United States v. Anthony Lawrence

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10405

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY RAY LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cr-00439-MHH-NAD-1

____________________

Before GRANT, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ray Lawrence appeals his conviction for attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He argues that the district court

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10405

should have required the jury to specify in a special-verdict form which underlying state offense supported his § 2422(b) conviction. The problem, which Lawrence recognizes, is that our precedent forecloses that argument. In United States v. Jockisch, we held that when the government relies on multiple potential state predicate offenses to convict a defendant under § 2422(b), the jury need not unanimously agree about which sex offense the defendant’s intended conduct would have violated. 857 F.3d 1122, 1131 (11th Cir. 2017). So the district court here did not abuse its discretion when it failed to require the jury to specify which sex offense Lawrence would have violated had his attempt ripened into completed conduct.

Lawrence responds that Jockisch was wrongly decided. But our prior-panel precedent rule shuts that argument down, too. See United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Lawrence’s challenge to his conviction fails.

* * *

We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.