Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Elias Omar Santamaria, Petitioner v. United States

No. 17-_________

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

___________

ELIAS OMAR SANTAMARIA ,

Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

Respondent

___________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

___________

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

___________

KEVIN J. PAGE

Counsel of Record

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER ’S OFFICE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

525 GRIFFIN STREET, SUITE 629

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 767-2746

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.

Whether the “attempt” provisions of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) offend the First

Amendment?

ii

PARTIES

Elias Omar Santamaria is the petitioner; he was the defendant-appellant below.

The United States of America is the respondent; it was the plaintiff-appellee below.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Index to Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Table of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Opinions Below. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Jurisdictional Statement.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Reasons for Granting the Writ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I.

The constitutionality of the “attempt” provisions of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) is

an important question of federal law that should be resolved by this

Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

iv

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A Judgment and Opinion of Fifth Circuit

Appendix B Judgment and Sentence of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page No.

CASES

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4

Lawrence v. Chater, 516 U.S. 163 (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3

United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Santamaria, 714 Fed. Appx. 464 (5th Cir. March 14, 2018). . . . . . 1

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

18 U.S.C. §2422(b).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 3

RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 13.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

U.S. CONSTITUTION

U.S. Const. Amend. V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

vi

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner Elias Omar Santamaria respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari

to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The unpublished opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth

Circuit is captioned as United States v. Santamaria, 714 Fed. Appx. 464 (5th Cir.

March 14, 2018)(unpublished), and is provided in the Appendix to the Petition.

[Appendix A]. The district court entered judgment on August 17, 2017, which judgment

is attached as an Appendix. [Appendix B].

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The instant Petition is filed within 90 days of an opinion affirming the judgment,

which was entered on March 14, 2018. See SUP. CT. R. 13.1. This Court’s jurisdiction

to grant certiorari is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, RULES, AND STATUTES INVOLVED

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to

petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Title 18, Section 2422(b) of the United States Code provides:

(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or

foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial

jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices,

or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to

engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be

charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under

this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

Page 1

STATEMENT

A.

Facts and Trial Proceedings

Petitioner Elias Omar Santamaria – a young man – suggested a sexual

encounter with an on-line persona he believed to be an underage girl. When he traveled

from Tulsa to meet her, he was greeted by police and arrested. He pleaded guilty to one

count of attempted child enticement under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). The district court

sentenced him to ten years imprisonment and five years of supervised release, the

statutory minimums.

B.

Appellate Proceedings

On appeal, Petitioner contended that the attempt provisions of 18 U.S.C.

§2422(b) are facially unconstitutional. He noted that conviction is authorized under

that statute for a “substantial step” toward child enticement, but that this approach

fails to provide reasonable notice of the criminal line, invites discriminatory

prosecution against expressions of sexual predilection, and captures a substantial

volume of offensive but protected speech. He conceded that the claim was foreclosed by

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419-420 (5th Cir. 2014), but sought to preserve

it for further review in light of the substantial frequency with which the issue has been

litigated. See Howard, 766 F.3d at 429 (collecting cases).

The court of appeals affirmed, finding no constitutional error. See [Appendix A].

Page 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I.

The constitutionality of the “attempt” provisions of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b)

is an important question of federal law that should be resolved by this

Court.

“To satisfy due process, ‘a penal statute [must] define the criminal offense [1]

with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is

prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory

enforcement.’” Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358, 402 (2010)(quoting Kolender v.

Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983)). As construed by the court below, the attempt

provision of §2422(b) authorizes conviction for a “substantial step” toward child sexual

enticement. See United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419-420 (5th Cir. 2014).

In the particular context of §2422(b), there is reason to doubt whether this

approach is sufficiently definite to satisfy constitutional concerns. It has been applied

to criminalize exchanges that involved no “travel or a definite plan to travel.” Howard,

766 F.3d at 425; see also United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904 (11th Cir. 2010); United

States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 423 (4th Cir. 2012). Far from confirming the defendant’s

intent actually to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, the “substantial step” approach

has captured cases in which the defendant chose to desist. See Howard, 766 F.3d at

418. The law provides no reasonable notice to a person of average intelligence as to

when the criminal line has been crossed. Indeed, the circuits have reached divergent

outcomes in comparable cases. Compare Howard, 766 F.3d at 428 with United States

v. Gladish, 536 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2008).

This documented use of §2422(b) to target speech-only cases compound the

statute’s constitutional problems. Speech that might be confused with intentional child

enticement is especially likely to be targeted for discriminatory enforcement. A

defendant who expresses interest or advocacy for child sexual activity is precisely the

kind of pariah who is most vulnerable to a “standardless sweep [that] allows policemen,

Page 3

prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections ...” Kolender, 461 U.S.,

at 358. Accordingly, there is special reason to be concerned about the definiteness of

the criminal line in this context. The issue is an important issue of federal law that

should be settled in this forum.

Concededly, the absence of an objection in the trial court may render the present

case an inapt vehicle to address the question. For the foregoing reasons, however, the

issue should be addressed. In the event that this Court grants a different Petition

raising the same or similar issue, it should hold the instant case, grant certiorari,

vacate the judgment below, and remand for reconsideration. See Lawrence v. Chater,

516 U.S. 163, 167 (1996).

CONCLUSION

FOR THESE REASONS, Petitioner asks that this Honorable Court grant a writ of

certiorari.

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of June, 2018.

/s/ Kevin Joel Page

Kevin J. Page

Counsel of Record

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER ’S OFFICE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

525 GRIFFIN STREET, SUITE 629

DALLAS, TEXAS 75202

(214) 767-2746

Page 4