United States v. Robinson, 702 F.3d 22

Defendant Devon Robinson was convicted at trial of two counts of sex trafficking of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 1591, with Counts One under the 2008 amended § 1591 and Count Two under the pre-2008 version.
TVPRA § 1591(c) provides that if the defendant had a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim, the government need not prove the defendant knew the victim was under 18.
Robinson challenged the jury instruction on Count One, sufficiency of the evidence, admission of recorded calls, and his sentence.
The district court instructed three theories for awareness of the victim’s age: knowledge, recklessness, or a reasonable opportunity to observe.
The jury returned a special verdict for Count One finding knowledge, recklessness, and opportunity, and a general verdict for Count Two.
The court affirmed the judgment on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1591(c) impose strict liability for age awareness when there is a reasonable opportunity to observe the victim?	Robinson argues § 1591(c) is a conjunctive or adds no strict-liability effect.	Government contends § 1591(c) creates a substitute for knowledge, not an extra element.	§ 1591(c) provides an alternative; strict liability approach applies when applicable.
Is the jury instruction three options proper for proving awareness of the victim’s age?	Robinson claims the instruction improperly allows conviction without knowledge or recklessness.	Government argues three independent paths suffice: knowledge, recklessness, or reasonable observation.	Three-path instruction correct; § 1591(a) and (c) permit proof by any path.
Was the admission of recorded calls about other prostitutes and threats proper under Rule 404(b) and 403?	Calls show propensity and prejudice; should be excluded under Rule 404(b).	Evidence completes the story and is probative of the charged conduct and relationship.	Admissible as direct proof or necessary to complete the story; not unduly prejudicial.
Was Robinson’s sentence procedurally reasonable?			The sentence was procedurally reasonable under Gall and related standards.

Kubenz v. United States, 667 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (discusses standards of review for jury instructions (example placeholder))
X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994) (age in sexual exploitation statutes and mens rea)
Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (presumption against mens rea in certain age-related statutes)
Jennings v. United States, 496 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation of state-of-mind protections in age statutes)
Brooks v. United States, 610 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) (consideration of appearance and conduct to infer knowledge)