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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R ODERIC K HAR OLD B OLDS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10397

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-00697-C RB -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C ha rle s R . B re y e r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN and FRIEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, * * Se nior Distric t Judge
. R ode ric k B olds a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion on onec ount of se x tra ffic king of a
m inor, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1591, a nd one c ount of tra

nsporta tion of a m inor 

# FIL ED OCT 16 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.with theinte nt tha t she e n ga ge in prostitution, in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2423. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa rt. 1. W e re ve rse B olds’ s c onvic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1591 be c a use the indic tm e nt wa s c onstruc tive ly am e nde d whe n the jury

wa s instruc te d tha

t the gove rnm e nt ne e d not prove B olds kne w Sara G. wa s y ounge r tha

n 18 y e ars of a ge if it prove d B olds ha d

a re a sona ble opportunity

to obse rve he r. The indic tm e nt
a lle ge d only

tha t B olds a c te d with knowle dge or re c kle ss disre g ard a s to Sa ra G.’ s
a ge . Whe the r B o l ds ha d a re a s ona ble opportunity

to obse rve Sara

G. is a distinc t the o ry of c ulpa bility with re spe c t to he r a ge . S e e Unite d State s v . Robinson , 702 F.3d 22, 32 (2d C i r. 2012); se e also Justic e for Vic tim s of Tra ffic king Ac t of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22, § 108, 129 Sta t. 227, 239 (2015) (a

m e nding § 1591(c ) to
c la rify tha t proof of re a sona

ble opportunity

to obse rve obvia

te s ne e d to prove knowle dge or re c kle ss disre ga rd). B e c a use we do not know which instruc tions thejury re l ie d on whe n it
c onvic te d B olds, a

nd be c a use it is im

possibleto know whe the r the grand jury would ha ve c ha rge d B olds on the

“ re a sona ble opportunity to obse rve ” the ory , the jury instruc tions c onstruc tive ly am e nde d the indic t

m e nt. Se eUnite d State

s v . Hui Hsiung , 778 F.3d 738, 757 (9th C ir. 2015), c e rt. de nie d , 135 S. C t. 2837 (2015); 2Unite d

State s v . W ard, 747 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th C ir. 2014). W e the re fore re ve rse B olds’ s c onvic t ion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1591. Se eW ard, 747 F.3d a

t 1193. 2. B e c a

use we re ve rse B olds’ s c onvic tion unde r § 1591, wedo not re a c h his a rgum e nt tha

t the phra se “ re a sona

ble opportunity

to obse rve ” is
unc onstitutiona

lly va gue . 3. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly instruc t e d the jury that it did not ne e d to find B olds kne w Sara

G. wa s y ounge r tha

n 18 y e ars of a ge to c onvic t him unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2423. Unite d State s v . Tay lor , 239 F.3d 994, 997 (9th C i r. 2001). The Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Flore s -Figue roa v . Unite d State s , 556 U.S. 646 (2009), whic h a ddre sse d the knowle dge re quire m e nt of a ggrav ate d ide ntity the ft unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1028(A)(1), is not c le arly irre c onc ila

ble with our holding in Tay lor
. Se e Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ); Flore s -Figue roa , 556 U.S. a

t 660 (Alito, J., c o nc urring in pa rt) (c i ting § 2423 a

nd
e xpla ining tha

t c onte x t m a y re but thepre sum

ption tha t a spe c ifie d m e ns re a a

pplie s to a l l e le m e nts of a

n offe nse ). 4. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

pe rm itting the gove rnm e nt’ s e xpe rt, De te c tive De re k Stige rts, to te stify unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 702. Furthe r, the e xpe rt’ s te stim ony did not viola

te the C o nfronta

tion C la use . The e xpe rt “ d istille d a nd sy nthe siz e d what he ha d le arne d through his 3e xpe rie nc e ” and did not provide te stim onia l he a

rsa y . Se eUnite d State

s v . Ve ra , 770 F.3d 1232, 1239 (9th C ir. 2014). 5. The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

4