UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4813
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICHARD LEE ROCKETT, JR., a/k/a Richard L. Rockett, a/k/a
ABQ_Tbirds,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00477-AJT-1)
Submitted: April 27, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Brian Mizer,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Caroline S. Platt, Research
and Writing Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil
H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Tracey Doherty-McCormick,
Jay V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Ferdose al-
Taie, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Rockett, Jr., appeals his conviction after
a bench trial on one count of using a facility of interstate
commerce to attempt to induce a minor to engage in criminal
sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (2006).
Rockett claims on appeal that the district court abused its
discretion in excluding the testimony of the two expert
witnesses who testified at trial. We affirm.
Under Fed. R. Evid. 702, “[i]f scientific, technical,
or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an
opinion or otherwise.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Rockett claims that
the district court excluded the testimony of Dr. Butters and
Bruce Koenig, experts who analyzed the Internet chat logs and
audio recordings of conversations Rockett had with an
Alexandria, Virginia police detective posing as a thirteen- and
fourteen-year-old girl, when it ruled that their testimony was
“irrelevant” to the issue of whether Rockett believed he was
corresponding with a teenaged girl. In Rockett’s view, this
expert testimony bolstered his defense that he lacked the
specific intent to violate § 2422(b), and the district court
reversibly erred in excluding such testimony.
2
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court did not exclude the testimony of Rockett’s
experts. Rather, the court allowed the testimony to be admitted
into evidence and simply concluded that Butters’ and Koenig’s
testimony was entitled to no weight on the issue of Rockett’s
subjective belief as to the age of the individual with whom
Rockett was corresponding. Accord United States v. Fowler,
932 F.2d 306, 315 (4th Cir. 1991) (noting that the inquiry as to
whether a defendant acted with a specific intent to violate the
law is a factual issue that a trier of fact regularly decides).
An assessment of the weight, if any, to be accorded to Butters’
and Koenig’s testimony was properly within the province of the
district court acting as the trier of fact. See United States
v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 313 (1998) (“Determining the weight
and credibility of witness testimony . . . has long been held to
be the part of every case [that] belongs to the [trier of
fact].” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United
States v. Esle, 743 F.2d 1465, 1474 (11th Cir. 1984) (“In
making . . . a determination [as to the weight, if any, it shall
give to expert testimony], a trial court as fact finder need not
be bound by expert testimony even if all of the witnesses are
presented only by one side.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)), overruled on other grounds by United States v.
Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110, 1122 n.23 (11th Cir. 2004).
3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decision process.
AFFIRMED
4