Case Number: 22-4740

Judge: Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Nicholas J. Patterson, Assistant United States Attorney, Jacqueline R. Bechara, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia

Defendant's Attorney: Geremy C. Kamens
Frances H. Pratt
Cadence A. Mertz,

Description: A federal jury convicted Alif Jan Adil of abusive sexual contact, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2244(a)(3); coercion or enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(A), (b)(2). The district court sentenced Adil to a total of 150 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Adil argues that the district court plainly erred in instructing the
jury on the elements of the § 2422(b) offense. The Government contends that Adil waived
this claim. We affirm.
“A waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.”
United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). “Waiver is to be distinguished from forfeiture, which is the failure to make the
timely assertion of a right.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]hen a claim is
waived, it is not reviewable on appeal, even for plain error.” Id. “Rather, a valid waiver
means that there was no error at all.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that Adil waived the claim he raises on appeal. While Adil now
contends that the jury was required to find that he knew the age of the victim in order to
find him guilty of the § 2422(b) offense, his decision to concede to the district court that
the jury was not required to find this element “did not stem from an inadvertent error.”
Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 474 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, on
multiple occasions, Adil “deliberately steered the [d]istrict [c]ourt away from the question”
by telling the court “in no uncertain terms” that the court was not required to instruct the
jury in the manner that Adil now claims was necessary.

Outcome: Therefore, we conclude that
3
Adil waived any challenge to the district court’s instruction on the knowledge-of-age
requirement for a § 2422(b) conviction, and his claim is thus not reviewable on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRME

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: