United States v. Dwane Washington, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3827

In 2012 Dwane Washington (age 32) met R.C., a 14‑year‑old runaway who was prostituting and using drugs; he became her pimp, transported her across state lines, advertised her online, kept the money, and had sex with her.
R.C. told Washington she was 19; she later gave a false age to police when arrested in Alabama.
Washington was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) for knowingly transporting an individual who had not attained age 18 with intent that she engage in prostitution or criminal sexual activity.
At trial the district court instructed the jury that the government need not prove Washington knew the victim was under 18; the jury convicted him.
The PSR yielded an advisory Guideline range of 135–168 months; the district court imposed an upward variance to 240 months after considering § 3553(a) factors and Washington’s criminal history.
Washington appealed, arguing (1) the mens rea “knowingly” requires proof he knew the victim was a minor, and (2) the upward variance was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2423(a)’s mens rea “knowingly” extends to the victim’s age	Government: knowledge of age not required; statute’s context and purpose protect minors without imposing additional mens rea	Washington: “knowingly” should apply to the clause “has not attained the age of 18,” so gov’t must prove he knew she was a minor	Court affirmed: knowledge of victim’s age not required under § 2423(a); Jones remains controlling and Flores‑Figueroa’s presumption is rebutted by § 2423(a)’s special context
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 240‑month upward variance	Government: variance justified by manipulation, threats, sexual conduct, lack of remorse, and extensive criminal history	Washington: court ignored Guidelines, overemphasized victim’s vulnerability, and failed to give mitigating weight to his belief she was 19	Court affirmed: district court considered the PSR and § 3553(a) factors; variance was procedurally and substantively reasonable

United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (4th Cir. 2006) (held that § 2423(a) does not require proof that defendant knew victim was under 18)
Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (presumption that specified mens rea applies to all elements, but context can rebut presumption)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Tavares, 705 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2013) (joined circuits in holding Flores‑Figueroa does not require knowledge of age under § 2423(a))