United States v. Alif Adil ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-4740
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ALIF JAN ADIL,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00277-TSE-1)
    Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023
    Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
    Federal Public Defender, Cadence A. Mertz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
    OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica
    D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Nicholas J. Patterson, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    A federal jury convicted Alif Jan Adil of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2244
    (a)(3); coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2422
    (b); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (a)(4)(A), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Adil to a total of 150 months’
    imprisonment. On appeal, Adil argues that the district court plainly erred in instructing the
    jury on the elements of the § 2422(b) offense. The Government contends that Adil waived
    this claim. We affirm.
    “A waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”
    United States v. Robinson, 
    744 F.3d 293
    , 298 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
    omitted)). “Waiver is to be distinguished from forfeiture, which is the failure to make the
    timely assertion of a right.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a claim is
    waived, it is not reviewable on appeal, even for plain error.” 
    Id.
     “Rather, a valid waiver
    means that there was no error at all.” 
    Id.
     (internal quotation marks omitted).
    We conclude that Adil waived the claim he raises on appeal. While Adil now
    contends that the jury was required to find that he knew the age of the victim in order to
    find him guilty of the § 2422(b) offense, his decision to concede to the district court that
    the jury was not required to find this element “did not stem from an inadvertent error.”
    Wood v. Milyard, 
    566 U.S. 463
    , 474 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, on
    multiple occasions, Adil “deliberately steered the [d]istrict [c]ourt away from the question”
    by telling the court “in no uncertain terms” that the court was not required to instruct the
    jury in the manner that Adil now claims was necessary. 
    Id.
     Therefore, we conclude that
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36        Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3
    Adil waived any challenge to the district court’s instruction on the knowledge-of-age
    requirement for a § 2422(b) conviction, and his claim is thus not reviewable on appeal.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
    before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-4740

Filed Date: 12/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2023