United States v. Lindsay

24 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Flucas

    22 F.4th 1149 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that although the court in Lindsay reviewed the district court for plain error, the court "found none"

    Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In United States v. Lindsay , 931 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 2019), we applied Lukashov and rejected a challenge to a jury instruction delineating the intent requirements for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423. In that case, the district court instructed the jury that:

  2. United States v. Pepe

    81 F.4th 961 (9th Cir. 2023)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the Ninth Circuit had "approved 'motivating purpose' as an instruction for § 2423(b)'s mens rea requirement for the pre-2018 version of the statute" and suggesting that Congress may have amended the statute "to clarify and confirm what had always been true—that a 'motivating purpose' is sufficient for conviction"

    For both statutes, the government must prove that the improper purpose was a "dominant, significant, or motivating purpose" of the defendant's travel. Lukashov, 694 F.3d at 1118-19 (discussing § 2241(c)); United States v. Lindsay, 931 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 2019) (discussing § 2423(b)); see also United States v. Flucas, 22 F.4th 1149, 1156-57 (9th Cir.) (noting that although the court in Lindsay reviewed the district court for plain error, the court "found none"), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 320, 214 L.Ed.2d 143 (2022)

  3. United States v. Sebastian

    20-cr-10170-DJC (D. Mass. Feb. 23, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    Also helpful on this score are several appellate court decisions addressing Foreign Commerce Clause challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) and § 1591(a)(1). See, e.g., United States v. Park, 938 F.3d 354, 370-74 (D.C. Cir. 2019); United States v. Lindsay, 931 F.3d 852, 860-63 (9th Cir. 2019); United States v. Durham, 902 F.3d 1180, 1192-1217 (10th Cir. 2018); United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 666-669 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201, 20819 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 790-94 (6th Cir. 2015); United States v. Pendleton, 658 F.3d 299, 305-11 (3d Cir. 2011); United States v. Bianchi, 386 Fed.Appx. 156, 160-62 (3d Cir. 2010); United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1110-17 (9th Cir. 2006). To analyze such challenges, most of these courts relied upon the Interstate Commerce Clause framework announced in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).

  4. United States v. Rife

    33 F.4th 838 (6th Cir. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    All circuit courts to have considered this issue, save us, have found that the Foreign Commerce Clause provides Congress the power to enact § 2423(c). See Park , 938 F.3d at 375 ; United States v. Lindsay , 931 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1288, 206 L.Ed.2d 268 (2020) ; Durham , 902 F.3d at 1216 ; Bollinger , 798 F.3d at 219 ; Pendleton , 658 F.3d at 308. As discussed above, there has not been universal agreement on the proper reach of the Foreign Commerce Clause, especially with respect to the framework established in Interstate Commerce Clause cases.

  5. United States v. Arbaugh

    CRIMINAL ACTION 5:17-cr-00025 (W.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2023)

    See United States v. Lindsay, 931 F.3d 852, 862-863 (9th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Al-Maliki, 787 F.3d 784, 794 (6th Cir. 2015) (“No circuit court has declared § 2423(c) unconstitutional.”).

  6. United States v. Ghanem

    993 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2021)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that defendant waived argument supporting due-process claim because he failed to cite relevant case law

    He did not preserve these claims below, so we review them for plain error.United States v. Lindsay , 931 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 2019). To be plain, an error must be "clear" or "obvious."

  7. United States v. Park

    938 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2019)   Cited 9 times
    Finding criminalization of commercial and non-commercial sex acts with minors under § 2423(c) is necessary and proper for the implementation of the Optional Protocol

    "If Americans believe that traveling to a particular foreign country includes the opportunity for unregulated, non-commercial illicit sexual conduct, they may travel to that country when they otherwise would not ...." United States v. Lindsay , 931 F.3d 852, 863 (9th Cir. 2019) ; see also United States v. Pendleton , 658 F.3d 299, 311 (3d Cir. 2011). The "Constitution does not envision or condone" such "a vacuum" of power in which "citizens may commit acts abroad that would clearly be crimes if committed at home."

  8. United States v. Rife

    429 F. Supp. 3d 363 (E.D. Ky. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    Circuit Courts analyzing § 2423 typically uphold it pursuant to Congress's Foreign Commerce Clause powers, Congress's treaty power, or both. SeeUnited States v. Park , 938 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (finding criminalization of commercial and non-commercial sex acts with minors under § 2423(c) is necessary and proper for the implementation of the Optional Protocol); United States v. Lindsay , 931 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding § 2423(c) did not exceed Congress's authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause as applied to non-commercial sexual abuse of a minor); United States v. Al-Maliki , 787 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2015) (upholding conviction under non-commercial prong of § 2423(c) under plain error review); United States v. Pendleton , 658 F.3d 299, 311 (3rd Cir. 2011) (holding § 2423(c) is a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate "channels of foreign commerce" under the Foreign Commerce Clause). Mr. Rife argues that neither provides Congress the authority to criminalize conduct like that at issue here.

  9. United States v. Stackhouse

    105 F.4th 1193 (9th Cir. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    United States v. Flucas, 22 F.4th 1149, 1164 (9th Cir. 2022). The criminal purpose need not be the "sole purpose" of the interstate travel, id. at 1155, nor a but-for cause of the transportation, United States v. Lindsay, 931 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 2019) (analyzing 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).

  10. United States v. Rosenow

    33 F.4th 529 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 33 times
    Finding " Carpenter is distinguishable" and applying third-party doctrine

    Similarly, in United States v. Lindsay , we found no "obvious error" where the district court instructed the jury to apply the "dominant, significant, or motivating" standard to an offense prohibiting travel "for the purpose of" engaging in illicit sex. 931 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 2019). In sum, we conclude that the jury was properly instructed on Count 1.