USA v. Macapagal

• Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
• Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
• Date Filed: 12-28-2022
• Case #: 21-10262
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Schroeder, J. for the Court; Rawlinson, J.; & Bress, J.
• Full Text Opinion

In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor.

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for attempted enticement of a child by means of interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Defendant attempted to engage in sexual activity with a minor over the internet through the use of an adult intermediary, an FBI agent posing as a mother of young children. Defendant assigned error to the district court’s lack of proof that he actually contacted a minor. In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor. The Court held that the requisite intent to entice a minor is not defeated by use of an adult intermediary. Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part.

Share Subscribe