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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?