt, including Andrea's repeated statements about her age, the photos she sent, and Felder's internet search history showing he believed Andrea was a minor.
Holdings
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Darryl Felder's conviction for attempted persuasion, inducement, enticement, and coercion of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The court rejected Felder's two appeal grounds: (1) the jury instructions were flawed, and (2) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The court found the pattern jury instructions were a correct statement of law and the record contained abundant evidence that Felder knew Andrea was a minor.
Remedies
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Darryl Felder's conviction for attempted persuasion, inducement, enticement, and coercion of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
Legal Principles
- For unpreserved sufficiency-of-evidence claims, the court applies plain error review, which is doubly difficult. A defendant must show: (1) there was an error; (2) the error was clear or obvious (plain); (3) the error affected substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The record must be devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.
- The defendant's knowledge that Andrea was a minor was established through multiple pieces of evidence: Andrea repeatedly told Felder she was fifteen, sent photos matching her purported age, and Felder acknowledged he could 'go to jail' if discovered. Felder's internet search history for 'Andrea Walker High School cheerleader' and 'Andrea Denham Springs 15' further demonstrated his belief she was a minor.
- The court analyzed the actus reus verbs in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)—persuade, induce, entice, coerce. The district court correctly used the Fifth Circuit's pattern jury instructions which track the statutory language nearly verbatim. The court affirmed that pattern jury instructions provide a 'safe harbor' when they track circuit pattern instructions and are correct statements of law.
Precedent Name
- United States v. Peterson
- United States v. Hite
- United States v. Uhlenbrock
- United States v. Delgado
- United States v. Richardson
- United States v. Smith
- United States v. Capistrano
- United States v. Cessa
Cited Statute
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
Judge Name
- Judge Oldham
- Judge Richman
- Judge Duncan
Passage Text
- "A court abuses its discretion when it refuses to adopt a defendant's suggested jury instruction that is (1) substantively correct, (2) not substantially covered in the jury charge, and (3) concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impairs the defendant's ability to present effectively a particular defense."
- "That said, a district court's use of pattern jury instructions in this circuit provides a 'safe harbor.' ... When the instruction tracks this circuit's pattern jury instruction, we 'need only determine whether the charge is a correct statement of the law.'"
- "For unpreserved sufficiency claims, plain-error review is 'doubly difficult.' ... In effect, the second prong requires that 'the record [be] devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.' Indeed, the presented evidence must be 'completely, obviously, and unbelievably inadequate [such] that allowing the verdict to stand would be a 'shocking' and 'manifest miscarriage of justice.'"