United States of America v. Alif Adil

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.

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