USA v. Edward Walker

[PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10164
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20087-AHS-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 1 of 41

-- 1 of 41 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
____________________
No. 22-10782
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EDWARD WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20087-AHS-1
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and LUCK and H ULL , Circuit
Judges.
H ULL , Circuit Judge:
Defendant Edward Walker, a pimp, transported three
young women from Connecticut to Miami, Florida for his
prostitution business shortly before Super Bowl LIV. Following a
jury trial, Walker was convicted of three sex-trafficking-related
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 2 of 41

-- 2 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 3
crimes: (1) sex trafficking of an adult (Juanita Barr) by coercion
(Count 1); (2) sex trafficking of a person (A.H.) who is a minor and
alternatively of a person (A.H.) by coercion (Count 2); and
(3) transporting a person (Simone King) to engage in sexual activity
(Count 3). In a special verdict form as to A.H., the jury found
Walker guilty on Count 2 on both of the alternative liability
theories: minor status and coercion.
On appeal, Walker challenges his convictions on Counts 1
and 2, but not on Count 3. As to Barr in Count 1, Walker argues
there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he coerced
Barr into engaging in prostitution. As to A.H. in Count 2, Walker
does not challenge his conviction on the minor status theory.
Rather, Walker asserts that the government’s failure to disclose
properly expert testimony—about how pimps use romantic
relationships to coerce women to prostitute—requires that his
Count 2 conviction on the coercion theory as to A.H. be vacated.
After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
conclude (1) there was ample evidence to support Walker’s
coercion conviction in Count 1, and (2) as to Count 2, Walker did
not challenge the government’s amended notice of its expert
testimony in the district court, plain error review thus applies, and
Walker has not shown any alleged error in the notice prejudiced
him on the coercion conviction. We thus affirm Walker’s
challenged convictions.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 3 of 41

-- 3 of 41 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are based on witness testimony and the
exhibits admitted during Walker’s October 2021 jury trial.
A. Pimping and Prostitution Generally
As background to the testimony of several witnesses,
Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) Special Agent Alex Loff
explained pimping and prostitution generally.
A “date” is a commercial sex act. There are typically two
ways prostitutes find customers for dates: (1) posting online
advertisements and (2) walking the street or “blade,” which is
another word for “the street that girls typically walk up and down
to solicit commercial sex acts.”
“A pimp is a [sex] trafficker who is more or less the leader of
the group.” Pimps “are responsible for directing . . . things like
how to engage customers, how to speak with them, [and] all the
various activities of the girls in order to make money.”
Usually, a pimp will recruit prostitutes by finding them on
different online platforms, such as MeetMe, Facebook, or
Instagram. The pimp will either (1) transparently state he is a pimp
and ask the individual to work for him or (2) use deception, such as
“pretend[ing] to have a romantic interest in” the girl.
If the pimp uses the guise of a romantic relationship,
generally
the pimp will build this future life goal with the
victim[,] so they’ll talk about all these plans that they
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 4 of 41

-- 4 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 5
have, these travels, this luxurious lifestyle, and it will
slowly develop [in]to, if we’re going to achieve those
goals, we need to make money; and the only way we
can make that money is if [the victim] engage[s] in
these commercial sex acts.
If a pimp has more than one prostitute under his control, he
will have a “bottom,” which is short for “bottom bitch.” The
bottom is the individual who is responsible for (1) organizing the
other prostitutes, (2) recruiting new women to join the pimp’s
group of prostitutes, (3) collecting money and posting
advertisements for the prostitutes, and (4) doing whatever else the
pimp delegates. In other words, the bottom is a pimp’s “main girl
that makes the money” and tells other women what to do. A
bottom can be charged criminally along with the pimp in sex
trafficking cases, but a bottom also can be a victim of sex trafficking.
We now turn to Walker and his three victims.
B. Walker and Victim A.H.
Defendant Walker lived in Connecticut and worked as a
truck driver. In 2018, Walker, at age 44 or 45, met A.H., a 15-year-
old runaway, “out in society” by the roadside at “a really weird
location [in] East Hartford.” A.H. is the minor victim in Count 2.
Walker seduced A.H. into a romantic and sexual
relationship, moved her into his house, and began to hire her out
for prostitution. On Walker’s phone, both the lock screen and the
home screen had a photo of him and A.H. Walker’s contact name
for A.H. in his phone was “Wife at home.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 5 of 41

-- 5 of 41 --

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Prior to their Miami trip, Walker and A.H. advertised A.H.
on prostitution websites and hired her out for $160 for a half hour,
of which Walker took at least half. The record is replete with
instances—especially text messages—of Walker manipulating A.H.
to engage in commercial sex acts in order to meet his and A.H.’s
material needs. For example, in October 2019, Walker texted A.H.,
“Baby did you try posting out calls? It is friday?!” An out-call is
when the prostitute goes to the customer’s residence.
A.H. replied, “That’s all I do everyday all day and everyone
asks for incall.” An in-call is when the customer comes to the
prostitute’s residence. Walker answered, “Take some. We cant
starve and die.”
A.H. was also Walker’s bottom and actively recruited other
women to join Walker’s small prostitution ring. For example, in
October 2019, A.H. texted Walker, “Think I found a p101 ready at
the store.” This text indicated A.H. found “a person who [was]
ready for an intro[duction] into pimping,” meaning “a girl who
would be directed to work and engage in commercial sex acts by a
pimp.” Walker texted A.H., “Your [sic] my wife, who teaches
others our game.”1
C. Victim Simone King
Simone King is the victim in the Count 3 conviction that
Walker does not challenge on appeal. However, the recruitment
and prostitution of King is interwoven with that of A.H. and Barr.
1 “Game” refers to “the lifestyle of pimping.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 6 of 41

-- 6 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 7
Around May 2019, Walker recruited King (age 18) on
MeetMe. Walker asked King if she wanted to meet and get
“[s]ituated,” to which she replied she was open to meeting,
provided there was no sex involved. Walker responded, “Oh wait
that’s what escorting is about, my bad, I thought you understood.
Pardon me, have a great day, and [a] great summer.”
King said, “I’m fine with it. It’s just I was asking because I
didn’t know escort was also prostitute.” Walker replied, “We are a
family style unit, no disrespecting or demeaning, you know?!”
Walker also mentioned A.H., calling her his “girl.” Walker told
King that A.H. would be reaching out to her.
Walker and A.H. groomed King to work for Walker. When
A.H. texted King, A.H. confirmed that (1) Walker was her “man”
and (2) the women who worked for him “service[d] men for
money.” King asked a few questions, such as whether the work was
hard, how much money they make, and whether the men were
clean. A.H. explained, “It can range from $400-800 a day,
depending on how motivated you are. And we use condoms.
Nothing we offer is unprotected.” A.H. also said that they “live[d]
a lavish lifestyle.”
Eventually, King moved in with Walker and A.H. in their
house. Walker and A.H. taught King all about prostitution, and
King began to “service men for money.” Walker and A.H. set the
prices for King’s sex work. King gave all her earnings from her sex
work to Walker and A.H. “[b]ecause [she] was living there,
and [she] felt like . . . [she] had to chip in all the way.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 7 of 41

-- 7 of 41 --

8 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Because King had no car and no driver’s license, King would
either take an Uber or have Walker or A.H. drive her to her
out-calls. Walker ensured A.H. and King had condoms for their
dates. For example, in September 2019, A.H. told Walker that
King’s date had arrived, and Walker asked, “You guys are str8 with
condoms for this date correct?!” Walker also instructed King not
to talk to the police if they were ever arrested to ensure they “didn’t
get in trouble.”
While King lived with Walker and A.H., King slept in a
separate room. At one point, though, Walker suggested that he
join King and A.H., who were sleeping in King’s room, but A.H.
said no. Walker told King, “[A.H.] is weird sometimes let me
Daddy this,” which King understood to mean that he would “take
care of it.”
At another point, A.H. complained to Walker that King
would “smile and giggle at her phone” when Walker would text
her. Walker responded, “I’m so disappointed, I really believed the
hype[.] This certainly will go no further if I cant talk to, direct[,]
and preside over the [girls]. I cant pimp thru you.” Similarly, when
A.H. complained about King, Walker told A.H., “Your feelings
wont have me broke, looking foolish and like a suckah. . . . I cant
pimp according to your feelings[,] love.”
King believed Walker and A.H. were in a “boyfriend and
girlfriend relationship.” King overheard noises coming from
Walker’s bedroom consistent with him having sex with A.H., but
Walker also repeatedly had sex with King.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 8 of 41

-- 8 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 9
While Walker had sex with both A.H. and King, he would
also withhold sex if he believed they had not made enough money
for him. For example, one day, Walker texted King, “Gmorning, I
just woke up, I want You . . . and [A.H.], but none of yall made
money! How this is gonna work is. NO ONE, gets any unless we
stacking.” King testified that this text message meant Walker
would not sleep with them “at all” unless they were making money.
Walker encouraged King to “obtain some new hoes to
increase [their] payroll.” For example, Walker texted King, “[Y]ou
must remember, I own the lick her store, if you hand them over[,]
I can put this double dose of P in their lives and wrap them up.”2
Walker continued, “[L]eadership is mine and that will demand a
prospects respect and loyalty.”
Additionally, Walker texted King that prospects have “Daddy
issues that cant be addressed by females,” and there is “[n]othing
more alluring then [sic] telling a bitch about your Daddy, and how
she gone benefit. That blows a bitches [sic] mind.” Walker added,
“This is the spirit of the game, working through yall, showing
charity to a bitch who may benefit from my game and be a blessing
to our family.”
To that end, Walker taught King about his recruiting
preferences. Walker explained that he “prefer[red] fresh turnouts”
because even though they are “[m]ore work,” they have “no bad
2 “P” means pimp.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 9 of 41

-- 9 of 41 --

10 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
habits and such from lame ass dudes disguised as the pimp[].”
Walker also said:
The problem is a bigger girl isnt really great outdoors,
it’s a specific crowd that likes them . . . . I wont spend
our hard earned on a[n] unproven prospect. Clothing
or travel wise. Not saying she isnt sporting and up to
muster, but we dont need a mouth to feed that cant
put it out on the road.
D. Walker’s Social Media Presence
Walker regularly posted about pimping on his social media.
For example, Walker shared memes on Instagram that said the
following: (1) “Getting Pussy From Her For The First Time Don’t
Mean Shit … Getting Her To Sell It Is When You Actually Did
Something!”; (2) “HOTEL CLERKS BE LIKE OH YOU ABOUT
TO SELL SOME PUSSY HUH”; (3) “You told her on your life you
only fuck bitches who pay you. let’s go PimPin”; (4) “As a pimp you
should break your bitch every morning for everything. An[d] give
her a new daily goal to reach for as your issue”3; (5) “Idgaf how
pretty you are Bitch I d[o]n’t like squares That play I like hoes that
pay”4; (6) “Whatever a P is desiring from his Hoe he must first
deposit into her. He cannot expect to get from her that which is
not put into her already. If you want [money] from her, you must
3 “Breaking” is when a pimp “get[s] a girl into [his] crew and ha[s] her perform
commercial sex acts under [his] direction.”
4 A “square” is “anyone not involved in the life of pimping.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 10 of 41

-- 10 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 11
first deposit [game] into her”; and (7) “stretch Her mind to a new
reality of possibility and potential, it will be impossible for Her to
return to Her previous dimension or circumstance #KHM #HGO
cause #PGO #comeFWM304 #Blessing2DGame.”5
E. Houston, Texas
In December 2019, Walker, A.H., and King traveled to
Houston, Texas. Around the time of this trip, Walker performed
an Internet search for “how many years for a human trafficking
charge.”
When they arrived in Houston, Walker sent an Instagram
message that said, “Without doubt, I think [A.H.] just bumped her
1st white bitch and we didn’t even leave the airport.” This message
meant A.H. had “ma[d]e contact with someone and attempt[ed] to
recruit them.”
While in Houston, Walker, A.H., and King went sight-seeing
during the day, but at night, King and A.H. “walk[ed] the blade” to
make money for Walker by engaging in commercial sex acts.
This trip was part of a broader “plan,” where Walker, A.H.,
and King were supposed to travel across the country to make
money from prostitution. When Walker, A.H., and King got back
to Connecticut after their Houston trip, they decided their next
stop for making prostitution money would be Miami, Florida.
5 “HGO” means “[h]oe-ing [g]oing [o]n,” “PGO” means “pimping going on,”
and “304” means “ho[e]”—i.e., a “girl working under the direction of the
pimp.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 11 of 41

-- 11 of 41 --

12 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
F. Grooming of Victim Juanita Barr and Inviting Barr to
Miami in 2020
Juanita Barr is the victim in Count 1. At some point before
May 2019, A.H. met Barr on MeetMe. Barr used MeetMe “[t]o try
to make friends” because she did not have many friends in her area.
Meanwhile, A.H. used MeetMe to meet and groom girls—like King
and Barr—for Walker.
Barr was born and raised in Connecticut. When she was
growing up, Barr lived with her mother and six siblings in Section
8 housing, and “money was tight.” Barr had family support “[f ]or
the most part,” meaning she did not “really ask for much, but if
[she] need[ed] help, [her] mom or [her] sister would help [her].”
Barr did not finish high school but tried to get her credits for high
school through adult learning classes.
The day that A.H. and Barr met on MeetMe, Walker and
A.H. picked Barr up and drove her to their house in Bridgeport,
Connecticut. Walker went to work, while A.H. and Barr “sat on
the couch and . . . got to know each other.” A.H. told Barr that
Walker was “her man” and that “she didn’t work, that she just
hangs out and that’s it.”
After that first meeting, A.H. and Barr hung out “every other
two or three days” at Walker’s house. When A.H. and Barr hung
out, Walker was “[u]sually[] at work,” but if Walker was around,
he would “[b]riefly” speak to Barr. Eventually, Walker and A.H.
moved to New Haven, Connecticut, and Barr visited their New
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 12 of 41

-- 12 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 13
Haven house “once every two months or once a month.”
Sometimes, Barr would stay overnight during these visits.
Barr never started a relationship with Walker and never had
sex with Walker because he was “not [her] type,” as she “prefer[red]
females over men.” At one point, though, Walker and A.H., as part
of the grooming, asked Barr to “have sex with one of them,” but
Barr declined.
On January 15, 2020, A.H. texted Barr, “[S]o you basically
moving with us. We gonna get a house in Arizona when we done
hitting all the big cities.” Barr understood this text to mean that
Walker and A.H. were going to Miami for a trip and then moving
to Arizona, and Barr was invited to go with them. Barr initially
agreed to go with them.
That same day, A.H. texted Walker that she got Barr “on
board” for the Miami prostitution trip. Walker asked, “She coming
for the whole trip or just Miami?!” A.H. replied, “She’s coming for
the whole trip + the rest of her life.”
Walker praised A.H. for being “a positive witch, casting
spells and such.” A.H. replied, “Its that IZM,” which is “knowledge
of the game or knowledge of pimping.” Walker agreed with A.H.,
writing, “Indeed great game love.”
Later, Barr learned that Walker and A.H. were actually
planning to do “a lot of other moving around” to other cities, and
they were not going straight from Miami to Arizona. Barr “didn’t
want to travel,” “had a lot going on for [her]self like school,” and
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 13 of 41

-- 13 of 41 --

14 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
her “sister’s birthday was coming up in February,” so Barr “didn’t
want to go anymore.”
The plan then became that Walker, A.H., and King would
(1) go to Miami “to celebrate” for a week, (2) backtrack to North
Carolina to “drop off some luggage and stuff,” and (3) return to
Connecticut to “pick up their other stuff” before going to Arizona.
Because they were going to stay in Miami for only a week and could
drop Barr off in Connecticut afterwards, Barr ultimately agreed to
go on the Miami trip.
Barr later told a friend via Facebook that she went to Miami
because she had “never been to [M]iami b[efore], and [she] wanted
to go for [a] first vacation.”
G. Pre-Miami Preparations
To get ready for his money-making prostitution business in
Miami, Walker quit his job as a truck driver to pimp full time. In
addition, Walker, A.H., and King packed up their house and
returned the keys to the landlord.
Before the Miami trip, Barr told A.H. that she “didn’t have
any money.” As part of her grooming of Barr, A.H. replied that all
of Barr’s expenses, such as food, drinks, and hotel, “would be taken
care of ” while they were in Miami. So Barr “assumed [the trip]
would be paid for” and “thought they had a lot of money.”
A.H. also told Barr that “[w]e got family down there” who
own three strip clubs that they were “[a]bout [to] get into” and
instructed Barr to pack heels and “hoe outfits.” Barr testified that
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 14 of 41

-- 14 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 15
she understood A.H. to be telling her to bring “really cute outfits”
and that A.H. was “going to be dancing somewhere.” But Barr was
“sure . . . they ha[d] other jobs that [she] c[ould] participate in while
[A.H.] danced.” Barr testified that she “would have never imagined
that . . . anyone expected [her] to have sex with anyone” on the
Miami trip.
Meanwhile, Walker prepared for all three women—A.H.,
King, and Barr—to do sex work for him in Miami. In an Instagram
message to his niece, who lived in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Walker
said, “[M]e and my team will be in . . . ur town for the superbag at
the superbowl, can we get a couple auditions at your folx place(s)”?
In a January 16, 2020, text message to King, Walker said, “I trust
you stayed up with [Barr] and chopped it up, she is good people,
she will be better away from CT [and] the best when she realizes
she can do very well with Our program.”
Walker reminded King of their roles via text: “You coming
at me like I owe you love, that’s not the case[.] Even when you
speak like that to me, I am carrying you . . . , let’s not forget our
roles[,] our lanes[,] and who we are.” And Walker warned King
that “we just arent tolerating anything less than 100%
participation” and instructed King to “change the attitude[,] get the
phuck in gear[,] and get the phuck involved[,] or [she] w[ould] have
to stay” in Connecticut.
H. Driving to Miami on January 23–24, 2020
On January 23, 2020, Walker drove A.H., King, and Barr
from Connecticut, where they all lived at the time, to Florida. At
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 15 of 41

-- 15 of 41 --

16 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
the time of this trip, Walker was 46, A.H. was 17, King was 18, and
Barr was 23.
Barr was not close to her fellow travelers. Barr did not know
King “very well,” as they had “talked, like, two days . . . before
leaving [on] the trip.” Before A.H. invited Barr to Miami, Barr had
an on-again, off-again friendship with A.H. and had not spoken to
A.H. for three or four months.
On the drive down to Miami, Walker, A.H., King, and Barr
spent a night in Daytona, Florida. Once in the Miami area, they
checked into one room together at a Comfort Inn & Suites in
Kendall at 6:46 p.m. on January 24, 2020.
I. Indefinite Stay in Miami
Upon arrival in Miami, Barr quickly became disillusioned
and learned the reality of the trip. In their room at the Comfort
Inn, Barr overheard the group discussing the plan for Miami, which
quickly became two weeks, then a month, and then an indefinite
stay in Miami. Barr testified that the news was “overwhelming”
because it upended her plans to return to Connecticut. Barr had
belongings in Connecticut, she had planned to be back in time to
celebrate her sister’s birthday, and she was not having fun because
she was “constantly playing referee” during arguments between
A.H. and King.
Upon learning that this was not a short trip, Barr wanted to
go home, but she had no money. Barr asked Walker how she would
get back home, and Walker replied that she should take an airplane.
Barr told Walker that an airplane was “out of the question” because
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 16 of 41

-- 16 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 17
she is “terrified of heights.” Walker then said that she could take a
train but that the trains depart from Miami to Connecticut only
once per month.
Barr later found out by searching online that trains leave for
Connecticut twice daily. But the ticket price for a train from Miami
to Connecticut was $156, which Barr did not have. Barr “thought
maybe they would . . . give [her] the money” or she “would
probably try to ask [her] sister if she had the money.”
During the trip, Barr texted, FaceTimed, and called her sister
several times and spoke with her mother every day. At 12:32 a.m.
on January 25, Barr’s sister messaged her on Facebook, asking
when she was coming back to Connecticut.6 Barr replied, “I
already know how to take the train [$]156 is my ticket which is
nothing.”
J. Low on Funds
However, other Walker surprises awaited Barr. After
waking up and showering later that morning, Barr learned that the
group had only $50 left. This was also not the all-expenses-paid trip
Barr thought she was taking. Because they did not have any money,
Walker instructed the women to share “a tub of yogurt” and
controlled how many “spoonfuls” of yogurt the women were
allowed to have for breakfast.
6 The time stamps for all messages are in Universal Time Coordinated. For
ease of reference, we have converted the times to Eastern Standard Time.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 17 of 41

-- 17 of 41 --

18 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
With no money for even food, Barr had to call her sister to
ask for money so that she could buy a pizza to share with A.H. and
King. Barr’s sister sent $20 via CashApp. Barr did not tell her sister
what was going on, but her sister “put two and two together” and
“kind of figured [it] out.”
K. Strip Club on January 25
At 12:49 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker, “Just
an idea. You should take [Barr] to work the club and me and [King]
will do everything else. She is over 21 there’s possibilities and
opportunities for her.” Walker responded, “Great idea[,] we arrived
at the same conclusion at the same time, you know, great minds
think a like [sic].”
Around 3:40 p.m. on January 25, Walker took A.H., Barr, and
King to a strip club. They stayed at the strip club only briefly
because A.H. and King did not have identification.
After leaving the strip club, Walker, A.H., and King went to
a store to buy heels. Barr “was a little aggravated and annoyed”
because she “didn’t want to get heels” and “didn’t want to dance”
at a strip club. So Barr stayed in the car while the others went into
the store.
L. Ocean Drive in Miami on January 25
Later on January 25, Walker directed the women—A.H.,
King, and Barr—to walk around Ocean Drive and “talk to some
guys” to gather funds for food and lodging. More specifically,
Walker instructed the women “to walk around and see if
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 18 of 41

-- 18 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 19
somebody would . . . buy [them] some food and drinks, and then
maybe afterward, they would want to probably hang out.”
Barr testified that, at this point in the trip, she was “[t]rying
to find a way to get home” because she was hungry, stranded, and
“no longer having any fun.” So Barr walked the blade with A.H.
and King to try to make money to go home.
Eventually, the Miami heat took a toll on Barr. Barr told
A.H. and King that she was not feeling well, so she went to lie down
in the car. Only Walker and Barr were in the car. Barr again told
Walker that she wanted to go home, but to no avail. Walker “didn’t
say anything”; instead, “[h]e just looked at [Barr] and then turned
back around and put his hat down and crossed his arms . . . [like he]
was going to sleep or something.”
M. Yacht on January 25
At 6:18 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker: “We got
offered to go somewhere for free so we gonna go.” A.H. called
Barr to tell her that two men had offered to buy them food and that
Barr should join them. A.H. also told Barr that the men had offered
to pay the women to join them on their yacht, which Barr
understood to mean payment for sexual favors. Specifically, Barr
testified that she thought the women “were going to have to at least
sleep with the[] [men] to try to make the money” because she was
“a hundred percent sure that they wasn’t just going to give [the
women] the money just if [they] asked for it.”
Once again, Barr felt compelled to go in hopes of collecting
the $156 for a train ticket home. So, at 7:20 p.m. on January 25,
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 19 of 41

-- 19 of 41 --

20 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Barr texted A.H., “Where u guys at i was gonna walk to u.” Barr
added, “Sorry wasnt feeling well felt nausea [sic].” Barr met up
with A.H. and King on a street corner, and they left in a car with
the two men—Yachty Lou and Miami Tom.
At 8:35 p.m. on January 25, A.H. texted Walker: “We all with
2 dudes gonna go on the[ir] boat for an hour and make money.”
When Barr boarded the yacht, she was suspicious of Yachty Lou
and Miami Tom, going so far as to throw out the wine that they
had poured for the women out of fear of being drugged. A.H.
followed Miami Tom into one of the downstairs rooms. Barr and
King went into another room with Yachty Lou.
King told Yachty Lou that she could not have sex with him
because she was menstruating. Looking at Barr, Yachty Lou said,
“Well, I’m looking for more than just, you know, a dance; so one
of you guys gotta do something.” Barr and King began to “dance
naked” for Yachty Lou, “but then he couldn’t do anything [sexually]
because he was drunk and he was nervous.” Yachty Lou
nonetheless paid them.
King gave the money to A.H., which thwarted Barr’s efforts
to get home to Connecticut. Barr was “very disappointed” that
King handed over the money because Barr and King talked
beforehand about their plan to use “the money to take a taxi and
take a train together back home to Connecticut.” Barr did not ask
A.H. for the money though “because [she] kn[e]w that she
wouldn’t have gave it back to [her].”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 20 of 41

-- 20 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 21
At 11:16 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker that
they were on the way to the hotel. A.H. added that they “only
made $700 but that’s awesome for [their] first break luck.”
At 12:38 a.m. on January 26, Barr messaged her sister on
Facebook, saying that she was “ready to go the fuck home.” A few
minutes later at 12:43 a.m., A.H. texted Walker that they were
“[a]lmost there.”
Later that January 26th afternoon at 2:17 p.m., Barr
messaged her sister on Facebook that “[y]o ho[m]e girl wa[s] gonna
get beat up.” This message meant that Barr “was really upset at
[King]” for giving the money from the yacht date to A.H. because
King “kn[e]w [Barr] was going to use the money to go home.”
Basically, Barr “felt like [King] played [her].” Barr was thus still
stuck in Miami with Walker and his women.
N. Sex Advertisement for Barr’s Services
Low on funds again, Walker and A.H. decided to post
advertisements for the women to engage in commercial sex acts
“because [the women] weren’t making any money” and the group
had only one more night paid at the hotel. Walker and A.H. “came
up with the idea” to advertise Barr online.
Taking Barr’s cellphone, Walker and A.H. posted an
advertisement for Barr on skipthegames.com.7 The advertisement
7 Skipthegames.com is an “adult posting website where people can put their
advertisement out there to engage in sexual encounters for the exchange of
money.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 21 of 41

-- 21 of 41 --

22 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
promoted “foxxy,” who was “new in th[e] area [and] looking for a
great night.” The advertisement listed Barr’s phone number. Barr
did not write any of the advertisement. When Barr got her
cellphone back, Barr learned of the advertisement, and Walker told
her to answer her cellphone “[i]f men called for a date.”
O. Barr’s January 27th Date that Led to Walker’s Arrest
On January 27, Barr received a text message from a
customer asking if she was available for a date that evening, but she
ignored it at first. Both Walker and A.H. asked if she had gotten
any texts from customers and ordered her to show them her
cellphone. Walker ordered Barr to text or call the customer back.
Barr called the customer, and they agreed to meet at Walker’s hotel
room at the Comfort Inn for a one-hour date in exchange for $300.
Barr had never had sex with men for money. Walker knew
Barr had no money and effectively stranded her indefinitely in
Miami. Barr agreed to meet the customer and do it so that she
could get money and leave Miami. After the customer paid her,
Barr planned to take a taxi to the train station or ask the customer
to take her to the train station. Barr felt like she had to do it because
she had no money and “when [she] tried to ask [Walker] if [she]
c[ould] go home,” she was ignored. Barr felt like sex work was
“literally . . . the only way” to get home because she had no other
way to earn money.
Walker drove Barr, A.H., and King to the Comfort Inn.
Once there, Barr went inside with her cellphone and condoms—
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 22 of 41

-- 22 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 23
which Walker gave to her—to have her date, while Walker, A.H.,
and King waited in the car.
Right before meeting the customer, Barr got nervous but
told herself that if the customer ended up being a cop, she would
ask him for help and if the customer was not a cop, she would get
her money and leave.
Once Barr let the customer into the hotel room, Barr talked
to him and offered him a massage. Barr did not immediately tell
him that she was trapped in Miami because she feared he would
not care or, worse, would turn aggressive toward her. The
customer gave Barr $300, and then they talked for a little bit.
Eventually, Barr took off her shirt. The customer’s cellphone rang,
so he went into the bathroom, claiming that his wife was calling.
Barr testified that, “at this point,” she knew “he [wa]s a cop.”
Barr was right. This operation was part of a human trafficking task
force in Miami that was focused on the upcoming Super Bowl. The
task force had a full week of proactive prostitution operations,
where officials would look for indicators of human trafficking on
websites. An undercover officer would reach out to the contact on
the advertisement, schedule a date, and go determine who was at
the location.
The undercover officer’s cellphone rang because his team
called “to see if [he] was okay” because “they were having issues
hearing” through a one-way monitoring device. Still on the phone,
the undercover officer confirmed the hotel room number, and then
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 23 of 41

-- 23 of 41 --

24 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
there was a knock on the door, followed by 20 people coming in.
The arriving officers pretended to arrest the undercover officer.
The officers took Barr downstairs “to a separate area.”
Then, one officer asked Barr what happened, and Barr explained
that she was stuck in Miami with no money and no way to get
home. At the time, Barr had $70 in cash and was saving that money
to buy a train ticket to Connecticut.
Some of the officers took Barr to the police station, where
she repeatedly told them “everything that happened to [her] while
[she] w[as] in Miami.” Barr was given food and clothes to wear,
and she was taken to a room where she could sleep on a couch.
The next day, officers (1) asked Barr more questions in a
transcribed interview under oath, (2) bought her a train ticket to
Connecticut, and (3) took her to a safe house where she could stay
until she left on the train.
P. Walker’s Arrest
Back at the Comfort Inn, other officers conducted
surveillance and ultimately also detained A.H., King, and Walker.
All three individuals were brought back to the police station, where
they were interviewed. A.H. and King were later released.
II. INDICTMENT AND PRETRIAL ISSUES
A. Superseding Indictment
A superseding indictment charged Walker with (1) sex
trafficking of an adult victim (Barr) by force, threats of force, or
coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 18
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 24 of 41

-- 24 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 25
U.S.C. § 2 (Count 1); (2) sex trafficking of a minor victim (A.H.) by
force, threats of force, or coercion and of a victim (A.H.) who had
not attained the age of 18 years, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2); and
(3) transporting an individual (King) to engage in sexual activity, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a) (Count 3). Walker pleaded not
guilty.
B. Notice of Expert Testimony
Before trial, the government filed a notice of expert
testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(a)(1)(G). The notice identified Special Agent Loff as the
government’s expert and indicated that “a summary of [his]
[t]raining and [q]ualifications . . . ha[d] been provided to the
defense.”
The government’s notice explained that Special Agent Loff
would (1) testify about cellular telephone data extraction and
preservation, “practices and methods used to advertise and manage
persons who engage in commercial sex acts,” and terminology
used in human trafficking and (2) opine that the advertisements,
methods, and terminology used by Walker and the victims were
“consistent with the engagement in commercial sex acts.”
Walker moved to (1) exclude Special Agent Loff’s expert
testimony, (2) demand further notice regarding his expert
testimony, and (3) request a Daubert8 hearing (“Walker’s Motion”).
8 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 25 of 41

-- 25 of 41 --

26 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Walker objected to the government’s notice on several bases:
(1) allowing Special Agent Loff’s testimony risked invading the
province of the jury in areas where expert testimony was
unnecessary and unhelpful; and (2) the government’s notice was
insufficiently specific as to Special Agent Loff’s qualifications as well
as the content of, and basis for, his expected testimony.
After reviewing Special Agent Loff’s curriculum vitae in
camera, the district court agreed with Walker and found the
government’s notice was insufficient to satisfy its obligations under
Rule 16(a)(1)(G). The district court ordered the government to file
an amended notice containing a complete summary of Special
Agent Loff’s expert testimony, his opinions, the bases and reasons
for those opinions, and a list of his qualifications.9
The government then filed a new notice of expert testimony,
again identifying Special Agent Loff as its expert witness. This
notice attached Special Agent Loff’s full curriculum vitae and
summarized his “training and qualifications in [both] the area of
9 At the time, Rule 16(a)(1)(G) provided:
At the defendant’s request, the government must give to the
defendant a written summary of any [expert] testimony that
the government intends to use . . . during its case-in-chief at
trial. . . . The summary provided under this subparagraph
must describe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for
those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) (2020).
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 26 of 41

-- 26 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 27
extracting data from cellular telephones” as well as “the area of
human trafficking.”
Specifically, the government noted that Special Agent Loff
(1) was “assigned to the Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking
Task Force”; (2) “was recently named Human Trafficking
Coordinator for the FBI-Miami Field Office”; (3) had participated
in approximately 20 to 30 investigations and interviewed more than
50 victims, defendants, and prostitutes; and (4) was familiar with
“the methods and tactics used by those engaged in human
trafficking activities,” “the methods of advertising trafficking
victims for purposes of prostitution,” and the terminology used to
advertise commercial sex acts.
In addition, the government detailed Special Agent Loff’s
anticipated testimony regarding cellphone data extraction. Finally,
the government explained that, “based on his training, experience,
and knowledge,” Special Agent Loff would testify about “the
prostitution and trafficking of [A.H.] and [Barr],” specifically
related to the use of internet advertisements on the website
“skipthegames.com” that were consistent with advertisements for
prostitution.
“[I]n light of ” the government’s new notice, the district
court denied without prejudice Walker’s Motion. Walker never
claimed that the new notice was insufficient until his brief in this
appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 27 of 41

-- 27 of 41 --

28 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
C. Hearing on Motions in Limine
Before trial, the district court held a hearing on the parties’
motions in limine.
Walker contested the admissibility of evidence of a
preexisting sexual relationship between Walker and A.H. based on
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the Confrontation Clause. The
government explained that the sexual relationship “[went] to the
coercion.”
In response, Walker argued that because A.H. never told law
enforcement that “she was forced or threatened or coerced into a
commercial sex act by the defendant,” the government would have
to prove coercion by “one, proving that the relationship happened,
and, two, having their expert witness, [Special] Agent Loff, testify
that, I guess, this is what happens in cases involving minors and
individuals involved in commercial sex acts.”
Ultimately, the district court allowed the prior-relationship
evidence, finding that it was “inextricably intertwined and also
offer[ed] evidence of preparation, plan, knowledge, absence of
mistake, intent, so it would be admissible under [Federal Rule of
Evidence] 404(b) also.”
III. JURY VERDICT, SENTENCE, AND APPEAL
After a seven-day trial, the jury found Walker guilty of all
three counts in the indictment.
Walker’s advisory guidelines range was 292 to 365 months.
The district court sentenced Walker to 300 months on Count 1, 300
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 28 of 41

-- 28 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 29
months on Count 2, and 120 months on Count 3, all to be served
concurrently, to be followed by 25 years of supervised release.10
Walker timely appealed. During closing arguments, Walker
conceded guilt as to Count 3 (King) and does not challenge that
conviction on appeal.
IV. SEX TRAFFICKING STATUTE
Both of Walker’s challenged convictions are under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1591, which is entitled “Sex trafficking of children or by force,
fraud, or coercion.”
As relevant here, § 1591(a)(1) provides that a defendant
commits the offense of sex trafficking if he (1) knowingly, in or
affecting interstate commerce, transports a person (2) knowing, or
in reckless disregard of the fact, either:
[(i)] that means of force, threats of force, fraud,
coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any
combination of such means will be used to cause the
person to engage in a commercial sex act, or [(ii)] that
the person has not attained the age of 18 years and
will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) (emphasis added).
As to Barr in Count 1, the indictment charged Walker with
using force, threats of force, or coercion, but not fraud. At trial,
however, the government admitted that there was no evidence of
10 Walker does not appeal his sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 29 of 41

-- 29 of 41 --

30 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
any force or threats of force. Rather, the government proceeded
under only a theory of coercion. Walker’s appeal as to Barr in
Count 1 focuses on the “coercion” element.
As to A.H. in Count 2, the government proceeded
alternatively under two theories: her status as a minor and
coercion. The jury completed a verdict form finding Walker guilty
of Count 2 on both theories. That verdict form showed the
following:
Walker’s conviction under the minor status theory carried a
mandatory minimum of 10 years, whereas his conviction under the
coercion theory carried a mandatory minimum of 15 years. See id.
§ 1591(b). During closing arguments, defense counsel conceded
guilt as to A.H.’s status as a minor but maintained that Walker was
not guilty under the coercion theory. Walker contends that his
conviction under the coercion theory as to A.H. must be vacated
because it depended on the government’s expert testimony about
how pimps use romantic relationships to coerce women into
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 30 of 41

-- 30 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 31
prostitution, but the government’s notice failed to sufficiently
disclose that testimony.
We first address Count 1 as to Barr.
V. COUNT 1 – BARR
As to Count 1, Walker argues that the government’s
evidence of coercion of Barr is insufficient to support his
§ 1591(a)(1) conviction because “Barr voluntarily decided to
engage in prostitution [to get money for] a train ticket home when
she stopped having fun.”
Because Walker moved for a judgment of acquittal on this
specific issue after the government rested and then renewed his
motion for judgment of acquittal on this specific issue at the close
of the evidence, he preserved this sufficiency issue for appeal. Cf.
United States v. Bichsel, 156 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 1998).
“The district court’s denial of the motions for a judgment of
acquittal will be upheld if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude
that the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244
(11th Cir. 2000). We review the sufficiency of the evidence de
novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government[] and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in
favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280,
1284 (11th Cir. 2009).
Under § 1591(e)(2), coercion is defined as (1) “threats of
serious harm to or physical restraint against any person”; (2) “any
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 31 of 41

-- 31 of 41 --

32 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that
failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical
restraint against any person”; or (3) “the abuse or threatened abuse
of law or the legal process.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(2). At trial, the
government proceeded under the second theory of coercion.
“Serious harm,” in turn, is “any harm, whether physical or
nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm,
that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances,
to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same
circumstances to perform or to continue performing commercial
sexual activity in order to avoid incurring that harm.” Id.
§ 1591(e)(5) (emphases added).
Here, a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a
reasonable doubt that Walker knew or was in reckless disregard of
the fact that his conduct caused Barr to believe that not engaging
in prostitution would result in harm so serious that it would
compel a reasonable person of Barr’s background and
circumstances to perform a commercial sex act to avoid that harm.
See id. § 1591.
First, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could
conclude that Walker had a “scheme” or “plan.” Id. § 1591(e)(2)(B).
Not only did Walker’s social media presence demonstrate a general
intent to pimp women—some of his milder postings refer to
“Getting Her To Sell It,” “break[ing] your bitch every morning,”
“giv[ing] her a new daily goal,” and “deposit[ing game] into her”—
Walker also specifically planned for Barr to engage in commercial
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 32 of 41

-- 32 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 33
sex work in Miami. Walker even told King that Barr would “be
better away from [Connecticut]” and “best” once “she realize[d]
she c[ould] do very well with [their] program.” Walker praised
A.H. for using the IZM (i.e., knowledge of the pimping game) to
get Barr “on board” for Miami. And before their arrival in Miami,
Walker contacted his niece for “auditions at [her] folx place(s)” for
his “team.”
Second, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that Walker’s scheme or plan was “intended to
cause [Barr] to believe that failure to perform a[] [commercial sex]
act would result in serious harm.” Id. § 1591(e)(2)(B). To begin
with, although Barr was told that “everything would be taken care
of” on the trip, Barr testified that, once the group arrived in Miami,
Walker told the women that they needed to “talk to some guys” to
gather funds for food and lodging. Barr added that Walker
instructed the women “to walk around and see if somebody
would . . . buy [them] some food and drinks, and then maybe
afterward, they would want to probably hang out”—which the
jury could infer meant having a “date” involving a commercial sex
act.
Walker rationed the women’s food, permitting them only a
few “spoonfuls” of yogurt one morning because the group was
short on money. And, after the women went out on the yacht,
Walker and A.H. used Barr’s cellphone to post an online
advertisement for Barr to engage in a commercial sex act “because
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 33 of 41

-- 33 of 41 --

34 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
[the women] weren’t making any money” and the group had only
one more night paid at the hotel.
Once the advertisement was posted, Walker directed Barr to
answer her cellphone “[i]f men called for a date.” When a man—
the undercover officer—reached out, Walker ordered Barr to text
or call him back. Then, once Barr set up the date, Walker drove
her to the Comfort Inn and gave her condoms.
Moreover, the evidence showed that, when Barr learned
that the group planned to stay in Miami longer than one week,
Walker was actively unhelpful when Barr expressed a desire to go
home. At one point, Walker ignored her plea. At another point,
Walker suggested an airplane. But when Barr demurred out of fear
of heights, Walker told her there was only one train per month
traveling from Miami, Florida to Connecticut. A reasonable jury
could view this evidence as Walker misleading Barr because trains
actually leave Miami for Connecticut twice daily.
In short, a reasonable jury could view the evidence as
showing that Walker intended Barr to believe that, if she did not
engage in sex work, she was at risk of (1) losing her lodging in
Miami, (2) continuing to go hungry, and (3) remaining stuck in an
unfamiliar city hundreds of miles from her home and family.
Third, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that Barr subjectively believed that she had to
engage in commercial sex acts to avoid serious harm. Barr went
out on the yacht for sex work to earn money for the train ticket
home. And Barr felt like she had to go on the Comfort Inn date
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 34 of 41

-- 34 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 35
because “when [she] tried to ask [Walker] if [she] c[ould] go home,”
she was ignored, and she had no money. Barr testified that she
thought sex work was “literally . . . the only way” to get home
because she had no other way to earn money.
Fourth, and finally, there was evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable person with
Barr’s background and in her circumstances would feel compelled
to engage in commercial sex acts to avoid serious harm. Barr did
not finish high school, grew up in Section 8 housing where “money
was tight,” had never been to Miami before, and had almost no
money with her on the trip. Barr was in an unfamiliar city
hundreds of miles from home and entirely dependent on Walker
for lodging, food, and transportation.
Walker faults Barr for not asking her mother or sister for
help. This ignores that Barr testified that “money was tight” when
she was growing up and she “d[id]n’t really ask for much” from her
mother and sister. Barr also testified that her family would help
her out “with whatever money that they do have.” That is
evidenced by the fact that Barr’s sister gave her $20 for pizza when
Barr asked. But a $156 train ticket is nearly eight times that
amount. A reasonable jury was entitled to infer that (1) Barr did
not feel like she could ask for that much money from her sister and
(2) Barr’s sister did not have the means to pay for Barr’s train ticket
because Barr told her the cost of the train ticket, she knew how
unhappy Barr was in Miami, and she knew about Barr’s financial
situation in light of her request for money to buy pizza.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 35 of 41

-- 35 of 41 --

36 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Walker also faults Barr for not seeking help from law
enforcement or otherwise using her cellphone to obtain help. The
jury was entitled to credit Barr’s testimony that she did not ask the
undercover officer for help because she feared he would not care
or, worse, would turn aggressive toward her. Similarly, a
reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable person with
Barr’s background could be at a loss for how to obtain help in an
unfamiliar city with little money and no independent means of
transportation.
To be clear, Walker does not win on sufficiency review by
merely pointing to other, different evidence in the record that
supports an acquittal. See United States v. Toll, 804 F.3d 1344, 1354
(11th Cir. 2015) (“The defendant must do more than put forth a
reasonable hypothesis of innocence[] because the issue is not
whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it
reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(quotation marks omitted)).
In short, there was sufficient evidence of Walker’s coercion
with respect to Barr. We affirm Walker’s conviction as to Count
1.
VI. COUNT 2 – A.H.
As noted, Walker argues that his coercion conviction as to
A.H. in Count 2 should be vacated because the evidence of
coercion hinged on expert testimony that was not disclosed before
trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(a)(1)(G). Walker contends that the government did not disclose
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 36 of 41

-- 36 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 37
that its expert, Special Agent Loff, would testify about how pimps
often use romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in
prostitution. Walker claims that this prejudiced his defense
because the expert testimony was critical to the government’s
coercion theory in Count 2 and Walker did not have a meaningful
opportunity to rebut that testimony either through
cross-examination or a rebuttal witness.
A. Plain Error Applies
We first explain why Walker did not adequately preserve
this issue for appeal. “To preserve an issue for appeal, one must
raise an objection that is sufficient to apprise the trial court and the
opposing party of the particular grounds upon which appellate
relief will later be sought.” United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003,
1011 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “The objection
must be raised in such clear and simple language that the trial court
may not misunderstand it.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
Here, after the government filed its amended Rule 16 notice,
the district court denied without prejudice Walker’s Motion.
Walker filed nothing on the docket reasserting his Rule 16
objection as to the amended notice between the district court’s
denial of Walker’s Motion and the trial. Walker also did not raise
his Rule 16 concern at the hearing on the parties’ motions in limine.
Then, during Special Agent Loff’s testimony at trial, Walker
did not object on Rule 16 grounds. Instead, Walker objected to
Special Agent Loff’s qualifications to testify as an expert in human
trafficking—an issue Walker does not raise on appeal. And when
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 37 of 41

-- 37 of 41 --

38 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
Special Agent Loff testified about how pimps use romantic
relationships to coerce sex trafficking victims, Walker objected
only once that the testimony “invad[ed] the province of the jury.”
Indeed, Walker concedes on appeal that is the objection he made.
Because Walker did not preserve this Rule 16 notice issue,
our review is limited to a plain error analysis. United States v.
Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014).
B. No Prejudice
“To prevail under the plain error standard, an appellant
must show: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) it
affected his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously affected the
fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 822. We need not
determine if any error occurred in the government’s amended
notice of Special Agent Loff’s expert testimony because any such
error so clearly did not affect Walker’s substantial rights for two
reasons.
First, Walker anticipated Special Agent Loff’s testimony
before trial. At the district court’s hearing on the parties’ motions
in limine, which took place about two weeks before trial, the
government defended its motion to admit evidence of the sexual
relationship between Walker and A.H., asserting that it “[went] to
the coercion.” In response, defense counsel walked through how
the government might use the sexual-relationship evidence to
prove coercion. Specifically, defense counsel theorized that the
government could do that by “one, proving that the relationship
happened, and, two, having their expert witness, [Special] Agent
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 38 of 41

-- 38 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 39
Loff, testify that, I guess, this is what happens in cases involving
minors and individuals involved in commercial sex acts.”
That is what happened at trial. The government offered
evidence of the relationship between Walker and A.H. through
text messages and testimony from Barr and King. The government
also offered testimony from Special Agent Loff about how coercion
may “start[] under the guise of a relationship,” but then “the pimp
will build this future life goal with the victim” by talking about
“travel[ing]” and a “luxurious lifestyle, and it will slowly develop
[in]to” that they “need to make money” to achieve that goal, and
“the only way [they] can make that money is if [the victim]
engage[s] in these commercial sex acts.” Special Agent Loff then
opined that the text messages between Walker and A.H. were
“consistent” with this pattern “based on [his] training and
experience in other cases.” Accordingly, because Walker
anticipated Special Agent Loff’s testimony, any error with the
notice did not affect Walker’s substantial rights.
Second, there was ample other sufficient evidence of
coercion as to A.H. for a reasonable jury to convict Walker on
Count 2. The jury learned that A.H. was a 15-year-old runaway
when she met Walker, who was 44 or 45. The jury heard that
Walker and A.H. lived together and they were in a romantic and
sexual relationship but that he hired her out for sex. The jury saw
text message conversations (1) where Walker instructed A.H. to
“[t]ake some” in-calls because they “cant starve and die”; (2) where
Walker told A.H., “Your feelings wont have me broke, looking
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 39 of 41

-- 39 of 41 --

40 Opinion of the Court 22-10164
foolish and like a suckah. . . . I cant pimp according to your
feelings[,] love,” when A.H. complained about another woman;
and (3) where Walker said he was “so disappointed” and threatened
that “[t]his certainly w[ould] go no further if [he] c[ouldn’t] talk to,
direct[,] and preside over the [girls].”
A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that
(1) A.H.’s young, runaway background and dependent
circumstances made her particularly susceptible to sex trafficking
and (2) A.H. feared that stopping the prostitution would result in
serious harm in the form of losing Walker’s emotional,
psychological, and financial support. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(5)
(defining serious harm as “any harm, whether physical or
nonphysical, including psychological[] [or] financial . . . harm, that is
sufficiently serious . . . to compel a reasonable person of the same
background and in the same circumstances to perform . . . commercial
sexual activity in order to avoid incurring that harm” (emphases
added)).
Walker argues that the government’s case was weak
without Special Agent Loff’s testimony that pimps often use
romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in prostitution
because “there was substantial evidence that [A.H.] was an eager
and complicit participant in Mr. Walker’s prostitution enterprise.”
To be sure, there was significant evidence of A.H.’s active
involvement in recruiting new women and advertising the
women’s services. And, during her custodial interview, A.H. told
law enforcement that she was “not th[e] type of girl” to be forced
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 40 of 41

-- 40 of 41 --

22-10164 Opinion of the Court 41
into anything. But the jury also heard Special Agent Loff testify
that a bottom does what the pimp directs and delegates and a
bottom can also be a victim of sex trafficking. Walker’s text
messages to A.H. support Special Agent Loff’s testimony in that
regard. We are bound to assume the jury found Special Agent Loff
credible—and A.H. not credible—on this point. Jiminez, 564 F.3d
at 1285 (“[W]e assume that the jury made all credibility choices in
support of the verdict.”).
In sum, Special Agent Loff’s testimony about how pimps
often use romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in
prostitution was a small part of a much larger case showing that
Walker coerced A.H. to engage in prostitution.
VII. CONCLUSION
We affirm Walker’s convictions on Count 1 and the
coercion theory in Count 2.
AFFIRMED.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164 Document: 72-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2023 Page: 41 of 41

-- 41 of 41 --