United States v. Timothy Fugit
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26643
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Fugit was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia on two counts: Count 1 for distributing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1); Count 2 for violating §2422(b) (enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity)
- He pled guilty to both counts after an agreed Statement of Facts, though no formal plea agreement was reached.
- The Statement of Facts described chats with two minors (Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) while Fugit posed as “Kimberly” and included explicit sexual inquiries and attempts to induce sexual activity.
- The PSR expanded on the conduct, including additional chats with other potential minors, and noted extensive possession and distribution of child pornography.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed 240 months on Count 1 and 70 months on Count 2, to be served consecutively (310 months total) within a Guideline range of 292–365 months; appellate review affirmed.
- Fugit sought 28 U.S.C. §2255 relief claiming multiple grounds; the focus on Count 2 concerns whether his stipulated conduct satisfied §2422(b)’s “sexual activity” element and whether his counsel was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2422(b) requires interpersonal physical contact. | Fugit contends “sexual activity” includes only contact. | Government argues no physical-contact requirement is needed. | Interpersonal physical contact is not required. |
| Whether Fugit’s actual innocence claim overcomes procedural default. | Fugit asserts actual innocence and cause/prejudice for default. | Government asserts procedural default bars the claim. | Fugit’s actual innocence claim fails on the merits; default not excused. |
| Whether Gonzalez v. Thaler permits broader consideration of evidence beyond the Statement of Facts. | Fugit argues evidence beyond the Statement of Facts should be considered. | Government relies on certificate of appealability limits. | Gonzalez allows broader review of evidence beyond the stipulated facts; no strict confinement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence standard; extraordinary relief in collateral review)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence requires more than legal insufficiency; may consider new evidence)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (certificate of appealability is a claim-processing rule; not jurisdictional in collateral review)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (ineffective assistance; heightened caution in guilty-plea context)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation of §2422(b) as protecting against solicitation of sexual activity by a minor)
- Diaz-Ibarra v. United States, 522 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2008) (definition of sexual activity in related sentencing context)
- Taylor v. United States, 640 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011) (argued interchangeable definition of sexual activity; rejected in this circuit)
- Sonnenberg v. United States, 556 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2009) (discusses definitional scope of related statutory terms)