U.S. v. Rothenberg

188 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Roberts

    CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1:17-cr-00183-MHC-RGV (N.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    To support his contention, Roberts asserts that the "[Eleventh] Circuit, among others, has held that speech about molesting a child under 18 is, in [and] of itself, sufficient to satisfy the attempt element in the statute," and that because of such a broad interpretation, "an individual engaging in fantasy sexual role-play, with no actual intent to molest a child or intent to attempt to molest a child, can be arrested, indicted, and convicted based on their speech alone." [Id. at 6-7 (emphasis omitted) (citing United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2010))]. In response, the government asserts that Roberts' First Amendment arguments are foreclosed by Eleventh Circuit precedent, which Roberts has mis-characterized.

  2. United States v. Syed

    616 F. App'x 973 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 7 times

    We have explained that the very nature of persuading, inducing, or enticing engagement in unlawful sexual activity "necessarily contemplates oral or written communications as the principal if not the exclusive means of committing the offense." United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming the district court's sentence enhancements for § 2422(b)-type conduct because the defendant's chats instructed adults on how to molest young children and persuade the children to comply with the abuse). When determining whether the record supports a finding that the defendant took a substantial step in furtherance of a § 2422(b) violation, however, we look at the totality of the defendant's conduct.

  3. United States v. Hopkins

    603 F. App'x 800 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    For Sentencing Guidelines issues, we review "purely legal questions de novo," and a district judge's "factual findings for clear error." United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). In most cases, a judge's application of the Guidelines to the facts is reviewed with due deference, which is "tantamount to clear error review."

  4. United States v. Chandler

    No. 22-12620 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023)

    We review a district court's legal interpretation de novo, and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). A determination that a defendant possessed a gun "in connection with" another felony is a factual finding that we review for clear error.

  5. United States v. Noble

    No. 21-10633 (11th Cir. Oct. 26, 2021)

    To the contrary, Noble argues that he did not "cross the line between sexual banter and persuasion" as this court provided in United States v. Rothenberg because his conversation with "smokingkittens2011," did not include an explicit request for her to sexually abuse her child. See 610 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2010). As such, there was insufficient evidence to establish Noble attempted to violate § 2422(b) and, therefore, he should not receive a five-level offense enhancement.

  6. United States v. Isaac

    987 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2021)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that "[t]he court appropriately considered" that the defendant may not have understood the severity of his crimes or been remorseful

    When reviewing guidelines issues, we review legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts with due deference, which is "tantamount to clear error review." United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. Alfaro, 555 F.3d 496, 498–99 (5th Cir. 2009) (reviewing district court's factfinding and application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(5) for clear error). "For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

  7. United States v. Thornburg

    No. 18-10440 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2019)

    This is a fact-intensive analysis that does not categorically require any particular activity or course of conduct on the part of the defendant. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 627 (11th Cir. 2010). This Court has explained that the "very nature of the underlying offense—persuading, inducing, or enticing engagement in unlawful sexual activity—necessarily contemplates oral or written communications as the principal if not the exclusive means of committing the offense."

  8. United States v. Castleberry

    594 F. App'x 612 (11th Cir. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    When considering guidelines issues, we review legal questions de novo, factual findings for clear error, and application of the guidelines to the facts with due deference to the discretion of the district judge. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). But we review only for plain error objections raised for the first time on appeal.

  9. United States v. McCoy

    No. 22-13451 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    "For a finding to be clearly erroneous, this Court must be left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted).

  10. United States v. Chugay

    No. 22-12984 (11th Cir. Apr. 9, 2024)

    II. When reviewing the district court's findings with respect to Sentencing Guidelines issues, we consider legal issues de novo, factual findings for clear error, and the court's application of the Guidelines to the facts with due deference, which is akin to clear error review. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010). The district court's imposition of an aggravating role enhancement is a factual finding that we review for clear error.