United States v. Block
635 F.3d 721
5th Cir.2011Background
- Block and Richards began a romantic relationship in January 2008 and discussed exploiting Richards's daughters for sexual purposes and profit.
- Block proposed that they either act on their own or sell custody of Richards's daughter to others, including for sexual acts, while negotiating with an FBI informant, Gholson.
- Richards consented to transfers of custody with limits (presence and no vaginal penetration) in exchange for cash and assistance from Gholson, who planned to provide housing and transportation.
- The FBI arrested Block and Richards; Richards pled guilty to selling custody of a minor for child pornography and cooperated with the government; Block was convicted after a four-day trial of aiding and abetting and distributing child pornography.
- Block challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the district court denied judgment-of-acquittal motions; the issue on appeal centered on the meaning of custody or control under § 2251A and related lenity questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 2251A require permanent custody transfer? | Block asserts custody must be permanent; temporary control not enough. | Block argues a broader, not necessarily permanent, concept of custody or control. | No; temporary supervision falls within custody or control. |
| Did Block aid and abet by offering to transfer custody under § 2251A? | Block aided by proposing and agreeing to transfer custody with limitations. | Block challenges sufficiency of evidence linking him to the transfer. | Yes; the deal violated § 2251A even with limitations. |
| Is Block's conviction affected by the rule of lenity? | Lenity does not apply due to unambiguous text and distinct §§ 2251 and 2251A. | Lenity should apply to avoid punishing same conduct under two statutes. | Lenity does not apply; statute is unambiguous and does not duplicate § 2251. |
Key Cases Cited
- Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1998) (lenity applies only to grievous ambiguity)
- United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2010) (custody or control can be temporary)
- United States v. Buculei, 262 F.3d 322 (4th Cir. 2001) (no ambiguity between § 2251 and 2251A)
- Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 591 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2009) (avoid rendering words superfluous in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. McDowell, 498 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2007) (de novo review for sufficiency of the evidence)