[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 60 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cr-6 00 95 -J AG-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e vers us GEORGE JOSEPH ENGLAND , a.k .a. Ste ph enArth urSeag oe , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st15 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 1 of 11Geo rg e Jo se ph Eng la ndap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r in du cem en t an d

tra ns po rta ti on , bo th in te rn at io na ll y an d i nt ers ta te , of afem al e m in or for il le ga l se xu al act iv ity . Eng la ndwas c ha rg edan d c on vi ct edon fiv e co un ts invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 21 , 24 22 (19 71 ), an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 23 (19 70 ) fo ll owi ng a jury tri al . On ap pe al , Eng la ndarg ue s t ha t: (1) th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ct hi m un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2 (1 97 1) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 23 (19 70 ); ( 2) th e d is tri ct co urt erredby notgi vi ng pro pe r jury ins tru ct io ns ; (3 ) two ch arg es , 18 U.S.C. § 24 22 (19 71 ) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 23 (19 70 ), were m ul ti pl ic it ou s; an d (4 ) th e d is tri ct co urt erredby notgra nt in g am is tri al to all ow t he pa rti es to de te rm in e th e rel iabi li ty of th e v ic ti m ’s “ reco ve redm em or ie s.” Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm . I. Inth e ear ly 197 0s , Eng la ndvi si te d ay ou ng gi rl, J .S., andhe r fam il y at t he ir ho m e in Viet na m . He beg anbu y in g d ol ls , dre ss es , andcan dy for J .S an d en co ur ag edhe r to sp en d t he ni gh t athi s ap art m en t. Eng la ndsex ua ll y m ol es te d J.S. wh en ev er s he wou ldsp en d t he ni gh t. Sh e was th ree o r fo ury ears ol d a t t he ti m e. Even tu al ly, Eng la ndto okJ.S. fro m he r fam il y , m ov edto Sai go n a ndth ento Tha il an d wh ere t he m ol es ta ti onco nt in ue d. Aft er s pe nd in g ay ear i n Th ai la nd , Eng landan d J .S. m ov edto Ind iaan d l iv edin a ho te l. Du rin g t he ir t im e in Ind ia , J.S. wi tn es se d En gl an d s ex ua ll y m ol es t a you ng gi rl tha t s he be fri en de d wh il e th ey

2 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 2 of 11were ca m

pi ng at the be ach . Whe n J .S. was fi ve y ears ol d, t he y m ov edto Cal ifo rn iawher e th ey

li ve d i n aga rag e ap art m en t. J .S. tes ti fie d t ha t o ve r th e n ex t th irt een y ears , Eng landco nt in ue d t o s ex ua ll y m ol es t h er, fo rcedhe r to en ga ge in be st ia li ty, an d i m

pr eg na te d h er o n m

ul ti pl e o ccas io ns . In Oct ob er 1 97 7, En gl an d was co nv ic te d o f se xu al ly mol es ti ng two ot he r y ou ng gi rls in Cal ifo rn ia . Sho rtl y th erea fte r, J.S. an d En gl an d fl edto Flo rid a. Whe n J .S. was t welv e o r th irt een y ears ol d, the y

m ov edin to a “ fle a-ri dd en ” tr ai le r whe re s he was fo rcedto co ok , cl ean , andfin an ci al ly sup po rt En gl an d. Aro un d t hi s t im e, J.S. al so ga ve bi rth . DNA tes ti ng sh owe d 9 9.9 9% p ro babi li ty tha t En gl an d was th e fathe r of th e b ab y . Afte r th is , Eng la ndfor cedJ.S. t o u nd erg o a n abo rti on each ti m e h e im pr eg na te d he r, whi ch happ en edat l eas t fi ve ti m es . J.S. te st ifi edth atth e sp ace s hu tt le , Ch al le ng er, ex pl od edon th e sa m e d ay , Jan ua ry 28 , 19 86 , of h er l as t ab orti on ; s he was eig ht een y ears ol d. Fo ll owi ng he r la stab orti on , J.S. thr eat en edto co m m it su ic id e if Eng la ndev er t ou ch edhe r ag ai n. Th e ab us e st op pe d a fte r J.S .’ s t hr eat , an d s he m ov edou t o f Eng la nd ’s ho m e a few years l at er. II.

“ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng a cri m in al co nv ic ti on de no vo .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr an k, 59 9 F .3d12 21 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W e as k whe th er, “ aft er v ie win g t he ev id en ce i n l ig htm os t fa vo rab le to th e p ro se cu ti on , 3 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 3 of 11an y

rat io na l t rie r of

factco ul d h av e fo un d t he ess en ti al ele m en ts of t he cri m e be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi ra nd a , 66 6 F .3d12 80 , 12 82 (11 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S . Ct. 2 41 2 (2 01 2) . As su ch , we wil l n otdi sturb agu il ty verd ic t “ un le ss no tri er o f fac t co ul d ha ve fou ndgu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Y os t , 47 9 F .3d81 5, 81 8– 19 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Whe th er the ev id en ce i s d ire ctor c irc um st an ti al , we acce ptall reas on ab le in fere nc es th atten d to supp ort t he go ve rn m en t’s ca se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 39 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Fi rs t, En gl an d a ss ert s t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o fi ndth atJ.S. was trans po rte d v iaco m

m on carr ie r, aness en ti al ele m en t fo r co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2 (1 97 1) . Eng la ndarg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t p res en te d n o 1 ev id en ce tha t t he y

tra ve le d o n aco m

m erci al air

pl an e an d tha t a p riv at e p la ne co ul d ha ve be enus edto tra ns po rt the m . The g ov ern m en t re sp on ds th atcir cu m st an ti al

The ve rsion of 18 U.S.C. § 2422 pursuant to which Eng land was c harg ed re ads: 1 Whoever knowing ly

persua des, induce s, entices, or coer ces a ny woman or g irl to go f

rom one plac e to another

in interstate or f

oreign commerc e . . . and to be c arried or tra nsported as a

passeng er upon the line or route of any com mon carrier or carriers in interstate or f oreign commerc e . . . shall not be fined more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more tha n five year s, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (1971) (empha sis added). 4

Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 4 of 11ev id en ce ad equa te ly dem on st rat es th atEng landtra ns po rte d J .S. vi a a co m m on carr ie r. Eng la nd ’s li vi ng arra ng em en ts ov er the y ears —a o ne -b edro om ap art m en t wit h l it tl e fu rn itur e, ch eap m ot el roo m s, an ap artm en t i n aga rag e, a fl ea-r id de n tra il er, an d a n e ffi ci en cy

—i nd ic at e th athe di d n otha ve en ou gh m on ey to ch art er a pr iv at e fl ig ht . Engl an d re sp on ds th atth e in fere nc e is to o s pe cu la ti ve an d h is lac k of fin an ci al res ou rces m ak e itm or e li ke ly tha t h e fl ew on a pr iv at e p la ne gra ti s rat he r th anpa y

fora co m

m erci al fli gh t. Bas edon th e ev id en ce, the jury co ul d p ro pe rly inf er tha t i t was un li ke ly tha t Eng landeit he r pa idforor wa s g iv ena pr iv at e p la ne rid e. Ther e was no ev id en ce th atEng landha d wel l-c on ne ct edfri en ds in Ind iawith t he res ou rces to off er h im a free in te rco nt in en ta l fl ig ht . The jury ’s con cl us io n i s a r eas on ab le in te rp ret at io n o f th e ev id en ce i n l ig htof En gl an d’s fi na nc ia l s itua ti on an d t he li m it edop ti on s av ai labl e fo r tr av el in g fr om Ind iato th e Uni te d S ta te s dur in g t he 19 70 s. Th us , we co nc lu de th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to f in d t ha t J .S. was b ro ug ht to th e Uni te d S ta te s v iaa co m m on carri er. Add it io na ll y , Eng la ndarg ue s t ha t the re i s i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce tha t h e vi ol at edth e p re-a m en dm en t v ers io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 3. Pri orto Feb ru ary 6, 19 78 , § 2 42 3 m ad e itil le ga l t o “ kn owi ng ly pers ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce a wom anor g irl to go fro m on e p la ce t o a no th er b y

co m m on carr ie r, in in te rs ta te 5 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 5 of 11co m

m erce . . . wit h t he in te ntth atsh e b e in du cedor c oe rcedto en ga ge in. . . de bauc he ry

or o th er i m

m or al pra ct ic e.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 23 (19 70 ). On Fe brua ry 6, 19 78 , th e st atut e was am en de d a ndrequi redth e d efen da ntto kn ow t ha t t he pr oh ib it edsex ua l co nduc t wo ul d b e “ co m m erci al ly exp lo it ed .” Se e Pub. L. No. 95 -2 25 § 3 , 92 Sta t. 7 (19 78 ). Eng la ndwas c harg edwith t he pre -am en dm en t ve rs io n o f th e st atut e. Eng la ndco nt en ds th atbe cau se a Fl or id a sc ho ol reco rd sh ows J.S.’s en ro ll m en t d at e as Feb ru ary 14 , 19 78 , th e in du cem en t an d i nt ers ta te tra ns po rt c ou ldha ve oc cu rredaft er Fe brua ry 6, an d t he refo re, h e co ul d n otbe co nv ic te d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 23 (19 70 ). Upo n re vi ew, we fin d s uf fic ie ntev id en ce fo r a rea so nabl e juro r to co nc lu de th atth e in du cem en t an d t rav el oc cu rredbe fo re Fe brua ry 6, 1 97 8. J .S. tes ti fie d t ha t th ey lef t Ca li fo rn iabe fo re Ch ris tm as in 19 77 , andth e tr ip to Flo rid a to okbe twee n fo uran d fi ve da y s. Ev enth ou gh reco rd s fr om a Fl or id a el em en ta ry

sch oo l s ho w anen ro ll m en t d at e o f Feb ru ary 14 , 19 78 , J.S. t es ti fie d t ha t s he att en de d o ne or t wo ot he r sc ho ol s i n F lo rid a p rio r to th atda te . Furt he r, Eng la ndsk ip pe d asen te nc in g he ari ng in Cal ifo rn iain Decem be r 19 77 . Con se qu en tl y , a warran t was is su edfor hi s arres t. Fo r th e n ex t t wen ty-eig hty ears , Eng la ndelu de d h is arre stby fleei ng to Fl or id a an d a ss um in g ane w nam e. A reas on ab le juro r co ul d c on cl ud e th athe wou ldno t h av e st ay edinCal ifo rn iafortwo m on th s wi th a warra ntou t fo r hi s 6 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 6 of 11arre st . Viewi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav or of t he go ve rn m en t, s uf

fic ie nt ev id en ce s up po rts Eng land ’s con vi ct io n u nd er the pre -am en dm en t v ers io n o f § 24 23 . III. Nex t, we ad dr es s En gl an d’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he di stric t co urt fa il edto gi ve pr op er i ns tru ct io ns to co nv ic t h im un de r § 2 42 3 (1 97 0) . Eng la ndm ai nt ai ns th at th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e in st ru ct edth e jury tha t i t n eed edto fin d t ha t t he in du cem en t fo r in te rs ta te tra ve l o ccu rredpri orto Feb ru ary 6, 1 97 8, i n o rd er t o co nv ic t h im

un de r § 2 42 3 (1 97 0) . The g ov ern m en t ar gu es th atan y erro r in th e in st ru ct io ns was h arm le ss , andwhen vi ewedin li gh t o f th e en ti re tria l, the in st ru ct io n was no t s o m is le ad in g a s t o m ak e th e tr ia l u nf ai r.

“ Gen eral ly, th e d is tri ctco urts ha ve bro addi sc ret io n i n fo rm ul at in g ju ry in st ru ct io ns pro vi de d tha t t he ch arg e as a who le accu rat el y refl ect s t he law an d t he fact s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr athe r , 20 5 F .3d12 65 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ A di stric t co urt’s fa il ur e to in st ru cta jury on a ll of t he st atut ory el em en ts of a n o ffen se is subjec t t o h arm le ss -err oran al y si s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Gomez , 58 0 F .3d12 29 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Fora ha rm le ss erro r an al y si s, we sh ou ld“ co nduc t a tho ro ug h e xa m in at io n o f th e rec or d.” Ned er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 52 7 U.S. 1 , 19 , 11 9 S . Ct. 1 82 7, 1 83 8 (1 99 9) . If aft er o ur rev ie w we “ can no t 7 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 7 of 11co nc lu de be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t t he jury ve rd ic t wo ul d h av e b een th e

sa m e ab se ntth e err or

—fo r ex am

pl e, whe re the de fen da ntco nt es te d t he om it te d el em en t an d ra is edev id en ce s uf fic ie ntto supp ort a c on tra ry fin di ng —[we ] sh ou ld no t fi ndth e err orha rm le ss .” Id. Our re vi ew is li m it edto “ as k[ in g] whet he r th e reco rdco nt ai ns ev id en ce tha t co ul d ra ti on al ly leadto a co nt rary fin di ng with res pe ctto th e o m it te d e le m en t.” Id. at19 , 11 9 S . Ct. at18 39 . Ass um in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to in st ru ctonth e d at e was erro r, it was harm le ss . As di sc us se d p rev io us ly, no ev id en ce u nd erm in es J.S.’s t es ti m on y th atth ey arri ve d i n F lo rid a p rio r to Feb ru ary 6, 1 97 8. Th e sc ho ol reco rdfro m Feb ru ary 14 , 19 78 is in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aco nt rary fin di ng , as i t m erel y co nf irms th atJ.S. an d En gl an d wer e in Flo rid a o n t ha t d at e. It d oe s n ot , on it s own , supp ort a f

in di ng th atth ei r in te rs ta te tra ve l o ccu rredaft er Fe br ua ry 6, 1 97 8. Thu s, af te r th or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rd , we fin d a ny po te nt ia l i ns tru ct io na l erro r by the di st ric t co urt t o b e h arm le ss . IV. W e n ow ad dr es s En gl an d’s as se rti on th atth e g ov ern m en t m us t d is m is s o ne of th e ch arg es be cau se 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 22 (19 71 ) an d 2 42 3 (1 97 0) are m ul ti pl ic it ou s. En gl an d c on te nd s t ha t the two st atut es requi re es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e el em en ts forco nv ic ti on an d t he refo re v io la te do ub le jeop ardy pri nc ip le s. Th e 8 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 8 of 11go ve rn m en t m ai nt ai ns th atth es e st atut es requi re d iff eren t el em en ts an d t he refo re are n otm ul ti pl ic it ou s.

“ An i nd ic tm en t i s m

ul ti pl ic it ou s i f itch arg es a si ng le off en se inm or e th an on e co un t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sir an g , 70 F.3d58 8, 5 95 (11 thCir . 19 95 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . The t es t fo r m ul ti pl ic it y is whet he r eac h p ro vi si on requi res pro of of a factwhi ch th e o th er d oe s n ot . Se e Blo ckb ur ge r v. Un it ed

St at es , 28 4 U.S. 29 9, 3 04 , 52 S. Ct. 1 80 , 18 2 (1 93 2) . W e h av e h el d t ha t ch arg es are n ot m ul ti pl ic it ou s wh ere the y

di fferby a sin gl e el em en t o r fac t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Co st a , 94 7 F .2d91 9, 9 26 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). Eng la nd ’s con vi ct io ns un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 22 (19 71 ) an d 2 42 3 (1 97 0) are no t m ul ti pl ic it ou s. No tabl y , bo th st atut es co nt ai n s ev eral ele m en ts th atare id en ti cal . 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 22 (19 71 ), 24 23 (19 70 ). Sect io n 2 42 2, h owe ve r, requi res th atth e v ic ti m

is actua ll y

“ carr ie d o r tr an sp orte d a s a p as se ng er upo n t he li ne or r ou te of a ny comm on carr ie r.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (19 71 ). Sect io n 2 42 3 m erel y requi res th atth e d efen da nten ti cedth e v ic ti m to go fro m

on e p la ce t o an ot he r; i t d oe s n otrequi re ac tu al tra ns po rta ti on of t he vi ct im . 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2 (1 97 1) . Mor eo ve r, 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 3 re qu ire s t he vi ct im to be a “ wom anor g irl who ha s n otatt ai ne d h er ei gh te en th bi rth da y .” Ther e is no ag e requi rem en t t o co nv ic t a d efen da ntun de r § 2 42 2; rathe r, th e v ic ti m can be “ an y

wom anor g irl .” 9 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 9 of 1118 U.S.C. § 2 42 2 (1 97 0) . Becau se th e st atut es di fferby the se ele m en ts , th ey are no t m ul ti pl ic it ou s. Se e Co st a , 94 7 F .2dat 9 26 . V. Last ly, Eng la ndarg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n otha ve de ni edhi s m ot io ns fora m is tri al an d ane w tri al be cau se J.S. i nd ic at edth athe r te st im on y was ba se d o n “ reco ve redm em or ie s,” wh ic h h e co nt en ds is un rel iabl e. Eng la ndarg ue s th athe sh ou ldha ve ha d a n a de qu at e o pp ortu ni ty to i nv es ti ga te ho w m uc h o f J.S .’ s te st im on y was b as edonreco ve redm em ory . The g ov ern m en t re sp on ds th at Eng land ’s tes ti m on y

was n otba se d o n re co ve redm em ory . Furt he r, Eng la ndha d anop po rtu ni ty to u nc ov er m or e in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g h er the rap y du rin g J .S.’s cro ss -ex am in at io n andch os e n otto do so . 2 A di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o g ran t a m is tri al is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. N ews ome , 47 5 F .3d12 21 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). “ A tri al jud ge ha s d is cret io n t o g ran t a m is tri al si nc e h e [o r sh e] is i n t he be stpo si ti on to ev al ua te th e p reju di ci al effe ctof ast at em en t o r ev id en ce o n t he jury.” Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d) . To rev ers e a d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a m is tri al , a We find no merit in Eng land’s argument that his Si x th Amendment conf rontation rights 2 wer e violated. The district court plac ed no re strictions on his cross-examination of J .S., and he was a war e of the corr oboratingdocumentation and e vidence that the g overnme nt would present to make its case . There fore , he had a dequate opportunity to confront his ac cuser s, as well as the witnesses ag ainst him. 10

Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 10 of 11de fen da ntm us t d em on st rat e subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. C ha st ai n , 19 8 F.3 d 1 33 8, 1 35 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Afte r rev ie w, we agr ee wi th th e g ov ern m en t t ha t t he ev id en ce attri al do es no t d em on st rat e th atJ.S.’s t es ti m on y was re co ve red . J.S. te st ifi edth athe r th erap is t d idno t h el p h er re m em be r an y of t he m ajorde ta il s i n h er t es ti m on y . Rat he r, he r th erap is t h el pe d “br in g [o nl y m in orde ta il s] to li gh t,” s uc h a s t he na m e of a to wn i n C al ifo rn iaan d t he ag e o f he r la stab orti on . Eng la nd ’s arg um en t re li es on ly on t wo an swe rs th atJ.S. g av e to de fen se co un se l i n re sp on se to qu es ti on s t ha t were i m m at eri al to hi s co nv ic ti on . There fo re, b as edon J.S.’s ex pl ic itreject io n th athe r th erap is t h el pe d h er re m em be r an y si gn ifi can t d et ai ls , anda la ckof ev id en ce tha t J .S.’s th erap is t en ga ge d i n re co ve redm em ory tec hn ique s, t hi s ca se do es no t ap pe ar t o e ve n i nv ol ve reco ve redm em ory . Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ct 3 co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io ns to ex pl or e “ reco ve red m em ory ” b ecau se itwas n otpre se nt . Fo r th e fo rg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Eng la nd ’s con vi ct io n. AFFIRMED.

Be cause no rec overe d memory is involved here, w e dec line Eng land’s invitation to rule 3 on the broa der unr esolved issues of its admissibility in this circuit. 11 Case: 11-11601 Date Filed: 08/15/2012 Page: 11 of 11