United States v. Robert Daniels
685 F.3d 1237
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Daniels, a/k/a “Twin T,” was convicted of Counts I and III for sex trafficking-related offenses involving a minor victim, A.W.
- A.W. was born April 6, 1990, making her 14 in October 2004; Daniels recruited and transported her across state lines for prostitution.
- Daniels arranged for A.W. to be sold to Lipsey in Tennessee and transported her from Florida to Memphis, Tennessee.
- Lipsey and Head (a fellow pimp) interacted with A.W. and were aware she appeared and acted juvenile; Lipsey claimed he knew she was under 18 after later information.
- The district court instructed the jury on Count I and Count III, and Daniels moved for acquittal; the jury found Daniels guilty on Counts I and III and not guilty on Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of the victim’s age is required for § 2422(b). | Daniels argued Flores-Figueroa controls and requires knowledge. | Daniels urged knowledge of age should be an element. | Knowledge not required; § 2422(b) does not require knowing victim is under 18. |
| Whether the government must prove knowledge that AW was under 18 for § 2422(b). | Daniels contends Flores-Figueroa requires knowledge of age. | Court should adopt knowledge-not-required approach. | Same holding as above: no knowledge of age required. |
| Whether knowledge that AW would be transported interstate is required for § 2421 conviction (Count III). | Daniels contends error in not requiring knowledge of interstate transport. | No preservation of objection; error not plain. | Issue not preserved on appeal; no plain error shown. |
| Whether admit of Michigan conviction as evidence was improper. | Daniels argued admission without underlying facts was plain error. | Instant withdrawal of challenge after partial affirmation; not reversible. | Issue waived; no further review. |
| Whether the 2-level enhancement for undue influence and underlying sentencing were proper. | Daniels claims insufficient factual findings; argues no undue-influence basis. | District court properly applied presumption and resolved key facts via PSI. | District court did not abuse discretion; enhancement affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (defines induce for § 2422(b) as cause or stimulate minor to engage in activity)
- United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007) (cellular telephone use constitutes interstate commerce)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Supreme Court 2009) (holds knowledge applies to all elements in identify-theft statute; contextual rule discussed)
- United States v. Cox, 577 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2009) (rejects Flores-Figueroa controlling in § 2423(a) context; contextual approach favored)
- X-Citement Video Inc. v. United States, 513 U.S. 64 (Supreme Court 1994) (establishes knowledge presumed not to apply to all elements in some sex-offense contexts)