United States v. Benjamin Larue

275 F. App'x 565
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 2, 2008
Docket07-1737
StatusUnpublished

This text of 275 F. App'x 565 (United States v. Benjamin Larue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Benjamin Larue, 275 F. App'x 565 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Benjamin J. Larue guilty of using interstate commerce to attempt to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity for which he could be criminally charged (Count One), and traveling in interstate commerce to attempt to engage in illicit sexual conduct (Count Two), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b) and 2423(b). The district court 1 sentenced him to 60 months in prison, which was the statutory minimum in effect for Count One when Larue committed the crimes in June 2004, and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that there was no evidence presented that Larue would have actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor.

*566 We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of the government, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Bir-dine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir.2008). We hold that the evidence was sufficient to find Larue guilty on both counts. The government introduced at trial evidence of online conversations between Larue and an individual who purported to be a 14-year-old girl, in which Larue suggested that they engage in various sexual acts when her mother was not home, and obtained directions from a town in Kansas to her apartment in Missouri. The evidence further showed that he then drove to the apartment and knocked on the door. See United States v. Patten, 397 F.3d 1100, 1102-03 (8th Cir.2005) (for § 2422(b) conviction, jury could reasonably infer from defendant’s online conversation and travel to meet minor that he intended to persuade minor to engage in sexual activity); United States v. Blazek, 431 F.3d 1104, 1108 (8th Cir.2005) (for § 2423(b) conviction, government had to show defendant traveled in interstate commerce with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(f)).

We have carefully reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no frivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
United States v. Casey Scott Patten
397 F.3d 1100 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)
United States v. Birdine
515 F.3d 842 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
United States v. Michael David Blazek
431 F.3d 1104 (Eighth Circuit, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
275 F. App'x 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-benjamin-larue-ca8-2008.