Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 1 of 19
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-15007
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cr-00268-LGW-CLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY ALLMOND, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 26, 2020)
Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 2 of 19
After a jury trial, Jeffery Allmond, Jr. appeals his conviction for knowingly
persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor to engage in illegal sexual
activity, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, Allmond argues that the
district court abused its discretion (1) by denying his motion to dismiss the
§ 2422(b) charge as unconstitutional as applied to him, and (2) by excluding
evidence about the victim’s other sexual behavior.1 Allmond also challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. After review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS
A. Offense Conduct
Two minors, Morgan and Emilee, 2 shared an interest in German Shepherd
dogs and lived on Fort Stewart, a military base in Georgia. Morgan and Emilee
were close friends and 15 and 16 years old, respectively. However, they lied about
their ages to create accounts on Tinder, a dating application, which required that its
users be 18 years or older.
In July 2018, Emilee noticed defendant Allmond’s Tinder account, which
featured photos of his German Shepherds. Allmond was a 24-year-old police
officer with the Richmond Hill Police Department. Emilee and Allmond began
1
The jury acquitted Allmond of the charge of possessing child pornography, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
2
We refer to the victims by their first names, as the parties did at trial.
2
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 3 of 19
chatting on Tinder, and she wanted their dogs to meet.
Emilee told Morgan about Allmond’s dogs, and the three began
communicating on Snapchat, a social media and messaging application, about a
wide variety of topics. Allmond falsely told the girls that he was a canine handler
for the police department and that his dogs were police dogs. Morgan and Emilee
told Allmond that they were 16 and 17 years old, respectively. Eventually, the
three agreed to meet. Allmond insisted that they meet at night because his police
career could be on the line, and he did not want anyone to know.
Their first meeting began late at night around July 4, 2018. Morgan and
Emilee snuck out of their homes and hopped the fence that surrounded the military
base. Around 1:30 a.m., Allmond picked the girls up at a nearby gas station and
drove them 30 minutes to his apartment. After playing with Allmond’s dogs and
eating cookies, the three went into Allmond’s bedroom. The girls got undressed,
and Morgan told Allmond that she liked handcuffs. In response, Allmond took two
pairs of handcuffs from his police uniform and handcuffed the girls as they lay
naked side-by-side on the bed. Allmond kissed Morgan and Emilee, digitally
penetrated their vaginas, and performed oral sex on them. He then had vaginal sex
with Emilee while digitally penetrating Morgan’s vagina. Afterwards, Allmond
dropped the girls off near their homes, and they snuck back inside around 4:30 a.m.
After that night, Morgan and Emilee continued to talk to Allmond and met
3
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 4 of 19
him a second time, again sneaking out late at night to go to his apartment.3 Again,
Allmond kissed Morgan and Emilee, digitally penetrated their vaginas, performed
oral sex on them, and had sex with Emilee while Morgan lay beside her.
At some point after the first or second meeting, Allmond discovered on
Facebook, a social media application, that Morgan had just turned 15 years old.4
Allmond confronted Morgan about this information, and she confirmed that she
was 15 years old. Allmond asked Morgan whether she was “okay with being with
a guy eight years older,” and Morgan said yes.
Nevertheless, Allmond planned a third meetup with Morgan and Emilee.
Beforehand, he sent Morgan a photograph of a bottle of personal lubricant, which
she understood to mean that he wanted to use it to have sex with her. At the third
meetup, which again occurred at Allmond’s apartment late at night, Allmond
digitally penetrated Morgan’s and Emilee’s vaginas, performed oral sex on them,
and had sex with Emilee while Morgan lay beside her. Allmond asked Morgan to
have sex with him numerous times, but Morgan refused. Allmond tried to
encourage her, saying, “Please, come on, come on; I’m not going to get you
3
Morgan and Emilee had slightly conflicting stories about the logistics of the meetups.
Emilee testified that they were picked up by Allmond the first and second times to go to his
apartment but drove themselves the third time. Morgan testified that they were picked up the
first and third times, but drove themselves the second time. Ultimately, these discrepancies do
not affect the outcome of this case.
4
Although slightly contentious, some evidence showed that Allmond also had seen a
picture of Morgan’s learners permit at some point, which reflected that she was 15 years old.
4
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 5 of 19
pregnant; just one time . . . I’ve never gotten a girl pregnant; you can trust me; you
can trust me.” Allmond stopped his pleas after Morgan refused, got mad, and told
him to stop. At trial, Morgan admitted that the only person who persuaded,
induced, enticed, or coerced her to go to Allmond’s apartment was Emilee the first
and third times, and Morgan decided on her own to go the second time.
Later, Allmond voluntarily participated in an interview with the Georgia
Bureau of Investigation. Allmond was nervous and concerned about his job. He
admitted that, on multiple occasions over four weeks, he had sexual intercourse
with Emilee and penetrated Morgan’s vagina with his mouth and fingers. He
admitted that Morgan looked young, and he had suspicions about her age,
especially after checking her Facebook page. Allmond also admitted that he met
up with the girls after discovering that Morgan was 15 years old and possibly
digitally penetrated her vagina during that encounter.
B. Indictment and Pre-Trial Motions
Allmond was charged with knowingly persuading, inducing, enticing, and
coercing Morgan, who was 15 years old at the time, to engage in illegal sexual
activity—that being child molestation under Georgia law—in violation of
18
U.S.C. § 2422(b).5 Before trial, Allmond filed motions to dismiss that charge and
5
Allmond was not charged with enticing Emilee to engage in illegal sexual activity.
Emilee, who was 16 years old at the time, did not qualify as a victim under Georgia’s child
molestation statute. O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4(a)(1) (providing that a defendant commits child
5
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 6 of 19
to introduce evidence of Morgan’s and Emilee’s past sexual behavior, under
Federal Rule of Evidence 412(b)(1)(C).
In his Rule 412(b)(1)(C) motion, Allmond sought to introduce evidence that
Morgan and Emilee had an “extensive pattern of lying to men engaged in law
enforcement about their age[s] for the purpose of engaging in sexual activities.”6
Allmond identified three male law enforcement officers who interacted with
Morgan and highlighted recorded statements from two officers. One officer met
Morgan on Snapchat, and Morgan spontaneously sent him explicit photographs of
her breasts and vagina. That officer did not realize that Morgan was under 18
years old until she told him a week later that she was 16. Another officer also met
Morgan on Snapchat, and Morgan later told him that she was only 16 years old.
Allmond also sought to introduce Morgan’s and Emilee’s recorded statements
regarding their interactions with Allmond and past sexual encounters with law
enforcement officers. Emilee stated that Morgan “always hooked up with” police
officers. Morgan admitted she sent nude photographs to men and “messed around”
with older guys for pleasure.
The magistrate judge entered a combined “Sealed Order and Report and
molestation when he does any immoral or indecent act to or with a child under the age of 16
years with the intent to arouse or satisfy his or the child’s sexual desires).
6
Allmond sought to introduce evidence that focused on Morgan’s sexual activity, even
though he argued that the evidence pertained to both girls.
6
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 7 of 19
Recommendation” on the motions. In the order, the magistrate judge denied
Allmond’s Rule 412(b)(1)(C) motion as to evidence of Morgan’s or Emilee’s
relationships with other men or misrepresentations of their ages to other men
because such evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial. The magistrate judge
granted in part Allmond’s Rule 412(b)(1)(C) motion as to Morgan’s or Emilee’s
statements about their sexual relationships with Allmond. More specifically, if the
government offered evidence of Allmond’s sexual activities with Morgan and
Emilee in its case in chief, Allmond would be allowed to cross-examine them as to
any conflicting statements regarding those activities.
In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended
denying Allmond’s motion to dismiss the § 2422(b) charge. Allmond had argued
that § 2422(b) is unconstitutional as applied to him.7 Over Allmond’s objections,
the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied
Allmond’s motion to dismiss.
C. Trial and Cross-Examination of Morgan
At trial, the government presented evidence of the facts recounted above,
including (1) testimony from Morgan, Emilee, Allmond’s former supervisor, a
7
Although Allmond also argued in the district court that § 2422(b) was facially
unconstitutional, on appeal he argues only that it is unconstitutional as applied. Accordingly, his
facial challenge is abandoned. See United States v. Grimon,
923 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.),
cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 536 (2019) (explaining that issues not raised on appeal are deemed
abandoned).
7
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 8 of 19
computer forensics expert, Allmond’s former sex crimes instructor, and the officer
who investigated this case, and (2) birth certificates, driver’s licenses, Tinder
account records, Snapchat account records, photographs of Allmond’s apartment
and handcuffs, and Allmond’s recorded interview, among other things. During
cross-examination of Morgan, defense counsel asked whether she was scared about
going to Allmond’s apartment the first time. Morgan responded, “I was a little
scared because I didn’t know what I was doing. I [had] never done anything like
that before.” At a sidebar conference, defense counsel requested that the district
court allow him to impeach Morgan with the evidence that she had engaged in
sexual conduct with other men like Allmond before. The government opposed the
request, arguing that Morgan was referring to never meeting a man in the middle of
the night. The district court denied the defense’s request because Morgan’s
statement was ambiguous and the defense’s further questioning her about what she
meant would be purposefully asking her to open the door to inadmissible
evidence.8
8
The following exchange occurred in the sidebar conference:
[Defense counsel]: The fact that she’s never done this before, I’m going to ask
[t]he Court to allow me to go into the fact that she has done this before.
[Government counsel]: In all due respect, I believe she’s referring to meeting
[Allmond] in the middle of the night.
[Defense counsel]: You don’t know what she meant.
8
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 9 of 19
D. Motions for Judgment of Acquittal, Conviction, and Sentence
At the close of the government’s evidence, the defense rested. Allmond
moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that Morgan was never persuaded,
induced, enticed, or coerced to do anything by anyone other than Emilee. The
district court denied the motion. The jury found Allmond guilty of the § 2422(b)
charge. Allmond again moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing, inter alia, that
Morgan had testified that Allmond had not persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced
her to do anything. The district court denied the motion. The district court
sentenced Allmond to 121 months’ imprisonment.9
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Dismiss
Section 2422(b) criminalizes the sexual exploitation of minors, as follows:
Whoever . . . knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in
prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be
fined . . . and imprisoned . . . .
[The district court]: I don’t know what she means by this, and I guess if you kept
asking her and directing her into opening that door, eventually she would but, of
course, I’m not going to let you do that . . . . I’m not going to let you purposefully
make her open that door. She has not at this point. None of us know what she
means by this.
If I continue to let you down this, eventually she might do that, and that
would be ridiculous for me to let you do that and you know it, so let’s move on to
things that you’ve agreed are proper to ask about.
9
In this direct appeal, Allmond does not challenge his sentence.
9
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 10 of 19
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); see also O.C.G.A. § 16-6-4(a) (criminalizing the sexual
molestation of minors younger than 16 years old). Allmond argues that § 2422(b)
is unconstitutional as applied to him because he did not know that Morgan was
underage, and both girls lied about their ages. 10
In United States v. Daniels, this Court held that a defendant’s knowledge of
the victim’s age is not an essential element of a § 2422(b) crime.
685 F.3d 1237,
1248-50 (11th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, even if Allmond was confused or misled
about Morgan’s age, the government was not statutorily required to prove that
Allmond knew that Morgan was underage. See
id.
Allmond attempts to distinguish Daniels by noting that the defendant in that
case prostituted the minor victim, and prostitution is a crime regardless of whether
a defendant knows the victim’s age. This distinction makes no difference because
both Allmond and the defendant in Daniels were charged with the federal offense
of enticing a minor to engage in “any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense” under § 2422(b), and whether Allmond knew that
Morgan was a minor does not affect his federal criminal liability under § 2422(b).
10
This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Evans,
476 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2007). However, we
review the constitutionality of a statute de novo with a strong presumption of validity. See
United States v. Ruggiero,
791 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2015).
10
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 11 of 19
See
id. at 1240, 1249. 11
We recognize Allmond’s argument that, even if knowledge of the victim’s
age is not an element of a § 2422(b) crime, prosecution of that crime without proof
of his knowledge of the victim’s age violated his due process rights. 12 Allmond’s
constitutional claim fails because Congress has the power to exclude knowledge
from the definition of statutory crimes, and due process does not require proof that
a defendant knew the victim was underage. See id. at 1248 (“[O]ur decision to
reject a knowledge [of age] requirement to convict under § 2422(b) is consistent
with congressional intent to protect the most vulnerable among us.”); see also
United States v. Ruggiero,
791 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he Due
Process Clause has rarely concerned itself with limiting Congress’s wide
latitude . . . to declare an offense and to exclude elements of knowledge and
diligence from its definition.”). In any event, we note the trial evidence showed
that Allmond did know Morgan’s age when he committed the crime because he
11
Allmond argues that it “defies logic” that he could be found guilty of the completed
offense of § 2422(b) without proof that he knew his victim’s age, while a charge for attempt
would have required proof of knowledge, pursuant to United States v. Meek,
366 F.3d 705, 718
(9th Cir. 2004). However, this Court in Daniels held that, notwithstanding the holding in Meek,
a completed violation of § 2422(b) does not require knowledge of age. See Daniels, 685 F.3d at
1248, 1249 n.15 (distinguishing Meek because it was “decided in the context of attempt rather
than that of a completed offen[s]e”). Accordingly, we are bound by Daniels.
12
Allmond’s appellate brief does not explicitly identify which constitutional right was
allegedly violated. Based on his pleadings in the district court and arguments here, it appears
that he is arguing that his due process rights were violated.
11
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 12 of 19
digitally penetrated and performed oral sex on her after discovering on Facebook
that she was 15 years old.
B. Rule 412(b)(1)(C) Evidence
Allmond argues that his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights were
violated when the district court prevented him from introducing Rule 412(b)(1)(C)
evidence because Morgan and Emilee had a “calculated plan to lie about their ages
to seduce men aged 18 and older [who] worked as police officers.” He argues that
evidence about the minor victims’ pattern of lying to similar men was crucial to
proving their lack of credibility.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Allmond’s Rule
412(b)(1)(C) motion. 13 Rule 412 provides that, in a criminal proceeding charging
a defendant with sexual misconduct, the following evidence is not admissible:
(1) “evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior”; or
(2) “evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.” Fed. R.
Evid. 412(a). “[Rule 412] aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion
of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with
public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo
13
This Court “review[s] a district court’s application of Rule 412 for abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Culver,
598 F.3d 740, 749 (11th Cir. 2010). However, “[w]hether the exclusion
of evidence violated a constitutional guarantee is a legal question reviewed de novo.” United
States v. Sarras,
575 F.3d 1191, 1209 n.24 (11th Cir. 2009).
12
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 13 of 19
into the factfinding process.” United States v. Sarras,
575 F.3d 1191, 1212 n.25
(11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). In addition, “[b]y affording victims
protection in most instances, the rule also encourages victims of sexual misconduct
to institute and to participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders.”
Id.
(quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, Rule 412(b)(1)(C) provides that the district court still “may
admit . . . evidence whose exclusion would violate the defendant’s constitutional
rights.” Fed. R. Evid. 412(b)(1)(C). Thus, Rule 412(b)(1)(C) is “a narrow
exception” to the “broad general principle” that evidence of a victim’s prior sexual
history is inadmissible. United States v. Culver,
598 F.3d 740, 749 (11th Cir.
2010).
To determine the admissibility of a victim’s other sexual behavior under
Rule 412(b)(1)(C), this Court begins with the premise that a defendant has a
constitutional right, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, to introduce evidence
in his defense.
Id. The Sixth Amendment guarantees that every accused has the
right to confront the witnesses against him. United States v. Yates,
438 F.3d 1307,
1312 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc). “The main and essential purpose of confrontation
is to secure for the [defendant] the opportunity of cross-examination.” United
States v. Baptista-Rodriguez,
17 F.3d 1354, 1366 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotation marks
omitted).
13
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 14 of 19
A defendant’s right to cross-examine witnesses, however, is not without
limitation.
Id. Instead, “the Sixth Amendment guarantees an opportunity for
effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever
way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” United States v. Beale,
921
F.2d 1412, 1424 (11th Cir. 1991) (quotations marks omitted). “The test for the
Confrontation Clause is whether a reasonable jury would have received a
significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility had counsel pursued
the proposed line of cross-examination.” United States v. Taylor,
17 F.3d 333, 340
(11th Cir. 1994) (quotation marks omitted). “A defendant’s confrontation rights are
satisfied when the cross-examination permitted exposes the jury to facts sufficient
to evaluate the credibility of the witness and enables defense counsel to establish a
record from which he properly can argue why the witness is less than reliable.”
Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d at 1371. After cross-examination has satisfied the
defendant’s confrontation rights, further questioning is within the district court’s
discretion. Taylor,
17 F.3d at 340.
Allmond’s proffered evidence about the victims’ misrepresentations of their
ages to other men was irrelevant because, as discussed above, the government was
not required to prove that Allmond knew Morgan was underage. See Daniels, 685
F.3d at 1248-50. The district court also gave Allmond a constitutionally adequate
opportunity to cross-examine Morgan and Emilee on issues relevant to Allmond’s
14
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 15 of 19
defense and to attack their credibility. See Beale,
921 F.2d at 1424. On cross-
examination, Allmond elicited testimony from both girls that they lied about their
ages to create Tinder accounts and that they initially lied to Allmond about their
ages. Even if Allmond had been allowed to cross-examine Morgan regarding her
lying about her age to other police officers, the jury would not have “received a
significantly different impression of [her] credibility” because the jury already
heard that Morgan admitted to lying about her age to Allmond. See Taylor,
17 F.3d
at 340. Thus, the exclusion of the evidence did not violate Allmond’s
constitutional right to challenge Morgan’s credibility and did not fall within Rule
412(b)(1)(C)’s narrow exception.14 See Culver,
598 F.3d at 749; Baptista-
Rodriguez,
17 F.3d at 1371.
Allmond also argues that the district court abused its discretion by
preventing him from continuing his questioning of Morgan, when she stated she
had never done anything like this before. However, the district court found that it
was unclear whether Morgan was referring to meeting a stranger in the middle of
the night to go to his apartment 30 minutes away or to having a sexual encounter
14
Allmond never sought to introduce Morgan’s and Emilee’s sexual histories alone per
se. Rather, Allmond sought to show that the girls lied about their ages in order to engage in
sexual activity with other men. Of course, this still would have had the same effect of
introducing the girls’ prior sexual conduct with other men.
15
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 16 of 19
with a police officer that she met online. 15 Given the defense’s thorough cross-
examination of Morgan before that point, we cannot say the district court abused
its discretion in concluding Morgan’s ambiguous comment had not yet opened the
door to her prior sexual conduct with other men and that defense counsel’s further
questioning along that line would purposefully make her open that door.
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence for a § 2422(b) Conviction
To convict Allmond under § 2422(b), the government needed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Allmond knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed
Morgan to engage in illegal sexual activity. United States v. Murrell,
368 F.3d
1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). 16 “We have held that the terms persuade, induce, and
entice in § 2422(b) should be given their ordinary meaning.” United States v.
Rutgerson,
822 F.3d 1223, 1232 (11th Cir. 2016). “Persuade” means to “‘[w]in
over by an appeal to one’s reason and feelings (as into doing or believing
15
In his reply brief, Allmond submits that Morgan and Emilee previously spent the night
with another man named Nick, in addition to the other three men whose statements he sought to
introduce under Rule 412(b)(1)(C). However, Allmond’s Rule 412(b)(1)(C) motion did not seek
to introduce evidence about Nick in the district court, and, on appeal, Allmond raises this
evidence for the first time in his reply brief. Thus, we need not, and do not, address it. United
States v. Mathews,
874 F.3d 698, 708 (11th Cir. 2017) (declining to consider an argument raised
for the first time in a reply brief).
16
This Court reviews de novo the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction. United
States v. Gamory,
635 F.3d 480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011).
We need not address whether Allmond’s conduct amounted to coercion because the
district court charged the jury that Allmond could be found guilty if the government proved
beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knowingly persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced [Morgan]
to engage in sexual activity, as charged.”
16
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 17 of 19
something).’”
Id. at 1232-33 (quoting Persuade, Merriam-Webster Unabridged
Dictionary (3d ed. 2015)). “Induce” unambiguously means, of relevance, “[t]o
stimulate the occurrence of” or “cause.” Murrell,
368 F.3d at 1287 (quoting The
Am. Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 671 (William Morris ed.,
Houghton Mifflin Co. 1981)). “Entice” means to “draw on by arousing hope or
desire.” Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1233 (quoting Entice, Merriam-Webster
Unabridged Dictionary (3d ed. 2015)).
When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government. United States v. Hunt,
526 F.3d 739, 744
(11th Cir. 2008). Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if “any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.”
Id. at 745 (quotation marks omitted). “The evidence need not be
inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.”
Id. Rather, the
jury may choose from several reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from the
evidence.
Id.
Here, the trial evidence showed that 24-year-old Allmond chatted online
with 15-year-old Morgan and 16-year-old Emilee. Allmond picked the minor girls
up in the middle of the night on more than one occasion and drove them to his
apartment. Over the course of three meetings, Allmond repeatedly penetrated
Morgan’s vagina with his fingers and mouth and encouraged her to have sexual
17
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 18 of 19
intercourse. See Murrell,
368 F.3d at 1287; Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1232-33.
Allmond engaged in this conduct after discovering—sometime after the first or
second meeting, but before the third meeting—that Morgan was only 15 years old.
Given the record evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government,
Allmond failed to show that no rational trier of fact could have found him guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt of knowingly persuading, inducing, or enticing Morgan
to engage in illegal sexual activity. See Hunt,
526 F.3d at 745.
Allmond argues that Morgan’s admission at trial that only Emilee persuaded,
induced, enticed, or coerced her to go to Allmond’s apartment established that he
did not persuade, induce, entice, or coerce Morgan’s sexual conduct. However, the
jury could have reasonably found that Morgan’s admission pertained to her
decision to go to Allmond’s apartment, not to her decision to engage in sexual
activity with him or the specific nature of the sexual activity. Indeed, although
Allmond was ultimately unsuccessful in convincing Morgan to engage in sexual
intercourse, Allmond did induce Morgan to allow him to penetrate her vagina with
his fingers and mouth. Given the totality of the record, there was ample evidence
for the jury to conclude that Allmond knowingly persuaded, induced, or enticed
Morgan to engage in sexual activity once she was at his apartment.
III. CONCLUSION
In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allmond’s
18
Case: 19-15007 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 19 of 19
motions to dismiss the § 2422(b) charge and to introduce Rule 412(b)(1)(C)
evidence. Further, sufficient evidence supported his conviction. Accordingly, we
affirm Allmond’s § 2422(b) conviction.
AFFIRMED.
19
