United States v. Shawn Engle
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4105
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Engle was convicted by a federal jury of one count of §2251(a) sexual exploitation of a minor, three counts of §2422(b) attempted enticement, and nine counts of §1512 witness tampering; the district court imposed concurrent terms of 360, 240, and 480 months and life supervised release.
- Engle argues Count 1 venue was improper; the government contends Count 1 is a continuing offense under §3237(a) and venue lay where the interstate transport moved.
- Engle challenges Counts 6-8 for insufficiency of evidence to prove attempted enticement of K.M. under §2422(b), contending evidence shows only affections and not a substantial step.
- The government introduced grooming-related communications and acts spanning Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, including pre-video communications and letters from Engle to K.M. and his attempts to obtain false statements from witnesses.
- Engle also contends he was denied meaningful allocution before sentencing in violation of Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).
- The court affirms the conviction and addresses venue, sufficiency of the Counts 6-8 evidence, and allocution issues, ultimately upholding the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue for Count 1 | Engle argues lack of venue in EDVA based on alleged conduct outside. | Engle contends §2251(a) venue limited to location of essential conduct; Bowens signals difference; venue improper in EDVA. | Venue proper under §3237(a) (both paragraphs); continuing offense and begun elsewhere theories satisfied. |
| Sufficiency of Counts 6-8 | Evidence shows intent and grooming; substantial step toward enticement established. | Engle argues communications were mere affection with no substantial step. | Evidence supports a substantial step; convictions for Counts 6-8 affirmed. |
| Allocution before sentencing | Rule 32 requires personal addressing before sentence; failure to allocate is error. | Allocution issue raised belatedly; no reversible error given record shows consideration of statements. | No plain-error relief; allocution complied in substance; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowens v. United States, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000) (venue not proper where essential conduct occurred elsewhere under 1071-like framework)
- Kapordelis v. United States, 569 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (continuing-offense venue under §3237(a) applies when interstate transport moves)
- Lee v. United States, 603 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2010) (§2422(b) and §2251(a) related conduct; grooming violations centrala)
- Dorvee v. United States, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (grooming evidence supporting enticement under §2251(a))
- Berg v. United States, 640 F.3d 239 (7th Cir. 2011) (grooming theory and grooming evidence in §2422 cases)
- Goetzke v. United States, 494 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2007) (substantial-step standard for attempt offenses)
- Sanchez v. United States, 615 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2010) (contextual assessment of substantial-step in attempt cases)
- Rothenberg v. United States, 610 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 2010) (communications as part of enticement and grooming in §2422(b) cases)
- United States v. Melia, 741 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1984) (movement of goods across state lines and venue under §3237)