Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): VI. Remaining Assignments of Error The appellant next argues that his conviction for attempted enticement of a minor was factually insufficient because his conversations with Ms. CG were insufficient to establish a substantial step toward completion of the crime. To the contrary, we conclude that his actions in de-conflicting his own work schedule, discerning when her mother would be absent, ensuring that she was not actually a police officer, discussing specific sexual activity, and asking her what items she might like for him to bring went beyond mere “hot air” and sufficiently demonstrated that the appellant took a substantial step toward enticement of a minor. United States v. Winekelmann, 70 M.J. 403, 407-08 (C.A.A.F.2011); see also United States v. Chambers, 642 F.3d at 594 (<HOLDING>). Based on our own de novo review of the record 
 Holding statements: (A) holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse (B) holding that sexual harassment need not take the form of sexual advances or other explicitly sexual conduct in order to be actionable under title vii (C) holding that allegations of sexual assault by an employee of the church fell within coverage for sexual misconduct (D) holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim (E) recognizing that federal circuits view discussions as a substantial step when they involve arrangements for meetings discussion of sexual acts to be performed during meeting or grooming whereby the defendant exposes the child to sexual material in an effort to lower the childs inhibitions toward later sexual activity
Output (English): holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse