UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MUSTAFA MUHAMMAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00055-REP-1)
Submitted: April 28, 2015 Decided: May 5, 2015
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Caroline S.
Platt, Carolyn V. Grady, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant. Heather L. Hart, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Muhammad was convicted of interstate
transportation of a minor for commercial sex, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(a) (2012), and was sentenced to 120 months in prison.
Muhammad now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
questioning the propriety of a jury instruction, but concluding
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Muhammad has
filed a pro se brief raising additional issues. We affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel argues that the district
court erroneously instructed the jury that, to convict under
§ 2423(a), the Government did not have to prove that the
defendant knew the victim was under eighteen at the time of the
offense. The court further instructed that the fact that the
Defendant was mistaken about or ignorant of the victim’s true
age was not a defense. Counsel concedes that the instruction
was in accordance with our decision in United States v.
Washington, 743 F.3d 938, 943 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that, in
a prosecution under § 2423(a), the Government is not required to
prove the defendant knew the victim was a minor), but argues
that Washington was wrongly decided.
“[A] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly
or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court.
Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can do
2
that.” Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271 n.2
(4th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In light of our decision in Washington, we hold that the
instruction was proper.
Muhammad raises a wide array of claims in his pro se
brief. Having carefully considered that brief, we conclude that
none of the claims has merit.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires
that counsel inform Muhammad, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
review. If Muhammad requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Muhammad. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3