United States v. David Duffin
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23329
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Duffin befriended a 12-year-old (Jane Doe) online using a fake Facebook persona and arranged in-person voice lessons; he and Jane Doe engaged in sexual activity in Illinois.
- After Jane Doe’s parents restricted her movements and monitored her communications, Duffin picked her up and transported her from Illinois to Bentonville, Arkansas, where they had sexual intercourse and checked into a motel.
- Police located and arrested them in Arkansas; Duffin was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) for transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent that she engage in sexual activity criminal under Arkansas law.
- At trial the jury convicted Duffin; post-trial evidence included sexually explicit images of Jane Doe and letters Duffin sent to her from detention requesting visits.
- The district court sentenced Duffin to 420 months’ imprisonment and lifetime supervised release, and included a no-contact directive/recommendation aimed at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Duffin appealed his conviction and the no-contact provision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Duffin had intent to engage in criminal sexual activity when transporting Jane Doe interstate | Duffin: transport was not predominantly for sex; prior sexual contact in Illinois shows interstate travel was unnecessary | Government: circumstantial evidence (parental restrictions, plan to pose as father, immediate sex after arrival) supports intent; intent need not be sole motive | Affirmed conviction — reasonable jury could infer intent from the circumstances |
| Whether the district court had authority to order/no-contact or whether appellate court can review the sentencing recommendation to the BOP | Duffin: court lacked statutory authority to order no-contact and inclusion of that directive in the judgment was improper | Government: district court framed the measure as a recommendation to the BOP and placed it in the recommendations section; appeals court lacks jurisdiction over nonbinding BOP recommendations | Court held the district court lacked authority to issue an actual order; the provision was a non-binding recommendation to the BOP and is not reviewable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McArthur, 836 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on acquittal motion)
- United States v. Cole, 262 F.3d 704 (8th Cir. 2001) (intent for § 2423(a) may be inferred; illicit behavior need not be dominant purpose)
- United States v. Vang, 128 F.3d 1065 (7th Cir. 1997) (interstate-transport intent analysis cited for motive standard)
- United States v. Hoffman, 626 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2010) (sexual activity cannot be merely incidental to the trip under § 2423(a))
- United States v. Johnson, 517 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of court's authority to impose a particular sentence)
- United States v. Kerr, 472 F.3d 517 (8th Cir. 2006) (recommendations to the BOP are nonreviewable by the appellate court)
- United States v. Cintron-Fernandez, 356 F.3d 340 (1st Cir. 2004) (distinguishes when a sentencing provision is an order vs. a recommendation to the BOP)