FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 29, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 16-6075 MATTHEW LANE DURHAM, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00231-R-1) _________________________________ Stephen Jones (Ashley Morey with him on the brief), Jones, Otjen, Davis & Bloyd, Enid, Oklahoma, for Defendant - Appellant. Steven W. Creager, Assistant United States Attorney (David P. Petermann, Assistant United States Attorney, and Mark Yancey, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff - Appellee. _________________________________ Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ MATHESON, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 2 A. Factual Background ................................................................................ 2 B. Procedural Background ........................................................................... 6 II. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 8 A. Issue One: Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) under the Foreign Commerce Clause ..................................................................... 8 1. Section 2423(c) and Congress’s Efforts to Combat Sex Trafficking .... 9 a. Provisions of the statutory scheme .................................................. 10 b. Early efforts to combat sex trafficking ........................................... 12 c. Legislative history leading to passage of § 2423(c) ........................ 14 i. Enactment of § 2423(b) ............................................................... 14 ii. Enactment of § 2423(c) .............................................................. 15 2. The Commerce Clause ....................................................................... 18 a. ICC case law ................................................................................... 19 i. Channels ...................................................................................... 19 ii. Instrumentalities ......................................................................... 20 iii. Substantial effect ....................................................................... 20 i b. FCC case law .................................................................................. 22 3. Congressional Authority Broader Under the FCC than the ICC ......... 24 a. History ............................................................................................ 25 b. Text ................................................................................................ 26 c. Purpose ........................................................................................... 28 d. The dissent’s view .......................................................................... 29 i. Japan Line and the scope of FCC power ..................................... 30 ii. Sovereignty of other nations ....................................................... 32 iii. Summary ................................................................................... 36 4. The Lopez Categories in the Foreign Commerce Context ................... 36 a. The ICC’s three categories as a starting point ................................. 37 b. The substantial-effect category is applicable here .......................... 38 c. Evolution of the third Lopez category ............................................. 38 d. Adapting the third Lopez category to the FCC ................................ 42 5. Constitutionality of § 2423(c) ............................................................ 43 a. Section 2423(c)’s legislative history supports rational basis ........... 44 b. Section 2423(c) is an essential part of a broader statutory scheme . 45 c. Section 2423(c)’s jurisdictional element supports rational basis ..... 48 d. Raich supports rational basis for § 2423(c)..................................... 48 ii e. Rational basis standard ................................................................... 52 6. Legal Landscape ................................................................................. 54 7. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 56 B. Issue Two: Brady Claim ....................................................................... 57 1. Additional Procedural Background .................................................... 57 a. Trial testimony................................................................................ 57 b. Supplemental motion for new trial ................................................. 60 2. Analysis ............................................................................................. 64 a. Standard of Review ......................................................................... 64 b. Legal Background .......................................................................... 64 c. No prejudice for a Brady violation.................................................. 65 C. Issue Three: Mr. Durham’s Statements about Child Pornography and Homosexuality ............................................................................... 67 1. Standard of Review ............................................................................ 68 2. Additional Factual Background .......................................................... 68 a. Evidence about child pornography and homosexuality ................... ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals