[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10088

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCE EDWARD LASANE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cr-00241-RBD-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10088 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10088

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Vince LaSane appeals his convictions for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2422(b), and commission of a felony offense by a registered sex offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. He contends

the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that, to sustain 

a conviction under § 2260A, the felony offense must have involved 

an actual minor. LaSane asserts our decision in United States v. 

Slaughter, 708 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2013), addressing this issue was 

wrongly decided, and he asks us to adopt the reasoning of United 

States v. Beck, 957 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2020), which he contends held 

that an actual minor must be involved in the felony offense for a 

§ 2260A conviction. After review,1 we affirm. 

Under § 2260A, a person required to register as a sex offender that commits a felony offense “involving a minor” under 

§ 2422 “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 10 years in 

1 “We review de novo the jury instructions given by the district court to determine whether they misstate the law or mislead the jury to the objecting 

party’s prejudice.” United States v. Gomez, 580 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th Cir. 

2009) (quotation marks omitted). If the instructions accurately state the law, 

the trial judge has wide discretion to determine their style and wording, and 

we will review them only for abuse of that discretion. United States v. Kenny, 

185 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 1999).

USCA11 Case: 21-10088 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 2 of 4
21-10088 Opinion of the Court 3

addition to the imprisonment imposed for the offense under that 

provision.” 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. In Slaughter, we held that, when a 

conviction under § 2260A is predicated on a violation of § 2422(b), 

the involvement of an actual minor is not required and “a defendant may be convicted even where his conduct did not otherwise 

involve an actual minor.” 708 F.3d at 1216. We noted our prior 

precedent holding an attempt conviction under § 2422(b) can be 

sustained by the defendant’s mere belief that a minor was involved, 

even if the offense conduct did not involve an actual minor, and we 

concluded that nothing in the plain language of § 2260A negated 

the plain language of § 2422(b). Id. at 1215. We determined 

§ 2260A operates to assign additional punishment for a § 2422(b) 

offense if that offense is committed by a registered sex offender, 

and because a violation of § 2422(b) does not require an actual minor due to its attempt clause, neither does a violation of § 2260A 

when predicated on it. Id. at 1216.

The district court did not err in instructing the jury that, to 

convict under § 2260A, it must find only that LaSane committed a 

felony offense under § 2422(b) and was required to register as a sex 

offender at the time that he committed it. Those requirements are 

derived from the plain language of the statute, and our law does 

not require the additional element that the felony offense involve 

an actual minor. See id. Caselaw from the Fourth Circuit is not 

binding upon this Court, and under our prior panel precedent rule, 

we are bound by our holding in Slaughter. See United States v. 

Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating under our prior 

USCA11 Case: 21-10088 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10088

panel precedent rule, “a prior panel’s holding is binding on all subsequent panels unless and until it is overruled or undermined to the 

point of abrogation by the Supreme Court or by this court sitting 

en banc”). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 21-10088 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 4 of 4