[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13904

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DENNIS LEE LINE, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cr-00050-WWB-DCI-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13904

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Dennis Line, a convicted sex offender, appeals his conviction 

for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. 

On appeal, Line argues that the district court abused its discretion 

when it admitted evidence of his former teaching career. After 

careful review, we affirm.

I.

A grand jury returned an indictment charging Line with one 

count of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Before trial, Line moved in 

limine to exclude “the fact that Mr. Line was formerly employed as 

a schoolteacher.” His argument was twofold. First, he contended, 

“the fact that [he] was a previously a teacher is not relevant to 

prove any material fact at issue in this case.” And second, Line posited, even if his teaching career were relevant, “it must be excluded 

because its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.” The district court granted the motion in 

part and denied it in part, allowing the government to introduce 

Line’s statement to law enforcement where he mentions the fact 

that he was a teacher and never had any issues, but requiring the 

government to redact certain portions of a written statement that 

were cumulative. At trial, the government elicited the following 

facts.

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 2 of 9
23-13904 Opinion of the Court 3

Line, a fifty-three-year-old man, created a profile on a dating 

application called Badoo. On the Badoo profile, he said that his 

name was Stephen and described himself as fifty years old. From 

“Stephen’s” account, Line struck up a conversation with “Amber,” 

whose profile said she was a forty-one-year-old woman. After they 

started chatting, Amber asked Line, “[Y]o[u] ok if I am younger[?],” 

to which he replied, “Absolutely okay.” Amber then told Line that 

she was only fifteen years old and a freshman in high school. Line 

replied, “Yikes. That’s young,” but he kept chatting with Amber 

anyway, at one point urging her, “You can at least tell me that 

you’re 18.” In reality, Amber was an Orange County Sheriff’s Office detective, conducting a child-predator sting operation. 

Line pressed Amber about her sexual experience, asking

“What have you done? You’re pretty young,” and “How many positions did you try?” He then told her that he could “teach [her] 

stuff. . . . anything [she] want[s],” and described specific sex acts 

that he enjoyed. Line acknowledged that asking Amber for oral sex 

would be “illegal, girl, as much as I would love it,” but then assured 

her that if they got together to “experiment and have a little fun,” 

he would “be patient. And gentle. And careful. And amazing. . . . 

I would use plenty of protection. Don’t worry about that.” Line 

encouraged Amber to send him pictures of herself, and finally propositioned her “let’s definitely meet tonight.” After Amber agreed 

to meet up, Line reassured her, saying, “I don’t think we should, 

like, do it do it yet. I want to go easy and slow with you. . . . Maybe 

some kissing, touching, oral?” The two then made a plan to meet 

that night near a local Boston Market restaurant and continued to 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13904

discuss the various sex acts Line wanted to perform with Amber. 

They also had a three-minute phone call during which Line confessed that his “biggest worry” was that Amber was “setting [him] 

up . . . because I’m old and you’re young and I could get in serious 

trouble for coming over and seeing you. . . . If the cops are there, 

I’m screwed for the rest of my life.”

Around 11 p.m. on February 9, 2022, Line pulled up to Boston Market as planned, where Orange County Sheriff’s Office deputies were waiting to arrest him. During a post-Miranda interview, 

Line admitted that he was “pretty sure” he knew why he was being 

questioned and that he had been “texting somebody that I 

shouldn’t have been texting with; a minor, stupid, like, I have some 

issues.” One of the detectives asked what he meant by “minor,” 

and Line specified that “the girl said she was 15.” Although Line

claimed he “would never have done anything” if he had actually 

met “Amber,” he acknowledged that he had discussed meeting up 

with her to kiss and have oral sex and admitted that his conduct 

was illegal. He also conceded that it “looks really bad” that, while 

he had participated in sexually flirtatious conversations with several adults he met on dating apps, he had only ever tried to meet 

the one person he believed to be a child.

Despite all these concessions, Line still insisted (to the detectives who interviewed him and again at trial) that “it’s all fictional 

to me, it’s all, like, not real.” “It’s a game of attention,” he said, 

“the game of being at a different place, making your life different.” 

Similarly, during his interrogation, Line wrote a letter to his wife, 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 4 of 9
23-13904 Opinion of the Court 5

apologizing for his actions and explaining that he was using dating 

apps to make friends and to get attention and that talking to 

strangers he met online was “almost like a video game.” When the 

interrogating detective asked Line if this was “a pattern or something that you’re going to do continuously, preying on, on children,” Line invoked his twenty-eight-year teaching career, swore 

he “never had an issue” in all those years, and implored the detective to “look at my record.”

A few days after his arrest, Line posted a public message on 

his Facebook account, directed at his former colleagues. In that 

post, Line confessed that he “made an unthinkable choice a few 

days ago, that “[i]t was the most embarrassing and humiliating 

thing I have ever done,” that he was “responsible for what [he] did 

and must now pay the consequences,” and that he was “truly 

sorry.” Also in that post, Line identified by name a list of schools 

where he had worked, addressing directly the “students, parents, 

and teachers” of those schools, and stating, “I know that I have 

tainted your opinions of me. I deserve your hatred.”

After two days of evidence and just over an hour of deliberations, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Line was later sentenced 

to 120 months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release. 

This appeal follows.

II.

“We review evidentiary rulings only for an abuse of discretion.” Sowers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 975 F.3d 1112, 1122 (11th 

Cir. 2020). “An abuse of discretion arises when the district court’s 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 23-13904

decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant 

conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” 

United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1295 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005)). “Because ‘we recognize a significant range of choice for the district 

court on evidentiary issues,’ our review of such rulings is very limited and ‘we defer to the district court’s decisions to a considerable 

extent.’” United States v. Akwuba, 7 F.4th 1299, 1313 (11th Cir. 2021) 

(alterations adopted) (quoting United States v. Brown, 415 F.3d 1257, 

1264–65 (11th Cir. 2005)). We need not reverse a conviction if the 

evidentiary error “had no substantial influence on the outcome and 

sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” 

United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717, 722 (11th Cir. 1992); accord

Goulah v. Ford Motor Co., 118 F.3d 1478, 1483 (11th Cir. 1997) (“We 

will not overturn an evidentiary ruling unless the moving party 

proves a substantial prejudicial effect.”). We determine whether 

an error had substantial influence on the outcome by weighing the 

record as a whole. See United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 

711, 722 (1990). 

III.

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact 

more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and 

“the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 401(a)-(b). Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible at 

trial unless provided otherwise by federal statute, the United States 

Constitution, the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the Supreme 

Court. Fed. R. Evid. 402. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 6 of 9
23-13904 Opinion of the Court 7

Relevant evidence “may” be excluded “if its probative value 

is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, 

undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Exclusion under Rule 403 is an extraordinary remedy that courts should employ “only sparingly since it 

permits the trial court to exclude concededly probative evidence.” 

Smith, 459 F.3d at 1295 (quoting United States v. Norton, 867 F.2d 

1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, we view the disputed 

evidence “in a light most favorable to its admission, maximizing its 

probative value and minimizing its undue prejudicial impact.” Id.

(quoting United States v. Elkins, 885 F.2d 775, 784 (11th Cir. 1989)). 

Unfair prejudice is defined as “relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific 

to the offense charged.” Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 180 

(1997).

Line falls far short of meeting his heavy burden on appeal. 

First, we conclude that the district court did not err in allowing the 

government to elicit evidence of Line’s teaching career because 

that evidence was, in fact, relevant and not unduly prejudicial. 

Among other elements, the government was required to prove 

that Line knowingly attempted to entice fifteen-year-old “Amber” 

to engage in sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). “We have 

long held that the term ‘knowingly’ means that the act was performed voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of a mistake 

or accident.” United States v. Woodruff, 296 F.3d 1041, 1047 (11th 

Cir. 2002). Line’s decades-long career as a teacher—during which 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 23-13904

he worked with minor students—is probative of his knowledge of 

appropriate boundaries with children and, therefore, to his

knowledge of the wrongfulness of his conduct with Amber. In particular, Line’s invocation of his reputation as a teacher, including 

that he “never had an issue” in all those years and his request that 

the detectives “look at [his] record,” all suggest that he knew how 

to interact properly with minors because he had, in fact, acted appropriately around them all his life. In other words, Line’s teaching 

career is relevant to show that he did not attempt to entice a minor 

by accident or mistake. We are thus not persuaded by Line’s conclusory argument that this evidence was unduly prejudicial because, upon hearing he was a former teacher, the jury would be left 

to wonder if he had previously harmed other minors. To put it 

plainly, the government elicited no evidence, and made no argument suggesting, that Line had committed other crimes against 

children. We thus conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in admitting evidence of Line’s teaching career because 

that evidence was probative of his mens rea and was not unduly 

prejudicial. 

Second, even if the district court had erred in admitting evidence of Line’s career, “[a] district court’s erroneous admission of 

evidence does not warrant reversal if the purported error had no 

substantial influence on the outcome and sufficient evidence uninfected by error supports the verdict.” Fortenberry, 971 F.2d at

722. Here, the “evidence uninfected by error” is overwhelming: 

Amber repeatedly told Line that she was a minor and a freshman 

in high school; Amber’s profile featured two pictures that appeared 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 8 of 9
23-13904 Opinion of the Court 9

to be of a minor (one of which was a prom-style portrait of a girl 

with braces); Line asked Amber to “at least tell me that you’re 18. 

LOL,” revealing both that he knew she was under eighteen years 

old and that it was, therefore, wrong to engage with her; Line told 

both Amber and the police that he was in a sexless marriage and 

was bored; Line told the detective, during his interrogation, “That 

should have been done. When she said she was 15, I knew”; and 

Line clearly expressed remorse for, in his own words, “the most 

embarrassing and humiliating thing [he] ha[d] ever done” and “the 

lowest point in [his] life,” and he publicly stated that he was “responsible for what [he] did and must now pay the consequences.” 

This evidence amply supported his conviction. We also note that

Line used the evidence of his teaching career in his own favor in 

closing, telling the jury, “[i]t’s helpful to Mr. Line that he was a 

teacher because, had this been what he was doing, what he was 

planning on doing, was he a danger in going after 15-year-old girls, 

there would be footprints in the sand. There simply would. 

There’s no way he could have survived 28 years in school if his excitement was going after 15-year-old girls.” All of this is to say, 

even if the evidence of Line’s job were admitted in error, Line has 

failed to show substantial influence on the outcome of his trial. 

* * * *

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we affirm Line’s conviction.

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13904 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023 Page: 9 of 9