United States v. Jdt, Juvenile Male, 762 F.3d 984

JDT, a ten-year-old, was charged in federal court with six counts of aggravated sexual abuse under § 2241(c) for acts involving five victims aged 5–7 near Fort Huachuca, AZ, during 2010.
The government pursued jurisdiction under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) § 5032 and sought certification that federal court proceedings were appropriate.
A three-day bench trial occurred; counts concerned different sexual acts—mouth, anal, and abusive contact—occurring in a ditch or a vacant house near the housing area.
The district court found JDT delinquent on Counts 1–6 based on government evidence, and placed him on five years of probation with home supervision and therapy.
JDT sought suspension of the delinquency finding at disposition; the court declined to suspend and later denied a Rule 35(a) motion, leading to this appeal and a remand for disposition reconsideration.
The concurrence urges that suspension was the proper disposition given JDT’s age and rehabilitative goals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5032 certification gave jurisdiction	JDT: certification defective; lacked proper investigation	Government: facially valid certification; deference to U.S. Attorney	District court had jurisdiction; certification valid as filed
Whether § 2241(c) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to under-twelve offenders	Statute invites arbitrary enforcement when both participants are under 12	Statute provides notice and guidance, not vague	Not unconstitutionally vague under Due Process
Whether the district court properly construed mens rea for § 2241(c) as 'knowingly' engaging in a sexual act	Knowingly requires knowledge of sexual intent/mental state	Knowingly requires knowledge of the facts constituting the offense, not sexual intent	Correctly applied; 'knowingly' satisfied by knowing the acts were being performed
Whether there was sufficient evidence to delinquent on Counts 3 and 5 (anal penetration)	Evidence insufficient due to 'soft' erections	Credibility of expert testimony and victim accounts support penetration	Sufficient evidence supported delinquency on Counts 3 and 5
Whether the district court erred in not suspending the delinquency finding	Suspension warranted to avoid lifelong stigma and preserve rehabilitation	Discretionary determinations under FJDA; probation adequate	Remanded for disposition reconsideration, including whether suspension should be granted

Gonzalez-Cervantes v. United States, 668 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir. 1981) (certification sufficiency reviewed; regular on face; no sua sponte duty to verify)
United States v. W.R. Grace & Co., 526 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2008) (certification requirements; deference to Attorney General’s certification)
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (statutes with vague standards invite arbitrary enforcement)
Morales v. City of Chicago, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (loitering statute; subjective standard invites arbitrariness)
Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (knowing does not require knowledge of the law; focus on facts constituting offense)