F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 20 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1087 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-20520 -CR- AS G UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us WALLACE D. STREVELL, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 20, 200 6) Befo re ANDERSON, FAY andSILER * , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: * T he Ho no ra

ble Eu g e ne E. Sile r, Jr., Un ite d St ate s Ci rc uit Judg e fo r t

he Sixth C ir c uit , sitti ngby desig nation.2

T he appe llant a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f

or a tte m pti ng t o tr av el in fo re ign co m m erce to en ga ge in a co m m erci al sex actwit h am in or . W al la ce D. St rev el l, a United States c itizen, c ontracted with an undercover sting operation which ar range s tr ips to Co sta

Ri ca f or ind ivi dua ls d es ir ing se xua l e nc ount er s w ithc hil d pr ost itute s. T he appe llant w as c harg ed w iththr ee c ount s of

a tte m pti ng t o tr av el in fo re ignc om

m er ce to en ga ge in a co m m er ci al se x a ct

w itham ino r. H e w as tr ie d by a j ur y w hic h a dj udi cate d hi m

gui lty on a ll thr ee c ount s. S tr ev el l c ont en ds tha t the district court lacked subject m atter j urisdictio n to conv ict him under the charged statutes because Congress failed to includ e a c lear intent for the statutes to rea ch ex tr at er ri tor ia l c ondu ct . H e furthe r as se rt s th at the re w as ac onstru ct ive am endm ent to the ind ictm ent during h is trial. F indin g no m erit in either c o n t e n t i o n , w e a f

f i rm. I. F ac tua l B ac kgr ound On June 2, 2004, appellant W allace D avid Strevell (“ Strevell”) , answere d an ad in ana dul t m ag az ine a dve rt isi ng a tr av el se rv ic e ca lle d “ Co sta Ri ca T ab oo V ac at ion s. ” Inr ea lity , the tr av el a ge nc y w as an un de rc ove r sti ng o pe ratio n de sig ne d to ide nti fy

ind ivi dua ls who d es ir ed

to tr av el to Co sta

Ri ca to en ga ge in se x w ithm ino rs . T his a ge nc y w as de sig ne d to pr ev en t Unit ed S tate s c iti ze ns f

ro m victim izing m inors abroad. T his un dercover operation m irrored an actual travel ag en cy that arr an ge d tr ips to fo re ignc ountri es in or de r that i ts c lie nts m igh t haveAppar ently , people r equestingadult companions would re ceive no further information 1 or c onta c t f ro m th e a g e nc y . H ow e ve r, tho se wh o e xpre sse d a n inte re st i n und e ra g e g ir ls w ou ld rec eive tra

vel and hotel infor

mation. 3 sexual encount ers w ith m inors. For a fee , the a gency

would arrange airfar e, hotel ac co m m odatio ns and a

pr ost itute r an gin g f

ro m a ge 14- 27. Be tw ee n June 2, 200 4 and June 30, 200 4, S tr ev el l m ad e se ve ra l t el ep hone co m m uni catio ns w ithRi ch ar d B ax te r, the owne r of Co sta Ri ca T ab oo V ac at ion s. Unbeknownst to Strevell, B axter w as actually an undercover office r nam ed Ri ch ar d L ove ( “ L ove ”) . O n June 2, 200 4, S tr ev el l and L ove dis cu sse d af em al e co m panio n f or S tr ev el l’ s tr ip t o C ost a Ri ca . L ove of fe re d S tr ev el l the opt ionof ch oosi ng a

se xua l c om

panio n be tw ee n th e ag es of 14 and 2 7. S tr ev el l r eque ste d a 15- 16 y ear old

gir l. O n June 16, 200 4, S tr ev el l c ont ac te d L ove and t old him he 1
w an te d a14- 15 y ear old

gir l. H e al so a ske d if

the gir ls w er e “ fa ir ly

c le an . ” L ove confirm ed that all the girls have been tested and are c lean. Love then asked Stre ve ll w he the r he w oul d br ing pr ote ct ionand S tr ev el l answ er ed in the affi rm at iv e. On June 21, 2004, Stre vell purchased a sexual package from the travel ag en cy . S tr ev el l pa id $ 955 fo r his pa ck ag e, w hic h in cl ude d a ir fare f ro m Pe nnsy lvania

thr oughMi am i t o C ost a Ri ca , hot el arr an ge m en ts i n C ost a Ri ca and a child prostitu te. The tr avel agency told Strevell that a m iddlem an or pim p nam ed Jor ge w oul d arr an ge to m ee t hi m in Co sta Ri ca and p ro vid e a se t of

pic tur es ofThe vibrator was c ontained in a blac k bagand included f our sepa rate attachme nts used 2 f o r s e x u a l s t i mu l at i o na s w e l l a s a s p ar e b att e r

y. 4 ch ild pr ost itute s f

or S tr ev el l t o c hoos e fr om . T he a ge nc y tol d S tr ev el l tha t Jo rg e w oul d arr an ge to br ing his se le ct ed pr ost itute to his hot el r oom f or a24- hour se xua l e nc ount er . O n June 22, 200 4, L ove se nt S tr ev el l tw o le tte rs , one c onf irm ing the tr av el arr an ge m en ts and the oth er le tte r fo r Stre ve ll to g ive to Jor ge upo n ar ri va l i n C ost a Ri ca . S tr ev el l w as tol d th at he sho uld

giv e thi s le tte r to J or ge so h e could ob tain a m inor for sex. O n June 30 , 2004, Str evell inqui red whether it wa s poss ibl e to a cquir e tw o m ino r pr ost itute s. L ove tol d hi m that this c oul d be arra ng edwit h J or ge foran ad di ti on al fee. On July 11, 2004, Strevell f

lew from Philadelphia to Miam i International A ir port, w he re he c he ck ed

in an d r ec ei ve d aboard ing pa ss f or an ou tbo und fl igh t to Costa Rica. Soon thereafter , F BI a gents int erce pted Strevell on the gangway as he attem pted to bo ard the flight to Costa Rica. Af ter obtaining a warr ant to search Stre ve ll’ s ba g, the a ge nts f ound the le tte r that he w as to giv e to J or ge in or de r to obt ai n se x w itham ino r, aS panis h/E ngl ishdic tio nary , ase xua l st im ulator , $50 7 ca sh and 1 2 c ondo m s. 2 II. Issues This case presents two issues. T he first issue is whether subj ect m atter j urisdictio n existed to adjudicate Stre vell guil ty under the charged statutes based5

on h is atte m

pt t o c om m it a cr im e in fo re ignc om m er ce . T he se co nd i ssu e is
w he the r the gov er

nm en t c onstru ct ive ly

a m en de d th e ind ic tm en t whe n it use d th e ph ras e “ on or abo ut ” Ju ly 11, 2 00 4. III . S tandard of Review Be ca use aparty

m ay r ai se j ur isd ic tio n a t any

ti m e dur ing the pe nde nc y of the proceedings, a defe ndant do es not waive an obj ection to sub j ect m atter j ur isd ic tio n by

r ai sin g it f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. G ir al doPrado, 150 F.3d 1328 , 1329 (11th Cir. 1998 ). The district court’ s subject m atter j ur isd ic tio n is aque sti on o f lawsub j ec t t o de novo r ev ie w . S ee U nit ed S tate s v. Mur re ll, 368 F . 3d 1 283, 128 5 ( 11th Ci r. 200 4) . Be ca use the re w as no o bj ec tio n in the dis tr ic t c ourt, w e re vie wthe iss ue of ac onstru ct ive a m en dm en t of the ind ic tm en t f

or pla in e rr or . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Ruthe rf

or d, 175 F . 3d 8 99, 906 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . T his c ourt ha s di sc re tio n to c or re ct an e rr or w he re : ( 1) an e rr or oc curr ed , ( 2) the e rr or

w as pla in, ( 3) the e rr or

a ff ec te d su bst an tia l r igh ts, and ( 4) the error seriously aff ects the fair

ness and int egrity

of j udicial proceedings. See United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297 , 1301 (11th Cir. 2005). IV . A na ly sis Stre ve ll co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d su bj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n to convict him

under the charged statutes because Congress failed to include a clear intent for the statutes to reach extrater ritorial conduct. H e ar gues that the statu tes(c) Enga gin g in ill ic itse xua l c onduc t i n for e ign pla c e s. 3 Any Un ite d St ate s c iti zen

or a lie n a dmi tte d f

or pe rm ane nt r e sid e nc e wh o tr ave ls i n fore ign c ommerce , and eng ag es in any illicit s exual conduct with another person sha ll be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 year s, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) . 6 do no t apply

to his crim inal condu ct because the attem pted illicit sexu al encounter
w as to take pla ce in Co sta Ri ca and n ot i n th e U nit ed

S tate s. Extraterritoriality

invol ves the questio n of the proper rea ch of a United St at es Co ur t o ve r ci ti zen s wh o e ng ag e in cri m in al act iv it ie s i n fo rei gn co m m erce . As this court explained in Niem an, “ [i] t is und isput ed that Congress has the po we r to reg ul at e th e ex tra te rri to ria l ac ts of U.S. ci ti zen s.” Ni em an v. Dryclean U.S.A. Fr an ch ise Co . , I nc . , 178 F . 3d 1 126, 112 9 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . H ow ev er , S tr ev el l ar gue s th at

the c harg ed

statut es do n ot a

ppl y to ex tr at er

ri tor ia l c ondu ct

be ca use Co ng res s d idno t cl earl y

ex pr es s t hi s i nt en ti on . W e d is ag ree. T he dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y ha d su bj ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n to c onvi ct S tr ev el l pur suant t o th e ch ar ge d st at ute s be ca use it w as c le ar

that C ongr es s in te nde d to re gul at e Stre ve ll’ s c ondu ct e ve n th ougha ll of

S tr ev el l’ s a ct ion s oc curr ed in the U nit ed S tate s. S tr ev el l w as c harg ed w iththr ee c ount s of

a tte m pti ng t o tr av el in foreign com

m erce to engage in comm ercia l sex with a m inor. Count I charged Strevell w ith attem

pting to travel in foreign com m erce to engage in illicit sexu al conduct, nam ely

prostitu tion with a m inor, in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§ 24 23(c), 3 (e). Count II charged that Str evell, in or a ffec ting in terstate and fore ign comm erce ,(a) Whoeve r know ingly- 4 (1) in or a ffe ctinginterstate or fore ign c ommerce , or within the specia l maritime and territoria l jurisdiction of the United States, rec ruits, entices, ha rbors, tra nsports, provides, or ob ta ins by

any me ans a pe rs on . . . . kn ow ingthat f

or c e , f ra ud , o r c oe rc ion

. . . w ill be us e d to cause the per son to eng ag e in a c ommercia l sex act, or that the per son has not obtained the a g e of 18 y ear s and will be ca

used to eng ag e in a c ommercia l sex act, sha ll be punished. . . 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) (1). Se c ti on 2 42 2( b) pr ov ide s: 5 (b) Whoever , using the mail or any fac ility or mea ns of interstate or

fore ign c ommerce , or wi thi n th e sp e c ia l ma

ri tim e and

te rr ito ri a l juri sd ic tio n o f t he Un ite d St ate s k

no wi ng ly pe rs ua de s, ind uc e s, e nti c e s, or

c oe rc e s any

ind ivi du a l who ha s n ot atta ine d th e a g e of 18 y e ars , to e ng a g e in prostitution or any

sexual activity

for whic h any

person c an be c harg ed with a c riminal offe nse, or attempts to do so, shall be fined unde r this titl e and imprisoned not less than 5 year s and not more than 30 year s. 18 U.S.C.§2422(b). 7 attem pted to ob tain a m inor for prostituti on, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 15 91(a), 4 1594 (a ). Co unt

I II c harg ed

that S tr ev el l, usi ng a

f ac ili ty and m eans o f int er state an d f or ei gn c om

m er ce , a tte m

pte d to ind

uc e a m ino r to e nga ge in pr ost itutio n, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 242 2(b). 5

“ Ge nerally , c ourts will give extraterr itorial effe ct to penal statutes where co ngr es sio na l i nte nt i s c le ar . ” Se e U nit ed S tate s v. Mc A lli ste r, 160 F . 3d 1 304, 1307 -0 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) (c iti ng Unit ed S tate s v. Bo w m an , 260 U . S. 94, 97, 43 S. Ct . 39, 67 L . E d. 149 ( 1922 )) . U nde r Bo w m an , “ Co ngr es s ne ed not e xpr es sly pr ovi de f or e xtr at er ri tor ia l a ppl ic at ionof

ac ri m ina l st at

ute if the na tur e of

the of fen se is su ch th atitm ay

be in ferr ed .”With th is pri nc ip le of l aw in m in d, we reviewthe statutes inv olved here. Acco rd in g t o c ou ntI, Str ev el l was co nv ic te d p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 2423 (c). A s noted abo ve, this statute wa s created to elim inate foreign “ sexual8

touri sm . ” Co ngr es s sp ec if ic al ly pa sse d th is a ct

to cr im ina liz e ill ic it se xua l a ct s taking p lace e ntirely

outsid e the U nited States. C ongress realized the potential effe ct s o f do m es ti c h arm

th atco m e wit h fo rei gn sex tra ffi ck in g o f m in or s. Co ngr es s purp ose fu lly

pa sse d th is s tatut e in o rd er to sto p U nit ed

S tate s c iti ze ns fr om tr av el ing abr oa d inor de r to e nga ge in co m m er ci al se x a ct s w ithm ino rs . I t i s clear that the conduct proh ibited by§ 2423 (c) arises in the context of international tr av el . T he f

ac e of the statut e pla inl y

e vin ce s C ongr es sio na l i nte nt t o pr ohi bit U nit ed S tate s c iti ze ns, suc h a s S tr ev el l, f ro m tr av el ing abr oa d inor de r to e nga ge in ill ic it se x w ithm ino rs . T he langua ge and h ist or y of § 24 23( c) und er cu ts any c la im that the statut e is n ot i nte nde d to have e xtr at er ri tor ia l a ppl ic at ion . W ithr eg ar d to c ount s I I an d I II , both c ount s c harg ed S tr ev el l w ithusi ng int er state and f

or ei gn c om

m er ce in ana tte m

pt t o ob ta in and e nti ce am ino r fo r prostitu tion. The question of whether the c harged statutes in coun ts II and II I ap ply to fo re ignc ondu ct

is ir re le vant. U nli ke c ount

I , the c harg ed

statut es in co unt s I I an d I II c ri m ina liz e the use of int er state c om

m er ce in ana tte m

pt t o ob ta in an d e nti ce am ino r fo r pr ost itutio n. A lth ougha ll of S tr ev el l’ s a ct ion s oc curr ed in the U nit ed

S tate s, it is cl ear that he use d m eans o f int er state c om m er ce in atte m pti ng t o ob ta in and e nti ce am ino r fo r se x. H e m ad e num er ous phon e ca lls fro m Ph il ad el ph iato Mi am i i n o rd er t o a rran ge hi s s ex ua l en co un te r in Co st a Ri ca. H e pur ch as ed

his se xua l va catio n inthe U nit ed S tate s, and o n Ju ly

11, 200 4, he9

atte m pte d to board

aplane f ro m Mi am i t o C ost a Ri ca

in or de r to m ee t on e, if

not two, 14-y ear- old pros titutes. Strevell’ s convictio ns on cou nts II and III we re based on do m es ti c co nduc t an d a re n otsubjec t t o c ha ll en ge . Ina ddi tio n to c ha lle ngi ng the j ur isd ic tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt, S tr ev el l alleges he can prove plain err or in his conv ictions. Strevell ar gues that the court co nstru ct ive ly

a m en de d th e ind ic tm en t whe n it pe rm itt ed

ac onvi ct ionba se d on co nduc t tha t oc curr ed

out sid e the da te s c harg ed in the ind ic tm en t. H e co nte nds that the langua ge “ on o r ab out ” use d inthe ind ic tm en t w as ins uf fi ci en t t o in cl ude his c ri m ina l c ondu ct . Be ca use S tr ev el l r ai se d th is arg um en t f or the f ir st t im e on ap pe al , w e re vie wf

or pla in e rr or . T his c ourt ha s di sc re tio n to c or re ct an e rr or wher e: (1) an error occurred, (2) the er ror w as plain, (3) the error aff ected subs tanti al r igh ts, and ( 4) the e rr or se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s and i nte gr ity

of j udicial proceedings. United States v. Duncan, 400 F.3d 1297 , 1301 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Strevell has fa iled to prove error or inj ustice in this case. It is long-settled that “ w he n th e gove rn m en t c harg es that an of fe nse oc curr ed

‘ on o r ab out ’ ac er

ta in da te , the de fe ndant i s onnot ic e that the c harg e is n ot l im ite d to the spe ci fi c da te or da te s se t out i n th e ind ic tm en t. ” Se e U nit ed S tate s v. Re ed , 887 F . 2d 1 398, 140 3 (1 1thCi r. 198 9) ( fi ndi ng n o e rr or in a one -m onth di ff

er en ce ). Mo re ove r, it

is suf fi ci en t f or the gov er

nm en t t o pr ove ada te r ea sona bly ne ar the da te spe ci fi ed

in10

the ind ic tm en t. A cc or din g to the r ec or d, the ind ic tm en t c harg ed that S tr ev el l co m m itt ed the of fe nse “ on o r ab out ” Jul y

11, 200 4. T he pho ne c al ls s tart ed on June 2, 200 4, and c ont inu ed thr ough out

the m onth of

Jun e. F urthe rm or e, S tr ev el l attem pted to bo ard a plane f

rom Miam i to Costa Rica on July 11, 2004. It is clear the ind ic tm en t i de nti fi ed

ar ea sona

ble ti m e pe ri od and tha t the re w as no co nstru ct ive a m en dm en t t o th e ind ic tm en t. S tr ev el l ha s f ai le d to de m onstrate pla in error . V . Co nc lus ion T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha d j ur isd ic tio n to c onvi ct S tr ev el l purs uant t o c ount I because Congress has the authorityto enact law s that extend bey ond o ur terr itorial boun daries, and it is clear f rom the history

and language of the charged statute that it did so . In addition , S trevell w as properly prosecuted under counts II and III be ca use it is undi sput ed

that S tr ev el l us ed

m eans o f int er state c om

m er ce in atte m pti ng t o ob ta in and e nti ce am ino r to e nga ge in pr ost itutio n. F ina lly , S tr ev el l ha s f ai le d to pr ove that pl ai n e rr or e xis te d a s to any

a lle ge d c onstru ct ive am en dm en t. AFFIR MED.