Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04206/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04206-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Scott B. Worley
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

 

No. 05-4206

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Scott B. Worley, * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 16, 2007

Filed: February 26, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Scott B. Worley was charged, inter alia, with "knowingly attempt[ing] to

employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, and coerce a person he believed to be a minor,

Jess, to engage in sexually explicit conduct, specifically: sexual intercourse, and said

sexually explicit conduct was for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such

conduct . . . " in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Worley moved for dismissal of the

charge based on legal impossibility, arguing that the alleged 11-year-old girl "Jess"

Appellate Case: 05-4206 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281941
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

did not exist. The district court1

 denied Worley's motion to dismiss, and Worley

appeals. We affirm. 

The issue presented in this appeal is whether an actual minor victim is required

for an attempt conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). We previously addressed this

same question under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) in United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751

(8th Cir. 2006). In Helder, the defendant was charged with "knowingly persuad[ing],

induc[ing], entic[ing], or coerc[ing] [a minor] to engage in prostitution or any sexual

activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempt[ing]

to do so . . . ." Id. at 753. We held, "[b]ased on our sister circuits' thorough analysis

of the plain meaning of the statute," as well as our prior holdings, "that an actual

minor victim is not required for an attempt conviction under § 2422(b)." Id. at 756.

Because we see no valid basis for differentiating between § 2422(b) and §

2251(a), as the plain language of both statutes criminalizes an "attempt" to entice a

minor, we hold that an actual minor victim is not required for an attempt conviction

under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of Worley's

motion to dismiss. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4206 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/26/2007 Entry ID: 3281941