Court Opinion

ID: 9377391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-07 19:00:57.586329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.132074
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                               File Name: 23a0117n.06

                                       Case No. 22-5094

                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                           Mar 07, 2023
                                                    )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                              DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                    )
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                          )
                                                    )     ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v.                                                  )     STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
                                                    )     THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
DUSTIN R. STONE,                                    )     KENTUCKY
       Defendant-Appellant.                         )
                                                    )                                 OPINION

Before: GIBBONS, BUSH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

       MATHIS, Circuit Judge. After a jury trial, Dustin Stone was found guilty of attempting

to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity and committing a felony offense involving

a minor while under a reporting requirement. Stone appeals his convictions, arguing that the

evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.

                                               I.

       On November 21, 2018, Stone randomly texted Cynthia Benitez, a woman he did not know.

After only a few exchanged text messages, Benitez “got the vibe that [she] didn’t want to talk to

[Stone].” [R. 149, PageID 999–1000]. So when Stone (initially going by Dustin Conners) asked

Benitez her age, Benitez told Stone she was thirteen years old. Benitez hoped that Stone would

stop contacting her if he thought she was underage. But Stone didn’t stop. Instead, Stone asked

Benitez, whom he believed to be a thirteen-year-old girl, if she wanted to exchange pictures.
Case No. 22-5094, United States v. Stone

Benitez reported Stone’s disturbing behavior to the Paducah City Police Department immediately

after Stone requested to exchange pictures. Law enforcement directed Benitez to explain to Stone

that her mother monitored the original number he texted and to ask him to text a different phone

number; and Benitez complied.

       Thereafter, Detective Beau Green began communicating with Stone as “Cyndi,” a thirteen-

year-old girl. As they communicated, Stone continued to ask Cyndi to send him pictures of herself.

Det. Green sent a grainy image of a woman whom he believed appeared to look like a young girl,

but whose age was questionable. Stone told Cyndi that he loved her body and asked whether her

“boobs [were] big or small.” [R. 150, PageID 1044]. Cyndi responded that “[t]hey were kinda in

between” and that she “[had not] had them long.” [Id.]. Stone then asked Cyndi to show them to

him. When Cyndi asked Stone how old he was, he told her he was fifteen years old and again

asked her to send a picture of her chest.

       Eventually, Stone’s communications with Cyndi began to progress toward questions of

sexual activity. For instance, Stone asked Cyndi if she was a virgin and if she had ever performed

oral sex, and he continued to ask her to send naked pictures of herself. At one point, Cyndi refused

to send any pictures but agreed to talk to Stone. Stone called Cyndi and spoke with Officer

Cassandra Ravens, who took on Cyndi’s voice. Stone mentioned to Cyndi that she “sound[ed]

older.” [Id. at 1095–96]. As Stone’s messages became even more explicit, he began to ask Cyndi

to perform sexual acts with him. He also asked her if she wanted to “make a baby.” [Id. at 1067].

Cyndi told Stone she was “too young for that,” as she was only thirteen and did not want to get

pregnant. [Id. at 1052, 1067, 1069].

       On November 26, 2018, Stone began making plans to meet Cyndi, but also cautioned Cyndi

about getting caught. Cyndi assured him that she would not tell anyone if Stone would not, and

                                               -2-
Case No. 22-5094, United States v. Stone

Stone responded, “I ain’t telling no one.” [R. 43-1, Page ID 190; R. 150, PageID 1060]. As they

discussed where they would meet, Stone also questioned Cyndi about where they would have sex.

The two settled on meeting at the EZ Shop on Bridge Street in Paducah on December 3, 2018.

Stone also asked Cyndi to shave her legs and genital area, have her toes painted, and told her to

wear “something that [would] be easy to get off.” [R. 150, PageID 1062–63]. Stone again

cautioned Cyndi about getting caught, explaining to Cyndi that he did not want anyone to know

so he would not get in trouble. When Cyndi asked Stone why he would get in trouble, Stone

responded, “[b]ecause it’s illegal for a [sic] over the age of 18 person to be with an under the age

of 18 person, so no one can find out. Period.” [Id.].

       Stone showed up at the EZ Shop located in Paducah on December 3, 2018, and was

arrested. During the arrest, officers seized the vehicle he drove and a cell phone located in the

front passenger compartment. Stone confirmed to Det. Green that he was meeting Cyndi to have

sex with her. Law enforcement recovered deleted text messages during the forensic examination

of Stone’s phone.

       Detectives were able to identify Stone from a photograph of his driver’s license that he sent

Cyndi. Following Stone’s arrest, Det. Green discovered messages from Stone to two fourteen-

year-old girls that were also sexual in nature that had been sent in the weeks before he initiated

contact with Cyndi and continued during Det. Green’s investigation of Stone’s communications

with Cyndi.

       Det. Green testified that during the time he communicated with Stone as Cyndi, he

reiterated that Cyndi was thirteen years old through text messages and during telephone calls when

female officers impersonated Cyndi. Det. Green testified that Cyndi would also imply she was

underage by stating, “[she] was in school,” “[her] parents were close by,” and that she would have

                                               -3-
Case No. 22-5094, United States v. Stone

to sneak around – “things that would be a natural problem for a 13-year-old engaging in [that] kind

of conduct.” [Id. at 1068]. When Cyndi sent Stone a photograph of herself, Stone responded that

she looked older than thirteen. Cyndi, however, assured him it was her and explained that she took

the picture “one day before school.” [Id.]. At no point did Cyndi communicate to Stone that she

was “any[one] other than a 13-year-old girl.” [Id. at 1039].

       Stone was charged with attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Count I) and committing an offense against a minor while under

a reporting requirement as a registered sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A (Count II).

The district court bifurcated Counts I and II at trial. The district court first held a jury trial on

Count I, followed by the trial on Count II. Stone moved for a directed verdict of not guilty

notwithstanding the verdict as to Count I, which the district court denied. The jury found Stone

guilty on both counts.

                                                 II.

       We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal

notwithstanding the verdict. United States v. Hines, 398 F.3d 713, 719 (6th Cir. 2005). In

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975,

979 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

       To preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for appellate review, a defendant must

move for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c). Absent a

proper motion under Rule 29, we review unpreserved claims to determine whether there was a

manifest miscarriage of justice and will “only reverse a conviction if the record is devoid of

                                                -4-
Case No. 22-5094, United States v. Stone

evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Carnes, 309 F.3d 950, 956 (6th Cir. 2002)

(citing United States v. Abdullah, 162 F.3d 897, 903 (6th Cir. 1998)).

         Stone properly moved for a judgment of acquittal as to Count I, but he did not move for a

judgment of acquittal as to Count II. We therefore review his claims under the applicable

standards.

                                                         III.

         Stone challenges his conviction under Count I on the basis that he believed Cyndi was an

adult woman, not a thirteen-year-old girl, and therefore, he could not have violated 18 U.S.C.

§ 2422(b). A defendant violates § 2422(b) when the defendant knowingly persuades, induces,

entices, or coerces a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity “or attempts to do so[.]” 18 U.S.C.

§ 2422(b). To convict Stone at trial, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Stone

used interstate commerce in an attempt to knowingly persuade Cyndi to engage in sexual activity,

(2) Stone believed that Cyndi was younger than sixteen years old,1 and (3) if sexual activity had

occurred, Stone could have been charged with a criminal offense under Kentucky law. See United

States v. Hart, 635 F.3d 850, 855 (6th Cir. 2011). We have held that a defendant violates § 2422(b)

“even if the targeted minor is not a real person as long as the defendant demonstrates that he is, or

is attempting to, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the minor to engage in sexual activity.” United

States v. Roman, 795 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); see United States v.

Hackworth, 483 F. App’x 972, 978 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding a conviction under § 2422(b) where

1
  Although § 2422(b) forbids enticing an individual who is under eighteen, the age of consent in Kentucky is sixteen,
and a § 2422(b) violation requires that the defendant entice the individual to “engage in . . . any sexual activity for
which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.” Therefore, the federal statute is applied through the lens
of Kentucky law. See United States v. Zulawski, No. 20-5577, 2022 WL 247742, at *8 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2022). Per
the Sixth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions § 16.09 (“Use Note”), if the offense has an age standard of less than 18
years, the younger age or age range should be substituted.

                                                        -5-
Case No. 22-5094, United States v. Stone

the defendant attempted to entice an undercover agent posing as a minor female to engage in sexual

activity). On appeal, Stone only challenges whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that

he knew Cyndi was younger than sixteen years old.

        The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Stone

believed Cyndi was younger than sixteen years old. Cyndi told Stone (in text messages and in

conversations where officers posed as Cyndi) that she was thirteen. When Stone asked Cyndi if

she wanted to have a child with him, Cyndi responded that she was too young to get pregnant.

And at various times, Cyndi would tell Stone that she was with her parents or at school.

        Stone argues that the Government failed to establish that he believed Cyndi was thirteen

years old because Stone mentioned that the officer posing as Cyndi sounded older than thirteen

and because the picture that Cyndi sent Stone was of an adult woman. But Stone’s statement to

Cyndi that “it’s illegal for a [sic] over the age of 18 person to be with an under the age of 18 person,

so no one can find out” indicated he believed Cyndi was under the legal age for consensual sex.

Although Stone incorrectly referenced eighteen as the statutory age of consent, he continued to

pursue sex with Cyndi even after she denied being older than thirteen. Based on the totality of the

evidence presented at trial, we conclude that a reasonable juror could find Stone believed that he

was communicating with someone who was under the age of sixteen, not an adult.

                                                  IV.

        Stone next argues his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2260A must be reversed if we reverse

his conviction under § 2422(b). Because we uphold Stone’s § 2422(b) conviction and because

Stone makes no other challenge to his § 2260A conviction, we will not disturb that conviction.

                                                  V.

        For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Stone’s convictions.

                                                 -6-