N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R IC KY DAVIS, AKA R ic k Dog, AKA R ic ky Loks, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10402

DC No. C R 12-0056 AW I
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 16, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd ADELM AN, ** Distric t Judge . R ic ky Dav is a ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

n d se nte nc e for se xua l e xploita tion a nd a tte m pte d se x tra ffic king of a

m inor. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 

# FIL ED APR 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
* * The Honora

ble Ly nn S. Ade lm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W isc onsin, sitting by de signa tion.1291. In this disposition we a ffirm Davis’ c onvic tion for se xua l e xploita tion of a m inor unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ), re j e c t his insuffic ie n c y

of the e vide nc e c ha lle nge to his c onvic tion for a

tte m pte d se x tra ffic k ing unde r 18 U.S.C . §§ 1591(a), 1594, and re m and. 1 1. At the c lose of the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se -in-c hie f, Dav is unsuc c e ssfully m ove d for a c quitta l of C ount 2, se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 29. Da vis c h a lle nge s the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of his R ule 29 m otion on the

ground tha

t the gove rnm e nt fa ile d suffic ie ntly

to prove e a c h of § 1591(a)’ s e le m e nts. This a rgum e nt is unpe rsua sive . W e re vie w de novo the de nia l of a m otion for a c q

uitta l unde r R

ule 29. Se e Unite d State s v . Somsamouth , 352 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th C ir. 2003). In doing so, we “ re v ie w the e vide n c e pre s e nte d a ga inst thede fe n da nt in thelight m ost fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt” in orde r to de te rm ine whe the r “ any ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found the e sse ntia l e le m e n ts of the c rim e be y ond a re a sona ble doubt.” Id. a t 1 2 74–75 (e m p ha sis a dde d) (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d).

1 In a

c onc urre ntly file d opinion, we re ve rse Davis’ c onvic tion for a tte m pte d se x tra ffic king of a

m inor in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1591(a), 1594, and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. W e do not re a c h Davis’ argum e nts c ha lle nging his now-vac a t e d se nte nc e . The fa c ts a re suffic ie ntly se t forth in our opinion a nd we do not re pe at

the m he re . 2He re , the e vide nc e pre se nte d at tria l, whe n vie we d in the light m ost

fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, e sta blishe d tha

t:

• prior to Se p te m

be r 17, 2011, Da

vis a nd B ia nc a ha d se x in a

n a pa rtm e n t into whic h the y

ha d to sne ak “ be c a

u se ,” a c c ording to B ia nc a , “ [she ] look[e d] too y oung” ;

• B ia nc a initia lly re q ue ste d a “ H e llo Kitty ” tattoo;

• on the night of Septe m be r 17, 2011, B ia

nc a told Da v is she wa s “ a

bout 16 or 17” y e ars old;

• Davis instruc te d B ia nc a on “ a way

to ge t m one y ” by

going on da

te s ;

• Davis e nc oura ge d B ia nc a to ge t na ke d for the photogra

phs be c a use “ it would be se xie r for the guy s” ;

• Davis m a d e c le ar he inte nde d to post the s e photogra phs on the R e dbook we b s ite ;

• a fte r taking the photogra phs, Da vis a nd B ia nc a ha d se x;

• Davis fa c ilita

te d B ia nc a ’ s R e dbook da

te s by first ha ving pote ntia l c ustom e rs te xt him

and only the n providing the

c u stom e r with B ia nc a ’ s phone n

um be r; a nd

• Davis a c tua lly

did fa c ilita

te a c onne c tion be twe e n B ia n c a and at le a st one individual with whom B ia nc a subse q

ue ntly ha d se x in e x c ha

nge for m one y . B a se d on this e vide nc e , a ra t iona l trie r of fa c t c ould c onc lude tha t the gove rnm e nt c arrie d its burde n with re spe c t to e a c h of § 1591(a)’ s e sse ntia l e le m e nts, inc luding

3the p rovision’ s me ns re a and ac tus re us re quire m e nts. Ac c o rdingly , Davis’

suffic i e nc y

of the e v ide nc e c ha lle nge fa ils. 2. Davis’ c ha lle nge to his c o nvic tion unde r § 2251(a ) is pre c lude d by our pre c e de nt, Unite d State

s v . U.S. Dist. C

ourt for C e nt. Dist. of C

a l. , 858 F.2d 534 (9th C ir. 1988). The re , we e xpre ssly re je c te d the argum e nt tha

t § 2251(a) “ should be inte rpre te d to re q

uire the gove rnm e nt to provesc ie nte r a s to a ge in its prima fa c i e c a se .” Id. at 536; se e also id. a t 537–38. And we we nt on to hold tha

t “ [t] he de fe nda n t’ s a ware ne ss of the subje c t’ s m inority is not a n e l e m e nt of the offe nse .” Id . at 538. Davis a rgue s tha t the Supre m e C ourt’ s subse que n t de c ision in Eloni v . Unite d State s, 135 S.C t. 2001 (2015), re quire s the gove rnm e nt to prove , at a m inim um , tha t he a c te d re c kle ssly

or ne glige ntly with re spe c t to B ia nc a ’ s m inority sta tus. Elonis , howe ve r, doe s not sta nd for this proposition. R a the r, it a ffirm e d the c ontinue d soundne ss of Unite d State s v . X-C ite me nt Vide o, Inc . , 513 U.S. 64 (1994), and c o nc lude d tha t, with re spe c t

to the fe de ra l thre a ts sta

tute , a de fe nda nt m ust know tha

t the tra n sm itte d c om

m unic a tion c onta ins a

thre at . Se e Elonis , 135 S.C t. at 2011. Ac c ordingly , we re je c t this c ha lle nge to Da

vis’ c onvic tion for se xua l e xploita

tion of a m inor in viola

tion of § 2251(a

).

• ! • 4For the re a s ons se t forth he re in a nd in our c o nc urre ntly

file d opinion, we a ffirm Davis’ c onvic tion unde r § 2251, but re ve rse his c onvic tion unde r § 1591(a), not for insuffic ie nc y

of the e vide nc e , but be c a use the indic tm e nt on this c ount wa s c onstruc tive l y

am e nde d, a

n d re m and to thedistric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e d ings. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

5