# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 37 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Rah m ad Lash ad Gedd es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 38 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Rah m ad Lash ad Gedd es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 21 , 20 16
Fil ed : J an ua ry

3, 2 01 7__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Rah m ad Lash ad Ged de s of on e co un t of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

se x tra ffi ck in g by fo rce, frau d, or co erci on ; on e co un t of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng

tra ns po rta ti on wit h in te nt to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on ; an d on e co un t of be in g an arm ed

care er cri m in al in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Ged de s ap pe al s a nu m be r of pr e-t ria l, tri al

,

an d p os t-t ria l m ot io ns on whi ch th e di st ric t cou rt ru le d in fav or of t he pro se cu ti on

. 1

W e aff irm.

I.

On Ja nu ary 6, 20 14

, Ged de s tra ve le d fro m Eau Cl ai re, W is co ns in to Dul ut h,

Mi nn es ot a wit h a wom an na m ed Grace Sch rei ne r. Sch rei ne r wa s u nd er th e

im pr es si on th at th ey were tra ve li ng to St

. Pau l, rat he r th an Dul ut h, t o s e l l dr ug s as

th ey ha d do ne in th e p a s t

. A fte r a br ie f so jou rn in St . P au l, th ey dr ov e to Su pe rio r,

W is co ns in whe re the y ch eck ed in to a m ot el an d had se x. The reaf te r, th e pa ir dro ve

to Dul ut h, an d Ged de s pi ck ed up co cai ne fro m a su pp li er. Thro ug ho ut th e rem ai nd er

of th is tri p, Ged de s was act iv el y in vo lv ed in se ll in g co cai ne , an d Sch rei ne r wit ne ss ed

Ged de s m eet an ot he r wom an to ex ch an ge co cai ne for two ha nd gu ns

.

On Ja nu ary 7, th ey dr ov e to Ro ch es te r, Mi nn es ot a to pi ck up Ged de s’s fri en d,

Sh an no n Fu nk

. On th e ret ur n tri p, Fu nk an d Ged de s pr op os ed th at Sch rei ne r en ga ge

in pr os ti tu ti on up on arri vi ng in Dul ut h. Acco rd in g to Sch rei ne r’s tri al te st im on y , sh e
fel t s he ha d t o com

pl y be cau se sh e wou ld no t be ab le to ret ur n h om e if sh e ref us ed

.

The Hon or ab le Don ov an W

. Fran k, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-The y ch eck ed in to an ot he r Dul u t h h ot el

, an d Ged de s be ga n cu tt in g th e qu an ti ty of

co cai ne he pu rch as ed in to di st rib ut io n am ou nt s. Ged de s an d Fu nk crea te d an
ad ve rti se m en t on a web si te cal le d Bac kp ag e.co m wit h pi ct ur es of Sch rei ne r an d a

te le ph on e nu m

be r to cal l, an d Fu nk ga ve Sch rei ne r a cel lu la r ph on e on whi ch to

rece iv e cal ls . Th is pr oc es s cu lm in at ed in Sch rei ne r co m pl et in g two tra ns act io ns as

a pr os ti tu te

. I n th e fir st

, sh e was pa id to pe rfo rm or al se x on on e m an at th e ho te l.

Alt ho ug h th e reci pi en t was to ld th is act wou ld co st $1 20

, he on ly le ft $2 0 on th e ta bl e

in th e ro om

. As a res ul t of th is di sc rep an cy , Ged de s sl ap pe d Sch rei ne r fo ur ti m es in

th e face

. The se co nd act co ns is te d of an en co un te r whe re a m an cam e to th e ho te l an d

pa id $2 0 b ut th en lef

t s ho rtl y th erea fte r wit ho ut an y

sex ua l ac ti vi ty occu rri ng

.

Thro ug ho ut th e tri p, Ged de s refu se d Sch rei ne r’s req ue st s to ret ur n ho m e. The

two fin al ly ret ur ne d to Eau Cl ai re on Ja nu ary 14

, 20 14

. Onc e Ged de s le ft, Sch rei ne r

to ld he r pa st or wha t ha d oc cu rred

, an d he cal le d th e po li ce. Ged de s was in di ct ed on

th ree co un ts : (1 ) se x tra ffi ck in g by fo rce, frau d, or co erci on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§ 15 91 ; (2 ) tra ns po rta ti on to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 21 ;

an d (3 ) be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ).

A su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t was la te r ret ur ne d th at was th e sa m e as to Co un ts 1 an d 2,

bu t Co un t 3 was ch an ge d to ch arg e Ged de s as an arm ed care er cri m in al in po ss es si on

of a fi rear m

.

Befo re tri al

, Ged de s fil ed th ree m ot io ns rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

. Fi rs t, he m ov ed

to se ve r th e se x tra ffi ck in g co u n t s f r o m th e fir earm co un t, arg ui ng th at th e two

i ns ta nc es aro se fro m di ffer en t fact s an d wou ld de pe nd on di ffer en t wit ne ss es

. Th e
di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th is m ot io n. Seco nd

, Ged de s m ov ed to ex cl ud e te st im on y fro m

th e vi ct im of hi s earl ie r co nv ic ti on fo r te rro ris ti c th reat s. The go ve rn m en t so ug ht to

in tro d uc e th is ev id en ce as be in g rel ev an t to sh ow Ged de s’s in te nt on Co un t 1, an d

Ged de s op po se d it s in tr od uc ti on as m erel y be in g pr op en si ty ev id en ce. The di st ric t

co ur t al lo wed th e ev id en ce to b e p r e s e n te d su bjec t to a nu m be r of li m it in g

in st ru ct io ns

. Fi na ll y , Ged de s s o u g h t to ex cl ud e th e go ve rn m en t's pr op os ed ex pe rt

-3

-wit ne ss on th e ba s i s t h a t he r te st im on y wou ld no t he lp th e jury an d wou ld be

ov erb ro ad

. The di st ric t co ur t al so de ni ed th is m ot io n, fin di ng th at Ei g ht h Ci rcu it

pr eced en t al lo wed ex pe rt te st im on y on th e op erat io n of se x tra ffi ck in g rin gs

. Ged de s

ren ewed all of t he se m ot io ns du rin g t ria l, an d t he di st ric t co ur t o ve rru le d t he m

.

Afte r a th ree- da y tri al

, th e jury fo un d Ged de s gu il ty of al l th ree co un ts

, an d th e
di st ric t co ur t s e n te nc ed hi m to 28 2 m on th s im pr is on m en t. He br ou gh t th is ap pe al

ch al le ng in g al l th ree of th e ab ov e ru li ng s an d th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to

su st ai n a co nv ic ti on on Co un ts 1 an d 2

.

II.

A.

The fir st is su e on ap pe al is whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d i n de nyin g th e

m ot io n to se ve r th e se x tra ffi ck in g co un ts fro m th e fir earm co un t. Thi s Co ur t rev ie ws

th e de ni al of a m ot io n to se v e r p r op erl y joi ne d co un ts fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.
Uni te d St at es v. Eric ks on , 61 0 F.3 d 1 0 4 9

, 10 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Two or m or e

o f f e n s e s m ay be joi ne d fo r tri al “ if th e of fen se s ch arg ed

—wh et he r fel on ie s o r

m is de m ean or s or bo th —ar e of th e sa m e or si m il ar ch arac te r, or are ba se d on th e sa m e

act or tra ns act io n, o r are co nn ect ed wit h o r co ns ti tu te pa rts of a co m m on sc he m e or pl an .” Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 8( a). “ If th e joi nd er of of fen se s

. . . or a co ns ol id at io n fo r tri al

ap pe ars to pr ejud ic e a de fen da nt o r th e go ve rn m en t, th e co ur t m ay or de r se pa rat e

tri al s o f co un ts

. . . .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 14 (a).

Giv en th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n un de r Ru le 14

, “ we wil l no t rev ers e un le ss

th e de fen da nt sh o w s an ab us e of di sc ret io n res ul ti ng in se ve re pr ejud ic e.” Uni te d

St at es v. St eel e, 55 0 F .3d 69 3, 70 2 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) . “ Sev ere p reju di ce o ccu rs when

a de fen da nt is de pr iv ed of an ap pr eci ab le ch an ce for an acqu it ta l, a ch an ce tha t [th e
de fen da nt ] wou ld ha ve ha d in a se ve red tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Sco tt

, 73 2 F.3 d 91 0,

-4

-91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tak en Ali ve , 51 3

F.3 d 8 9 9

, 9 02 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ [A] de fen da nt

ca n n o t sh ow pr ejud ic e whe n ev id en ce of th e joi ne d of fen se wou ld be pr op erl y
ad m is si bl e in a se pa rat e tri al fo r th e ot he r cri m e.” Eric ks on , 61 0 F.3d at 10 55

. The

ev id en ce m ay be ad m is si bl e be cau se it “ co m pl et es th e st or y of th e cri m e, or as

ev id en c e o f a p r i o r ba d act of a si m il ar na tu re ad m is si bl e un de r Ru le 40 4( b) of th e
Fed eral Ru le s of Ev i d e n c e .” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 65 3 F.3 d 65 6, 66 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Oro zco -Ro dr ig ue z, 22 0 F.3 d 94 0,

94 2 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (al lo win g te st im on y “ be cau se it rel at ed to th e ba ck gr ou nd an d

ci rcu m st an ces of th e ch arg ed cri m es [an d] co m pl et e[d ] th e st or y of th e cri m e or

ex pl ai n[ ed ] th e rel at io ns hi p of pa rti es or th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng a pa rti cu la r

ev en t” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

W e fi n d n o ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e de ni al of se ve ran ce of th e fir earm

po ss es si on ch arg e fro m t h e s e x tra ffi ck in g ch arg es

. All th ree co un ts in vo lv ed a

se rie s of ev en ts th at oc cu rred be twee n Ja nu ary 6 an d Ja nu ary 14

, 20 14

. The se x

t r a f f i ck in g ch arg es as se rte d, in sh or t, th at Ged de s fo rced Sch rei ne r to en ga g e i n

pr os ti tu ti on du rin g a tri p to Dul ut h ta ke n du rin g th e ab ov e da te s. The fir earm ch arg e

fo cu se d on a tra ns act io n wit ne ss ed by Sch rei ne r du rin g th at tri p in w h i c h Ged de s

ex ch an ge d co cai n e f

o r t wo ha nd gu ns

. The refo re, be cau se Sch rei ne r’s te st im on y

pr ov id ed ev id en ce on th e en ti ret y of th e tri p, “ it is vi rtu al ly cert ai n” th at he r te st im on y

wou ld be ad m is si bl e “ as ev id en ce th at co m pl et es th e st or y of th e cri m e.” See Bro wn,

65 3 F .3d at 6 62 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Ged de s’s pr im ary arg um en t o n t h i s po in t is th at th e jury was un ab le to

co m pa rtmenta li ze th e ev id en ce rel at ed to th e di ffer en t co un ts

. Sev ere pr ejud ic e can

al so oc cu r whe re de fen da nt s “ de m on st rat [e] th at th ei r de fen se is irr eco nc il ab le wit h

a co de fen da nt 's de fen se , or th e jury wil l be un ab le to pr op erl y co m pa rtmenta li ze th e

ev id en ce as it rel at es to th e se pa rat e de fen da nt s.” Uni te d St at es v. You ng , 75 3 F.3 d

75 7, 77 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), cert

. d e n i e d s u b no m

. Mo ck v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

.

-5

-1 0 0 5 ( 2 0 1 5 ). On th e ot he r ha nd

, whe re “ th ere [is ] li tt le po ss ib il it y th e jury w a s

c o n f u s e d ov er whi ch ev id en ce rel at ed to whi ch co un t,” no pr ejud ic e oc cu rs to a
de fen da nt ’s rig ht to a fai r tri al

. Uni te d St at es v. W il ke ns , 74 2 F.3 d 35 4, 35 9 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ). The fact s i n t h i s cas e are rel at iv el y st rai gh tfo rward , a nd th is was no t a cas e

pr es en ti ng a m

ul ti tu de of di ffer en t de fen da nt s an d ch arg es

. Ged de s ha s fai le d to m eet

hi s b ur de n o f sh owi ng sev ere p reju di ce.

B.

Ged de s ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e te st im on y of Nico le
Meyer, hi s fo rm er gi rlf

rie nd

. Dur in g th e tri al

, th e pr os ecu ti on pr e s en te d Meyer’ s

te st im on y co nc ern in g an in ci de nt in 20 10 whe re Meyer c on fro nt ed Ged de s ab ou t a

te xt m es sa ge on hi s cel lu la r ph on e. Acco rd in g to h e r t e s t i mo ny, th e arg um en t

es cal at ed an d Ged de s ph y si cal ly as sa ul te d an d th reat en ed to ki ll he r. Pri or to Meyer

ta ki ng th e st an d, th e di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e juro rs th at th ey sh ou ld co ns id er th e

ev id en ce on ly if th ey de te rm in e th e te st im on y to be mo r e li ke ly tru e th an no t.

Fu rth er, th e jury was in st ru ct ed th at if it fo un d th at th e ev id en ce m et th at st an da rd

, th e jury c o u l d c o n s i de r th e te st im on y on ly on th e is su e of whe th er Ged de s in te nd ed to

fo rce or co erce Sch rei ne r to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on

. Fi na ll y , th e co ur t ex pl ic it ly to ld

th e jury th at it m ay no t u s e th e te st im on y as ev id en ce Ged de s co m m it te d th e cri m e
ch arg ed in th e p res en t ca se

.

“ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si o n o f ev id en ce of pa st cri m es un de r
Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) fo r ab us e o f d i s c ret io n, an d we wil l no t rev ers e

un le ss th e ev id en ce clea rly ha d no be ari ng on th e cas e an d was int ro du ced so le ly to

pr ov e th e de fen da nt ’s pr op en si ty to co m m it cri m in al act s.” Uni te d St at es v. W il lia m s,

79 6 F.3 d 95 1, 95 8 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 01 5) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bas se tt , 7 62 F.3 d 68 1,

68 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 6 S. Ct

. 14 50
(2 01 6)

. Ru le 40 4( b) (1 ) st at es th at “ [e]vi de nc e of a cri m e, wro ng , or ot he r act is no t

ad m is si bl e to pr ov e a pe rs on ’s ch arac te r in or de r to sh ow th at on a pa rti cu la r oc cas io n

-6

-th e p ers on act ed in acco rd an ce with th e ch arac te r.” Howev er, “ [t]hi s evi de nc e m ay

be ad m is si bl e fo r an ot he r pu rp os e, su ch as pr ov in g m ot iv e,

. . . in te nt

, . . . ab se nc e of

m is ta ke

, or la ck of acci de nt .” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 4( b) (2 ). Thi s ru le is on e “ of in cl us io n

rat he r th an ex cl us io n an d ad m it s ev id en ce of ot he r cri m es or act s rel ev an t to an y is su e

in th e tri al

, un le ss it te nd s to pr ov e on ly cri m in al di sp os it io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Oak s,

60 6 F.3 d 53 0, 53 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Si m on , 76 7 F.2 d 52 4, 52 6
(8 th Cir . 19 85 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Our ci rcu it “ em

pl oy[s] a fo ur -p art te st to de te rm in e whe th er a d is tri ct co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in ad m it ti ng 40 4( b) ev id en ce.” W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d at 95 8. Su ch

ev id en ce is ad m is si bl e if “ (1 ) it is rel ev an t to a m at eri al is su e; (2 ) it is si m il ar in ki nd

an d no t ov erl y rem ot e in ti m e to th e cri m e ch arg ed ; (3 ) it is su pp or te d by s uf fic ie nt

ev id en ce; an d (4 ) it s po te nt ia l pr ejud ic e do es no t su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh it s pr ob at iv e

va lu e.” Id . a t 95 9 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. R o b i n s o n , 6 3 9 F.3 d 48 9, 49 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The Gov ern m en t so ug ht to in tro du ce th is

te st im on y as ev id en ce of Ged de s’s in te nt to co erce or fo rce Sch rei ne r to en ga ge in

pr os ti tu ti on , an d th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed th e br ie f te st im on y , su bjec t to it s li m it in g

in st ru ct io ns

.

Ged de s co nt en ds th at th e te st im on y fai ls to m eet th e fi rs t, s eco nd , a nd fou rth

pr on gs fro m th e te st se t ou t ab ov e. W e di sa gr ee an d ad dr es s each fact or in tu rn

. To

co nv ic t Ged de s on Co un t 1, th e pr os ecu ti on was req ui red to pr ov e th at Ged de s act ed

“ kn owi ng [ly] or in reck le ss di sr eg ard of th e fact th at m ean s of fo rce, th reat s of fo rce,

frau d, co erci on , or an y co m bi na ti on of su ch m ean s wou ld be u s e d to cau se [Sch rei ne r] to en ga ge in a co m m erci al se x act .” See Uni te d St at es v. Cam pb el l, 76 4

F.3 d 88 0, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 13 5 S.

C t

. 1 5 14 (2 01 5) ; 18 U.S.C. § 15 91 (a)( 1)

. On Co un t 2, th e pr os ecu ti on was ta s k e d

w ith pr ovi ng tha t G edde s “ kn owi ng ly tra ns po rt[ ed ] [Sch rei ne r] in in te rs ta te or fo re ign

co m m erce

. . . wit h i nt en t t ha t [s he ] en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on , or in an y sex ua l ac ti vi ty

fo r whi ch an y pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h a cri m in al of fen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 24 21 (a).

-7

-“ Bo th hi s in te nt an d hi s kn owl ed ge were th us cal le d in to qu es ti on .” Cam pb el l, 76 4

F.3 d at 88 9 (q uo ti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Ja rret t, 95 6 F.2 d 86 4, 86 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ))
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W he re kn owl ed ge an d in te nt are m at eri al is su es

at tri al

, th e pr os ecu ti on is ge ne ral ly al lo wed to pr es en t “ ev id en ce of ot he r act s te nd in g

to es ta bl is h [k no wled ge an d in te nt ]. ” Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 93 4 F.2 d 93 6, 93 9
(8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Mil le r, 72 5 F.2 d 46 2, 46 6 (8t h Cir. 19 84 ))
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The refo re, Meyer’ s te st im on y ab ou t Ged de s’s

earl ie r us e of fo rce ag ai ns t he r was rel ev an t to th e is su e of Ged de s’s in te nt

, whi ch was

a m at eri al is su e at tri al . The fi rs t fa ct or is sat is fie d.

Nex t, th e te st im on y was si m il ar in ki nd an d no t ov erl y r e m ot e in ti m e to th e
cri m e ch arg ed

. Meyer’ s tri al t e s t i mo n y co nc ern ed an ev en t in 20 10 whe re Ged de s ph y si cal ly ab us ed an d th reat en ed he r. “ On t h e i ss ue of si m il ari ty, ou r te st m erel y

req ui res th at th e pr io r act s are ‘suf fic ie nt ly si m il ar to su pp or t an in fere nc e of cri m in al

in te nt .’ ” W il li am s, 79 6 F.3 d at 95 9 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W al ke r, 47 0 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). Here, th e ev en ts de sc rib ed by Meyer were su ffi ci en tl y si m il ar

in su bs ta nc e to S c h r e i ne r’s te st im on y ab ou t Ged de s’s th reat en in g an d ph y si cal ly

ab us iv e act io ns to sa ti sf

y th is te st

. As fo r th e ti m e be twee n th e pr io r ba d act an d th e
ch arg ed of

fen se s, we co nc lu de th at th e pa ss ag e of fo ur y ears was in s u f f ic ie nt to

di m in is h t he pro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e ev id en ce. See id . at 9 59 -6 0 (a ll owi ng ev id en ce

of pri or ba d a ct s t ha t o ccu rred m or e th an ten y ears be fo re t he ch arg ed off en se ).

Fi na ll y , th e pr ob at iv e va lu e of M e ye r ’s te st im on y was no t su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by an y pr ejud ic ia l effe ct

. “ Tho ug h al l Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce is in he ren tl y

pr ejud ic ia l, th e te st un de r Ru le 40 3 i s w h e t h e r it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fa ir pr ejud ic e.” Id

. at 96 0 (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v.

Co ok

, 45 4 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Meyer’ s te st im on y on th is is su e is co nf in ed to twen ty li ne s of th e tri al tra ns cri pt

, an d

sh e sp ok e so le ly ab ou t t h e fact th at Ged de s ha d th reat en ed he r an d ha d be en ph y si cal ly ab us iv e. Tria l Tr. vo l. 4, 84 2: 15 -8 43 :9

, ECF No. 89

. Thi s te st im on y was

-8

-pr ob at iv e on th e i s s u e o f G ed de s’s in te nt

, an d, gi ve n th e ex te ns iv e li m it in g

in st ru ct io ns pl aced on th e jury’ s us e of th e te st im on y, we fin d th e da ng er of un fai r

pr ejud ic e to be m in im al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Co ck e r h a m, 41 7 F.3 d 91 9, 92 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ) (“ [A] pr o pe r li m it in g in st ru ct io n se rv es as a pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t un fai r

pr ejud ic e.”).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in al lo win g Meyer’ s te st im on y at

tri al

.

C.

Ged de s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th e pr os ecu ti on to

pr es en t ex pe rt te st im on y fro m Ann Qui nn , a sp eci al ag en t wit h th e Mi nn es ot a Bu reau

of Cri m in al App reh en si o n

. A g e nt Qui nn is a m em be r of a hu m an tra ffi ck in g ta sk

fo rce, an d ha s d o n e w o r k i n th is area fo r ro ug hl y fo ur te en y ears

. At tri al

, Age nt Qui nn te st ifi ed fro m

he r tr ai ni ng an d e xp eri en ce o n t he op erat io n o f se x traf fic ki ng

rin gs an d th e t e r ms us ed th erei n. “ W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ad m it

ex pe rt te st im on y fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, acco rd in g it su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e.” Uni te d

St at es v. Bail ey , 57 1 F.3d 79 1, 80 3 (8t h Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 70 2

pr ov id es th at an ex pe rt m ay te st ify if it ‘w il l ass is t th e tri er of fact to un de rs ta nd th e

ev id en ce or de te rm in e a fact in i s s u e

. ’” I d

. (q uo ti ng Fed

. R. Evi d. 70 2)

. Und er

Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t, “ th e [d is tri ct ] jud ge is to act as a ga te ke ep er in de te rm in in g
whe th er th e pr op os ed ex pe rt’s te st im on y bo th is rel ev an t an d res ts up o n a rel ia bl e

fo un da ti on .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Evan s, 2 72 F.3d 10 69 , 10 94 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

Ged de s as si gn s two po in ts of erro r to th is is su e, an d we di sa gr ee wit h bo th

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on no t to ho ld a Dau be rt he ari ng was an
ab us e of di sc ret io n as a mat t e r o f l aw; ho wev er, as we ha ve st at ed

, “ [t]he re is no

req ui rem en t th a t th e [d ]ist ric t [c]ou rt al way s ho ld a Dau be rt he ari ng pr io r to

qu al ifyin g an ex pe rt wit ne ss u n d e r F e d e ral Ru le of Evi de nc e 70 2.” Id

. Nex t, he

-9

-co nt en ds th at th e te st im on y was bo th irr el ev an t an d un rel ia bl e. I n Eva ns , we de al t

wit h a ne arl y id en ti cal is su e an d he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n

in al lo win g ex pe rt te st im on y “ reg ard in g th e op erat io n of a pr os ti tu ti on rin g, in cl ud in g

recr ui tm en t of pr os ti tu te s an d th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n pi m ps an d pr os ti tu te s, an d

reg ard in g jarg on us ed in su ch rin gs .” Id . In thi s case , Age nt Qui nn te st ifi ed on th e

sa m e su bjec t m at te r we al lo wed in Eva ns , an d sh e po ss es se d ad eq ua te cred en ti al s an d

su ffi ci en t fact ua l da ta on whi ch to ba se th is te st im on y

. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a ll owi ng he r te st im on y

.

D.

Fi na ll y , Ged de s at ta ck s th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su st ai n hi s co nv ic ti on

on Co un ts 1 an d 2. Our st an da rd of rev ie w f o r c h a l l e n gi ng th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce h as be en well rep eat ed :

W e rev ie w de no vo th e s u f fic ie nc y of th e ev id en ce to su st ai n a

co nv ic ti on , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in a li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t

an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es s up po rti ng th e ve rd ic t.
Fu rth erm or e, [w]e wil l ov ert ur n [Ged de s’s] co nv ic ti on on ly if no

reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d hi m gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. The st an da rd of rev ie w fo r su ffi c i e nc y -o f-t he -ev id en ce ch al le ng es is

st ric t. [W] e co ns id er th e sa m e qu an tu m of ev id en ce th at was pr es en te d

at tri al

, ev en if so m e of th e ev id en ce was im pr op erl y ad m it te d. Fi na ll y ,
a vi ct im ’s te st im on y a l o ne can be su ffi ci en t to pr ov e th e se x cri m e in

qu es ti on

.

Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 76 1 F.3 d 90 0, 90 6- 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (fi rs t an d th ird al te rat io ns

in ori gi na l) ( ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

To co nv ic t Ged de s o n C ou nt 1, “ th e jury h ad to fin d h e act ed kn owi ng [ly] or

in reck le ss di sr eg ard of th e fact th at m ean s of fo rce, th reat s of fo rce, frau d, co erci on ,

or an y co m

bi na ti on of su ch m ean s wou ld be us ed to cau se [Sch rei ne r] to en ga ge in

-1 0-a co m

m erci al se x act .” Cam

pb el l, 76 4 F.3 d at 88 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Ged de s’s en ti re arg um en t on th is po in t co nc ern s whe th er th e pr os ecu ti on es ta bl is he d

th e m en s re a req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 15 91 . The jur y co nv ic te d Ged de s o n C ou nt 1

aft er be in g pr es en te d wit h co nf li ct in g t e s t i m on y

. In sh or t, Sch rei ne r te st ifi ed th at

Ged de s hi t he r in th e face on two oc cas io ns an d th at sh e di d no t en ga ge wil li ng ly in

pr os ti tu ti on

. Fu nk co nf

irmed th a t Ged de s hi t Sch rei ne r an d fu rth er te st ifi ed th at

Ged de s was ru nn in g th e op erat io n an d rece iv in g an y an d al l m on ey fro m th e se x act s.
Ged de s, on th e ot he r ha nd

, te st ifi ed th at Sch rei ne r was a pr os ti tu te be fo re th e tri p an d

th at sh e pa rti ci pa te d in ev ery act vo lu nt ari ly. Giv en th at “ [c]red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns

are un iq ue ly wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e tri er of fact ,” Uni te d St at es v. Alab ou di

, 78 6

F.3 d 11 36

, 11 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Goo da le

, 73 8 F.3 d 91 7, 92 3
( 8 t h C ir. 20 13 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, th e jury was en ti tl ed to affo r d

m or e wei gh t to th e ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e p ro se cu ti on . The ev id en ce p res en te d

at tri al was s uf

fic ie nt to su st ai n t he co nv ic ti on on Co un t 1

.

To co nv ic t G e d de s on Co un t 2, th e jury ha d to fin d th at he “ kn owi ng ly

tra ns po rt[ ed ] [Sch rei ne r] in in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce

. . . wit h in te nt th at [s he ]

en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on .” 18 U.S.C. § 24 21 (a). Ged de s ass ert s th at he an d Sch rei ne r

fo rm ul at ed th e pl an to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on aft er th ey en te red th e St at e of Mi nn es ot a

an d th at bo th act s oc cu rred whi le th ey were in th at St at e. The refo re, acco rd i n g to

Ged de s, he ne ve r tra ns po rte d he r acro ss st at e li ne s fo r t h e pu rp os e of en ga gi ng in

pr os ti tu ti on

. W e di sa gr ee. In ad di ti on to tri al tes ti m on y wher e Fu nk an d Sch rei ne r

reco un t th e gr ou p’s m ov em en ts be twee n Su p e r io r an d Dul ut h, th e pr os ecu ti on

pr es en te d ex pe rt te st im on y on th e an al y si s of th e reco rd s fo r cel l ph on es po ss es se d
by Ged de s an d S c h r ei ne r. The ex pe rt wit ne ss , Sp eci al Age nt Jo se ph Ras ch ke

,

ex pl ai ne d to th e jury th at cel l ph on es are pr og ram m ed to fin d an d us e th e st ro ng es t

si gn al

, an d th at th e lo cat io n of th e to wer be in g us ed by a pa rti cu la r ph on e at a gi ve n

ti m e m ean s th at th e ph on e it se lf is in cl os e pr ox im it y to th at to wer. He te st ifi ed th at

,

on Ja nu ary 8, bo th ph on es pu ll ed a si gn al fro m a to wer in Dul ut h, Mi nn es ot a aro un d

9: 06 p.m

. an d th en swi tc he d to a to wer in Su pe rio r, Wi s c o n s i n aro un d 9: 45

.

-1 1-Lik ewis e, acco rd in g to Age nt Ras ch ke ’s te st im o n y, a si m il ar pa tt ern oc cu rred on

Ja nu ary 12 whe n th e ph on es swi tc he d f r o m u s i n g to wers in Dul ut h to to wers in

Su pe rio r. Thu s, in Age nt Ras ch ke ’s op in io n, th e ph on es were in Dul ut h whe n us in g

Mi nn es ot a to wers an d in Su pe rio r whe n us in g W is co ns in to wers

. In hi s br ie f, Ged de s

as se rts th at “ pr os ti tu ti on cam e u p fo r th e fir st ti m e whi le dr iv in g fr om Ro ch es te r to

Dul ut h” on Ja nu ary 7. App el la nt ’s B r

. 34

. Accep ti ng al l reas on ab le in fere nc es

su pp or ti ng t h e gu il ty ve rd ic t on Co un t 2, th e jury was en ti tl ed to be li ev e th at th e

in te rs ta te m ov em en ts on Ja nu ary 8 an d 12 —b ot h aft er th e da te on whi ch

, acco rd in g

to Ge d d e s , t h e pr os ti tu ti on pl an was fir st di sc us se d— were m ad e wit h th e in te nt of

en ga gi ng in pro st it ut io n.

The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt Ge dd es ’s con vi ct io n o n b ot h c ou nt s.

III.

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed he rei n, we af fir m Gedd es ’s con vi ct io n.

-1 2-