Court Opinion

ID: 9912627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-22 21:00:38.399402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:00:45.370094
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4740

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALIF JAN ADIL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:21-cr-00277-TSE-1)

        Submitted: December 19, 2023                                Decided: December 21, 2023

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, Cadence A. Mertz, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE
        OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica
        D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Nicholas J. Patterson, Assistant
        United States Attorney, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               A federal jury convicted Alif Jan Adil of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3); coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(A), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Adil to a total of 150 months’

        imprisonment. On appeal, Adil argues that the district court plainly erred in instructing the

        jury on the elements of the § 2422(b) offense. The Government contends that Adil waived

        this claim. We affirm.

               “A waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”

        United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks

        omitted)). “Waiver is to be distinguished from forfeiture, which is the failure to make the

        timely assertion of a right.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a claim is

        waived, it is not reviewable on appeal, even for plain error.” Id. “Rather, a valid waiver

        means that there was no error at all.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We conclude that Adil waived the claim he raises on appeal. While Adil now

        contends that the jury was required to find that he knew the age of the victim in order to

        find him guilty of the § 2422(b) offense, his decision to concede to the district court that

        the jury was not required to find this element “did not stem from an inadvertent error.”

        Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 474 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, on

        multiple occasions, Adil “deliberately steered the [d]istrict [c]ourt away from the question”

        by telling the court “in no uncertain terms” that the court was not required to instruct the

        jury in the manner that Adil now claims was necessary. Id. Therefore, we conclude that

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4740      Doc: 36        Filed: 12/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        Adil waived any challenge to the district court’s instruction on the knowledge-of-age

        requirement for a § 2422(b) conviction, and his claim is thus not reviewable on appeal.

              Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral

        argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

        before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                    3