Decided: August 19, 2015The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court and held that 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) is constitutional because of the Foreign Commerce Clause. Defendant, Larry Bollinger (“Bollinger”), is an ordained Lutheran minister who moved to Hati in 2004 to run a large ministry outside of Port Au Prince with his wife.

United States v. Stokes, No. 11-2734. On appeal from a conviction for traveling in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in a sex act with a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), the defendant argued that a procedural mistake was made in his extradition from Thailand and the legality of a search. The extradition error involved the Rule of Specialty, which holds that a nation securing the return of a person pursuant to an extradition treaty may prosecute the extradited person only for the crime or crimes named in the surrendering country’s extradition grant.

The Seventh Circuit determined that it would make no sense to impose a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for conduct which does not involve a “sexual act,” and only meets undefined term “sexual activity” which could even apply to conduct which involves no touching at all.United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010)The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423, transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent that the individual engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. This statute is the offspring of the original Mann Act, which dealt primarily with transporting prostitutes across state lines.

United States v. Weingarten, 632 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2011)The sex tourism statute, 18 U.S.C. §2423, does not make it a crime to travel between two foreign countries with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct. There must be some territorial nexus to the United States.

In this case, the government failed to prove that there were three or more people acting in concert with the defendant.United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010)The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423, transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent that the individual engaged in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. This statute is the offspring of the original Mann Act, which dealt primarily with transporting prostitutes across state lines.

The U.S. Congress has a far greater duty to protect children than to protect the nation’s highways from “clunkers.”SOURCES:1/ 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). 2/ 18 U.S.C. § 2423 (c) 3/ http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/trafficking.html 4/ United States v. Jackson, 480 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2007) 5/ http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090715_klarevas_buckley.html 6/ http://www.state.

In 1997, when Doe was sixteen years old, he took her on a month-long trip from their home in Israel to Brooklyn, during which time he sexually abused her. Weingarten’s abuse eventually came to the attention of federal authorities, and in 2008 he was indicted in the Eastern District of New York for transporting a minor in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423. In 1997, when Weingarten committed the offense, the relevant statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3283, provided that a defendant could be prosecuted for a federal offense involving child abuse within either (1) the default five-year limitations period for federal offenses; or (2) until the child reached the age of 25, whichever occurred later.

SORNA excludes foreign countries from its definition of “jurisdiction.”The Tenth Circuit’s AnalysisIn 2003, petitioner Lester Ray Nichols was convicted of traveling interstate with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (sex with a minor), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Following his release from prison and until 2012, Nichols regularly complied with his registration obligations under both Kansas law and SORNA.

United States v. Burt, 143 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 1998)The trial court gave the improper pre-Jacobson entrapment instruction that improperly explained the burden of proof with regard to the element of predisposition.United States v. Gamache, 156 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998)The defendant was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) – traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in a sexual act with a person under the age of 18. This case began with a “sting” operation in which a police officer posed as a “mother” on the internet, seeking a man to “educate” her children about sex.

The court held that 46 U.S.C. § 70503, therefore, was unconstitutional.United States v. Weingarten, 632 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2011)18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) makes it a crime to travel in foreign commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. The Second Circuit held that travel that has no connection to the United States, however, does not qualify.