F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 5, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 06- 1604 8 D. C. Docket N o. 05-00034 CR-F TM- 29-SPC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us DONALD J. DEVERSO, D ef en dant- Appe llant. Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida (M ar ch 5, 200 8) Before DU BIN A and KRA VI TC H, Circuit Judges, and GO LD BE RG, * Judg e. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ *Honora ble Richard W. Goldber g , United States Court of International Trade J udg e, sitti ngby desig nation.Deve rso does not have a cha lleng e with re g ard to the sc ienter in s t ru ction on Count Two 1 beca use the district cour

t ga ve a sc ienter jury

instruction on this count. (R. Vol. 8, p. 709-10.) 2 Appe llant D ona ld J
. D ev er so ( “ D ev er so” ) ap pe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s f or poss es sin g m at er ia ls i nvol vin g ade pic tio n of am ino r en ga ge d inse xua lly e xpl ic it activity , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 225 2(a)( 4)(B) and (b)(2) ( Count One); tr an spor tin g m at er ia ls i nvol vin g ade pic tio n of am ino r en ga ge d inse xua lly explicit activity , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 225 2(a)( 1) and (b)(1) ( Count Two); 1 and usin g a m inor to engage in sexu ally explicit condu ct outsid e of the United St at es f or the pur pose of pr oduc ing avis ua l de pic tio n of suc h c ondu ct

and transporting that visual depi ction int o the United States, in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. § 22 51( c) (2 )( B) and ( e) ( Co unt T hr ee ). D ev er so’ s a

ppe al pr es en ts thr ee iss ue s f or re vie w , tw o of

w hic h pr es en t no ve l qu es tio ns c onc er nin g th e au the nti ci ty

of fo re ignpub lic doc um en ts unde r Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 902 (3 ) an d am ist ak e of ag e de fe nse und er

18 U . S. C. § 22 51( c)
. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , and h av ing the be ne fi t of or al arg um en t, w e co nc lud e that the G ove rn m en t pr ope rl y

auth en tic at ed

the f or ei gn d oc um en t i t a dm itt ed int o ev id en ce, an d C ou ntThre e d oe s n otco nt ai n asci en te r el em en t as to ag e. A cc or din gly , w e af

fi rm D ev er so’ s c onvi ct ion s. I. BACKG ROUND3

T he G ove rn m en t pr es en te d th e fo llo w ing e vid en ce a t tri al
. I n 20 04, the D ep ar tm en t of H om el an d S ec ur ity

( “ D H S” ) re ce ive d in fo rm at ionr eg ar din g D ev er so’ s f

or ei gn trave l and b eg aninv es tig at ing him f or pos se ssi ng c hil d po rn og rap hy andtra ve li ng ab ro adto en ga ge in sex wit h m in or s. DHS in ve st ig at or s i nt erv ie wedDeve rs o’s wi fe, Zon g Yu Deve rs o (“ Mrs . Deve rs o” ). Mr s. D ev er so t

ur ne d ov er to inv es tig at or s vari ous co m put er m ed iaand p ri nto uts that sh e sur

re pti tio usl y

obt ai ne d f

ro m D ev er so. D ev er so w as in som e of the pictures that depicted y oung girls in various stages of undress. Investigators discovered that one of the girls in the pictures wa s Beverly Datanagan (“ Beverly ”). D ur ing asub se que nt s earc h of D ev er so’ s r es ide nc e pur suant t o ava lid search w arrant, investigators foun d com pact and floppy

disks , c om

puter co m pone nts , and a

c om put er . D ev er so o ri gin al ly se t up his c om

put er in a sm al l
ro om or c los et that the f am ily use d f or anur se ry . I t w as the onl y c om put er w ith internet acce ss, and D everso’ s account was the only account that was passw ord p ro t ec t ed . In v es t i g at o rs re v i ew edth e c o m p ac td i s k s s ei ze dfr o m

De v er s o ’s residence and discovered two disks, entitled MM T exas and Asians 7, that contained childpornography
. One of the investig ators testified that he had seen
som e of the im ag es on the c om

pa ct dis ks i n othe r ch ild

por nogr ap hy in ve st ig at io ns .4

One of De verso’ s fellow inm ates, Michael L ew is (“ Le wis”) , te stified that De verso adm itted that he had been inv olved with two underage girls in Manila, Philippi nes, during his relations hip with his “ fiancee ” Bever ly
. Le wis also stated that Dever so adm itted that the dis ks belon ged to him but that he int ended to sh ift the blam e to h is s on, w ho w as li vin g w ithD ev er so at the ti m e of the se ar ch
. L ew is testified that Dever so comm ented to him “ that we all have a little pedophil e in us.” (R. Vo l. 6 , p. 4 29 .) In ve sti ga tor s a lso te sti fi ed that the y f ound Be ve rl y ’ s nam e on the ba ck of
one of the dig ita l i m ag es and d isc ove re d r om an tic e m ai l c ha ts b etw ee n D ev er so and Beverly
. Under D everso’ s account and in a folder titled Bev, investigators fo und pic tur es of

Be ve rl y , som e of

w hic h w er e se xua lly

e xpl ic it. D ev er so al le ge dly too k th es e pic tur es be tw ee n O ct obe r 15 and 1 7, 200 4. D an te O rate ( “ O rate ”) , S pe ci al A ge nt w ithD H S in M an ila , te sti fi ed that he pe rs ona lly

m et w ithBe ve rl y

a ft er auth or iti es he lpe d hi m

loc at e he r. B ev er ly br ough t a bir th c er tif ic at e fo r O rate to re vie w . O rate r eque ste d ac opy of the bir th
ce rt if ic at e fr om

the N at ion al Ce nsus and S ta tis tic s O ff ic e an d ha d it

c er tif ie d a t the U . S. E m ba ssy . O rate state d th at

the c opy of the bir th c er tif ic at e w as e xa ct ly

the
sam e as the bir

th c er tif ic at e Be ve rl y

sho w ed him a t the ir m ee tin g. T he da te of birth o n th e co py

of the bir th c er tif ic at e w as N ove m

be r 10, 198 6. T he5

G ove rn m en t pr of

fe re d th e doc um en t a s e vid en ce that B ev er ly w as am ino r at

the tim e D ev er so h ad

se x w ithhe r, and D ev er so o bj ec te d onthe gr ound s th at the docum ent was an incom

plete docum ent because it did nothave a signature under the heading “ Certific ate of A ttendant at Birth.” (R. Vol. 6, p. 322.) Beverly testified that her date of birth w as Novem ber 10, 1986, and she wa s 17 whe n sh e m et

D ev er so i n O ct obe r 2004 . S he state d th at she ha d se x w ith D ev er so whe n sh e w as 17, and s he tol d D ev er so tha t sh e w as 17. S he a lso t e s t i f i e dth a tDe v e r s o s e n th e r

mo n e y fo r

h e r 1 8 th b i rth d ay. A ft er the G ove rn m en t c onc lud ed it s c as e- in- ch ie f, D ev er so m ove d f or j udgm en ts o f ac qui tta l ona ll co unt s and m ove d f or dis m iss al of

Co unt T w o, arguing that it was uncons titutio nal facia lly and as-applied. T he district court de ni edth e m ot io ns . De verso tookthe stand and deni ed having s ex with Bever ly in October 2004 . D ev er so a lso state d th at Be ve rl y did not te ll him that sh e w as 17; ins te ad , Beverly repre sented herself to be 18 or 19. D everso testified that the hotel clerk did no t inqu ire about Beverly ’ s age w hen they registered, and no on e questioned he r ag e w he n th ey

pur ch as ed

a lc ohol ic dr ink s. D ev er so s ta te d th at he se nt B ev er ly
m one y f or he r 19th, not

18th, bir thd ay . D ev er so a lso de nie d te lli ng h is f el low6

inm ate anything about his travels or having sex with m inors. H e com m ented that hi s t es ti m on y

was t he tru th
. D ur ing the c harg e co nf

er en ce , D ev er so o bj ec te d to an in str uc tio n th at

“ the de fen da nt ’s awaren es s o f th e ag e o f th e m in oris no t an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se ,”
an d th at m ist ak e of

a ge is not

ade fe nse to Co unt

T hr ee . I nst ea d, D ev er so requested that the district court inst ruct the j ury that m istake of age is, in fact, an af fi rm at ive de fe nse to Co unt T hr ee . T he G ove rn m en t r es pond ed that the instructio n was a

corre ct statem ent of the law
. The district court concluded that be ca use kno w le dge of

a ge is not

an e le m en t of

18 U . S. C. § 22 51, m ist ak e of a ge is not a defense. The j ury found Deverso guilty

on all counts
. The district court sentenced him to co nc ur

re nt t er m s of 120 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t onCo unt

O ne and 1 95
m onths i m

pr iso nm en t onCo unt s T w o and T hr ee . D ev er so f ile d ati m el y

not ic e of ap pe al
. II. ISS UES 1. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in adm itt ing ac er

tif ie d c opy of abir th certific ate as a

foreign public do cum ent pursuant to Feder al Rule of E vidence 902(3).7

2. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n inr ef usi ng t o in str

uc t the j ury on m istake of age on Count Three. 3. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing D ev er so’ s m oti on f or j udgm ent of acquittal on Coun t One.

III. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of e vi de nc e. Se e U nited Sta tes v . M

arag h , 174 F . 3d 1 202, 120 4 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. I f the de fe ndant f

ai ls t o ob j ec t at tri al to the a dm iss ionof e vid en ce , the c ourt r ev ie w s th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng forpl ai n e rro r on ly. United States v. B aker , 432 F . 3d 1 189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005). “ Where an appellant has ob j ected to a j ury

instruction at trial, we reviewthe court’ s decision to use that instructio n for abuse of discretion.” U nited Sta tes v . D ea n , 48 7 F .3d84 0, 8 47 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ), petition for cert. filed , 76 U. S. L. W . 3240 (U. S. Oc t. 25, 2007 ) (N o. 07-553). “ W e re view a district
co urt’ s de ci sio n to de ny

am oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l ba se d onsuf

fi ci en cy of the evidence de novo.” U nited Sta tes v . D ulc io , 441 F. 3d 12 69, 1276 (11t h Cir. 2006 ). I n de te rm ini ng whe the r the G ove rn m en t pr es en te d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce , the
co urt “ m ust r ev ie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the [ G ] ove rn m en t and draw all rea sonable factual infere nces in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict.” Id
. IV. D ISCU SSION8

A. A dm iss ion of thebir th c er tif ic ate De v er s o ar g u es th atth e d i s tri ctco u rterre di nad m i t t i n g a c o p y o f B ev er l y’ s birth certificate into evidence to establis h that Beverly wa s under the age of 18 at the ti m e of

the a lle ge d se xua l e nc ount er . F ir st, he c la im s th at the bir th c er tif ic at e is a bus ine ss r ec or d, and the G ove rn m en t di d no t l ay apr ope r fo undatio n f

or it s ad m is si on . See 28 U . S. C. § 17 32 ( gove rn ing a dm iss ionof bus ine ss r ec or ds i nto ev ide nc e)
. S ec ond, D ev er so c ont en ds tha t the G ove rn m en t di d no t auth en tic at e the bir th c er tif ic at e, and the doc um en t di d no t be ar the r equir ed

ind ic iaof
re lia bil ity
. H e cl ai m s th at

w hil e the bir

th c er tif ic at e m ay have be ena tte ste d to by
anappr opr ia te ind ivi dua l l ist ed in Fe de ra l R

ule of E vid en ce 902 (3 ), the doc um en t it se lf d oe s n otco nt ai n t he m in im um in fo rm at io n t o app ear v al idon it s fa ce. De verso questio ns the authent icity of the docum ent because the cer tificate states that i t c er tif ie s th at “ Be ve rl y Re gid or D at an ag anw ho w as all eged lybor n on N ove m be r 10, 198 6 . . . appe ar s inthe N at ion al I ndi ce s f or bir th. ” ( R. E xhi bit

N o. 5. ) T hus, D ev er so arg ue s th at the doc um en t i s no t wha t the G ove rn m en t c la im s it to b e – abir

th c er tif ic at e – bu t i s, ins te ad , adoc um en t c ont ai nin g an “ al le ge d” da te of bir th. Ar ev ie wof

the r ec or d in dic at es that D ev er so o bj ec te d to the a dm iss ionof the doc um en t onthe gr ound s th at w ha t purp orts t o be ac opy of the or igi na l or9

ce rt if ie d c opy of the or igi na l do es not

have asig na tur e unde r the he ad ing

“ Certific ate of A ttendant at Birth.” Specifica lly , he claim ed that it was an inc om ple te doc um en t. ( R. V ol. 6, p. 322 . ) T his tr ia l ob j ec tio n is dif

fe re nt than th e obj ec tio ns D ev er so p ro ff er s onappe al
. C onse que ntl y , to obt ai n r el ie f, D ev er so m us t d em on st rat e p la in erro r warra nt in g re li ef. Se e U nited Sta tes v . Co tto n , 535 U. S. 625, 631-32, 122 S. Ct. 1781 , 1785 (2002) (“ [B] efore an appellate court can
co rr ec t an e rr or

not r ai se d a t tri al , the re m

ust be ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec t[ s] sub stanti al r igh ts . . . [ an d] ( 4)
. . . se ri ousl y a ff ec t[ s] the f

ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. ” (quot ing Johnso n v. United States , 520 U . S. 461 , 466 -6 7, 117 S . Ct . 154 4, 154 9 ( 1997 ) (i nte rn al c itatio ns and quot ation m arks om itted)). T he G ove rn m en t a dm itt ed the doc um en t a s af

or ei gn p ubl ic doc um en t pursuant to Feder al Rule of E vidence 902(3). T his rule provid es, in part, that

E xtr ins ic e vid en ce of

auth en tic ity

a s ac ondi tio n pr ec ed en t t o adm issib ility

is not required with respect to .
. . ( 3) F or ei gn p ub lic do cu m en ts . Adocum ent purportin g to be executed or attested in an of fi ci al c ap ac ity

by ape rs on a

uth or iz ed by the law s of

af or ei gn c o u n try t o mak e th e e x e c u t i o no r a t t e s t a t i o n , an da c c o mp an i e db y a final certification as to the genui neness of the sign ature and officia l posi tio n ( A ) of

the e xe cu tin g or

a tte sti ng p er son, or

( B) of any f or ei gn official whose certificate of genuineness o f signature and official posi tio n r el at es to the e xe cu tio n or a tte statio n or

is in a c ha in o f ce rt if ic at es of ge nui ne ne ss o f sig na tur e an d of fi ci al pos iti on r el at ing t o th e e x e c u t i o no r

a t t e s t a t i o n . A f

i n a l c e rt i f i c a t i o nmay b e mad e b y a10

secretary of an em bassy or legation, consul general, c onsu l, vice co nsul , or c onsu lar ag en t of

the U nit ed

S ta te s, or

adip lom at ic or co nsul ar of fi ci al of the f or ei gn c ountry

a ssi gne d or

a cc re dit ed

to the United States. If

rea sonable op portuni ty

has been given to all parties to i nve sti ga te the auth en tic ity and a cc ur ac y

of of fi ci al doc um en ts, the court m ay , f

or good cause sho wn, order that they be treated as pr es um pti ve ly auth en tic w ith out

f ina l c er tif ic at ionor pe rmit the m

to be evidenced by

an attested sum

m ary with or w ithou t final ce rt if ic at ion
. F ED . R. E V ID . 902(3). The re i s n o re qu ire m en t i n R ul e 9 02 (3 ) th atth e d oc um en t i ts el f be si gn ed
. Se e U nited Sta tes v . Squ illac ote , 221 F. 3d 54 2, 562 (4th Cir. 2000). “ The r ules are
w r i t t e ni nth e a l t e rn a t i v e – f o r e i g nd o c u men t s may b e au th e n t i c a t e db y a ce rt if ic at ionf ro m the of fi ci al e xe cu tin g th e doc um en t or by an of fi ci al a tte sti ng t o the docum ent.” Id

. The re ar e two requi rem en ts forth e au th en ti cat io n o f a fo rei gn do cu m en t.

“ First, there m

ust be som e indication th at the doc um en t is whatis pu rp or ts to be
. Thus, the proff

ered docum ent m

ust be executed by

a proper off

icial in his official capacity , or the genuin eness of the docum ent m ust be attested to bya proper official in his official ca

pacity .” Id

. ; se e als o U

nited Sta tes v . D oy le , 130 F . 3d 523, 545 ( 2d C ir
. 199 7) ( not ing that the r ule is not c onc er ne d w ithe sta

bli shi ng the truth of inform ation contain ed in the proffere d docum ent but, instead, is concerned onl y w ith“ as sur ing that e vid en ce is w ha t i t purp orts t o be ”)
. “ Se co nd, the re m ust11

be som e indication th at the off ic ial vou ch ing f

or the doc um en t i s who h e pur ports to be.” Squi lla co te , 221 F. 3d at 562
. Ac cordingly , “ the rules require that one of a spe ci fi ed gr oup of f or ei gn o ff

ic ia ls m ust iss ue af ina l c er tif ic at iona tte sti ng t o th e ge nui ne ne ss o f sig na tur e an d ti tle of the pe rs on e xe cu tin g or

a tte sti ng t o th e doc um en t, or

of anothe r of

fi ci al w ho h as c er

tif ie d th e sig na tur e an d po sit ionof the person executing o r attesting to the do cum ent.” Id
. The G overnm ent m et these requirem ents here. T he Governm ent established that A ge nt O rate r eque ste d and o bta ine d ac opy of Be ve rl y ’ s bi rth c er

tif ic at e fr om the P hil ipp ine N at ion al Ce nsus and S ta tis tic s O ff ic e an d th at

he ha d th e co py au the nti cate d and c er

tif ie d a t the U nit ed

S ta te s E m

ba ssy in Manil a. T he c opy

of Be ve rl y ’ s bi rth c er

tif ic at e w as a cc om

panie d by ac er tif ic at e fr om

Ri ch ar d A m

br ad , E m ba ssy Co or din at or

w iththe G ove rn m en t of

the P hil ipp ine s, a tte sti ng tha t the copy of Bever ly ’ s birth certificate wa s a true copy of an offic ial rec ord authorized by the lawof

the P hil ipp ine s to be r ep orte d and r ec or de d inthe N at ion al Ce nsus an d S ta tis tic s O ff

ic e. T ha t c er

tif ic at ionw as a cc om

panie d by af ina l c er tif ic at ion by Kim be rly A. Ru ss el l, Vi ce Co ns ul of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n t he Ph il ip pi ne s. A ddi tio na lly , the c opy

of the bir th c er tif ic at e w as stam

pe d a s ac er

tif ie d c opy and affixed w ith the seal of Luzvim inda N. Cruz, whom Vic e Consul Russell certified
w as “ Cl er k I I, N at ion al S ta tis tic s O ff ic e, Q ue zo n C ity , Re publ ic of the12

Philippi nes.” Beca

use the Governm ent m et the requirem ents for selfau the nti catio n of

the f or ei gn d oc um en t, it

did not have to lay

a f ound at ionf

or ad m is si on of t he do cu m en t as a bu si ne ss reco rd
. See F ED . R. E V ID . 902, a dviso ry co m m itt ee not e to p ar a. ( 3) ( statin g th at thi s para gr ap h “pr ovi de s am ethod fo r e x t e n d i n g th e p r e s u mp t i o no f au th e n t i c i ty t o f

o r e i g no f f i c i a l d o c u men t s b y a procedure of ce rtification”). Furthe rm or e, to the e xte nt tha t D ev er so c ha lle nge s th e re lia bil ity of the inf orm at ionc ont ai ne d inthe bir th c er tif ic at e, suc h a s B ev er ly ’ s date of bir th and the la ck of sig na tur e of

the a tte ndant at bi rth, that c ha lle nge goe s to the w ei ght of th e ev id en ce, n otit s ad m is si bi li ty on g ro un ds of a ut he nt ic it y . Se e, e . g. , D oy le , 130 F. 3d at 54 5 ( “ [T ] he of

fi ci al doe s no t ne ed

to atte st t o th e tr

uthor tr ustw orthi ne ss of the f ac ts c ont ai ne d inthe doc um en t; ac cura cy of it s c ont en ts i s th e co nc er n of oth er F ed er al Ru le s. ”)
. D ev er so f ai ls t o e sta

bli sh tha t B ev er ly ’ s bi rth c er tif ic at e is not w ha t i t purp orts t o be , e spe ci al ly in lig ht o f A ge nt O rate ’ s te sti m ony that the certifie d copy

of the birth certific ate w as identical to the birth certificate that Beverly showed him

upon request. Consequent ly , D everso cannot show error, let al one pla in e rr or , w ar

ranti ng a ne wtr ia l du e to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a dm iss ionof the birth certificate into evidence. B. M istak e of age jur

y ins tru ct ion13

D ev er so c la im s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by r ef usi ng t o gi ve his m ist ak e of a ge ins tr uc tio n a s to Co unt

T hr ee . D ev er so c ont en ds tha t kn ow le dge of a ge is
co nst itutio na lly

m an da te d and b ec au se the G ove rn m en t c harg ed that he did

“ know ing ly ” em

plo y , use , pe rs ua de , e nti ce , or c oe rc e a m ino r to e nga ge in
se xua lly e xpl ic it co nduc t outsi de of the U nit ed

S ta te s f or the pur pose of pr oduc ing
a vis ua l de pic tio n of

suc h c ondu ct , he c oul d r ai se m ist ak e of a ge a s ade fe nse . T he G ove rn m en t r es pond s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y r ef use d to giv e a m ist ak e of age instruction. W e agre e. Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 225 1(c)( 1), [a] ny person who, in a c ircum stance described in paragra ph (2), em plo y s, use s, pe rs ua de s, ind uc es , e nti ce s, or

c oe rc es any

m ino r to en ga ge in, or

w ho h as am ino r as sis t any oth er pe rs on t o e nga ge in, any se xua lly e xpl ic it co nduc t outsi de of the U nit ed

S ta te s, it s territories or possession s, f or the purpose of produ cing any visual depiction of such conduct, shall be pun ished as provi ded und er subs ection (e). Id
. Su bse ct ion( 2) state s th at

the c ir cum stanc e re fe rr ed to in p ar ag ra

ph ( 1) is that – (A ) the pe rs on i nte nds suc h vi sua l de pic tio n to be tr an spor te d to the U nit ed S ta te s, it s te rr ito ri es or

pos se ssi ons, by

any m eans, inc lud ing by c om put er or m ai l; or14

(B ) the pe rs on transpo rt s su chvis ua l de pic tio n to the U nit ed S ta te s, its te rr ito ri es or

pos se ssi ons, by

any m eans, inc lud ing by

c om put er or m ai l. 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 1( c)(2 ). The s ta tu te set s t he ag e o f m ajor it y at 1 8. 1 8 U.S.C. § 2256 (1). De verso first contends that he was entitled to a m istake of age defe nse jur y in st ru ct io n b ecau se kn owl ed ge of a ge is an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se un de r § 2 25 1. W e d is ag ree a ndho ldth atkn owl ed ge of a ge is no t an ele m en t o f th is off en se . See United States v. X

-Citem ent Video, Inc. , 513 U . S. 64, 76 & n. 5, 115 S . Ct . 464 (1 99 4) (co nc lu di ng , alt ho ug h i n d ic ta , th ata m is ta ke of a ge de fen se to 18 U.S.C. § 2251 is not cons titutio nally m andated and citing a Senate Confer ence Com m ittee Report explaining that the deletion of the word “ knowingl y ” fr om § 2251 ref

lected
anint en t t o e lim inate kno w le dge of a ge a s an e le m en t of

the c ri m e) ; United States
v. G rif fit h , 284 F. 3d 33 8, 349 (2d Cir. 2002 ) (r ej ecting defendants’ argum ent that the district court’ s charge to the j ury om itting scienter of a ge under § 225 1 was
er ro ne ous) ; U

nited Sta tes v . J

ohns on , 376 F . 3d 6 89, 693 ( 7thCi r. 200 4) ( fi ndi ng that be ca use de fe ndant w as c harg ed w iththe a tte m

pt t o m anuf

ac tur e ch ild pornog raphy , the G overnm ent had to prov e knowledge of the m inor’ s age; how ev er , c om

m en tin g th at

if the de fe ndant w er e ch ar ge d w iththe c om m iss ionof the c om ple te d of fe nse und er

§ 22 51, the G ove rn m en t w oul d no t have to pr ove15

know le dge of

the m ino r’ s a ge ); U

nited Sta tes v . U

. S. D ist
. Ct
. , 858 F . 2d 5 34, 538
- 41 ( 9thCi r. 198 8) ( ac know le dgi ng tha t sc ie nte r as to ag e is n ot an e le m en t of 18 U. S. C. § 225 1); H. R. R EP . N O . 99 -9 10 , at 6 (19 86 ), re pri nte d in 198 6 U . S. C. C. A . N . 595 2, 595 6 ( not ing that un de r § 22 51 the G ove rn m en t “ ne ed not pr ove that the de fe ndant a ct ua lly kne wthe pe rs on d ep ic te d w as in fa ct und er 18 y ears of a ge ”). D ev er so a lso arg ue s th at

he w as e nti tle d to am ist ak e of a ge j ur y ins tr uc tio n be ca use it is co nst itutio na lly

m an da te d. H e re lie s on U nited Sta tes D istric t C

ourt , 858 F. 2d at 53 7- 43, in w hic h th e N inth C ir cu it en gr af te d am ist ak e of

a ge de fe nse int o th e statut e af

te r co nc lud ing that su chade fe nse w as r equir ed und er the F ir st Am endm ent althoug h the statute didnot have a scienter of a ge elem ent. W e re j ect D ev er so’ s c ont en tio n and h old that the Co nst itutio n do es not m an da te am ist ak e of ag e d efen se un de r § 2 25 1. Se e U nited Sta tes v . Cr ow , 164 F. 3d 22 9, 236 (5th Cir. 1999 ) (f ind ing de fe ndant’ s c onst itutio na l c ha lle nge to § 22 51 m er itl es s) ; cf
. G ilm our v. R oge rso n , 11 7 F .3d36 8, 3 70 -7 3 (8 th Cir . 19 97 ) (co ns id eri ng Iowa statut e sim ilar to § 225 1 and c onc lud ing that the F ir st Am en dm en t do es not m andate a m istake of age defe nse to the offense of sexual exploitatio n of a m inor).We note, moreove r, that the Gove rnment’s inclusion of the w ord “kno wi n gl y ” in t he 2 indictment was mere surplusag e. Cong ress de fines the e lem en t s of an of fense , not the char g ing document. Surplusag e in an indi ctment m ay be deleted wit hout any leg al error. See U nited States v . W ar d , 486 F.3d 1212, 1227 ( 11th Cir.2007), cert. de nied, 128 S. Ct. 398 (2007). Fur t h ermore , wh e n the Go ve rnme nt e xpla ine d th at it ha d c ha rg e d “ kn ow ing ly” to m e an o nly that D e ve rs o mu st have “ knowing ly

produce d the i mag es, he knowing ly took the pictures,” Deve rso did not dispute that c on str uc tio n o f C ount T hr e e , n or did he argue that he ha d r e lie d o n th e la ngua g e of the c ha rg e in formulatinghis defense
. Se e Un ite d Sta te s v. Ca nc e lli e re , 69 F.3d 1116, 1121 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (n oti nge xce pti on

to t he g e ne ra l r

ule re g ard ingsurp lus a g e in t he ind ic tme nt wh e n a

de fe nd ant r e sts his entire def

ense on a n err oneously

char g ed surplus ele ment).

16 Ac cordingly , w e re

j ect D everso’ s argum ent that the district court erred in its j ury instructio n on Coun t Thre e. 2 C. M oti on f or j udgm en t of

ac qui tta l D ev er so c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti on f

or j udgm en t of

a cquitta l onCo unt

O ne , pos se ssi on o f m at er ia ls c ont ai nin g c hil d por nogr ap hy
. H e ar gue s th at the e vid en ce w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s co nvi ct ion
. H av ing r ev ie w ed the r ec or d, and t ak ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t, se e D ulc io , 441 F . 3d at 12 76, w e co nc lud e that the evidence wa s m ore than sufficient to supp ort De verso’ s convictio n on Coun t One. The e vidence showed that after his arrest, De verso adm itted to anot her inm at e that the dis ks b el onge d to him but that he int en de d to put

the blam e on h is
so n, an d t ha t h e h adha d s ex wit h u nd erag e g irl s wh il e h e was in th e Ph il ip pi ne s. A ddi tio na lly , an in ve sti ga tor te sti fi ed that so m e of

the c hil d po rn ogr ap hy contained on one of the disks had been found un der D everso’ s password-protected17

a c c o u n to nth e h ar d

dr i v e o f h i s c o mp u t e r . T h e i n v e s t i g a t o r a l s o s t a t e dth a ts o me of the c hil d po rn ogr ap hy

on t he dis ks c ont ai ne d th e sam e im ag es he ha d se enin oth er c hil d po rn ogr ap hy

inv es tig at ion s. D ev er so’ s so n te sti fi ed that no ne of

the
co m put er stu ff be lon ge d to him

and tha t hi s f

athe r’ s a cc ount

w as the onl y

a cc ount th atwas p as swo rd -p ro te ct ed
. A lth oughD ev er so t es tif

ie d and d en ie d any

kno w le dge of

the c hil d por nogr ap hy on the dis ks, the j ur

y w as f re e to d isb el ie ve his te sti m ony in lig ht o f th e e v i d en ce t o th e c o n tra ry. Gi v en th e o p p o rt u n i ty t o ev al u at e D ev er s o ’s de m eanor and c re dib ili ty , the j ur

y w as e nti tle d no t on ly

to dis be lie ve his te sti m ony bu t, i n fa ct , to fin d t ha t t he op po si te of h is tes ti m on y was t ru e. See U

nited Sta tes
v. Martinez , 83 F . 3d 3 71, 374 -7 5 ( 11th C ir
. 199 6) ; United States v. B rown , 53 F. 3d 31 2, 314-15 (11th Cir. 1995 ). T hus, De verso’ s testim ony in his own defense,
co upl ed w iththe c or

ro bor at ive e vid en ce of

his gui lt, sup ports the j ur y ’ s gu ilty ve rd ic t. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 390 F . 3d 1 319, 132 6 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) (“ Whe re s om e co rro bo rat iv e ev id en ce o f gu il t ex is ts forth e ch arg edoff en se . . . an dth e d ef

en d an tt ak es th e s t an di n[h i s ] ow nd ef en s e, th e [ d ]ef

en d an t ’s te st im on y , den y in g g ui lt , m ay est ab li sh , by it se lf, e le m en ts of t he off en se .”). Ac co rd i n g l y, we c o n cl u d e t h atth e d i s tri ctco u rtd i dn o terr i nd en yin g De v er s o ’s
m otion for j udgm ent of acquittal on Coun t One.18 V. C ONC LUS ION Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , w e af

fi rm D ev er so’ s c onvi ct ion s. AFFIRMED.