United States v. Felder: Fifth Circuit Reaffirms Pattern § 2422(b) Jury Instructions and Rejects “Overcome the Will” Language Absent an Intermediary

1. Introduction

In United States v. Felder (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026) (per curiam, unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Darryl Felder for attempted persuasion, inducement, enticement, and coercion of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The case arose from an undercover operation in which a federal agent posed on an adults-only dating app as “Andrea,” a purported 15-year-old girl. After extensive sexually explicit messaging and an agreement to meet, Felder arrived at a McDonald’s and was arrested.

On appeal, Felder raised two issues: (1) whether the district court erred by refusing his proposed jury instruction that “persuade, induce, entice, coerce” require an intent to “transform or overcome the will of a minor”; and (2) whether the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew Andrea was a minor, given his trial defense that he believed the exchange was adult roleplay.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by giving the Fifth Circuit’s pattern jury instruction for § 2422(b) and declining Felder’s requested “overcome the will” charge. It further held that Felder’s sufficiency challenge was unpreserved because he failed to renew his Rule 29 motion at the close of all evidence, so review was for plain error—a “doubly difficult” standard that Felder could not meet in light of abundant evidence that he believed Andrea was 15.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

  • United States v. Capistrano, 74 F.4th 756 (5th Cir. 2023): Used for two foundational propositions—(i) jury instructions are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion (with harmless-error overlay), and (ii) sufficiency review depends on preservation. Capistrano frames the appellate posture before the court addresses the merits.
  • United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2007): Establishes preservation mechanics: a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal after all evidence to preserve a sufficiency claim. The panel relied on Buchanan to classify Felder’s claim as unpreserved.
  • United States v. Yusuf, 57 F.4th 440 (5th Cir. 2023): Supplies the “forfeiture” rule when a defendant presents evidence but does not renew Rule 29, and characterizes unpreserved sufficiency review as “doubly difficult.” Yusuf also provides the operational gloss: under plain-error review, reversal is typically possible only where the record is “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.”
  • United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc): Provides the four-prong plain-error framework and, as quoted through Yusuf, the demanding second-prong concept for unpreserved sufficiency claims (i.e., the record must be essentially empty of guilt evidence).
  • United States v. Uhlenbrock, 125 F.4th 217 (5th Cir. 2024): Supplies the three-part test for when refusal of a defendant’s requested instruction becomes an abuse of discretion: (1) substantively correct, (2) not substantially covered, and (3) important enough that refusal seriously impairs the defense. This is the governing standard for Felder’s instruction argument.
  • United States v. Cessa, 856 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2017): Establishes that using Fifth Circuit pattern jury instructions functions as a “safe harbor.” This sharply limits appellate traction for challenges where the district court tracked the pattern charge.
  • United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012): Clarifies the effect of the “safe harbor”: when the instruction tracks the pattern, the appellate court “need only determine whether the charge is a correct statement of the law.” This moves the analysis away from fine-grained semantic debates and toward baseline legal accuracy.
  • United States v. Peterson, 977 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2020): Confirms that the Fifth Circuit has previously affirmed use of the pattern instruction for § 2422(b). Peterson thus supports the conclusion that giving the pattern instruction is doctrinally settled in the circuit.
  • United States v. Hite, 769 F.3d 1154 (D.C. Cir. 2014): The source of Felder’s proposed “transform or overcome the will of a minor” language. The Felder panel distinguishes Hite as addressing a scenario “where an adult intermediary is involved,” and declines to decide whether that instruction would ever be appropriate in the Fifth Circuit because Felder’s case did not involve an intermediary.
  • United States v. Smith, 878 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2017): Quoted (through Yusuf) for the “shocking”/“manifest miscarriage of justice” phrasing that describes the extraordinary deficiency required to reverse under plain-error review on an unpreserved sufficiency claim.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Jury instructions: pattern charge as controlling baseline

Felder sought a heightened mens rea/means instruction: that the verbs in § 2422(b) require intent to “transform or overcome the will of a minor.” The panel’s reasoning proceeds in two steps:

  • Safe-harbor framing: Because the district court used the Fifth Circuit pattern instruction for § 2422(b) (Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction (Criminal Cases) § 2.93 (2024)), the question narrows under United States v. Cessa and United States v. Richardson to whether the charge is a correct statement of the law.
  • Correctness and prior approval: The panel notes the pattern instruction tracks the statutory language nearly verbatim and has been affirmed before in United States v. Peterson. On that basis, the court holds the instruction is legally correct, so refusing Felder’s special charge was not an abuse of discretion.

The court also addresses Felder’s reliance on United States v. Hite by distinguishing it rather than rejecting it outright: Hite’s discussion was tied to an “adult intermediary” setting, which the panel says is not presented here, allowing the Fifth Circuit to avoid opining on Hite’s broader applicability.

2) Sufficiency: preservation drives the outcome

The sufficiency issue was substantially shaped by procedure. Felder moved for acquittal after the government rested but then presented defense evidence and failed to renew the motion at the close of all evidence. Under United States v. Buchanan and United States v. Yusuf, that forfeited the ordinary sufficiency standard and triggered plain-error review under United States v. Delgado.

Applying Yusuf/Delgado, the court emphasized the near-impossibility of relief: for an unpreserved sufficiency claim, the record must be effectively “devoid” of guilt evidence, and the inadequacy must be “completely, obviously, and unbelievably” severe such that affirmance would be a “shocking” miscarriage (United States v. Smith).

3) Knowledge that “Andrea” was a minor: evidence defeating the roleplay theory

On the merits of knowledge, the panel catalogues multiple evidence streams supporting that Felder believed Andrea was 15:

  • Andrea explicitly stated she was underage and repeatedly reaffirmed she was “15.”
  • Photos sent during the exchange depicted a girl consistent with the purported age.
  • Felder’s own statements reflected consciousness of illegality (e.g., comments that he could “go to jail” and that disclosure would get him “in a lot of trouble”).
  • Felder’s internet searches (e.g., “Walker High School cheerleader Andrea,” “andrea denham springs 15”) were treated as conduct consistent with belief in Andrea’s minor status.
  • The volume and content of the communications (nearly 100 pages) contained no contemporaneous mention of “roleplay,” and Felder did not tell the undercover agent he thought she was older.

The roleplay narrative, introduced via defense testimony, thus confronted extensive contemporaneous documentary evidence pointing the other way. Under plain-error review, that evidentiary record foreclosed any claim that the jury’s finding was an obvious mistake.

C. Impact

  • Entrenchment of the pattern § 2422(b) instruction in the Fifth Circuit: Felder reinforces that district courts in the circuit can rely on Pattern § 2.93 with strong appellate protection. Defendants attempting to import the D.C. Circuit’s “overcome the will” phrasing will face an uphill battle, particularly outside the intermediary context flagged by United States v. Hite.
  • Procedural warning on Rule 29 renewals: The opinion reiterates that a sufficiency challenge can effectively be lost on appeal if Rule 29 is not renewed after all evidence. In practice, Felder highlights how preservation can be dispositive: a claim that might be argued under de novo-style sufficiency review becomes nearly unreviewable under “doubly difficult” plain-error standards.
  • Roleplay defenses face credibility hurdles where the record shows repeated age notices and consciousness of illegality: While the opinion does not announce a categorical rule against “roleplay” defenses, it underscores the types of evidence that will defeat them—repeated age confirmations, incriminating admissions, corroborative search history, and the absence of any roleplay reference in the contemporaneous communications.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b): A federal statute criminalizing using interstate facilities (including the internet) to knowingly persuade/induce/entice/coerce a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, including attempts.
  • “Actus reus verbs” (persuade, induce, entice, coerce): These are the action words describing prohibited conduct. Felder argued they imply a special kind of psychological “overcoming.” The Fifth Circuit instead treated the pattern instruction—closely tracking statutory text—as sufficient.
  • Pattern jury instructions: Standardized instructions adopted for use in a circuit. In the Fifth Circuit, using a pattern instruction often places the trial court in a “safe harbor,” making reversal less likely unless the instruction is legally wrong.
  • Rule 29 motion (judgment of acquittal): A defendant’s request that the judge enter a not-guilty judgment because the evidence is legally insufficient. To preserve the issue for appeal after presenting defense evidence, the motion must be renewed at the close of all evidence.
  • Plain-error review: A highly deferential appellate standard used when an issue was not properly preserved. In unpreserved sufficiency claims in the Fifth Circuit, reversal is rare and generally requires an evidentiary record essentially lacking proof of guilt.
  • “Adult intermediary” scenario: A situation where a defendant communicates with an adult (not the child) to gain access to or influence the child. The opinion treats Hite’s “overcome the will” instruction as tailored to that context and finds it irrelevant here because Felder communicated directly with the purported minor persona.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Felder solidifies two practical points in Fifth Circuit § 2422(b) prosecutions: (1) district courts are on firm ground giving the Fifth Circuit’s pattern enticement instruction and need not add “overcome the will” language where no adult intermediary is involved; and (2) defendants who fail to renew Rule 29 motions risk relegating sufficiency challenges to near-unwinnable plain-error review. On the facts, the court found overwhelming evidence that Felder believed he was pursuing a 15-year-old—making the jury’s rejection of the roleplay explanation not merely reasonable, but unassailable under the applicable standard of review.