United States v. Mitchell Shane Hooks , 353 F. App'x 320 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Nov. 19, 2009
No. 09-11275 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 08-00223-CR-CG
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL SHANE HOOKS,
a.k.a. Superfreak2096,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(November 19, 2009)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARCUS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Mitchell Shane Hooks appeals his convictions for one count of
traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), and one count of using facilities of
interstate commerce, to wit: a computer connected to the internet and a cellular
phone service, to knowingly attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce an
individual to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2422(b). Hooks became involved in an undercover law enforcement operation
where an officer used the persona of a 13-year-old girl in an online chatroom.
Hooks, using the name “superfreak2096,” chatted with “Kaitlyn” (a.k.a. Duncan
Herrington, Project Safe Childhood task force) and set up a meeting for sex.
On appeal, Hooks argues that, based his testimony regarding the age Kaitlyn
looked in a photograph the undercover officer sent to him, as well as his own
testimony regarding his intention not to have sex with anyone underage, it was
unreasonable for the jury to find him guilty of the offenses.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal on sufficiency of evidence grounds where, as here, the issue is preserved
below. United States v. Yates, 438 F.3d 1307, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government, with all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.
United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). We must affirm the
2
convictions unless the jury could not have found, under any reasonable
construction of the evidence, the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.Furthermore, when a defendant chooses to testify, it is the jury’s prerogative to
either believe or disbelieve his testimony. United States v. Sharif, 893 F.2d 1212,
1214 (11th Cir. 1990).
A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant (1) traveled to another state; (2) for the purpose of
engaging in any illicit sexual conduct; (3) with just a person under 18 years old.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) and (f). A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) requires
proof that the defendant “using the internet [or a cellular telephone], acted with a
specific intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful
sex.” United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C.
§ 2422(b).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
the district court did not err in denying Hooks’s motion for judgment of acquittal
because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his convictions.
The evidence showed that Hooks traveled from Mississippi to Alabama to
meet Kaitlyn; that the recorded chats indicate that Hooks thought Kaitlyn was 13
years old; and that Hooks asked Kaitlyn to have sex with him. Furthermore, there
is no dispute that Hooks used a computer and cell phone to engage in unlawful sex.
3
Accordingly, we affirm Hooks’s convictions because under a reasonable
construction of the evidence a jury could have found him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.
4