United States v. Deqwon Lewis
705 F. App'x 234
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2015 Deqwon Lewis and Starisha Moore recruited two minors (CM, 17; KM, 14–15) to perform commercial sex, posting ads on Backpage and keeping/collecting payments.
- Moore posted ads, paid for motel rooms, communicated with customers, provided drugs, and transported the girls; Lewis set quotas, disciplined and assaulted the girls, and directed operations.
- The scheme involved in-state and interstate activity: KM was transported to Oklahoma, Illinois, and Michigan; a Michigan trooper discovered KM (15) during a traffic stop, prompting federal charges.
- A federal grand jury charged both defendants with two counts of aiding and abetting sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 1591) and one count of interstate transportation of a minor to engage in prostitution (18 U.S.C. § 2423(a)).
- After a six-day trial, a jury convicted both defendants on all counts; Lewis received 300 months’ imprisonment, Moore 235 months (both low-end Guidelines). Both appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (Counts 1–2: sex trafficking of minors) | Gov: Evidence established defendants caused/minors engaged in commercial sex and defendants aided/abetted each other | Moore: She was a victim, not a principal; actions were at Lewis’s behest and she didn’t profit | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, a rational jury could find aiding/abetting and causation |
| Sufficiency (Count 3: interstate transportation for prostitution) | Gov: Moore knowingly assisted interstate transport with intent for prostitution | Moore: Denies requisite intent/role in transport | Affirmed — evidence supported aiding and abetting interstate transport |
| Evidentiary rulings (Rigsby hearsay; leading question to KM) | Gov: Statements were admissible (not offered for truth; question not leading) | Moore: Rigsby’s recounting was hearsay; prosecutor’s question was leading | Affirmed — no plain error or abuse of discretion; testimony not hearsay and question permissible |
| Sentencing reasonableness and Guidelines enhancements | Gov: Sentences within properly calculated Guidelines are presumptively reasonable | Lewis/Moore: Claimed misapplied enhancements, failure to grant downward variance, and inadequate explanation | Affirmed — district court correctly calculated Guidelines, adequately considered variance arguments; within-range sentences presumptively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lockhart, 844 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2016) (context on Backpage facilitating prostitution)
- United States v. Pringler, 765 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (aiding and abetting sex trafficking standards)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (role of the Sentencing Commission and Guidelines adjustments)