United States v. Thompson

── United States v. Thompson ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-5052 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 18, 2026 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-5052 GARRIN MICHAEL THOMPSON, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 4:22-CR-00118-JFH-1) _________________________________ Gregory M. Acton, Acton Law Office, PC, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant-Appellant. Elliot P. Anderson, Assistant United States Attorney (Clinton J. Johnson, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Oklahoma, Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ EID, Circuit Judge. _________________________________ Garrin Michael Thompson sexually abused his ten-year-old daughter in the bathtub and bed of a hotel room in Texas. When she disclosed the incident to some of her peers, three others came forward about their own sexually abusive experiences with Thompson. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Thompson of transportation  Appellate Case: 24-5052 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 2 of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, aggravated sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country, and coercion and enticement of a minor. Thompson now appeals, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove all the elements of the transportation of a minor and sexual abuse of a minor charges. On the transporting a minor charge, Thompson claims that the government needed, and failed, to prove that his “dominant purpose” for transporting his daughter to Texas was engaging in sexual activities with her. And as for the sexual abuse charge, Thompson argues that the government failed to prove the necessary element that he was a non-Indian. We affirm. First, the government did not need to prove that Thompson’s “dominant purpose” for transporting his daughter to Texas was engaging in sexual activities with her to convict him on the transportation charge. Rather, the statutory provision under which Thompson was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), required only that the government prove that Thompson transported his daughter to Texas “with intent” that she engage in illicit sexual activity. The government adduced sufficient evidence for the jury to make that finding. Second, the government’s evidence— unchallenged testimony from two of Thompson’s family members—sufficed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was a non-Indian. We reject Thompson’s contention that the government was required to disprove his Indian status through documentary evidence or through similarly corroborated testimonial evidence. 2  Appellate Case: 24-5052 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 05/18/2026 Page: 3 I. In March 2022, Thompson drove his ten-year-old daughter,