{"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_count": 92, "url": "https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00079409", "pdf_url": "https://epstein-data.com/pdf/EFTA00079409.pdf", "pages": [{"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 0, "text_content": "LAw 0.74=1 or \nGERALD B. Lnrcounr, P.C. \nA PROFeSSIONAL CORPORATION \n1493 CAST TB\" STREET \nNEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 \nGERALD B \nLEFCOURT \nSHERYL E. REICH \nriBlialloROWEWN:orn \nRENATO C. STABILE \naltRINBIeBoustar tom \nrainy \nBY HAND \nChief of the Criminal Division \nThe United States Attorney's Office \nSouthern District of Florida \n99 NE 4th Street \nMiami, Florida 33132 \nDear• Mr. Menthe': \nJuly 25, 2007 \nJeffiry Epstein \nTELEPHONE \nla 1E)7370400 \nm ailman\nWe have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 \nU.S.C. §2422(b) could or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, even assuming the specific \nconduct that you have alleged actually occurred. In that memo, we detailed Congress's intent in \nenacting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched \nbeyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's ease.' Enclosed is data that strongly \nsupports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution \nbrought under the statute for which data could be obtained. Based on that analysis, we submit \nthat the prosecutions actually brought under the statute overwhelmingly confirm the limits to \nprosecution we have previously identified.2\nFor several months, we have also been consulting on this matter with Stephanie Thacker, former \nPrincipal Deputy Chief, Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker \nsupports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statues should \nbe brought to bear. Ms. Thacker would also welcome any questions or concerns you would like to raise \nwith her. \nPlease note that the enclosed chart amends the one provided to you earlier this week by adding \nadditional details recently located. \nEFTA00079409\n", "char_count": 1826}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 1, "text_content": "LAW orricts er \nGERALD B. Lnrcount. P.C. \nsup \nChief of the Criminal Division \nThe United States Attorney's Office \nSouthern District of Florida \nJuly 25, 2007 \nPage 2 \nFor example, of the 184 prosecutions in which at least one count alleges a violation of \n§2422(b), in the overwhelming majority of those cases — 160, or over 85% — the \"means\" of \ninterstate communication was the Internet and involved the classic \"Internet trolling\" — far \ndifferent from the behavior alleged here. Of that subset, the vast majority -- 113 -- were \"sting\" \noperations involving \"children\" (actually, agents) said to be between 2 and 14 years of age. The \ngovernment in each of those instances took every precaution to verify that the defendant's actions \nwere undertaken \"knowingly\". \nthe extent we can determine the facts, it appears that prior to a \ncase being brought, in each instance multiple explicit (and recorded) conversations were had, so \nthere could be no question as to when the inducement was attempted, whether the inducement \nwas of explicit unlawful sexual activity, or what the defendant's belief was as to the age of the \n. victim. Again, this has no applicability to the facts alleged here. \nThe data is informative in other ways, as well. Though there are a handful of cases in \nwhich the telephone is one of a multiple of means of interstate communications allegedly used, in \nonly two such cases, both far different from the facts here,[ was the use of the telephone the sole \nmeans of the wrongdoing alleged. In the remaining telephone cases, the §2422(b) count is only \none of several amongst various charges of possession of child pornography, violence, and the \nlike. \nThe data from the chart also establish that in the vast majority of the cases brought, no \nsexual activity was actually consummated. That confirms that prosecutions under 42422(6) are \nfocused on protecting the federal interest in preventing the means of interstate communication \nfrom being used to commit crimes, par\n... [truncated, 2939 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00079409/1 or ?id=EFTA00079409&page=1]", "char_count": 2939}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 2, "text_content": "LAW OFFICCS Of \nGam•*n B LEPcourr. P.C. \nafialninal \nDivision \nThe United States Attorney's Office \nSouthern District of Florida \nJuly 25, 2007 \nPage 3 \nspoke directly or indirectly to women who were under 18. As the message books taken \n(unlawfully, in our view) during the search of Mr. Epstein's home clearly show, many women \ninitiated the interactions by repeatedly calling to schedule massages. If the calls on which the \ngovernment might seek to rely were merely \"return\" calls, certainly any alleged \"inducement\" \nwould be far from unambiguous. And of course, the woman who called would have to have been \nknown by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, and further, Mr. Epstein would have to have known and \nintended that a specific sexual activity unlawful under Florida law was being induced. \nThus, contrary to there being unambiguous proof of the required elements of a §2422(b) \nviolation in this case, at least the following defects exist: \nFirst, it is hardly the case that every massage resulted in sexual activity. Thus, merely \nbecause there was a telephone call, even one that might have \"induced\" a massage (which we \ndispute), such telephone call is not tantamount to the use of a telephone in violation of the \nstatute. \nSecond, even where a particular massage involved masturbation by Mr. Epstein or the \ntouching of a woman, we dispute that any such conduct is a violation of any applicable Florida \nlaw. \nfocused on the evidence which reflects the sworn statement of, for \nexampl \ntold state investigators that she was asked to find women between \n18 and \nMe Mr. Epstein with topless massages and which sometimes involved \ntheir being touched. Fla. Stat. Ann. §796.07, a general statute which proscribes \"prostitution\" \nand \"lewdness\", regardless of whether an adult or minor is involved, is of very limited \napplicability here. That statute's definition of \"prostitution\" excludes conduct of which there \nmay be evidence, specifically, a man masturbating himself while touching the br\n... [truncated, 2584 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00079409/2 or ?id=EFTA00079409&page=2]", "char_count": 2584}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 3, "text_content": "LAW o•ICCS or \nGERALD 13. LEVCOURT. PC \nChiefo the Criminal Division \nThe United States Attorney's Office \nSouthern District of Florida \nJuly 25, 2007 \nPage 4 \nWe are, of course, mindful of the fact that, unbeknownst to Mr. Epstein, some of the \nwomen were in fact not yet 18. It is certainly not clear that any state statutes were violated by \nMr. Epstein's conduct with any of these women, either. Florida law criminalizes relatively little \nsexual activity with persons between the ages of 16 and 18. For example, it is not a violation of \nthe laws regulating sexual activity to receive a massage from a person between 16 and 18 who is \ntopless or even naked. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §800.04 (lewd and lascivious conduct with a child \nbetween the age of 16 and 18). Nor does that statute make it a crime to touch the breasts or \nother private areas of someone between 16 and 18. Id. And, of course, even if a state crime was \ncommitted, which we surely do not concede, that does not make out a federal crime, unless it \ncould be proven that the defendant knowingly induced an illegal act over the telephone. \nMoreover, at best, the proof would show that only a small minority of massages resulted \nin what may possibly be characterized as sexual activity with a woman under the age of 18. But \neven where a massage involved sexual activity with a woman under 18, to the extent Mr. Epstein \ndid not know the woman was under 18, or the telephone call did not induce the activity, or Mr. \nEpstein did not intend the sexual activity at the time the telephone call arranging the massage, or \nthe person arranging the massage did not intend the sexual activity, there would be multiple \nadditional barriers to a successful prosecution. \nFurther, putting aside whether there is sufficient proof that Mr. Epstein knew (and not \nmerely that he \"should have\" surmised) that any of the women wore in fact under 18, the set of \nfacts hypothesized above has never before provided a legally sufficient predicate for\n... [truncated, 2670 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00079409/3 or ?id=EFTA00079409&page=3]", "char_count": 2670}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 4, "text_content": "LAW OF/PICCO OP \nGERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C. \n FCre₹  o \nCriminal Division \nThe United States Attorney's Office \nSouthern District of Florida \nJuly 25, 2007 \nPage 5 \nTo our knowledge, the current investigation lacks any direct (or even circumstantial) \nproof that an inducement was made by Mr. Epstein during the pivotal communication that is at \nthe very heart of any potential §2422(b) charge. Even if the government contends that Mr. \nEpstein induced unlawful sexual activity at some point, face to face, after a telephone call, the \nseparation of the communication and the inducement takes Mr. Epstein's alleged misconduct \noutside the ambit of federal prosecution. It would be unprecedented (and unprincipled), as the \nchart demonstrates, to prosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) absent proof beyond a reasonable \ndoubt both that he knew the age of the person and that he intended in that communication to \ninduce sexual activity that is unlawful under Florida law. It would also be unprecedented to \nprosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) based on a telephone call made by a third party without \ndirect proof that Mr. Epstein intended that telephone call to induce unlawful sexual activity. \nFor all of these reasons, as well as those asserted at the meeting of June 26 and in our \nfollow up letter dated July 6, 2007, as well as our earlier letter of June 25, we submit that no \ncharge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) can be brought. If you have any questions or would like to \ndiscuss this liuther, we are available. \nVery truly yours, \ncc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. \nAlan M. Dershowitz \nEFTA00079413\n", "char_count": 1594}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 5, "text_content": "JEFFREY EPSTEIN \n18 U.S.C. §2422(b) CASE ANALYSIS CHART \nA nationwide search of all cases listing charges under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) underscores the undeniable fact \nthat this statutory provision has been used almost exclusively to apply to situations involving Internet \"trolling\" \nby sexual predators. Out of a total of 184 cases listed in the chart below, the overwhelming majority — 144 cases —\ninvolves communications using the Internet. Of those cases, 115 involve the classic \"Internet Sting\" operations \nwhere either the government or a private organization has focused its investigative efforts on the use of the \nInternet to lure infants and minors, 3-14 years-old. Of those 115 cases, 71 involved the use of Internet chat \nrooms. As the chart reflects, the circumstances under which this statute has been applied invariably involved \ncommunications containing an explicit inducement — if not many — to the minor to engage in sex, and reflect the \ndefendant's clear knowledge of the age of the minor. \nNotably out of the184 cases, only 2 cases involve the use of only the telephone. Both of those cases \ninvolve charges against pimps using phones to arrange appointments for prostitutes. In addition, both of those \ncases involve violence and pimps who admitted to using phones to further their business ventures. Moreover, in \nboth cases many other factors, including the distribution of narcotics, use of force and possession of firearms were \npresent. See U.S. v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007); U.S. v. Phillips, 165 Fed. Appx. 677 (10th Cir. 2006). \nIn addition, the telephone and not the Internet served as the \"facility or instrument\" of interstate commerce in 4 \nforeign travel sting operation cases geared towards \"sex tourism\". \nOut of the 184 cases listed below, only 17 involved actual sexual activity, 6 of them by use of force. \nIt is also clear that in no case — other than U.S. v. Howard, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67214 (W.D.N.C. 2006) \n(co-conspirator pimps in prostituti\n... [truncated, 2321 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00079409/5 or ?id=EFTA00079409&page=5]", "char_count": 2321}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 6, "text_content": "U.S. v. Jackson. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy charge dropped because no \nconspiracy possible with undercover agent); U.S. v. Bianchi, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90073 (E.D. Pa. 2006) \n(2423(e) conspiracy). \nbr(\n‘ \n. \nFACILITY • FAciagautgaugiN \nCHARGE \n \n1\" Cir. \nU.S. v. Dewire, \n271 F.3d 333 (1\" Cir. \nInternet \nAOL instant message (1M) \ncommunication with \"12 yr-old\"; \n2422(b) \n2001) \nsexually explicit conversation, at the end \nof which defendant arranged to meet \"12 \nyr-old\" at a restaurant. In reality \ncommunications were with an adult \nswim team coach who had been using the \ngirl's computer; coach turned print out of \nconversation over to police who \nobserved defendant entering and leaving \nthe restaurant and arrested him. \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSentence 13 months; appeals conviction \n& sentence. Affirmed. \n2 \nEFTA00079415\n", "char_count": 884}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 7, "text_content": "s. - \nkr. 1/4H-,?3c4,,k2iitats..t:,.‘,\n;i: \n, --,,,,,stottra%-4,?..ite,,, 4 \n.f-At:.\n,443.,,,,,,,......,,A., \n.\nT,, -\nn.\n.-, \ni‘26-0 6AulthalienT\n. 4- \n'‘S\n-....;,.qaai•! \na \n' \n. \n• \n•:). \n• ;'-': - t-• $••- . \nU.S. v. Gravenhorst, \n2006 U.S. App. LEXIS \n32373 (1st Cir. 2006); \nvacating \n377 F.3d 49 (In  Cir. 2004) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nuse of email by 45 yr-old male to \nproposition 4 16 yr-old girls& one under \n16 yrs-old to engage in sex with him; \ndefendant pretended to be 19 yr-old and \nsent numerous graphic emails asking \nminors for sex; also sent sexually- \ncharged images to them — including \ncouple engaging in sex and an erect \npenis. Sentence vacated in light of \nBooker. \n2422(6); \n1470; \n14 62 \nNo Information \n2nd Cir. \nU.S. v. Friedman, \n139 Fed. Appx. 330 (2nd\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nEmail communications with actual 14 yr- \nold; defendant arranged to meet and \nactually met 14 yr-old girl and engaged \nin \"sexual touching\"; interrupted by \nsecurity guard at mall; instant messages \nreflected defendant's intention to present \nhimself to the upon meeting 14 yr-old in \nan aroused state once they met; \ndefendant found with condoms in his car; \n& when arrested photos were found on \nhis digital camera, one of which he had \nsent to the 14 yr-old via email. \nConviction affirmed but 81 month \nsentence vacated to be reconsidered in \nlight of Booker. \n2422(6); \n2423(6) \nConsummated \n3 \nEFTA00079416\n", "char_count": 1433}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 8, "text_content": "CllURT \n' zettaa;pette,-.:z! \nr. , \nCASES .1::x \n• \n.7.... \n, CYL, \n\"34r \nv \n* \n4 , \nFACIMTV - FAparpvg \nwATioN.. ; \n-CUARGE. \nU.S. v. Weisser, \nInternet \nAOL IM chats (over 6) between 45 yr- \n2422(h); \n417 F.3d 336 (2nd Cir. \nSting \nold male from San Francisco and \"II yr- \n2423(b); \n2005) \nold male\" in NYC; discussed in graphic \nlanguage the kinds of previous sexual \nactivity he had engaged in with other \nminor males and those he planned to \nengage in with the \"11 yr-old\" ; \ndefendant arranged to meet the \"boy\" at \na hotel in NYC; talked on the telephone \ntwice (calls recorded); requested photos \nto verify age; made detailed plan for \"11 \nyr-old\" to skip school and stay with him \nat hotel in NYC; defendant sent \"1 I yr-\nold\" his flight and hotel information and \nwaited for \"boy\" in hotel room where \narrested; police found defendant with \nsexual paraphernalia and CD in computer \ncontaining child porn which had been \ncreated from images downloaded from \ndefendant's computer. \n2252A(a)( I ) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up at meeting \n210 month sentence remanded to be \nreconsidered in light of U.S. v. Crosby, \n397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). \n4 \nEFTA00079417\n", "char_count": 1167}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 9, "text_content": "- \n• 1\"\n.\"- \nt....7 \nS..• \nMC \n1‘,.\n, \nyr \n- \n. \nVI ' \n^ \nMiN)l \nh \n7 \nA \na \n- \n. \nU.S. \nv. Minnici, \n128 Fed. Appx. 827 (2nd\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nDefendant drove 170 miles to engage in \nsexual activities with \"13 yr-old\" after \nengaging in 1M chats, and telephone \n2422(b); \n2423(b) \nSting \nconversations; N chats . Defendant \nNot \nfound to be in possession of graphic \nphotographs. Defendant also engaged in \nConsummated \nIM chats with \"14 yr-old\" during which \nhe expressed desire to travel to meet her; \nalso other IM chats where defendant \ndescribed \"coaching\" high-school girls in \nsexual terms; photo of grown man \nmasturbating in front of a 2 yr-old. \n\"Addictive\" nature of Internet \ncommunications with minor warranted \npre-trial detention and revocation of \nbond. \n5 \nEFTA00079418\n", "char_count": 805}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 10, "text_content": ",,,,,,,- -, , ; \n--, \nf. \nts ,,2t \n4 rt < \nt, \nnit \n1 OVA,\nU.S. V. Brand, \n467 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. \n2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; civilian posing as \n\"13 yr-old girl\" in \"I Love Older Men\" \nchat room; defendant proposed they meet \nand he \"hug\" her and they could fool \naround and \"do it all\"; offered to \"teach \nher\" how to have sex and \"how to be a \nwoman\"; civilian turned chats over to \npolice; defendant used the telephone to \nplan and arrange to meet for sex; arrested \nwhen he showed up. Police found child \nporn on his computer and condoms in his \ncar. \n2422(6); \n2423(b) \nNot Consummated. \nShowed up at meeting \naga \nU.S. v Miller, \n148 F.3d 207 (2' Cir. \n1998) \nNeither, \npossibly cell \nphone & \nbeepers \nGang members; pimp recruited underage \ngirls for prostitution and traveled \ninterstate with them. \n2422(6); \n2423(b) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Johnson. \n221 F.3d 83 (2nO Cir. 2000) \nInternet \nInternet contact with 3 separate minor \ngirls and traveled to engage in illegal \nsexual conduct. \nPled guilty to travel from MA to NY; \nVA to MD; & VA to MI to meet 13 yr- \nolds & have sex; and convincing minor \nto travel from MD to VA to have oral sex \nwith him; all through the Internet. \nPled guilty — 88 month sentence \nAffirmed. \n2422(b); \n2423(b); \n2252(a)(1) & (a)(4)(B) \nConsummated \n6 \nEFTA00079419\n", "char_count": 1319}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 11, "text_content": "_„,____\n, :.,....,,i,. . ,, \n:MINtrt \nc ; rct., \n....c..,--,;%...1-,,, ..p47.5,:„ : \nYa\n..., \n;Id *;`,-;-- -r \n...-; \nA 4 4..› \n, . \n1 k.ii 17* \n- \nVS \n, \n.. \ndo--:4 • \n.- \nI \nx \ne \n_F\n,\n.. \n.t-. \n:x.1.7 \n• \nc \n3\" Cir. \nU.S. v. Lee, \n315 F.3d 206 (3rd Cir. \n2003) \nInternet \nInternet chat \nroom\"GirlsandOlderGuys\"; 30 yr-old \ncontacted minor in chat room; met actual \n15 year-old in chat room; arranged to \nhave her travel to meet him; they met \nand engaged in sexual acts. Also \nattempted to meet other minors online to \nengage in sexual activity; transmitted \nchild porn online. \nPled guilty to 2252A and 2422(b) and \nsentenced to 57 months; appealed \nsentence requiring supervised release \ncondition requiring random polygraph \ntesting. Affirmed. \n2252A(a)(l) & (b)( I); \n(a)(5)(B) & (b)(2); \n2423(b); \n2422(b) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Awwad, \n184 Fed. Appx. 201 (3\" \nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nCase involved typical Internet sting \noperation. No specific facts available. . \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nsling \n7 \nEFTA00079420\n", "char_count": 1042}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 12, "text_content": "U.S. v. Hlavac, \nSlip Copy, 2006 WL \n3368897 (3rd Cir. 2006) \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nPublication \nNo \nInformation \nDefendant arrested for having sex with a \n2 yr-old who was offered by the mother. \nAppealed 240 month sentence. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Garcia, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n986874 (3'd Cir. 2007); \nsee also U.S. v. Garcia, \n2005 WL 1862409 (M.D. \nPa. 2005)(Unpublished) \ninfra \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nPublication \nInternet \n56 yr-old male met 14 yr-old on \nInternet; traveled to meet her for sex \nand had sex with her. \nPled guilty but appealed 100 month, 5yr \nsupervision & fines. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Tykarsky, \n446 F.3d 458 (3'd Cir. \n2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Iloveoldermen2\"; \ndefendant initiated IM chat with \"14 yr- \nold\"; indicated interest in having sex \nwith her; contacted the \"14 yr-old\" on at \nleast 8 different dates& described in \nexplicit detail sexual acts he hoped to \nperform with her; asked \"14 yr-old\" for \nphoto; during Internet chat defendant \narranged to meet \"14 yr-old\" at a hotel \nand described sexual acts he intended to \nengage in with her; defendant showed up \nat hotel and arrested. \nActual minor not required; maximum \nsentencing provided by PROTECT Act \nremanded because conduct occurred \nbefore effective date of the Act (April 30, \n2003). \n2422(b); \n2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up at meeting \nSting \n8 \nEFTA00079421\n", "char_count": 1423}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 13, "text_content": "-.? \ntra-\nfr\nlit -• \n1; \n''' ''\n, \n' \n. \n,g,4,.. \n. \n\"'- - '' .''. \n. \n, %PI \n?' • '. ' \nIt \n.. \n„ ,.., \n. \na \n' \n••• r.\" r• \n4'h Cir. \nU.S. v. Bray, \n133 Fed. Appx. 80 (4'h Cir. \n2005) \nUnpublished \nChallenge to sentence of 168 and 180 \nmonths for 2 counts of 2422(b) \nconviction and 60 month conviction for \nmarijuana possession — all but 24 \nmonths to be concurrent or alternative \nsentence of 204 months - court affirmed \nsentence. \n2422(b); \n21 USC 841 \n(marijuana possession ) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Taylor, \n6 Fed. Appx. 174 (4th Cir. \n2001) \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nPublication \nNo \nInformation \nNo information. Appealed 71 month \nsentence. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Kaye \nSlip Copy, 432007 WL \n1978226 (4`h Cir. 2007) \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nPublication \nInternet \nInternet communications by 54 yr-old \nmale with \"13 yr-old male\"; defendant \ntold \"13 yr-old\" he was \"prowling for \nyoung men\" on the Internet; defendant \nemailed explicit photos of himself naked \nand having oral sex with another male; \ndefendant engaged in several sexually \nexplicit chats with \"14 yr-old\"; arranged \nto meet \"14 yr-old\" for sex; when \ndefendant arrived he was met by \n\"Dateline\" crew instead. Conviction & \nsentence affirmed \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated\nSting \nby private \norganization\n9 \nEFTA00079422\n", "char_count": 1323}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 14, "text_content": "•' \n'Ir. \n;,' \nI \n': \nAr\"; r \n:4, \n:4- '?.. \nA ' \nMI . ' \n51\n;:a\nbi\ntiatt\n,\nWe-\n ,- \n. I: \n. \nte.. \n.A.\n\"r \n- \n-- ' N \n:,.\n ., \nV\" Cir. \nU.S'. v. Earner, \n251 F.3d 510 (5'h Cir. \n2001) \nInternet \nDefendant met \"I4 yr-old\"through 1M \nchat; defendant kept in contact with her \nthrough Internet and attempted to entice \n\"14 yr-old\" to have sexual relations with \nhim; engaged in IM chats and telephone \nconversations for three months; through \nInternet arranged to meet at restaurant to \nhave sex; drove to restaurant and was \narrested. \nLegal impossibility not a defense. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Cherian, \n58 Fed. Appx. 596 (5'\" Cir. \n2003) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Mom and Daughter \nSex\"; defendant initiated conversations \nwith \"mother of 13 yr-old\"; over 13 \nmonths communicated with her relating \nsexually explicit details of sex \nexperiences and preferences with the \"13 \nyr-old\"; arranged to meet \"13 yr-old\" for \nsex and arrested when he showed up. \nConviction affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Berger, \n119 Fed. Appx. 658 (5'h\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information. \nPled guilty to 2422(6); appealed plea and \nsentence. Appeal dismissed. \n2422(6) \nNo Information \n10 \nEFTA00079423\n", "char_count": 1316}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 15, "text_content": "Ire. \n- \n47- -• a \n. , \n.. _ \n_ \nU.S. v. Ixaorre, \n61 Fed. Appx 557 (5\" Cir. \n2003) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information. Sentence restriction that \nprohibits defendant from \"visiting any \nareas near schools, day-care centers...\" \nafter release from 105 imprisonment \naffirmed. \n242204; 2423(6) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Armendariz, \n451 F.3d 352 (5th Cir. \n2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room\"Lil Boys for Older \nMen\"; 38 yr-old man entered & \ncontacted minor \"boy\" through chat \nroom describing sexual encounters he \nwould like to have with the \"boy\"; \nclaimed he would like to teach the \"boy\" \nhow to perform sexually; later used \nphone to continue contact and arranged \nto meet for sex; arrested when he showed \nup for the meeting. Computer analysis \nshowed that he had corresponded with at \nleast 4-5 other actual minor males but \nhad never attempted to have sex w/ them. \nGovernment contested failure to require \nsupervision upon release after 60 month \nsentence; sentence vacated and remanded \nbe court did not consider the guidelines \nin not requiring post release supervision. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n11 \nEFTA00079424\n", "char_count": 1168}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 16, "text_content": ",..,, „, ,... \nqu#T-- _ \n \n.._: \nt 4f\nA6Sciiiitaret\ni,\n-41\n 14*Z PIVI\n:e.6\nU.S. v. Wise, \n447 F.3d 440 (5ih Cir. \n2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; 38 yr-old from \nTexas established Internet contact with \n13 yr-old; defendant lied about his age \nbecause he knew 13 yr-old was not \ninterested in sexual relationship with \nsomeone his age; IM chats and telephone \ngot more and more sexually explicit; \ndefendant and 13 yr-old discussed talked \nsex acts they would perform together; \ndefendant asked her to send explicit nude \nphotos of herself; arranged to travel to \nmeet for sex and recorded encounters; \nmet on at least 3 separate occasions and \nperformed sexual acts & took non-sexual \n& sexual photos. \nContested 168 month sentence because \nof \"grouping\" in pre-sentence report. \nAffirmed. \n2422(6); \n2423(b) \nConsummated \n12 \nEFTA00079425\n", "char_count": 846}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 17, "text_content": "•'; \n• \n1/..,.... \n- \n \n„ \n\",•46itk \ng \n\":141‘' \nat- - - ;,-ftw \n-4.4:). \n•- t : , \n4.1\".4..,.„1 \naght \n‘• - '\n • \n?\"; 2, m\"Jeae Z - \ntri,z, \nt , \n \njr, \nexhitak.. \n, \nraTiit2c., _\n .. \n,•... 4.4,4,‘...-:; \n6th Cir. \nU.S. v. Smith, \n20 Fed. Appx. 412 (6th Cir. \n2001) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet and telephone communications \nbetween 42 yr-old an d16 yr-old girl; the \ntwo met and had sexual relations; when \nthe 16 yr-old tried to end the \nrelationship, the defendant threatened \nand physically abused hergirl; police \nengage in undercover investigation. \nChallenged use of prior felony \nconvictions to enhance sentencing to 150 \nmonths. Affirmed. \n2422(6); \n2423(6); \n2252 \nConsummated \nU.S. v. First, \nSlip Copy \nInterne( \nInternet communications between \n2422(b); \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n1700818 (66' Cir. 2007) \nNot for \nPublication \nsling \ndefendant and\"mother of under age \ngirls\"; defendant expressed interest in \nhaving sex with \"daughters\"; arranged to \nmeet; arrested when he showed up after \nattempting to escape and hit officer with \nhis car. \nPled guilty; contested 144 month & 10 \nyr. supervision sentence. Affirmed. \n2423(b) \n2241O; \n2241e; \nI I 1 (assault of officer) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \n13 \nEFTA00079426\n", "char_count": 1245}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 18, "text_content": ",..4.7...\n,,\nafficat, \n„.,. \n4  \nr\"C',2\n\",\n,,. \n- \"‘ \nAtAisiii-. \n•,ta. .7 \na \n, 1*--ti.''\"-- \nc >;;. ti\n,, \nwciA7 ...4”,,,ceitr454..\"3t2, -arm rtiowvi.0.\n- \n1,,\naitatv , • a \nU.S. v. Yokeley, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n1958627 (6ih Cir. 2007) \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nPublication \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"moms want older \nmen for dau.\"; approached \"mother of 12 \n& 9 yr-olds\" for sex with all three; \ngraphic conversations with \"12 yr-old\" \nabout having oral sex with her & getting \nher \"9 yr-old\" sister to participate; used \ntelephone to finalize arrangements to \nmeet for sex with \"girls\" & told them to \nget morning after pill because he did not \nwant to use condom; wanted to be first \nsexual partner of the \"12 yr-old\"; \narrested when he showed up. \nPled guilty; contests 108 month sentence. \nAffirmed. \n2422(h); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Salazar, \n185 Fed. Appx. 484 (6th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information. Consolidation of 2 cases \nsame defendant - New Mexico & \nMichigan grand jury charges of 2422(a) \n& (b); 2423(6) & 2251. \nPled guilty without reservation to \nchallenge constitutionality of PROTECT \nAct. Act found constitutional and \nconviction affirmed. \n2422(a) & (b); \n2423(b); 2251(a) \nNo Information \n14 \nEFTA00079427\n", "char_count": 1292}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 19, "text_content": "COUR T \n..\nCASES \n_ \n. ., \n!a \nFACT4M\n/COMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Fuller, \n77 Fed. Appx. 371 (6'h Cie \n2003) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nDefendant engaged in Internet IM chats \nwith adult women which he continued \nwith telephone contact; women reported \nhim to police because of his \npreoccupation with having sex with \nminors; police conducted Internet sting \noperation; defendant began IM & \ntelephone communications with \"14 yr-\nold\" described explicit sexual acts, \nincluding mother/daughter sex; sent \nphotos of women having sex with dogs; \narranged a meeting with \"14 yr-old\" to \nhave sex; arrested when he showed up. \n2422(6); 2252(a)(1); \n(a)(4)(B) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nChallenged sentence of 135 months & 2 \nyear supervision. Affirmed. \nU.S. v. Kiser, \n104 Fed. Appx. 479 (6th\nCir. 2004) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; 32 yr-old met 16 \nyear-old; engaged in IM and telephone \ncommunications containing graphic \ndescriptions of sexual desires & role \nplaying; mother found daughter in motel \nroom with defendant and called police; \nthis was appeal of the court's refusal to \nask jurors during voir dire if they thought \nthat a 16 year-old could seduce an adult. \n2422(b) \nConsummated \nCourt found no error. \n15 \nEFTA00079428\n", "char_count": 1271}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 20, "text_content": "COVRT: \n:\n \n- \n° \n• \n7, \n.. \nt \nCILITY \n, „ \n., ,\n, \n'FASTE/COMMUNICATION \n. \n. . \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Chriswell, \n401 F.3d 459 (6ih Cir. \n2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room ' 11 Love Older \nMen\"; 52 yr-old met \"14 yr-old\" in chat \nroom; engaged in at least 14 explicit \nsexual conversations; arranged to meet \nand arrested when he showed up. \n2422(6); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nAppeals 2 level enhancement of sentence \nbecause undercover agent was not actual \nminor; court agreed with defendant and \nreversed and remanded. \nShowed up for meeting \nU.S. v. Hamm, \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"I wanna do older \n2422(b); \n400 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. \n2005) \naim \nmen\"; 27 yr-old initiated conversation \nwith \"14 yr-old\"; defendant expressed \ndesire to have sexual relations with her & \nsent her money to buy a plane ticket in \norder to meet him for sexual activity. \n2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nArrested when he went to airport to pick \nher up. \nShowed up for meeting \nPled guilty and challenged 33 month \nsentence because court failed to \nrecognize its ability to depart downward \nfrom the guidelines; sentence vacated. \n16 \nEFTA00079429\n", "char_count": 1135}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 21, "text_content": "Sit \n.. \n,. \n- \n4‘. \n,,. \n.1,-,i,„m:;$!,.7 \n \n.,„„ \net. 4.-.. \n1,,-, 11;+: \n\" \n- • mr, \n453 \n:ca.\n•?-.:,...;eppE.4:::.,\nii\n....t far\ntii.:,7 fft.SE)671\":41-Z-:-\n. \nIN,\n' LC-Li \n14 \n-: \nIg;t :40:11P;.::, ,.; 41ACA,Cic.4 \n.,p.41: \nU.S. v. Payne, \n77 Fed. Appx. 772 (6i° Cir. \n2003) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room contact with \"14 yr- \nold\"; defendant asked \"14 yr-old\" if she \nwould perform oral sex on him and told \nher he wanted to touch her under her \nclothes; arranged to meet at a restaurant. \n2422(h) \nNot Consummated\nSting \nArrested when he showed up. \nShowed up for meeting \nPled guilty but challenged sentence base \noffense level computation; court \naffirmed 24 month & 2 year supervision. \nU.S. v. McCall, \n79 Fed. Appx. 795 (6'h Cir. \n2003) \nUnpublished \nJnternet \nInternet chat room; initiated \ncommunication with \"15 yr-old\"; FBI \ntook over and continued communications \nas \"13 yr-old\"; defendant indicated he \nwanted to engage in sexual intercourse \nwith \"13 yr-old\" and arranged to meet; \narrested at the meeting place. \n2422(b); 2243(a) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up at meeting\nStine \nHis computer revealed contact with at \nleast 3 actual minors; charged with \n2243(a)and 2422(b); pled guilty to 2423 \nin exchange for dropping 2422 charge; \nchallenged court's failure to depart \ndownward; appellate court dismissed for \nlack of jurisdiction because judge knew \nthat she could depart downward. \n17 \nEFTA00079430\n", "char_count": 1435}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 22, "text_content": "{nv\n, \n. \n ,..y..4 .,,p.th : I r . \nj\"'T \n' -77\n \nSS  \naks24.2-2.(b:\n74;11-.\n1~.9\n \niwic.# \nU.S. v. Bailey, \n228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. \n2000) \nInternet \nDefendant contacted minors through \nInternet; used graphic language \ndescribing how he wanted to perform \noral sex on them and urged them to meet \nhim; asked for photos of minors; \nadmitted to trying to set up meetings for \nsex with other minors but said they never \ntook place. \nGuilty of attempt to use the Internet to \npersuade, etc.. \nNot Consummated \nU.S. v. Coppedge, \n12 Fed. Appx. 270 (6\" Cir. \n2001) \nUnpublished \nComputer \nPled guilty to using computer to entice a \nminor & 2423(b); challenged 57 month \n& 3 year supervision sentence. Affirmed. \n2422(h) and 2423(b) \nU.S. v. Champion, \n248 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. \n2001) \nInternet \n(involves \nkidnapping) \nInternet chat room; met 13 year-old in \nintemet chat room whiled pretending to \nbe 19 yrs-old; took her interstate; \nsexually molested her over 3 day period \nand held her against her will. \nPled guilty; challenged sentence \nenhancement as career offender and as \nviolent crime; court affirmed sentence. \n2422(6); 2423(a); \n2251(a) and \n2252A)(4)(B) \nConsummated/ Force \n18 \nEFTA00079431\n", "char_count": 1198}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 23, "text_content": "1 ''Srh,•-•, - '' \n11W \n, \n-2,,Ltic \n' ..a.', \n• \nI\ni \n7.1/4 .n \n-,-Mbr \n• \nW•Ar:•-\n-\niite \nill I1A \n, N \ne \n, \nrs fr. — \n4 \n‘ r \nar, 4J 0 \nm 3 ..t,  \n\"r \n, \n, \n \n— \nz \n...— ,....n. \n•t ',Ina \n64:1174 h \n Vi \n.\"--` iil \nU.S. v. Vaunt's, \n8 Fed. Appx. 555 (6\" Cir. \n2001) \nUnpublished \nNo information presented. Challenged \napplication of special condition to his 3 \nyear supervised release after serving his \n53 month sentence that he not possess a \ncomputer; court affirmed because \ndefendant agreed to the condition at pre-\nsentence hearing. \n2422(b); 2252A \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Humphrey, \n146 Fed. Appx. 1 (6\" Cir. \n2005) \nUnpublished \nIn Wu et \ndefendant setg up a meeting through the \nInternet and traveled to engage in sex \nwith \"7 & 12 yr-olds & their mother\". \nPled guilty. Challenged sentencing; \ncourt reversed sentencing because \nsentence was issued under a \"pre-\nBooker\" regime. \n2422(6); \n2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n19 \nEFTA00079432\n", "char_count": 979}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 24, "text_content": "7\n')\"\n.t; \n0 J; . 540 \nL JL4\n-:th a \n:.\"<)\" r; . \n•\n- \n21\n06.,:.7 \n...4 ....,.. \n0';Urr -,•-O \n+.4 +.0...,  \n..\"  C V 51\n1 \n\" 1:' 'il...j. \n-N \ncAC 1' .>, :, 8 kdkirl 5P F etr : \n• \nf \n,- \ne • \n1 . 'g \n- .... \n71\" Cir. \nU.S. v. Mallon, \n345 F.3d 943 (7\" Cir. \nInternet \nInternet chat room; British citizen met \n\"15 yr-old\" in chat room; he repeatedly \n2422(b) \nSting \n2003 ) \nattempted to entice her into having sex \nwith him and boasted about another \nrelationship with a \"15 yr-old\" in \nNot Consummated\nFlorida; when \"15 yr-old\" finally agreed \ndefendant flew from Belfast to Chicago \nfor that purpose; arrested in hotel when \nhe tried to hug & kiss the agent. Police \nfound condoms; video camera set-up to \nfilm in hotel room; at defendant's home \npolice found sexually graphic \ncommunications between defendant and \nother minors. \nShowed up for meeting \nGovernment challenged the judge's \ndownward departure in sentencing based \non defendant's heart condition and \nseverely diminished capacity to make \ngood judgments and deportable alien \nstatus; court vacated the sentence and \nremanded. \n20 \nEFTA00079433\n", "char_count": 1112}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 25, "text_content": "...-•s,i \n. iu:Sc.t \".' \ni \nd\" \n‘: \nA' \nIt. .2\n1.— . c'‘ \n-\"4, !..fl.\n \n' \n, \n\"....410647.41,\n4.\n \n0. \n„ \n. \n: \n.. iz. i.iYR. \nAh. it \nU.S. V. Veazey, \nSlip Copy \nInternet \nInternet chat room \" 9SeXy HiGh \n2422(6); \n— F.3d —, \nfor \nSting \nSchOol HoTTiEs*\" ; 48 yr-old man \ncommunicated with \"15 yr-old\" by \n2423(b) \n2007 WL 1892821 (7th Cir. Publication \nInternet & later by telephone for months; \n2007) \nvery graphic sexually explicit \nconversations; defendant tried to teach \nNot Consummated \n\"15 yr-old\" how to seduce her friend; \ntold her he wanted to have sex with her \nShowed up for meeting \n& her friend and wanted to take photos \n& make a movie; arranged to meet for \nsex; arrested when he showed up. \nAffirmed. \n21 \nEFTA00079434\n", "char_count": 738}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 26, "text_content": "6 Jw_ \n,....a..a. A-:\"Th. 4.4 0,74. ,. \n_.,...aks..\nirsi9-.,w. .ferc,  \n♦ — ,--,bli \n- itzit_------ \nIf\n'\nLIZ - ,:cc,;;,..t\n,-, \ncsEsfertheff,--„,\n,,tray„ \n— \n: -___:\".\"' \nl azu_ ; ,. ._ \n,.:,,\n,yrra.\"; \n:,:z.f•- •-va\nse-iis:.• 4,--at'i - \n*** U.S. v. Pisman, \n443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. \n2006) \n***Conspiracy charge*** \nInternet \n25 Internet chats between defendant and \nco-conspiratorPisman ; the two were \ninvolved in a sexual relationship & made \nplans for defendant to travel to meet with \nco-conspirators & others to engage in \nsex; more than one of those were minor \nboys. Co-conspirator had been the one \nto contact the minors so he was charged \nwith 2422(b), defendant was charged \nwith conspiracy to travel under 2423(b). \nJury acquitted defendant of conspiracy to \ntravel but found him guilty of 2422(b) \nviolation. \nCourt remanded for resentencing because \nof court's downward departure in P's \nsentence. \nConspiracy to travel ... \n2423(b) and (e); \nWilkerson with \n2422(6) \n,-\nNo Imormation \n22 \nEFTA00079435\n", "char_count": 1018}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 27, "text_content": ".. k'',4 \n-.- • \n, \n. \n, \nU.S. v. Lovaas, \nInternet \nEmail messages with \"14 yr-old\" boy \n242204 & 2252(a)(1) \n241 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. \n2001) \nSting \nasked for photos and sent photos of \nyoung boys engaging in sex & sent \nunderwear; police obtained permission to \nsearch house from wife and found over \n& (a)(4)(B) \nNot Consummated\n1800 images of minors engaging in \nsexual activity; defendant confessed to \nhaving had prior sexual contact with \nother minors. \nPled guilty to 2252; offense level based \non \"pattern\"; defendant challenged and \nrequested downward departure because \nhe volunteered info about other crimes; \ncourt affirmed. \n23 \nEFTA00079436\n", "char_count": 655}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 28, "text_content": "442Int& \ni-44±4,, \nSar i.. \n. -;;- i'' \" i: \n:SA*\n. \n- \n, \n,.4.-,,-Iaat \n• \nla. \nU.S. v. Shutic, \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Male for Barely \n2422(b), 2243(a) and \n274 F.3d 1123 (7'h Cir. \n2001) \nSting \nLegal Female\"; initiated conversation \nwith \"14 yr-old\"; over 6 month period \nsent over 51 images of people engaged in \nsexual intercourse & discussed plans to \nmeet to engage in intercourse; defendant \nflew from his home in OH to IN but \nreturned home when he saw unmarked \npolice cars; defendant attempted to meet \n2252A(a)(1) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \n\"14 yr-old\" again but was arrested when \nhe showed up; defendant had also made \ncontact with another \"minor\" and had \nscheduled meeting for sex. \nPled guilty but challenged his sentence \nbased on court's refusal to group counts \nof child pornography claiming they \ninvolved the same primary victim —\nsociety. Affirmed. \n24 \nEFTA00079437\n", "char_count": 912}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 29, "text_content": "‘t.Th\nei:,.;7‘-'''..,' \"\"•:\n::\n:,,,\n:; \nI \n- \n1\n \n' \n1 \n• \n.zr \n4-1 \nr \n-'\" \n'\n \n' \n*.* \n• it ...  ,:crapc /k ia\nkta\n::;;;;H-.. . \nU.S. v. Angle, \n234 F.3d 326 (7'h Cir. \n2000) \nInternet \nFather discovered suspicious activity on \nson's computer and reported to the FBI; \nvia sting operation defendant met \"13 \nyear-old\" boy online; told boy he loved \nhim & would take care of him; sexually \nexplicit conversations; offered to give \nboy money & gifts in exchange for his \naddress & phone number; in another \nsting by FBI, defendant ordered sexually \nexplicit materials involving minors & \nadvised to hold delivery because he was \ngoing to Mexico for 8 days \"to play with \nthe boys\"; arrested when he came back \nfrom Mexico. \nAppealed his sentence and conviction; \nsentenced to325 months for 2252 and \n120 months for 2422(b) & registration as \nsex offender; court affirmed but \nremanded for sentencing because he did \nnot have notice regarding sex offender \nregistration. \n2252(a)(2), \n2253(a)(4)(B); 2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nDoe, el al. v. Smith, et al., \n470 F.3d 331 (7ih Cir. \n2006) \nMolestation of minor student by school \ndean. \n2422(b) \nConsummated \n25 \nEFTA00079438\n", "char_count": 1180}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 30, "text_content": ".. \n. \n, \n13ffi Cir. \nU.S. v. Rayl, \n270 F.3d 709 (8i6 Cir. \nInternet \nInternet chat room; \"Pen-pal\" email \ncontact initiated by defendant pretending \n2422(b); 2252(a); \n2252A(a)(l) and \n2001) \nto be 15 year-old girl whose fattier was \nteaching her to have sex; arranged to \nmeet underaged victim in mall but \ndefendant showed up instead & told \nvictim that \"15 year-old\" could not make \nit; took victim to hotel, threatened her \nwith knife, forced her to take clothes off \nand took photos; showed her photos of \nother young girls; continued to send \nincreasingly hostile emails trying to get \nher to have sex; defendant appealed \nsufficiency of evidence, credibility of \nwitness and also challenged \ngovernment's introduction of \npediatrician that photos were of under 18 \nyr-olds. Affirmed. \n(a)(5)(B) \nNot\nConsummated/Force to\nhave victim pose for\nnaked photos \n26 \nEFTA00079439\n", "char_count": 882}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 31, "text_content": ", \n.. \n4, \n0 \nTs \n4 \n+ \n-\nCr \n.. \nU.S. v. Dickson, \n149 Fed. Appx. 543 (8'h\nCir,) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; IM chats between \n47 yr-old man and \"15 yr-old\"; \nexchanged addresses and defendant \nasked \"15 yr-old\" to meet him in a hotel \nparking lot near his house; defendant told \nher he wanted to make love to her; when \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nSting \n\"15 yr-old\" stated she had no experience \ndefendant asked if he could teach her; \narrested when he went to meet her at the \nhotel parking lot. \n- \nAppeals his conviction and 60 month \nsentence. Affirmed. \nU.S. v. Little, \n485 F.3d 1210 (8th Cir. \n2007) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; IM chats during \nwhich defendant arranged to have sex \nwith minor; arrested when he showed up \nat the park. There was evidence that the \ndefendant had previously attempted to \nengage in sex online conversations with \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nafillg \n12 & 13 yr-old girls prior to the sting \noperation that resulted in his arrest. The \ngovernment contested his release on bail \nfor 60 days before his self-surrender. \nCourt vacated order and remanded for \nissuance of a bench warrant. \n27 \nEFTA00079440\n", "char_count": 1180}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 32, "text_content": "Sti\nryir \n‘4 14ilfrem*, X 4,- % t: M\n-1 io- ‘ :: . A, \nfrCt \n. \n' \n'''. \nla\nit\n'4. \n' if .\n45-- \n\" 'KK \nY.7 \n`-'\" \n- \nnist:, \nikveCittr- \nc3. a\n \n4: \naf\ning \na3:?:\n-AR \nU.S. \nv. Blazek, \n431 F.3d 1104 (8'h Cir. \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"male-to-male\"; \nconversations for 15 months; gave \n2422(b), 2423(b), \n2252(a)(2) and \nSting \n2005) \ndetailed description of how he would \ngive massage; graphic sexual \nconversations, discussed oral sex and \nsuggested a 3-way with\"15 yr-old's\" \nfriend; and arranged to meet for sex; \narrested at meeting and computer search \nrevealed child pornography. Appealed \nconviction & sentence claiming not \nactual minor and insufficient evidence. \n(A)(4)(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nAffirmed because attempt charge does \nnot require actual minor. 235 month \nsentence affirmed because enhancement \napplied to use of undercover \"minor \nvictim\". \n28 \nEFTA00079441\n", "char_count": 909}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 33, "text_content": "c \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Naiden, \n424 F.3d 718 (8' Cir. \n2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"IluvOlderMen\"; \nduring chats defendant asked \"14 year-\nold\" for photos; asked if she was a virgin \nand if she would come to visit him where \nher \"virginity would be over\"; arranged \nto meet to have sex and told her they \nwould many in a few years; repeatedly \ntold her that was important to keep this a \nsecret; he sent her money for ticket; \narrested when he went to pick her up at \nthe train station. \n2422(b); 2423(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nEtiIgi \nChallenged lower court's refuseal to \nallow his friend to testify that he did not \nbelieve the victim was actually 14 yrs-\nold. Appellate court affirmed because \neven if it had been error not to allow \ntestimony, which it was not, there was \noverwhelming evidence of his belief that \nshe was 14 yrs-old. \n29 \nEFTA00079442\n", "char_count": 911}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 34, "text_content": "-;\"COHRT;\nC.ASES \nC6:”14.111•47.Cia.:e. \n- \n:finik 4 ;acIale.40,...\n-  ,,, - \n' FACILITY \nFACZS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \n \nU.S. v. Hicks. \nInternet \ndefendant initiated Internet conversation \n2422(b); 2423(b) \n457 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. \n2006), overruled \nHelder,452 F.3d 751 \nStine \nwith \"13 yr-old\" followed by telephone \ncalls; stated he was interested in having \nvaginal intercourse with \"13 yr-\nold\"minor & was willing to travel from \nNot Consummated \nFL to Kansas City; arrested when he \narrived at airport. Government appealed \ndismissal of indictment. Appellate court \nreversed because actual minor not \nrequired. \nShowed up for meeting \nU.S. v. D'Andrea, \nInternet \nInternet chat room and telephone \n2422(b); 2252(6)(2) \n473 F.3d 859 (8ih Cir. \n2007) \nSting\ncommunications with \"13 year-old\"; \ndefendant made plans to travel for sex; \ndid same with another undercover agent; \nmany times masturbated in from of \nwebcam; arrested at meeting place. \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nPolice found nightgown, condoms, \nlubricant & camera, video & computer \nequipment; search warrant obtained for \ncomputer revealed many other similar \n\"chats\" and child pornography. \nDefendant challenged government \nenhancement for \"uncharged conduct\" \nincluding similar other sex chats & \nexchange of sexually explicit photos with \n12, 17 and 14 year-old girls Appellate \ncourt affirmed sentence enhancement. \n30 \nEFTA00079443\n", "char_count": 1417}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 35, "text_content": "QUW/\":. \n`.t,Ytt k-.:. :AS \n'• \nSf\nt':,  . -i'4\":• \n15. \ne \n. \nri4Strek\n... \n• \n,- . \n. ^ \n4 ..\"0-CA,:b4a\"ti:‘,,C\nTAPIWTY. 2 \n'4 <.;:...:.\n.':,..; tte CINCOMMONICATIONt. ::* i, ' \ngi , \n1PrWW:\":, -\"..\n:10,inKt•a;..•::- ...4::.t. \n2.4.•4.-'? \n.CHARGEc\n'' \n. 1:. .- \n,t \n'\"' \nU.S. v. Garate, \n482 F.3d 1013 (8ih Cir. \n2007) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; met 12 year-old in \nchat room; communicated via Internet & \ntelephone; traveled to have sex and did; \nat time arrested lie was 20 & girl was 14; \npled guilty to 2423(b) charge & \ngovernment agreed to drop 2422(6) \ncharge; received 30 month sentence. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nConsummated \nGovernment appealed. Reversed due to \nfactors such as anguish caused parents \n(father had warned Garate several times \nto leave daughter alone when he found \nout about the communications). \nU.S v. Patten, \n397 F.3d 1100 (8th Cir. \n2005) \nInternet \n2 Internet Chat room communications \n& I telephone conversation, explicit \nsexual conversations; arranged to meet; \narrested at meeting place. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consurnmated \nsling\n15 month sentence and sufficiency of \nevidence challenged on appeal. \nShowed up for meeting \nAffirmed. \n31 \nEFTA00079444\n", "char_count": 1190}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 36, "text_content": ".,,15--T,•4”flot \na \nl\ntiera \na \nic.,;(,?„, :-:\n•.,..ir, :,,t1- : .‘,,,. \na \nV. aka% \n„.. .:,. . . \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \n' \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Leach, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \nInternet \nInternet chat room conversations with \n\"14 year-old\"; arranged to meet for sex; \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n2253 (criminal \nSting \n14832 (8ih Cir. 2007) \narrested at airport. \nforfeiture) \nPled guilty to 2422(b) in exchange for \ngovernment dropping 2423(b) & \ncriminal forfeiture charges; had pled \nguilty to attempted aggravated criminal \nsodomy of a 13 year-old he had met in a \nchat room but had not yet been \nsentenced; trial court declined to apply \nenhancement based on state court case \nbecause sentencing had not occurred yet, \nenhancement would have resulted in \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \n168-210 month sentence; defendant \nreceived 72 month sentence; government \nappealed. Appellate court vacated \nsentence and remanded for resentencing. \n32 \nEFTA00079445\n", "char_count": 962}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 37, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACT I A TY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Gleich, \n397 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. \n2007) \nChild \nPornography \n12 year-old male told police that \ndefendant had photographed him in \nsexually explicit poses and had shown \nhim photos of other children; police got a \nwarrant & discovered 3 computers with \nchild pornography unrelated to the \noffense investigation. \nPled guilty to 2252(aX2); sentence was \nenhanced under \"pattern of activity \ninvolving sexual abuse\"; defendant \ncontested introduction of evidence & use \nof enhancement. Appellate court denied \nmotion to suppress but vacated sentence \nbecause no \"pattern\" (transmitting photo \nof buttocks of child over the Internet \nwas not separate sexual abuse). \n2251(a) & (c); \n2252(aX2) & (b)(1); \n2252(aX4)(B); \n2422(b) \non \ncharges \nConsummated \n- no info \nporn \non \n2422(6) \n33 \nEFTA00079446\n", "char_count": 861}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 38, "text_content": "i- \n' \nriv sw$74 \nr, \n \n•-;:i\nit;')-41.\niliac \n;gt.f., e\nrt'Xi4: \ni' t \n'I \ngc....\n..i.c... evir,144,g: \nt \nILA \nix\n\"\nTtt-•:4-..1***-::, • \n- \n- \n-n :, ra\n. \n9th Cir. \nU.S. v. Curtin, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \n12110 \n(9th Cir. 2007) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; explicit sexual \nconversations for 4 hours; exchanged \nphotos; defendant arranged to meet for \nsex with \"14 year-old\". \nDefendant claimed that he did not \nbelieve that he was meeting a \"14 yr- \nold\"; he contested the government's \nintroduction of 140 stories of sexual \nactivity by minors on his PDA to prove \nhis intent. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Meek, \n366 F.3d 705 (9ih Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat room contact of 14 yr-old \nmale; had sex with 14 yr-old & posted \nnaked photos of boy on the Internet; \npolice took over boy's Internet account \nand were approached by defendant \nclaiming he was still interested in \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n\"hooking up\"; continued to seek sexual \nencounter with \"boy' over next month \ndiscussing in graphic details sexual acts \nhe hoped to perform on the boy; arranged \nto meet for sex & arrested when he did. \nShowed up for meeting \nPled guilty to 2422(b) and challenged \nlegality of search of his computer & \nalleged no violation because no \"actual\" \nminor. Conviction affirmed. \n34 \nEFTA00079447\n", "char_count": 1378}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 39, "text_content": "491\n1.1J\n:S..ritt\n1\n' \n: \nla:  • \n\"5-r\n, \nr \nc'... \npg.!\nWtio”1 itar . 6.'1/4\n. its \n.. \n. \n ;1 * \nvP \n.4 ..- \n' \nr\"  \n-. \n. At . ,.,\n:Y \nite•R• \n \nOn= \n.1:S\nt\n.\"'  \nW \n. \n...V; \n..0 \n. \n'is \n1 \n.. \nU.S. v. Jahner, \n72 Fed. Appx. 665 (9`h Cir. \n2003) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available but case \nimplicates that Internet was involved; \ndefendant pled guilty to 2422(b) & \n2423(6) and stipulated that he had sent \nphotos of himself masturbating to \nsomeone he believed to be a minor; \nchallenged introduction of the photos as \nprejudicial. Affirmed. \n2422(6); 2423(b) \nNo Information \nU.S. v O'Brien, \n27 Fed. Appx. 882 (9'h Cir. \n2001) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; initiated sexual \nconversations with minor; tried to entice \n\"girl\" to visit; paid for ticket for her to \nvisit & live with him; admitted to her \nthat he had visited \"Girls and Older \nGuys\" Internet chat room and chatted \nwith other teenage girls. \nClaimed entrapment. Conviction \naffirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(h) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nlung \nU.S. v. Kozlowski, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \n9489 (9ih Cir. 2007) \nUnpublished \n- \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nAnders Brief appeal of sentence of 60 \nmonths; denied. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNo Information \n35 \nEFTA00079448\n", "char_count": 1288}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 40, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nM. \nCHARGE \n.. \nUnited States v. Messano, \n114 Fed. Appx. 785 (9th \nCir. 2004) \nUnpublished \njnternet\nSu28 \nDefendant developed relationship over a \nperiod of several months on the Internet \nwith \"13-year-old\"; discussed sexually \nexplicit activity; arranged to meet for \nsex; arrested when he showed up. \nAppellate court affirmed conviction; \nlater sentence vacated and remanded in \nMessano, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 19341 (9th\nCir. 2005) for resentencing in keeping \nwith Booker. \n2422(b); 2423(h) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up at meeting \nU.S. v. Messano, \n2005 U.S. App. LEXIS \n19341 (91h Cir. 2005); \nUnpublished \nAffirmed conviction in earlier case but \nremanded regarding resentencing \nbecause court applied sentencing \nguidelines as optional. \nU.S. v. Tashbook, \n144 Fed. Appx. 610 (9ih\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nDefendant placed ads on Internet for his \n\"production\" company; communicated \nwith victims by email and telephone; \nrented a hotel room and took photos of \nvictim; coerced victim to engage in non- \nconsensual explicit sex for purposes of \ntaking photographs. Sentenced to 60 \nyears. Conviction and sentence affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(6); \n2251(a); 2252(a)(2) \nConsummated/Force \n36 \nEFTA00079449\n", "char_count": 1257}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 41, "text_content": "St LIT\n, -;g!\"1:tars.RA:i-L \n4.\n,.. \n. \n. \nEnlint \n- \n.• \nCQ \n1 \n1' \nIC ':\n,,•,`• \n.„ \n1 1 \n. \nPPit::4\n%;•i“4 \ntr:- \n, \n_, \nclIARGE 7 \n„I\n.14...-:', .W4N;)1);' ' tv: \nl: \n-:. \nU.S. v. Jenkins, \n163 Fed. Appx. 578 (9'h\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. Pled guilty to \n2422(b) and 2423(b). Appealed 46 \nmonth sentence. Remanded for further \nproceedings. \n2422(h); 2423(6) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Ayoub, \n177 Fed. Appx. 765 (9th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available but grounds for \nappeal imply Internet Sting; defendant \nclaimed entrapment and that he did not \nbelieve he was dealing with a minor. \nConviction affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(h) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Shahin, \n179 Fed. Appx. 420 (9th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nNo specific facts available; defendant \ncorresponded with undercover agent. \nAppealed conviction claiming legal \nimpossibility and not real minor. \nConviction affirmed. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nSOlLgt \nUS. v. Weir, \n52 Fed. Appx. 423 (9°' Cir. \n2002) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. 210 month \nsentence affirmed. \n2422(b); 2251(a) & \n(d); 2256; \n2252(a)(5)(B) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Grenman, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n841093 (9ih Cir. 2007) \nNot for \nPublication \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. Appeal of \nsentence. Affirmed in part, vacated in \npart and remanded. \n2422(b) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Strater, \n150 Fed. Appx. 610 (914\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; no specific facts \navailable. Defendant claimed \nentrapment. Conviction affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(6) \nNot Consummated \nStills'\n37 \nEFTA00079450\n", "char_count": 1662}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 42, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Schnepper, \n161 Fed. Appx. 678 (9' \nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; evidence clear \ndefendant believed he was \ncommunicating with \"minor\"; attempted \nto entice her to fly to Hawaii to have sex; \ndefendant claimed entrapment. \nAffirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nU.S. v. Nicely, \n172 Fed. Appx. 713 (9th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo information available but implication \nis that Internet used. \nDefendant convicted of 2422(b); \ncontested supervised release which \nprohibited use of computer. \n2422(6) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Curtin, \n443 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. \n2006) \nInternet \nSee 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12110 (9th\nCir. 2007) supra. \n.5ths\n-i \nU.S. v. Anderson, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \n11856 (9th Cir. 2007) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nOnline chat, no specific information \navailable; conviction affirmed. \n2422(6) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Dhingra, \n371 F.3d 557 (9i° Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \nAOL 1M chats with 14 yr-old girl; \n. \nsexually explicit conversations; \ndefendant persisted in trying to arrange \nto meet for sex; met for sex & defendant \nforced 14 yr-old to have sex with him. \nDefendant challenged constitutionality of \n2422(6). Conviction affirmed. \n2422(b) \nConsummated/Force \n38 \nEFTA00079451\n", "char_count": 1299}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 43, "text_content": "COURT \n: cASES\nI\nI FACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \n7CHAI2GE \nU.S. v. Vail, \n101 Fed. Appx. 190 (9th\nCir. 2004) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nNo specific information, other than sting, \navailable. Defendant appealed conviction \n& sentence because no \"actual\" minor \nwas involved. Conviction affirmed but \nsentence vacated because court should \nhave used downward departure. \n2422(b); 2423(h) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n10'\" Cir. \nU.S. v. Pearl, \n324 F.3d 1210 (10ih Cir. \n2003) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; conversations, \nemail & telephone with \"12 yr-old\"; \nattempted to arrange to have sex from \nfirst encounter; sent photos of child porn; \nemail followed by letters with \nundercover agent pretending to be \"12 \nyr-old's\" uncle wanting to molest her; \ndefendant arrested when he showed up \nfor meeting with \"uncle\". \nVacated as to 2252A counts due to error \nin jury instructions but affirmed as to \n2423 & 2422(b). \n2252A; 2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nfiling \n39 \nEFTA00079452\n", "char_count": 999}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 44, "text_content": ":F... \na. \n- \n9b0 t14 \n. \n\" \n-,• \nyfilliga\nrUe \n401 Wwl-s-6-'4-% \"\"1:4\"1,t..., \n1-\nU.S. V. Munro, \n394 F.3d 865 (10th Cir. \n2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room communication with \n\"13 yr-old\"; told her he wanted to have \noral sex with her; asked if she would like \nto make a \"movie\" together; arranged to \nmeet at elementary school — told her to \nwear something sexy; arrested at the \nschool. \nContested sentence enhancement for \n\"violent\" crime; court affirmed because \nrisk in sexual abuse of minor is enough \nto support enhancement; PROTECT Act \nis constitutional. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Sims, \n428 F.3d 945 (10th Cir. \n2005) \ninterne( \nInternet chat room; private citizen had \nassumed profile of \"16 & 12 yr-old\" as a \ngag; received sexually explicit \ncommunications for 5 months from \ndefendant as well as photos and sexually \nexplicit images of defendant with other \nchildren; defendant arrested when he \ntraveled to meet; \nConvicted; sentenced to 37 months & \n$10,000 fine; court affirmed conviction \nbut vacated sentence because trial court \nerred by using downward departure of 9 \nlevels. \n2422(b); 2423(6); \n2252(a)(I) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \n5._tkgi \n40 \nEFTA00079453\n", "char_count": 1238}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 45, "text_content": ",./..,0'errirts? .1. \ntt. \n;t•L',2 \n0.. \n,\n** •\"; \n• \nU.S. v. Thomas, \n410 F.3d 1235 (1016 Cir. \n2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; several online chats \nwith undercover agent; arranged to meet \nbut did not show; six months later online \nin chat room again but using different \nname; showed up for meeting with his 2 \nchildren in the back seat; found porno \nfilm playing on his computer and \ntranscript of the online chat. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nbut just drove around \nand attempted to leave \nSin\nFirst trial resulted in hung jury; but later \ncharged by superseding indictment & \nsentenced to 70 months imprisonment \nand 5 years supervision; challenged \nconstitutionality of 2422(b) & \nsentencing. Affirmed. \nU.S. v. Davis, \n165 Fed. Appx. 586 (10th\nCir. 2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"13 yr-old\"; explicit sexual \nconversations; agreed to meet and \narrested at meeting place. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nSling \nFound guilty by jury; challenged that \n\"actual\" minor was necessary for 2422 \nviolation. Appellate court denied his \nrequest for Certificate of Appealability & \ndismissal. \nShowed up for meeting \n41 \nEFTA00079454\n", "char_count": 1179}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 46, "text_content": "[_CM:RT \nCASES \n] \nrFACILITII FACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Hanes, \n371 F.3d 1208 (10° Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \nNo information other than use of intemet \navailable. \nPled guilty to 2422(b) & 2252A; \nsentenced to 51 months & 2 years \nsupervision; challenged conviction based \non Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, \n122 S.Ct. 1389 (2002) finding parts of \nChild Protection Act unconstitutional; \nclaimed ineffective counsel. Affirmed. \n2422(6); 2252A \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Johnson, \nl83 F.3d 1175 (101h Cir. \nInternet \nleading to \nInternet chat room; defendant met on \n& communicated via Internet & \n2422(b); 2423(6); \n2252; \n2253 \n1999) \naikgi \ntelephone with underage male; sent items \nthrough mail; arranged to meet and had \nOperation \nsex; victim cooperated with authorities \nand telephoned defendant; calls \nmonitored; computer search revealed \npornographic photos of 16 or under. \nConsummated \nDefendant entered one plea agreement \nfor 2 cases but challenged sentence \nenhancement- sentence 27 months & 3 \nyears supervision & $2,875.87 restitution \naffirmed. \n42 \nEFTA00079455\n", "char_count": 1089}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 47, "text_content": ":4'\"''71,; \n \nr'''')' 5\n ,1\n/21.;,. \n, \nC \n. \n. \n. \n1/2 7\n,..\nre' \nc \n.. \nt1/2. \n. \n1/2 \n. \n...\n' \n. \n1/2 \n'.- 4.iA45 \nI\n4.S1/24-\n' \nU.S. v. Byrne, \n171 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. \n1999) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; met minor; \narranged to meet for sex; had sex. \nSentence of 21 months & 3 year \nsupervision affirmed. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Wales, \n127 Fed. Appx. 424 (10th\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; sexually explicit \ncommunications; defendant already on \nprobation for sexual assault; when \narrested he pled guilty but said he never \nshowed up for any of the meetings he set \nup; just masturbated. \nFound guilty of attempt at bench trial \nand sentenced to 180 months & 3 year \nsupervision. \n2422(b); 2451(a) & (b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nU.S. v. Brown, \n126 Fed. Appx. 448 (10th\nCir. 2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"13 yr-old\"; arranged to meet for \nsexual encounter; arrested when he went \nto meet \"underage girl\". \nChallenged introduction of Internet \nconversations as prejudicial. Appellate \ncourt affirmed — probative value \noutweighed prejudicial; sentenced 46 \nmonths & 3 years supervision & $500 \nfine. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n43 \nEFTA00079456\n", "char_count": 1255}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 48, "text_content": "COURT . \n' C \nES : \ni \nF \n- \n.• \n: \nFACTS COMMUNIC TION - \n.,\nU.S. v. Williams, \n220 Fed. Appx. 851 (10th\nUnpublished \nProstitution/ \nForce \nDefendant was a pimp who beat and \nraped his prostitutes — some as young as \n2422(b); \nand 5 \nothers unnamed \nCir. 2007) \n13 yrs-old; he threatened them and their \nchildren. \nConsummated/Force \nPled guilty to 2422(b) so that \ngovernment would dismiss 6-count \nindictment for one single charge. \nSentenced as a career offender. \nAppealed his sentence. Court dismissed \nappeal and enforced his waiver of his \nright to appeal. \n44 \nEFTA00079457\n", "char_count": 583}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 49, "text_content": " 'i 9\":4:'''' \n'\"4,11 - \n'. \n-Etnry...u.s \n_\nems \n•wr \nar\n.  \nl'n-, r tr.S. \n'‘.e.._,....,t4's\"- :‘-11; \n\"t''st \n;$....iA \ncf.. s. ' \n-,., -,s.v,:e \nisttif:ot \ne. lit \nF\n.i. \n2.‘\" -ci \nv. Phillips, \n165 Fed. Appx. 677 (10ih\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \ndiscussion of \nfacility but \nappears to be \nphone \nNo specific information available other \nthan the fact that the case involved a \npimp whose telephone conversations \nwith underage prostitutes and cell phone \nrecords were obtained \nPled guilty to one count of 2422(b); \ncourt found facts regarding defendant's \nuse of violence, involvement in \nprostitution, exertion of undue influence \non a minor, his role as a leader in a \ncriminal enterprise and his criminal \nhistory; sentenced to 125 months; \nchallenged Booker error in sentencing. \nAppellate court affirmed, error harmless \nbecause it would provide same sentence \neven if Sentencing Guidelines were \nfound unconstitutional. \n2422(b) and 2 \nConsummated/Force/Pi\nmp \n45 \nEFTA00079458\n", "char_count": 993}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 50, "text_content": "49 \n1-\n...,!, - .1•••:: \n53 \n2\": ' \n1:?i•-li \nr eit' \n• \nAla \nQ. • ..nelfS SaitiMc \n- - \nca,:iia,:fa \n-.4-31.42.xnw,w,Ii \n, \n2,,,t4V-,,,r;•4•6 ..a,,,,,e,„44.,;; w::e,,,,, \nU.S. v. Crayon, \n143 Fed. Appx. 77 (10th\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"14 yr-old\"; described graphic \nsexual activity; and sent sexual photo; \nmasturbated in front of webcam; offered \nto teach \"14 yr-old\" about sex & to buy \nher a ticket to come meet him; arrested at \nmeeting place. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nPled guilty; court enhanced sentence \nbecause of use of computer & \"victim\" \nunder 16 & down for accepting \nresponsibility; sentenced to 108 months. \nAppellate court affirmed sentence \nbecause actual under age victim not \nrequired for attempt. \n46 \nEFTA00079459\n", "char_count": 820}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 51, "text_content": "2.„. sl.s.w \n• \n4 \n... ' el..\n••. \n•• \n.- \n,, ‘ \nIT lc: \n \ni -\n• '1O \n• • • '\" \nP \nm. \nY \n,. • \n,-... \nStiisz<\n111h Or. \nU.S. v. Morton. \n364 F.3d 1300 (11\" Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"I love older men\"; \ncommunication followed by telephone \ncalls to several \"victims\"; sent and \nrequested sexually explicit photos over \nthe Internet; told \"victims\" he wanted to \nhave sex. \n2252A; 2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nSting \nPled guilty; issue of first impression for \nII' Circuit as to whether enhancement \nfor \"pattern\" of abuse involving minor \ncould be applied if no actual minor but \ninstead undercover agent. Appellate \ncourt affirmed enhancement because \npattern of activity used minor \ninterchangeably with victim. \nU.S. v. Manley, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \nSlip Copy \nNot for \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nbetween father of 12 yr-old boy and \n2422(b); 2252A(a)(1) \n& (a)(2)(A) \nSting \n1379982 (l I th Cir. 2007) \nPublication \n\"mother of I2 yr-old girl\"; several chats; \nexpressed desire to engage in sex with \n\"12 yr-old\" daughter; told \"mother\" she \ncould have sex with his 12 yr-old son; \narranged to meet for sex & arrested when \nhe showed up. Police found laptop; \nitems for sexual activity & 401 photos of \nchild porn — some of which depicted his \nson. \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \n_ \nPled guilty to child porn. Appealed 360 \nmonths sentence. Affirmed. \n47 \nEFTA00079460\n", "char_count": 1412}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 52, "text_content": "- -\n.. \n• cv:.',7 . 4\nt \n! ...:4,t, \n• \nSi\n':\n- \n: 45e2'\n.\n'\n_\n- \n, ,.... \n:-. \n7..\nU.S. v. Evans, \n476 F.3d 1176 (I lth Cir. \n2007) \nProstitution \nRing \n14 yr-old worked for defendant (& 2 co- \ndefendants) as prostitute; he was pimp & \narranged date for her; notified her of \n\"dates\" on her cell phone; he provided \ncondoms manufactured overseas & \nimported into Ga.; she was hospitalized \nwith AIDS; he called her from land line \n& induced her to return to work for him \nas a prostitute. \nChallenged application of federal statute \nto purely local activity. Court affirmed. \n1591; \n2422(6) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Strevell, \n185 Fed. Appx. 841 (I I th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nForeign \nTravel Sting \nSeveral telephone conversations \narranging for travel to Costa Rica for sex \nwith \"14 yr-old\"; paid for travel; arrested \nat airport. \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n159I(a); 1594(a) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for travel \nU.S. v. Roberts, \n174 Fed. Appx. 475 (11th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nForeign \nTravel Sting \nDefendant responded to ad for sex travel \nto Costa Rica; negotiated & paid for trip \nto have sex in Costa Rica with 16 yr-old \nbut cancelled; arranged instead to meet \ngirls in US; arrested when he showed up. \n2422(6); 2594(a) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \n48 \nEFTA00079461\n", "char_count": 1286}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 53, "text_content": "4 \nVAT\n'\n ' \n''; \n- \n.\n• *-- - \n \nil tlIitakt\n.\n. \n- \n-2 \nM\n lar\nft;\n..... \nIgeffAIKOE:% \nASc.\n:4.e tfa.1. \ni' I. Aa.:1 Z' \nU.S. v. Clarke, \n159 Fed. Appx. 128 (111h\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nForeign \nTravel \nSting \nNo specific information available but \nimplication is that this is a sex tourism \ncase. \nAlleges entrapment;Conviction affirmed. \n2422(6); 2423(c); \n1591(a); 1594(a) \nNot Consummated? \nU.S., Clerk v. Yost, \n479 F.3d 815 (11i6 Cir. \n2007) \nInternet \nInternet chat room conversations with 3 \ndifferent \"girls\" — all same undercover \nagent— in chat room; sexually explicit \ndiscussions; arranged to meet for oral sex \nwith one \"girl\" but no show; arranged to \nmeet with another & arrested when he \nshowed up to meet her. \nConviction affirmed. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Bolen, \n136 Fed. Appx. 325 (11'h\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"sex with younger\"; \nconversations with \"25 yr-old mother of \n3 yr-old\"; communications over several \ndays; used telephone to finalize plans to \nmeet. \nContested conviction & 110 month \nsentence on grounds that 2422(6) did not \napply when used intermediary to arrange \nfor sex & did not apply, to sex with \nfictitious infant. Conviction affirmed; \nsentence appeal dismissed due to waiver \nof right to appeal. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n49 \nEFTA00079462\n", "char_count": 1367}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 54, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITy \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Searcy. \nInternet \nInternet chat room; defendant's screen \n2422(14 \n418 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. \nSting \nname was \"Obesseddadl I\"; informed \nundercover agent that he was member of \n2005) \nfather-daughter swap club; talked on \ntelephone & arranged face-to-face \nmeeting with agent; at meeting told agent \nhe wanted to arrange to have sex with \nagent's daughter & agent could have sex \nwith defendant's children; arrested at \nmeeting. \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \n_ \nChallenged conviction & upward \nenhancement of his sentence for crime of \nviolence. Affirmed. \n50 \nEFTA00079463\n", "char_count": 646}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 55, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \n. ..\nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \n1.1 S. v Murrell, \n368 F.3d 1283 (I l'h Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat rooms \"family love\" & \n\"Rent F Vry Yng\"; communicated with \nsame agent who pretended to be \"mother \nof 13 yr-old\" & \"farther of teen girl\"; \ndefendant expressed interest in meeting \n2422(h) \nNot Consummated \nStine \n\"mother & daughter\" for sex; asked \nShowed up for meeting \n\"father\" if he was renting a daughter; \ncontinued conversations online & via \ntelephone with \"father\" and arranged to \nmeet to have oral sex & intercourse with \n\"daughter\"; agreed to pay $300; showed \nup at hotel & paid the money to agent; \narrested on the way to hotel room to \nmeet \"girl\". \nAppealed indictment because never \ndirectly communicated with minor & \nsentencing enhancement to 33 months & \n3 yrs supervision. Affirmed. \n\"US. v. Pipkins, et at, \n378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. \nProstitution \nPimps ran prostitution ring using under \nage girls; in total 15 pimps were arrested \n2422(b); \n1951; \nI 952(a)(3); 1584; 1028 \n2004) \n& 13 pled guilty. \n& 21 USC 859 \n**Conspiracy 1962(d) \nDefendants found guilty of conspiracy in \nviolation of 1962(d); One defendant set \nup website for \"escort service\". \n**Conspiracy 1962(d) \nRICO \nRICO \nOne defendant sentenced to 40 yrs; other \nto 30 yrs. Affirmed. \n51 \nEFTA00079464\n", "char_count": 1328}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 56, "text_content": "49URT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \n**U.S. v. Hornaday, \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Loving Families\" \n2422(b); \n18 USC \n392 F.3d 1306 (111h Cir. \n2004) \nSting \nwhere people communicate about having \nsex with children; undercover entered as \n2 \n***Conspiracy charge \n\"father of son & daughter\"; defendant \ncontacted agent & said he was bisexual \nlooking for \"loving family\" & that he \nNot Consummated \nwas error but it was \nhad had prior family relations & wanted \n— \n***conspiracy charge \nharmless \nmore; explicit discussion about having \nsex with children; telephoned & arranged \nto meet; arrested when he showed up. \nwas harmless error \nAppealed guilty verdict. Appellate court \nrejected argument that he did not use the \nInternet to communicate directly with \nminor and held that conspiracy charge \nwas error, albeit harmless, because did \nnot abet undercover agent but that error \ntoo was harmless given the facts of the \ncase. \nU.S. v. Bohannon, \n476 F.3d 1246 (11'h Cir. \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"I love older men\"; \ndefendant initiated communications with \n2422(b) \n5jtgi \n2007) \n\"15 yr-old\"; arranged to meet to have \noral & genital sex; arrested when he \nshowed up. \nNot Consummated \nAppealed 120 month sentence. \nShowed up for meeting \nAffirmed. \n52 \nEFTA00079465\n", "char_count": 1299}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 57, "text_content": "O\nia riolafi\nt.\nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCl LARGE \nU.S. v. Grossman, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \n12500 (11th Cir. 2007) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"preteen, baby and \ntoddler sex\"; initiated communications \nwith \"31 yr-old mother of 9 yr-old\"; \nexpressed desire to meet for sex with \nchild; arranged to meet both \"mother & \ndaughter\" for sex; arrested when he \narrived. Conviction affirmed. \n2422(b); 2241(c) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nStine \nU.S. v. Watson, \n179 Fed. Appx. 663 a P h\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nConvicted of 2422(b) and \n2252A(a)(2)(A); appealed enhancement \nof his sentence for over 600 images of \nchild porn. Affirmed. \n2422(b); \n2252A(a)(2)(A) \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Houston, \n177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11th\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"mother of 14 yr-old girl\"; arranged \nmeeting with the girl to have sex with \nher; arrested at meeting place. \nContested 5 yr sentence. Affirmed. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n53 \nEFTA00079466\n", "char_count": 1089}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 58, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/CONIN1UNICATION \nCIIAliCE \nU.S. v. Haynes, \n160 Fed. Appx. 940 (11th \nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Young Teens for \nOlder Men\"; 39 yr-old initiated chat with \n\"14 yr-old\"; sexually explicit details as \nto how he would like to \"lick her from \nhead to toe\"; arranged to meet & \nsuggested they have Chinese dinner & \nmovie; arrested at meeting place; police \nfound loaded gun; 92 rounds of \nammunition; condoms & Chinese \nrestaurant menu in his car. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nStint,\nSentenced to 78 months. Conviction \naffirmed; sentence vacated & remanded \nbecause of Booker error. \nU.S. v. Rojas, \n145 Fed. Appx. 647 (1 1th\nCir. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nNo specific information available but \nimplication is that this was intemet \ncommunication with \"13 yr-old\" for oral \nsex. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nChallenged 2422(b) constitutionality. \nConviction affirmed. \n54 \nEFTA00079467\n", "char_count": 973}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 59, "text_content": "2YRT \nCASES \nMCI LITY \nFA C:TS/COM 1\\1 UNICAT ION \nClIARGE \nU.S. v. Scott, \nInternet \nInternet chat room for parents of young \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n426 F.3d 1324 (11ih Cir. \n2005) \nSting \nchildren to arrange for them to have sex \nwith others; agent pretending to be \n2241(c) \n\"father of 6 yr-old boy & 4 yr-old girl\" \napproached by defendant interested in \nhaving sex with the children; arranged to \nmeet & told agent he would bring \"gifts\" \nlike stuffed animals to gain the children's \ncooperation; arrested when he showed up \nat meeting place. Police found stuffed \nanimals, chains, whips, knives, restraints \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \n& other sexual paraphernalia in his car. \nPled guilty but contested his 135 month \nsentence. Court affirmed sentence. \n55 \nEFTA00079468\n", "char_count": 785}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 60, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFAqtrry \nFAC:TS/COMMUNICATION \nCIIARGL \nU.S. v. Bias, \n360 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. \n2004) \nInternet \n48 yr-old initiated Internet \ncommunications with 14 yr-old; lied \nabout his age at the beginning; over a \nperiod of several months defendant told \n2422(b); \n2423(b) \n14 yr-old he was 47 yrs-old & that she \nwas his girlfriend; told her he wanted to \nConsummated \n\"make L-U-V\" to her; arranged to meet \nfor sex and did meet & have sex; \ndefendant knew that he was HIV+ but \ndid not tell her; 6 months later he met \nanother 14 yr-old online; discussed sex \n& their relationship for hours; told her of \nhis HIV status but said she could not \ncatch it because of the medication he was \ntaking; planned to visit her to have sex \nbut he was arrested before. \nPled guilty but contested sentence of 180 \nmonths & 70 months concurrent, \n$15,000 fine, $86 restitution & $300 \nspecial assessment. Affirmed. \n56 \nEFTA00079469\n", "char_count": 926}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 61, "text_content": "•\nf \na y \nw\nFACH.ITY \nFAC:TS/COMNIUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Orrega, \n363 F.3d 1093 (11'\" Or. \n2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; defendant said he \nwas 24 yrs-old & began communication \nwith \"16 yr-old\"; told her he wanted to\n \nmeet to have sex but meeting never took \nplace; few weeks later defendant again \ncontacted \"16 yr-old\" & arranged to meet \nto have oral sex; arrested at meeting \nplace. \nCourt vacated & remanded because \ndownward departure not warranted.. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up at meeting \nto\nU.S. v. Panfil, \n338 F.3d 1299 (11'h Cir. \n2003) \nInterne( \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"13 yr-old\"; sexually explicit; told \nher he would give her powerful orgasms \nwith oral sex; arranged to meet for sex; \narrested at meeting place. \nChallenged constitutionality of 2422(b) \n& his sentence. Court affirmed both \nconviction & sentence. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Miranda, \n348 F.3d 1322 (11' Cir. \n2003) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; conversations \nabout having sex with \"13 yr-old\"; \narranged to meet for sex; arrested at \nmeeting place \nGovernment appealed sentence. Vacated \n& remanded. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting\n57 \nEFTA00079470\n", "char_count": 1235}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 62, "text_content": "FCOllitcl \n_. _. \nCASES \n11\nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Root, \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"1 Love Older \n2422(6); 2423(b); \n296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. \n2002) \nSting \nMen\"; defendant engaged in explicit \nsexual conversation with \"13 yr-old \nstudent\" describing sexual acts that he \nwanted to perform with her & have her \nperform on him; arranged to meet for sex \nand arrested when he showed up. \n2243 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nConviction & sentence affirmed; no need \nfor actual minor. \nU.S. v. Burgess, \n175 F.3d 1261 (11'h Cir. \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"barely legal \nfemales\"; sexually explicit \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nSting \n1999) \nby private \ncitizen \nconversations; arranged to meet & \narrested when he showed up. \nNot Consummated\nAppealed conviction. Conviction \nreversed because court failed to give \ncautionary jury instruction about \ndefendant's failure to testify. \nShowed up for meeting \n58 \nEFTA00079471\n", "char_count": 950}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 63, "text_content": "c \n. l'\nPic \nti:114 \nalienpt \n,t.i. \n'JEW \n— \n%,..\n.7-''',`*, \ni' \n- \n• :7 \n. w., \n-.7 • ettx \n : , . \ny \n• \n75Pei.-7 y':5:4:::•*. : \n4,-,4' ?*-LY- \" WE; t \n;41 \n• \n, \ntt \nZ,. \n, \n- \n...r. .•ii.. \n-.7\n.'.?4r.\").7 \n1. \ne \nU.S. 1,. Garrett, \nInternet \nInternet chat room as part of police \n2422(b); 2252(a)(2); \n190 F.3d 1220 (11'h Cir. \n1999) \nSting \ninvestigation of child porn; defendant \ncontacted \"15 yr-old girl\"; for 2 months \ntalked about sexual acts they would \nperform; sent photos of young children \nhaving sex and asked if she would \nperform those acts with him; gave his \nphone number & arranged to meet but \ncould not make it. Search warrant \nobtained & police found child porn on \nhis computer. \n2252(a)(1) \nNot Consummated\nAppealed sentence because expert \ntestified that acts depicted in photos \nwould cause pain. Affirmed. \nU.S. v. Tillman, \n195 F.3d 640 (I l'h Cir. \n1999) \nInternet \nInternet communications with \"14 yr- \nold\"; defendant attempted to persuade \nher to meet him in motel to engage in \nvarious sexual acts; sent 3 photos of \nsexually explicit conduct over Internet. \n2422(b); 2252(a)( I) \n Not Consummated \nawl, \nPled guilty but contested 87 month \nsentence because court did not group \noffences. Court said primary victim of \nporn is person depicted so 3 separate \ncounts of porn. \n59 \nEFTA00079472\n", "char_count": 1331}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 64, "text_content": "gggitii\ni-'\nm:4\n4aN.,-2\n,: \n# \n'W\nfi 0\ne\nIS. \n,, .. \n'131b6; \n \n.,... \n.,j.\n4Stalit \n. \nSeAa( \n;17 : -:\n 1 :rW \n. \n:741f .\nVittilbtfrSlic: \"M \nU.S. v. Rader, \n2007 U.S. App. LEXIS \n12791 (11th Cir. 2007) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet conversations with undercover \nagent; sent videos of adults having sex \nwith 2-4 yr-olds. \nPled guilty but appealed 151 month \nsentence & S15,000 fine. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2252(a)(1) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nU.S. v. Hass, \n192 Fed. Appx. 867 (11'h\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nAppealed 260 month sentence. Affirmed. \n2422(b); 2241(c); \n2252\nNo Information \nU.S. v. Thrift, \n205 Fed. Appx. 816 (1 1'h\nCir. 2006) \nUnpublished \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nAppealed sentencing. Court affirmed \nsentencing except the lifetime \nsupervision for possession of firearm. \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n922(g)(1) & (2) \nNo Information \nM.D. Fla. \nU.S. v. Sterba, \n22 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (M.D. \nFla. 1998) \nInterne( \nInternet chat room. No specific details \navailable. \nIndictment dismissed because of \nprosecutorial misconduct. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n60 \nEFTA00079473\n", "char_count": 1147}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 65, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nEACH ITV \nFACTS/COMNIUNICATION \nCHARGE \nS.D. Fla. \nU.S. v. McDaniel, \n470 F. Supp. 2d 1372 (S.D. \nFla. 2007) \n(Villafana \ncase) \nInternet \n19 yr-old contacted 12 yr-old & \ncommunicated for 18 months; believed \nto be in love; traveled to meet girl who \nwas 14 yrs-old by then and had sex; \nparents helped police find them at a \nhotel. Government introduced evidence \nthat 2 other underage girls had had \nrelations with defendant. \nPled guilty. Court wrote opinion to \nexplain reasons for its departure from \nguidelines. \n2422(b); \n2423(b) \nConsummated \nU.S. v. Simo, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n1655399 (S.D. Ha. 2007) \nSlip Copy \nNo \nInformation \nIn \nNo information available. \nReport and recommendation that guilty \nplea be accepted. \n2422(6) \nNo Information \n61 \nEFTA00079474\n", "char_count": 785}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 66, "text_content": "FCOURT \nCASES \nFACILITY. \n. FACTS/COMMUNICATION \nS \nCHARGE \nS.D.N.Y. \nU.S. v. McDarrah, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \nInternet \nFBI posted an ad on Craigslist \nadvertising young girls for sex; \n2422(b) \nSting \n48269 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); \nU.S. v. McDarrah, 2007 \nLEXIS 6590 (S.D.N.Y. \ndefendant responded & offered money\n \nfor oral sex with 13 yr-old but did not \nshow; later defendant contacted same \nagent (inadvertently) pretending to be 13 \nNot Consummated\nShowed up at \"girl's\"\nhouse \n2007) \nyr-old girl; defendant arrested outside of \nhome where he thought \"girl\" lived. \nChallenged constitutionality of 2422(b) \non its face and as applied. Appellate \ncourt ruled 2422 constitutional, but \nallowed defendant leave to renew his \nI \nmotion to suppress post-arrest statements \nuse; this is memorandum order on \npreliminary evidentiary issue regarding \nintroduction of images at trial; court \nfound binder containing 16 images \nrecovered from defendant's computer \ncould be presented but not CD-ROM of \nover 140. \nU.S. v. Brand, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \nIntbilophotk \nNo information available. \n2422(6); \n2423 \nNo Information \n634 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) \n62 \nEFTA00079475\n", "char_count": 1155}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 67, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Carrasquillo, \n2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n741 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) \nUS Mail \nNo specific information available other \nthan case involved mail from jail to \nminor step-son\nMotion to suppress letters obtained from \ncell search, handwriting exemplars & \nexpert's report. Court held that search \nwas legal, exemplars from dictation were \nnot testimonial once misspellings were \nremoved but new expert required \nbecause he saw exemplars containing the \nspelling errors. \n2422(b); \n1470 \n(mail) \nNot Consummated \nU.S. v. Gagliardi, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n64576 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) \nInternet \nPrivate citizen pretended to be \"13 yr- \nold\"; defendant contacted and initiated \nsexually explicit conversations including \nasking if 13 yr-old would like to \"love \nme for money\"; communications turned \nover to police. \nClaimed entrapment and sought \nacquittal; court denied motion. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nSting \n63 \nEFTA00079476\n", "char_count": 969}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 68, "text_content": "Z.A.\nA, \n(4. \n?. AS \nG \n. \ne \n, \n:FAcia% \n:' 4 s -0  p atm \n, , \n; .  , \n...: \nCROWE : - \n• \n, - \ntt..•:3-7'..- ,.. • 'I! 1 ti -G.1 .^- .r 4 \n... \nE.D. Va. \nU.S. v. Kave, 451 F. Supp. \n2d 775 (E.D. Va., 2006); \nU.S. v. Kaye, 2006 U.S. \nDist. LEXIS 54281 (E.D. \nVa. 2006) \nInternet \nIM communications initiated; followed \nby telephone calls from 54 yr-old male to \n\"13 yr-old boy\"; sexually explicit \ncommunications; arranged to meet for \nsex; went to meeting & filmed by \nDateline. \nCourt found that use of Internet and \ninstant message satisfied the interstate \ncommerce component; all elements of \n2422 & 2423 satisfied. \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nby private \norganization \nU.S v. Holloman, \nSlip Copy, 2006 WL \n2796641 (E.D. Va. 2006) \nSlip Copy \nNo \nInformation \nNo specific information available. \nDefendant sought recusal because judge \nserved as Chairman of the Attorney \nGeneral's Commission on Pornography \nmore than 20 years earlier. Denied. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNo Information \nW.D. Mo. \nU.S. v. Hicks, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n36625 (W.D. Mo. 2005) \nInternet \nDefendant alleged to have used Internet \n& telephone to entice a minor; traveled \nto engage in sex act. \nDefendant claimed no violation of \n2422(b) & 2423 because no actual \nminor; court agrees and defendant's \nmotion to dismiss is granted based on \nHelder. \n2422(b); \n2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up at meeting \nSting \n64 \nEFTA00079477\n", "char_count": 1447}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 69, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES , \nFAC:ILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Helder. \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n38874 (W.D. Mo. \n2005),reversed, U.S. v. \nfielder, 2006 U.S. App. \nLEXIS 15995 (8ih Cir. \n2006) supra \nInternet \nNo information available. \nCourt held that 2422(b) requires actual \nunder age not mere \"belief' by defendant \nthat underage; defendant discharged from \npre-trial release and judgment of \nacquittal entered.Reversed on appeal. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nU.S. v. Spurlock, \n386 F. Supp. 2d 1072 \n(W.D. Mo. 2005) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Daughters who \nlove daddies\"; chats with \"mother\" of 3 \nkids; masturbated in front of webcam \nwhile having sexually explicit \nconversation with \"13 yr-old daughter\"; \narranged to meet for sex with \"13, 10 & \n8 yr-old\" children with their \"mother\" by \ntelephone; arrested at meeting place & \npolice found condoms, beer, DVD player \n& x-rated videos & duct tape. \nDefendant filed motion to dismiss on \ngrounds that legally impossible because \nno actual minor was involved; general \nmagistrate declined to apply Helder & \nrecommended that motion be denied. \n2422(b); 2423; \n2253; \n1470 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \naqui \n65 \nEFTA00079478\n", "char_count": 1203}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 70, "text_content": "py_\n\" \n40\nel \n-• \n. \n \n.;L:1115 &ft.\n%✓ile• '. \n. \n \nJ ki I 6 a \nCOJ \n. . ... \n. \n4'' ..-\nD. Me. \nU.S. v. Vasquez, \n241 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Me. \n2003) \nsee also \nU.S. v. Vasquez, \n2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n2339 (D. Me. 2003) infra \nInternet \nSolicited sex from 13 yr-old using \nInternet; arranged to meet for sex & \ntraveled to meet; arrested at hotel \n—unclear if case initially sting operation \nbut communications were recorded. \nDefendant appealed detention order; \ncourt affirmed and adopted the detention \norder and required pre-trial detention. \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nUS. v. Vasquez, \n2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n2339 (D. Me. 2003) \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nMotion to exclude pre-Miranda \nstatements and evidence from bag \ndenied. \n2422(b) \nNo Information \nr \nN.D.N.Y. \nU.S. v. Johnson, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52 \n(N.D.N.Y. 2005) \nNo information available. \nAffirmed at 446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2006) \nsupra. \nIn The Matter of The \nHerald Company, Inc., \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n11930 (N.D.N.Y. 2006) \nNo \nInformation \n— \nNo information available. \nMayor charged with 2422(b) ; regarding \nunsealing of affidavits in support of \nwiretap on cellular phone. \n2422(b) \nNo Information \n66 \nEFTA00079479\n", "char_count": 1244}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 71, "text_content": "wit: \nlimiitr\ns( 4,;:z., . ,, Tez, \ncl:' ' \n -\ny. \n. \nU.S. v. Johnson, \n1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n8819 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nDefendant pled guilty but challenged 88 \nmonth sentence recommendation; court \nimposed 88 month sentence \nAffirmed at U.S. v. Johnson, 446 F.3d \n272 (2d Cir. 2006) supra. \n2422(b) \nSee U.S. v. Johnson, \n446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. \n2006) \nW.D. \nTex. \nU.S. v. Dodd, \n349 F. Supp. 2d 1039 \n(W.D. Tex. 2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"14 yr-old\"; sent photos of himself \nwith erect penis; arranged to meet for \nsex; arrested at meeting. \nMotion to suppress search warrants \ndenied. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nN.D. Tex. \nU.S. v. Jackson, \n2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n6168 (N.D. Tex. 2002); see \nU.S. v. Jackson, 2002 U.S. \nLEXIS 539 (N.D. Tex. \n2002) for details of facts; \nand U.S. v. Jackson, 69 \nFed. Appx. 658 (5th Cir. \n2003) and U.S. v. Jackson, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n33111 (N.D. Tex. 2005) \nInternet \nNo specific information available other \nuse of Internet to lure minor boys \nfor oral sex.\nMagistrate judge recommended vacating \nsentence of 180 months because trial \ncourt applied enhancement for criminal \nsexual abuse as defined in 2241 & 2242 \nbecause prisoner's crime did not fall into \nthe definition. \n2422(b); \n2252(a)(4)(3); 2253 \nNot Consummated \ntin\nthan \n67 \nEFTA00079480\n", "char_count": 1394}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 72, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACII.ITY \nFACTS/CONIMUN1CATION \n, 1, \nU.S v. Jackson, \n2002 U.S. LEXIS 539 \n(N.D. Tex. 2002) \nInternet \nDefendant placed an ad on an Internet \nsite looking for boy to have oral sex; \ncontinued graphic conversations with \n\"boy\" for months describing sexual acts \nhe would perform; sent porn; arranged to \nmeet \"13 yr-old boy\" for sex but did not \nshow; continued communications & \narranged to meet for sex at mall, \ntelephone confirmation; arrested when he \nwent to meet the \"boy\"; police found \nchild porn on computer. \nMotion to vacate denied. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nN.D. III. \nU.S. v. Barked, \n2004 U.S. Dist. LEX1S \n27162 (N.D. III. 2004) \nInternet \nCommunications over Internet; arranged \nto meet & traveled to meet \"15 yr-old\" \nfor sex; arrested at meeting. \nDefendant's motion to dismiss denied. \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nstinv \nU.S. v. Echt, \n2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n25970 (ND. Ill. 2001) \nInternet \nNo information availablefacts. \nDefendant's motion to dismiss on ground \nthat \"knowingly\" in statute applies to age \nof the victim denied. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n68 \nEFTA00079481\n", "char_count": 1153}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 73, "text_content": "t \n47 • \": \nv-\nND \nU.S. Y Patten, 2003 U.S. \nDist. LEXIS 16072 (S.E. \nN.D. 2003) \nInternet \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"16 yr-old\"; sexually explicit \nconversations; arranged to meet for sex; \narrested at meeting. \nMotion to dismiss denied. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nU.S. v. Morrison, \n2003 WL 24054501 \n(S.E.N.D. 2003) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room; 29 yr-old male \nentered chat room communications with \n\"16 yr-old\"; discussed different sex acts \nwith her; asked if she would come to his \nhouse to \"fool around\"; gave her his \naddress and arranged for her to come; \narrested by police who went to his house \nat the meeting time. \nAppealed his conviction on grounds that \nno actual minor was involved and that \nstatute is unconstitutional. Conviction \naffirmed. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n69 \nEFTA00079482\n", "char_count": 864}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 74, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \n01/34IGE\nD. Neb. \nU.S'. v. Jackson, \n2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n33639 (D. Neb. 2007) \n* State Conspiracy charge \ndropped, no federal \nconspiracy \nInternet \nInternet chats with \"14 yr-old\"; \narranged to meet for sex; drove to \nmeeting place with his daughter; left but \npolice arrested him at his home. \nState charge of conspiracy of sexual \nassault dropped because no conspiracy \ncharge allowed in Nebraska with \nundercover agent as conspirator \nDefendant filed motion in limine to \nexclude cut and paste portions of \nInternet conversations & motion to \ndismiss because of pre-indictment delay. \nCase dismissed because of delay. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting\nbut la \n* State Conspiracy \nDropped* \nSting \nN.D. Ind. \nU.S. v. Capozzoli, \n2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n2812 (N.D. Ind. 2007) \nInternet \nInternet conversations with \"minor\" \nfollowed by telephone calls; sexually \nexplicit conversations regarding \nmasturbation. \nDefendant ordered detained without bail. \n242204 \nNot Consummated \nSting \n70 \nEFTA00079483\n", "char_count": 1067}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 75, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \n.. \n... \n. \nCHARGE \n,-. \nU.S. v. Candiano, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n18206 (N.D. Ind. 2005) \nInternet \nDefendant propositioned \"13 yr-old\" on \nInternet & telephone & arranged to \nmeet for sex 3 times; group member did \nnot show; organization posted his chat \nroom conversations on the Internet & he \nresponded. \nDefendant moved to dismiss & revoke \ndetention order; motions denied. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nby private \ngroup \nU.S. v. Wallace. \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n92609 (ND. Ind. 2006) \nJnternet \nSexually explicit Internet \ncommunications with \"13 yr-old\"; \nmasturbated in front of webcam & \nencouraged \"minor\"to do the same. \nFor purpose of section 3156(a)(4)(B), \n2422(b) charge is a crime of violence and \ncreates a rebuttable presumption in favor \nof retention; defendant held without \nbond. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \n71 \nEFTA00079484\n", "char_count": 903}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 76, "text_content": "' 1 ' \n-, \naIAJIB \n.:51';'\n,.. ,n; \ntiatitNat \n.,,,\n,\nT.-,-; -.,,. .\n,,, .. 'iL'c.4..,,?.' -1 .-:!Et \n:atagerAill:ii., \n. IF \n' 1 pr 9 \n< \nE.D. Pa. \n*U.S. v. Bianchi. \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n90073 (E.D. Pa. 2006) \n* Conspiracy \nNo \nInformation \nForeign travel; wiretapped phone & \nobtained phone records. \nConspiracy to engage in illicit sexual \nconduct in foreign places in violation of \n18 U.S.C. § 2423(e). \nDefendant seeks Jencks Act material \nprior to witness testifying. \n2422(6); \n2423 \nConsummated \n*Conspiracy \n2423(e) \nU.S. v. Rosenberg, \n2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n19160 (E.D. Pa. 2004) \nInternet \n58 yr-old computer instructor at public \nelementary school engaged in sexually \nexplicit Internet communications with \n\"13 yr-old\" for over a year; 2 telephone \nconversations; arranged to meet but \ndefendant did not show; arranged for \nanother meeting 11 months later & \narrested at the mall where they were \nsupposed to meet. \nAllowed to be released on bail because \nnot a flight risk. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n72 \nEFTA00079485\n", "char_count": 1065}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 77, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE.:\nU.S. v. Tykarsky, \n2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n2567 (E.D. Pa. 2004) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"lloveoldermen2\" \ndefendant initiated communications with \n\"14 yr-old\"; sexually explicit \nconversations over several sessions; told \nher he wanted to perform sexual acts \nwith her & described in detail; made \narrangements to meet for sex; arrested at \nthe mall where they were to meet. \nMotion to suppress denied because \ndefendant gave consent to search \nresidence. \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nStine \nU.S. v. Lester, \n268 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D. \nPa. 2003) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; high school teacher \ncorresponded with \"7th grader\" in chat \nroom; followed by telephone \nconversations; sent 2 images of child \nporn over the Internet. \nDefendant motion for downward \nsentence departure based on diminished \ncapacity denied. \n2422(b); \n2252 \nNot Consummated \n73 \nEFTA00079486\n", "char_count": 957}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 78, "text_content": "COUsgt \nC'4-A:b•-i-C -a* :-/...: \n- \nASES.-, • \nak; \nf-,-;. -5.-wtc,3u-,w \n'` r \n^ .. 0 LI \n': \n. \n4\n. r.....r,br,,,y,„..r. \nDA \n• \n, • _ • 0 \n.--7 \n• \n.I4 w \n— \n'tit'\n*Sgag \n' \nimwe. \n:464 aie .# \n4..,. .... ?4 - \n— \nM.D. Pa. \nU.S. Y Garcia. \n2005 WL 1862409 (M.D. \nPa. 2005); \nsee also U.S. v. Garcia, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n986874 (3i4 Cir. \n2007)(Unpublished) supra \nUnpublished \nInternet \n55 yr-old man established contact with \n14 yr-old on the Internet — through IM \n& emails; when their 14 yr-old daughter\n \nwas absent from school her parents \nreported her missing; police found out \nthat a man had called girl's school to say \nshe would not be in that day; daughter's \nfriend told police that the girl had been \ncommunicating regularly with a 55 yr-\nold from California on the Internet for 3-\n4 months; he had given her a cellular \nphone; he expressed a desire to have \nsexual intercourse with the girl and told \nher he was coming to see her; defendant \npicked the girl up at a bus stop and had \nsexual intercourse with her; when girl \nreturned home she told police what \nhappened \n2422(b); 2423(h) \nConsummated\nW.D.N.C. \n***U.S. v. Howard, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n67214 (W.D.N.C. 2006) \n***Conspiracy/Pimps \nProstitution \nNo specific information other than case \ninvolved interstate and underage \nprostitution, money laundering, crack \ndistribution & firearms possession. \nDefendant's motion for new trial denied. \n2422(6); \n2423; \n1956 \nNo Information \n***Conspiracy/ \nPimps \n74 \nEFTA00079487\n", "char_count": 1502}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 79, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nN.D. \nOhio \nChilleme v. U.S.. \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n25920 (N.D. Ohio 2006) \nDismissed by 2006 U.S. \nDist. LEXIS 38800 \nInternet \nDefendant believed he was \ncommunicating with mother of \"12 year-\nold\" and set up plans to meet for sex with \nboth mother & daughter; traveled from \nFlorida to Ohio to do so; arrested at \nmeeting. \nDefendant pled guilty; sought habeas \nrelief from his 60 month sentence; court \nwill conduct evidentiary hearing. \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nE.D. Cal. \nU.S. v. Carter, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n22501 (E.D. Cal. 2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"preteen parents \nwho share\"; defendant wants to have sex \nwith daughter while mother watches; \nInternet email & chat room & telephone \ncommunications; arranged to meet & \ntraveled to do so - arrested at airport. \nMotion to dismiss denied because no \nactual minor required; claims he did not \nbelieve that he was communicating with \na minor irrelevant to attempt charge; \nCongress has power under commerce \nclause; rule of lenity not applicable \nbecause 2422(b) is not ambiguous ; \n2422(6) only regulates conduct not \nspeech. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nStin_g \n75 \nEFTA00079488\n", "char_count": 1265}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 80, "text_content": ". . ,. \n• - \nCOURT \n. - \n,.. \n. , \n \n=CASES ; \n:-: \n' \n,:. \n• \n.% '-• r \n\"FACIWIT-_,',\n..-- , •-;:c-...,,, g.3.O., ‘.0ACTS/a01\\1141trICATip$ .; \n- \npw.:.4.\n \"..:etkAh !,-..:4\n!,CEIAlicE\nE.D. Wis. \nU.S. v. Davidson, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n95757 (E.D. Wis. 2006) \nInternet \nNo information available but appears to \nshowed up for meeting arranged through \nInternet.\nConstitutionality of 2423(b) upheld; \nneither statute requires actual minor; \nindictment need not specify the sexual \nconduct upon which it is based. \n2422(b); 2423; \n2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(B) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nU.S. v. Doyle, \n2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n11429 (E.D. Wis. 2007) \nInternet \nNo information available but appears to \nhave showed up for meeting arranged \nthrough Internet. \n2422(6); 2423; \n2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(13) \nNot Consummated \nsin \nW.D. Va. \nU.S. v. Jabbour, \n2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n13659 (W.D. Va. 2007) \nMagistrate judge report \nand recommendation \n(adopted by 2007 U.S. Dist \nLEXISI8262 (W.D. Va. \n2007) \nInternet \nNumerous online chats with \"mother\" of \nyoung girls interested in arranging sex; \narranged to have sex with girls and \ntraveled to do so; computer revealed \nvideos & photos of adult/infant, \nadult/minor, minor/animal sex. \nMagistrate recommended accepting \ndefendant's guilty plea to 2422(b); \n2252A(a)(5)(B) &(b)(2); and \n2256(8)(A). \n22422(6); 2423(6); \n2252A(a)(5)(B) & \n(b)(2); and 2256(8)(A) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n76 \nEFTA00079489\n", "char_count": 1460}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 81, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nDC \nU.S. v. Curtis, \n2005 WL 3312951 (D.D.C. \n2005) \nUnpublished No \nInformation \nNo information available. \nFound guilty. Defendant's motion for \nnew trial denied. \n2422(b; 2423(b); 2421; \n2252(a)(1); 2252(a)( I ) \n& (aX5)(B); 2256; \n1512(b)(1)& (b)(2)(A) \nNo Information \nD. Conn. \nU.S. v. Kufrovich, \n997 F. Supp. 246 (D. \nConn. 1997) \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available but indicated \nuse of telephone, intemet and mail \nhe-trial motions. Charged with using \ntelephone wires , Internet and U.S. mail. \nOverruled by United States v. Griffith, \n284 F.3d 338, 351 (2d Cir. 2002). \n2422(b); \n2423 \nNo Information \nU.S. v. Rivera. \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n65971 (D. Conn. 2006) \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available.. \nDefendant's motion for acquittal on \ncharge of 2252A denied. \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n2251(a) and \n2252A(a)(5)(B) \nNo Information \n77 \nEFTA00079490\n", "char_count": 925}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 82, "text_content": "COURT \n4 \"4:\"..;-+ f4::: \n, CASE$.. \n-'fil \n- -C.V.-I' ... ,i;•-• '', . \n.. \nEFACILiTy ' IFAC*PhiNIUNfc,ATION. '\nCHARGE \nU.S. v. Sweeney, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n73025 (D. Conn. 2006) \nInternet \nInternet chat room \n\"Ilovemucholdermen\"several explicit \nconversations of sadistic sexual behavior \nwith \"13 yr-old\"; arranged to meet \n\"minor\" and arrested when left his home \nto do so. \nPled guilty to 2422(b); challenged \nsentencing enhancements and claimed \nineffective counsel; court denied all \nmotions and refused to issue certificate \nof appealability and entered judgment for \nrespondent. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummate)\nAttempted to show tip \nfor meeting \naim \nN.D. Al. \nU.S. v. Powell. \n1 F. Supp. 2d 1419 (N.D. \nAla. 1998) \nInternet \nNo information available. \nMotion to dismiss indictment denied. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \nNot Consummated \nSting \nW.D. La. \nU.S. v. Kretser, \n2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n45441 (W.D. La. 2007) \nInternet \nInternet chat during which defendant \ntold \"minor\" they would be going to a \nmotel for sexual activity & he would \nbring digital camera to take photos. \nSentencing guideline range is set at 235-\n293 months in light of enhancements. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nStins \n78 \nEFTA00079491\n", "char_count": 1208}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 83, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY. \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nW.D. III. \nU.S. v. Miller. \n102 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. \nIII. 2000) \nInternet \nCommunications with undercover agent \n— method not specified; arranged to meet \nand was arrested. \n2422(b) and \ntransporting child \npornography \nNot Consummated \nam \nWis. \nState of Wisconsin v. \nRobins, 646 N.W. 2d 287 \n(Wis. 2002) \nInternet \nInternet chat room; sexually explicit \nsent photos depicting self \nerect & of other minor boys \nmasturbating; arranged to meet to have \nsex with \"13 yr-old boy\"; arrested when \nhe went to meet. \nPled guilty to 2422(b); affirmed circuit's \norder denying defendant's motion to \ndismiss because crime of attempt does \nnot require actual minor. \n2422(6) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSin\nconversations; \nN.D. Ind. \nU.S. v. Rouhselang, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n62024 (N.D. Ind. 2006) \nInterne( \nMet \"13 yr-old\" online; sexually explicit \nchats; admitted to having sex with \nanother young girl; suggested he take \nphotos; arranged to meet for oral sex; \narrested at meeting place; had camera in \nhis possession. \nDefendant ordered held without bond. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nStine \n79 \nEFTA00079492\n", "char_count": 1202}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 84, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nU.S v. Fuller, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n63722 (N.D. Ind. 2006) \nInterne( \nDefendant chatted online with \"13 yr- \nold\"; agreed to drive to \"girl's \napartment\" to engage in sexual activity; \narrested when he showed up. \nDefendant held without bond. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Davey, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n92427 (N.D. Ind. 2006) \nInterne( \nInternet chat room communications \nwith \"15 1/2 yr-old\" girl; graphic sexually \nexplicit reference to what he would like \nto do with her; arranged to have sex; \narrested when he showed up. \nCourt denied government request for pre- \ntrial detention. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSling \n' \nU.S. v. Lohman. \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n79073 (N.D. Ind. 2006) \nInternet \nSeries of online conversations with \"13 \nyr-old\"; arranged to meet for sex; offered \nto bring porn film; arrested when he \nshowed up at meeting place. \nCourt denied defendant's motion to \nrevoke detention order because 2422(b) \nconstitutes a crime of violence which \ncreated a presumption of detainment. \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSting \n80 \nEFTA00079493\n", "char_count": 1187}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 85, "text_content": "C9URT \n..44“-_-:. .:, •g. \nCASES \nwa.c. * •: \n1 \n[FACILITY \nFACTS/COMNIUNICATION \nCHARGE \nW.D.N.Y. \nU.S. v. Friedman, \n2006 U.S. Dist. LEX1S \n59445 (W.D.N.Y. 2006) \nInternet \nInternet communications with 14 yr-old \nvictim trying to entice her to have scx; \nmisrepresented his age as 18 yrs-old \nwhen in actuality he was in his 40s; he \nmet her at a mall and took her out to the \nwoods to have sex with her; caught by \nmall security \nChallenged 81 month sentence because \nhe had no prior convictions. Court \naffirmed sentence because defendant did \nnot recognize wrongfulness of his \nconduct. \n2422(b); 2423(b) \n[miscited in case as \n4243(6)1 \nConsummated/Force?\nD. Haw. \nU.S. v. Schnepper, \n302 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. \nHaw. 2004) \nInternet \nInternet used to entice minor and \ntransfer obscene material. \nDefendant ;challenged constitutionality \nof sentencing guidelines post Booker; \ncourt denied defendant's motion to \nimpose sentence without reference to \nsentencing guidelines. \n1470; \n2422(b) \nNo Information \n81 \nEFTA00079494\n", "char_count": 1029}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 86, "text_content": "9.: ''''' --r.' ''\" ..- \nud \n R ! \nitit‘\ntr.1 -44<liz.-•:.:.,rz- . ---. \n1,!.. \n' : \n1 / - - . . \nFACILITV \nFACTS/COMM UNICA TION \n \n. . \nAR \nC.TI\n(;E \nS.D. \nMiss. \nU.S. v. Luxford, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n1729589 (S.D. Miss. 2007) \nSlip Copy \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nMotion to transfer is denied. Discusses \nalleged victim and her friend as \nwitnesses so implication that an actual \nminor was involved and not an \nundercover operation. \n2422(b) \nNo Information \nN.D. \nIowa \nU.S. v. Townsend, \nSlip Copy, 2007 WL \n1320495 (N.D. Iowa 2007) \nSlip Copy \nNo \nInformation \nNo information available. \nOrder accepting Magistrates report and \nrecommendation to accept defendant's \nguilty plea. \n2422(b) \nNo Information \nD. Kan. \nU.S. v. Kelly, \n2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n5293 (D. Kan. 2000) \nInternet \nAlthough he began using computer to \nsolicit the victim when she was 15 yrs- \nold government's evidence was that \ndefendant's purpose was to engage in \nconsensual sex when victim turned 16. \nDefendant's motion to dismiss counts of \n2422(b) and 2423(h) granted because \nconsensual sex with 16 yr-old is not \ncriminal sexual conduct defined by \n109A. \n2422(b); 2423(b); \n1512 (witness \ntampering ) \nNo Information \n82 \nEFTA00079495\n", "char_count": 1238}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 87, "text_content": "C U \ntkNi... \n1-: \nta.\n.,,\n•.;;;L;ii \" \n' \nYiii \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE\nFACILITY \nCHARGE \nU.S. V. Riccardi, \n258 P. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. \nKan. 2003) \nNo \ninformation \nNo specific information available other \nthan ; telephone calls to 3 different minor \nmales. \nDefendant found guilty & filed motion \nfor judgment of acquittal and/or new \ntrial, which was denied. \n2252(a)(4)(B); 2422(b) \nNo Information \nE.D. Ky. \nU.S. v. Kimberly, \n2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS \n27955 (E.D. Ky. 2005) \nInternet \nDefendant met 15 yr-old on the Internet; \nsolicited sex from her on the Internet; \narranged to meet her for sex; met her and \nhad sex. \nPled guilty. Motion to withdraw guilty \nplea denied. \n2422(3) \nConsummated\nD. Nev. \nU.S. v. Johnson. \n445 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (D. \nNev. 2006) \nInternet \nInternet communications; arranged to \nmeet for sex and meet for sex; state \ncharges dropped but federal charges \nmade; \nDefendant contested \"illegal state arrest\"; \nMotion to suppress denied. \n2252A(a)(5) (B); \n2422(b) \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting (by \nstate) \n83 \nEFTA00079496\n", "char_count": 1073}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 88, "text_content": "COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNICATION \nCHARGE \nA.F. Ct. \nCrim. \nApp. \nU.S. v. Filipkowski. \n2002 CCA LEXIS 70 (A.F. \nCt. Crim. App. 2002) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"M4M\"; \nconversations with \"15 yr-old male\"; \nsexually charged conversations; arranged \nto meet; arrested at mall when he showed \nup. \nAppellate court affirmed conviction & 2 \nyear sentence. \n2422(6); 10 U.S.C. \n890, 892 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Moffeit, \n2004 CCA LEXIS 55 (A.F. \nCt. Crim. App. 2004) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nDefendant set up website seeking girls \n13-20 yrs-old for pagan rituals; \npornographic images retrieved from his \ndisks. \nSentenced 45 months, dishonorable \ndischarge, total forfeiture of pay. \nConviction & sentence affirmed. \n2422(b); 2252A; \n10 U.S.C. 934 \nNot Consummated \nU.S. v. lionzik, \n2003 CCA LEXIS 280 \n(A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2003) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room \"Older Men for \nYounger Girls\" ; communicated with \"13 \nyr-old\"; sexually explicit as to what he \nwould like to do to her; asked her to \nshave pubic area & arranged to meet for \nsex; sent info about hotel reservations & \ntelephone number; suggested that she \nperform oral sex on him; drove to meet \nher arrested when he showed up \nSentenced to 8 years, dishonorable \ndischarge. Court affirmed conviction but \nreduced sentence to 7 years. \n2422(b); 2252A; \n10 U.S.C. 880 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting\nSting \nby private \norganization \n84 \nEFTA00079497\n", "char_count": 1500}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 89, "text_content": "fi lr\"t e. 4'\n. \n,1 \n• \n\" \n;',9' \niXi:? \n,'..:,.., 'N .  \n•'\n•, \n..\n•.4 .,\n0474f:a \n•A:: \n .1.:A-4 ra• \nI\na*\nN.S•; \nr * \n \nvt\":.: \n'\n4,kl•WE-434,Y \ne \nMAR\n1a..\nU.S. v. Larson, \n64 M.J. 559 (A.F. Ct. \nCrim. App. 2006) \nInternet \nContacted \"14 yr-old\" through Internet \ninstant message service; turned \nconversation towards sex; asked if she \nwould meet for sex; arranged to meet for \nsex; arrested when he showed up. \nSentence 9 years. Conviction affirmed \nbut sentence reduced to 6 years. \n2422(b); \n10 \nU.S.C. 880, 892 & \n934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nU.S. v. Gray, \n2006 CCA LEXIS 130 \n(A.F. Ct. Crim. App., \n2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room conversations; \npropositioned \"14 yr-old\"; arranged to \nmeet for sex; arrested when he went to \nher house. \nConviction of indecent exposure set \naside; all other convictions affirmed. \n2422(b); \n10 \nU.S.C. 880 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nStint \nU.S. v. Amador, \n61 M.J. 619 (A.F. Ct. \nCrim. App. 2005) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nChatted with \"13 yr-old\" on several \noccasions; arranged to meet at mall; have \nsex; shower & go to dinner; arrested \nwhen he showed up at the mall. \n2422(b); \n10 \nU.S.C. 920 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \ntlag \n85 \nEFTA00079498\n", "char_count": 1272}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 90, "text_content": ";f \n]Cti.. ,giaCk.SES:1/4.••• \ntvv,.4e.w.\n....,a.uhro,,, \n1,--  .'. ,  \n;ii;•.: \n..... 4. \n‘ZI-e?.?. \n/COMMUNICATIOWs--;4 :.: . \n, EA 914.11r11- if \n4.1,,-, ,.:-4 •ea.A.-zt \nNSAil-**cliti tf,.:\n/::r494\nzr-i. :.,, ••3 1 \nIf \nb \n:ii,... \n%:., \nNavy- \nMarine \nCt. \nCrim. \nApp. \nU.S. v. Boggs, \n2007 CCA LEXIS 196 (N- \nM. Ct. Crim. App. 2007) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nInternet chat room, email & telephone \ncontact; sexually explicit conversations; \narranged & traveled to meet for sex; \narrested at meeting place. \nSentenced to 8 years, dishonorable \ndischarge & reduction in pay grade \nfound unreasonably severe & reduced to \n3 years. \n2422(b), \n2252A(a)(5)B); 10\nU.S.C. 880 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSting \nby private \norganization \nU.S. v. Heisler, \n2005 CCA LEXIS 131 (N- \nM. Ct. Crim. App. 2005); \nAffirmed at \nU.S. v. Heisler, \n64 M.J. 82 (C.A.A.F. \n2006) \nUnpublished \nInternet \nEmails with several minor boys; \narranged to meet \"15 yr-old boy\" for sex; \narrested at meeting. \nAppellate court affirmed conviction. \nArticle 134, UCMJ \n(which incorporates 18 \nU.S.C. 2422(b)) & 134; \n10 U.S.C. 880 & \n934 \nNot Consummated \nShowed up for meeting \nSlag \nU.S. v. Proctor, \n2007 CCA LEXIS 187 (N- \nM. Ct. Crim. App. 2007) \nUnpublished \nJnternet \n19 yr-old contacted \"12 yr-old\" & \"14 \nyr-old\" over several months; sexually \nexplicit conversations; arranged to meet \nfor sex but did not show. \nConviction and sentence affirmed. \n2422(b); \n10 \nU.S.C. 886, 891 & 934 \nNot Consummated \nSting \nby private \norganization \n86 \nEFTA00079499\n", "char_count": 1550}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00079409", "page_number": 91, "text_content": "' COURT \nCASES \nFACILITY \nFACTS/COMMUNI5an- . 'l \n, CP4etRGI \nC.A.A.F. \nU.S. v. Brooks, \n60 M.J. 495 (C.A.A.F. \nInternet \nleading to \nInternet chat room; defendant initiated \ncommunications with private citizen in \n2422(b) \n2005) \nInternet \nchat room; citizen reported to police & \nInternet Sting began; he continued \ncontact & arranged to meet for sex and \ntold her to bring \"8 yr-old\" neighbor; \narrested in hotel where supposed to meet. \nNot Consummated\nShowed up for meeting \nSt\nd \nConviction affirmed. \nvwk I C:Doc umcnts and Setiong,slas \\ Local Seitingaemp XP®pxisclMP.MFl117.2422(b) Cue awl • ckiumixl \n87 \nEFTA00079500\n", "char_count": 628}]}