Court Opinion

ID: 9890445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 00:00:35.294771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:16.622298
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50242      Document: 00516929731         Page: 1     Date Filed: 10/12/2023

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                           United States Court of Appeals
                                                                          Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                           FILED
                                                                 October 12, 2023
                                  No. 22-50242
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________
                                                                        Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                              Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                       versus

   Martin Renteria,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:20-CR-355-1
                   ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
   Jerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge:
          Martin Renteria was charged with and convicted of (1) producing
   child pornography, (2) committing that offense while being required to reg-
   ister as a sex offender, (3) possessing child pornography, and (4) sex traffick-
   ing of a child. All four charges involved his conduct with “Minor Victim-1”
   or “the Minor.”
          Renteria appeals his conviction for Count 4, sex trafficking of a child.
   He maintains that in light of Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014),
   18 U.S.C. § 1591 should not be interpreted to reach his conduct, which he
Case: 22-50242      Document: 00516929731            Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                      No. 22-50242

   terms a “purely local sex offense[].” We disagree.

                                           I.
          Wanting to earn money, the Minor approached Renteria, a neighbor,
   and asked him whether there were any odd jobs he could do. Over the course
   of several weeks, the Minor mowed Renteria’s lawn, washed his car, and
   completed other chores. During that time, Renteria provided the Minor with
   several items, such as a bike and a hoverboard, and took him to eat at fast food
   restaurants. It was later discovered (via a cell phone recording and testimony
   from the Minor) that Renteria had molested the Minor four times during
   those weeks.
          Renteria was arrested by the state authorities and charged with the
   state offenses of indecency with a child and aggravated sexual assault of a
   child. He was then charged with two federal charges and later with a super-
   seding federal indictment.
           Renteria moved to dismiss Count 4 of the superseding indictment
   because the grounds charged did not constitute federal sex trafficking. The
   district court denied his motion. At trial, testimony and evidence were
   offered to show that the gifts were given in exchange for the sexual acts as
   distinguished from the chores done. Renteria then moved for a judgment of
   acquittal, which was denied.
          The jury found Renteria guilty, and he was sentenced to life imprison-
   ment for Count 4. He now appeals.

                                           II.
          The parties disagree about the standard of review. Questions of statu-
   tory interpretation are reviewed de novo if properly objected to at the district
   court, but for plain error if the defendant raises the objection for the first time
   on appeal. United States v. Knowlton, 993 F.3d 354, 357 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                           2
Case: 22-50242      Document: 00516929731          Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                    No. 22-50242

          The parties dispute whether Renteria properly objected at the district
   court level. We need not resolve that dispute. Even under a de novo standard
   of review, we would affirm Renteria’s conviction. Thus, we will assume
   without deciding that Renteria properly objected and adopt a de novo standard
   of review.

                                         III.
                                         A.
          Bond is a “curious case.” 572 U.S. at 860. There, a woman tried to
   poison her neighbor and was charged with “possessing and using a chemical
   weapon.” Id. at 852. The government explicitly waived any reliance on
   interstate commerce, instead justifying its authority on the treaty power of
   the United States. Id. at 854–55. As in this case, Bond made a two-pronged
   argument: First, that extending the statute to her actions would be unconsti-
   tutional, and second, that Congress couldn’t possibly have intended the stat-
   ute to criminalize behavior such as hers. Id. at 853.
          The Court stated that “[p]art of a fair reading of statutory text is rec-
   ognizing that Congress legislates against the backdrop of certain unexpressed
   presumptions,” one of which is the “relationship between the Federal Gov-
   ernment and the States.” Id. at 857 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted). Therefore, “‘it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain
   of Congress’s intent before finding that federal law overrides’ the usual
   constitutional balance of federal and state powers.” Id. at 858 (quoting Greg-
   ory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991)).
          The upshot is this: If reading an otherwise ambiguous term in one way
   would cause an “intrus[ion] on the police power of the States,” id. at 860
   (citing United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971)), and “significantly
   change the federal-state balance,” id. at 859 (alterations omitted) (quoting
   Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 858 (2000)), then we require a clear

                                          3
Case: 22-50242        Document: 00516929731             Page: 4      Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                         No. 22-50242

   indication that Congress meant to reach purely local crimes. But we must be
   cautious. “Bond does not give courts a free-floating power to create statutory
   exemptions anytime a judge thinks Congress would have exempted a certain
   activity had anyone asked.” Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Inc., 986 F.3d 536, 539
   (5th Cir. 2021).

                                              B.
           The government makes two arguments that would prevent us from
   even reaching an analysis under Bond. First, it contends that Bond does not
   apply to statutes, like § 1591, that contain an interstate commerce element.
   Second, the government posits that this circuit’s precedent forecloses re-
   interpreting § 1591 in light of Bond. We do not resolve these questions here
   because Renteria’s conduct falls within the ambit of § 1591 even when viewed
   through the Bond framework.

                                              C.
           Overturning Renteria’s conviction under Bond requires him to show
   three things: (1) that allowing his conviction would “significantly change the
   federal-state balance,” 572 U.S. at 859; (2) that Congress has not included a
   clear indication that they meant to reach “purely local crimes,” id. at 860;
   and (3) that his is a purely local crime. Without expressing any view on (1) or
   (3), we determine that Renteria has failed to demonstrate (2). Congress
   included a clear indication that § 1591 is meant to reach “purely local
   crimes.” Id. at 859–60.1

           _____________________
           1
            To be clear: We today decide merely that this reach extends only to “purely local
   crimes” for which the government has established a connection to interstate commerce. It
   undoubtedly has done so here. Renteria used the Internet to show the Minor bikes, to
   search for a video game for him, and to show him pornography. Renteria used a cellphone
   made in Vietnam to search for bikes to show the Minor, to film the Minor, to time him
   performing sexual acts, and to coordinate with his parents. And Renteria bought the Minor

                                               4
Case: 22-50242           Document: 00516929731         Page: 5   Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                        No. 22-50242

           Our circuit has found an implied local-crime exception under Bond
   before. In United States v. Perez, 43 F.4th 437 (5th Cir. 2022), we concluded
   that Congress’s prohibition on biological warfare “does include the same
   local-crime exception” as does the prohibition on chemical weapons in Bond.
   Id. at 441. The similarity between the statutes at issue in Bond and Perez is
   striking. Both “originate in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and both are treaty-
   implementing statutes,” id. (quoting United States v. Levenderis, 806 F.3d
   390, 397 (6th Cir. 2015)), and both are about weapons that are similarly
   accessible, cf. id.
           But unlike the statutes at issue in Bond and Perez, § 1591 uses the
   phrase “in or affecting . . . commerce .” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). And “[t]he
   phrase ‘affecting commerce’ indicates Congress’ intent to regulate to the
   outer limits of its authority under the Commerce Clause.” Circuit City
   Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 115 (2001).
           But, in that respect, Renteria’s case is more like the unpublished case
   United States v. Looney, 606 F. App’x 744, 747 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
   Looney interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which prohibits the production of
   child pornography “using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or trans-
   ported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” With respect to
   § 2251(a), and “[u]nlike . . . in Bond, there is every indication that Congress
   intended to exercise all its power to regulate child pornography, including
   punishing purely local conduct so long as the minimal jurisdictional hook is
   satisfied.” Id. Section 1591 is similar. The inclusion of the phrase “in or
   affecting . . . commerce” evinces Congress’s intent to punish even purely
   local crimes (at least insofar as the government can establish a connection
   between the crime and interstate commerce, as it did here). 18 U.S.C.

           _____________________
   a bike that had been made outside of Texas.

                                                 5
Case: 22-50242      Document: 00516929731          Page: 6    Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                    No. 22-50242

   § 1591(a)(1).
          Renteria points to two decisions that interpreted statutes that did
   include “in or affecting commerce language” and that Bond favorably dis-
   cussed. See 572 U.S. at 859. The first is United States v. Bass, in which the
   Court interpreted “a statute that prohibited any convicted felon from
   ‘receiv[ing], possess[ing], or transport[ing] in commerce or affecting com-
   merce . . . any firearm.’” Id. (quoting Bass, 404 U.S. at 337).
          But Renteria’s reliance on Bass is misplaced. In that case, the govern-
   ment wanted the Court to interpret the statute to “bar[] felons from pos-
   sessing all firearms” even when the government could not “demonstrate a
   connection to interstate commerce.” Bond, 572 U.S. at 859. The Court
   rejected the government’s proposed interpretation, refusing to read an inter-
   state element out of the statute. See id.
          Crucially, that is not what Renteria seeks. The government prose-
   cuted Renteria for a crime that did have a connection to interstate commerce.
   In that respect, a “narrowed” reading of § 1591 à la Bass would still capture
   Renteria’s conduct.
          Moreover, Renteria makes a strange argument that Bass requires
   narrowing § 1591 to cases where “conduct is [] suited to federal criminal [jur-
   isdiction] alone.” That is, since Renteria’s conduct “is punishable under
   Texas law, as is appropriate for matters of traditionally local concern,” Bass
   counsels interpreting the statute not to capture his conduct. But Renteria’s
   argument places an unreasonable emphasis on one word in Bass. The Court
   in Bass said that its narrowing of the statute in that case “preserve[d] as an
   element of all the offenses a requirement suited to federal criminal jurisdic-
   tion alone.” 404 U.S. at 351 (emphasis added).
          Renteria’s interpretation badly misreads this statement. The most
   natural reading of the passage is an observation that a connection to interstate

                                          6
Case: 22-50242         Document: 00516929731              Page: 7       Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                          No. 22-50242

   commerce is suitable only as an element of federal criminal jurisdiction (i.e.
   that it is not a suitable element of state criminal jurisdiction.) This is not the
   same as requiring that whatever the federal government seeks to reach with
   its commerce power be unreachable by state power. And this court has
   rejected just that deduction. See, e.g., Looney, 606 F. App’x at 746 (Looney
   was charged with state and federal crimes for child pornography related con-
   duct where the federal statute relied on a commerce hook.).
           Renteria also relies on Jones v. United States, in which the Court inter-
   preted the federal arson statute to exclude private residences. See 529 U.S.
   at 859. The statute in Jones prohibited arson against “any building . . . used
   in . . . commerce or in any activity affecting . . . commerce.” Id. at 853
   (emphasis added) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (1994 ed., Supp. IV)). Rather
   than endorsing the government’s argument that this included private owner-
   occupied residences, the Court required a demonstration that the building in
   question was “currently used in commerce or in an activity affecting com-
   merce.” Id. at 859. In doing so, the Court seemed to acknowledge that
   “‘affecting . . . commerce’ . . . when unqualified signal[s] Congress’ intent
   to invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause.” Id. at 854 (citations
   omitted). It then distinguished the federal arson statute: “But § 844(i) con-
   tains the qualifying words ‘used in’ a commerce-affecting activity. The key
   word is ‘used.’” Id. (citations omitted). That key word is absent from the
   relevant part of § 1591 and from the law in Bass, 404 U.S. at 337 n.1.2 Plainly
   put, the Court’s somewhat restrictive inquiry of what it means to be “used
   in commerce,” Jones, 529 U.S. at 859, is inapposite here.

           _____________________
           2
             It is present in the relevant part of § 2251, cf. Looney, 606 F. App’x at 745. That
   statute, however, does not require “use in commerce” but use of “materials . . . mailed,
   shipped or transported” in commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). As the conclusion reached by
   our court in that case demonstrates, this is not the same inquiry as the one in Jones.

                                                7
Case: 22-50242      Document: 00516929731           Page: 8    Date Filed: 10/12/2023

                                     No. 22-50242

          This court is not alone in adopting a broader interpretation of § 1591
   despite Bond. The Ninth Circuit has rejected arguments like those that Ren-
   teria raises, concluding that the interstate commerce element of § 1591 and
   its legislative history demonstrated Congress’s clear intent to reach sex traf-
   ficking at all levels. See United States v. Walls, 784 F.3d 543, 546–47 (9th Cir.
   2015). Because Congress included a clear indication that § 1591 is meant to
   reach “purely local crimes,” Renteria’s argument under Bond fails.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          8