United States v. James Mozie
752 F.3d 1271
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant James Mozie ran a house of prostitution known as the “Boom Boom Room,” recruiting vulnerable teenage girls with a sham modeling agency called “Pretty Pink Pussy Enterprises” (PPP). Many recruits were minors; one victim was 13.
- Victims testified that Mozie required applications (with true birthdates), photographed girls, supplied alcohol/drugs, organized parties where customers paid for timed sex sessions, and sometimes used physical force and threats.
- Law enforcement executed a raid; agents recovered PPP applications, marketing materials, condoms, egg timers, and a cell phone containing explicit photos and advertising messages.
- Mozie was indicted on a third superseding indictment for conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1594(c)), eight counts of child sex trafficking (18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)), and producing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)). He was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment under the Guidelines.
- On appeal Mozie challenged: (1) constitutionality of §§ 1591 and 1594(c); (2) constructive amendment of the indictment by jury instructions; (3) sufficiency of the evidence; and (4) substantive and Eighth Amendment challenges to his life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Mozie’s Argument | Government’s/Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 1591 (mens rea/reckless-disregard) | §1591 is facially unconstitutional for allowing conviction on reckless disregard rather than actual knowledge; violates due process and Eighth Amendment | Reckless-disregard is a permissible mens rea; burden of proof remains beyond a reasonable doubt; statute gives fair notice and is not unconstitutionally vague | Rejected — §1591 valid; reckless-disregard mens rea constitutional and not void for vagueness |
| Constructive amendment via jury instructions | Jury was instructed disjunctively (know or recklessly disregard) although indictment alleged both conjunctively, which broadened bases for conviction | Indictment conjunctively alleging alternative means permits disjunctive proof; established precedent allows proving one means disjunctively | Rejected — no constructive amendment; disjunctive instruction permissible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions (Counts 1–10) | Evidence insufficient on various counts (knowledge of age, recruitment, commercial sex act, photo production) | Victims’ testimony, PPP applications with birthdates, photos from phone, admission to recruiting/photographing, corroborative physical evidence supported convictions | Rejected — evidence sufficient for conspiracy, eight §1591 counts, and §2251 count |
| Sentence challenges (substantive reasonableness and Eighth Amendment) | Life sentence substantively unreasonable and grossly disproportionate; alleged disparity with codefendant’s 156-month sentence | Guidelines life sentence justified by scope, number of victims, frequency of abuse; disparity explained by cooperation and plea from codefendant; Eighth Amendment narrow and not violated | Rejected — life sentence within Guideline range, not substantively unreasonable or grossly disproportionate |
Key Cases Cited
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard: defendant must show no set of circumstances in which statute valid)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) (Congress may exclude knowledge requirements; mens rea not always constitutionally required)
- Williams v. United States, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (void-for-vagueness principles; fair notice and standardless enforcement test)
- Miller v. United States, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) (disjunctive proof of alternatively pleaded means is permissible)
- Simpson v. United States, 228 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2000) (conjunctive pleading of alternative means may be proved disjunctively)
- Haymes v. United States, 610 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1980) (alternative mental states charged conjunctively may be instructed disjunctively)
- New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (special societal interest in protecting children from sexual exploitation)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (life sentence upheld; Eighth Amendment proportionality is narrow)
- Irey v. United States, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing substantive reasonableness of sentences)