US v. Brian Hendrix

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00172-TSE-5 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000018640].. [16-4219]

Appeal: 16-4219

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Boente,
United
States
Attorney,
Tracy
Doherty-McCormick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia; Lauren
Britsch, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4219

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/07/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Brian K. Hendrix of conspiracy to produce
child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e);
conspiracy
violation

to
of

distribute
18

U.S.C.

and

receive

§ 2252(a)(2),

child
(b);

pornography,

and

conspiracy

in
to

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.
The

Government

had

presented

evidence

that

relevant

events

occurred in Lorton, Virginia, but neglected to establish that
Lorton is in the Eastern District of Virginia.
granting

the

motion

for

acquittal,

the

district

Rather than
court

took

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.

United

States v. Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011).

“As a

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
2

Appeal: 16-4219

Doc: 40

Filed: 02/07/2017

prosecution

to

committed).

Venue, which is not an element of the offense, need

be

established

take

by

place

Pg: 3 of 3

only

in

a

Ebersole, 411 F.3d at 524.

district

preponderance

where

of

crime

the

was

evidence.

A district court may take judicial

notice that venue is proper in a particular district.

United

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
denied

the

motion

for

judgment

of

acquittal.

Because

the

location of Lorton, Virginia, is generally known to be in the
Eastern District of Virginia, as verifiable from “sources whose
accuracy

cannot

reasonably

be

questioned,”

Fed.

R.

Evid.

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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument will not aid the decision process.
AFFIRMED

3