United States v. Antonio Sibley
681 F. App'x 457
6th Cir.2017Background
- Victim ("Diamond") was a runaway and minor who entered a sexual relationship with Antonio Sibley beginning when she was 15; Sibley was an adult.
- In July 2014 Sibley and Diamond stayed at a motel; Sibley posted ads on Backpage using his phone number and took multiple sexually explicit digital photographs of Diamond (a 17‑year‑old).
- Police located Diamond via a missing‑child tip, arranged a sting through the Backpage ad, identified Diamond as the missing girl, arrested Sibley, and seized his cell phone containing nine sexually explicit images.
- A grand jury indicted Sibley on child sex‑trafficking (which was later dismissed) and on sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); the jury convicted on § 2251(a).
- At trial the court designated Dr. Sharon Cooper as an expert in child prostitution; the court instructed the jury that a minor cannot legally consent to being sexually exploited.
- At sentencing the court applied a five‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) for a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct and sentenced Sibley to 330 months’ imprisonment (within a 324–360 Guideline range).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicitous indictment (single §2251 count alleging multiple images) | Government: single count properly covered multiple images as part of one course of conduct | Sibley: each image was a separate offense; indictment was duplicitous and risked non‑unanimous verdict | Court: no plain error; record evidence (victim testimony) showed Sibley took all images, so no prejudice from single count |
| Court’s on‑the‑record expert designation | Government: expert testimony admissible and helpful | Sibley: court erred by labeling Cooper an expert before jury, lending undue approval | Court: error but harmless on plain‑error review; jury instructions and Cooper’s limits minimized prejudice |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: "use" under §2251(a) / consent instruction | Government: images of a 17‑year‑old satisfied use element; minor’s consent irrelevant | Sibley: Diamond consented and was of legal age under Ohio law; photos were private so not child pornography | Court: upheld conviction; federal child‑pornography definition covers any depiction of a minor in sexually explicit conduct regardless of state law, consent, or intent to distribute; instruction that minors cannot consent was correct |
| §4B1.5(b) enhancement (pattern of prohibited sexual conduct) | Government: multiple photographic occasions in July constitute a pattern under the Guideline commentary | Sibley: multiple photos were part of the same offense and cannot form a separate pattern for enhancement | Court: de novo review — commentary expressly permits considering occasions that occurred during the instant offense; enhancement proper |
| Substantive reasonableness of 330‑month sentence | Government: within Guidelines, district court considered §3553(a) factors | Sibley: sentence excessive given conduct was lawful under Ohio and court ignored mitigating evidence | Court: sentence not an abuse of discretion; within Guidelines and court reasonably weighed factors and Sibley’s record |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Singer, 782 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2015) (duplicitous‑count/plain‑error principles)
- United States v. Wright, 774 F.3d 1085 (6th Cir. 2014) (consent and distribution intent irrelevant to federal child‑pornography definition)
- United States v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2007) (courts should avoid on‑the‑record expert labeling that may influence jury)
- United States v. Raplinger, 555 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2009) (minor cannot legally consent to sexual exploitation instruction upheld)
- United States v. Bonds, 839 F.3d 524 (6th Cir. 2016) (plain‑error review standards)
- United States v. Henry, 819 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation)
- United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016) (reasonableness review of within‑Guidelines sentence)