speech. Those challenges have been almost uniformly rejected by courts, including by this Court in Deverso, 518 F.3d at 1258. See United States v. Fletcher, 634 F.3d 395, 404 (7th Cir.2011); United States v. Humphrey, 608 F.3d 955, 962 (6th Cir.2010); United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 176 (4th Cir.2009); United States v. Wilson, 565 F.3d 1059, 1069 (8th Cir.2009); but see United States v. U.S. Dist. Court, Cent. Dist. Ca., 858 F.2d 534, 540-42 (9th Cir.1988) (engrafting a mistake of age defense on § 2251(a) after finding that the statute would otherwise violate the First Amendment). Only two of our sister circuits have faced, as we do here, a challenge to § 2251(a) based on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. See United States v. McCloud, 590 F.3d 560, 566-68 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Malloy, 568 F.3d at 176-77 (same). We have
holding that states inadvertent or negligent destruction of evidence did not violate defendants due process rights holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that district courts disallowance of a reasonable mistakeofage defense to  2251a charge did not violate the defendants due process rights holding that a district court grievance committees reliance on a state courts findings without holding an independent hearing did not violate the attorneys due process rights holding that sentencing court did not violate defendants due process rights when it reasonably refused to recall a witness for crossexamination