US v. Brian Hendrix
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00172-TSE-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4219]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
BRIAN K. HENDRIX,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00172-TSE-5)
January 31, 2017
February 7, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory T. Hunter, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Lauren
Britsch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
A jury convicted Brian K. Hendrix of conspiracy to produce
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e);
possess and access child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2).
The district court sentenced Hendrix
to a total of 252 months in prison.
Hendrix timely appeals.
At the close of the Government’s evidence, Hendrix filed a
motion for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
29, asserting that the Government failed to establish venue.
occurred in Lorton, Virginia, but neglected to establish that
Lorton is in the Eastern District of Virginia.
judicial notice of the fact that Lorton is within the bounds of
the Eastern District of Virginia.
Hendrix contends on appeal
that the court erred in denying the Rule 29 motion and in taking
judicial notice of venue.
We review the denial of a Rule 29 motion de novo.
States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).
general proposition, venue is proper in any district where the
subject crime was committed.”
United States v. Ebersole, 411
F.3d 517, 524 (4th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (requiring
Venue, which is not an element of the offense, need
Pg: 3 of 3
Ebersole, 411 F.3d at 524.
A district court may take judicial
notice that venue is proper in a particular district.
States v. Kelly, 535 F.3d 1229, 1235–36 (10th Cir. 2008); United
States v. Greer, 440 F.3d 1267, 1272 (11th Cir. 2006).
We conclude that the district court did not err when it
location of Lorton, Virginia, is generally known to be in the
Eastern District of Virginia, as verifiable from “sources whose
201(b)(2), the district court did not err in judicially noticing
that fact and in concluding that venue was proper in the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decision process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?