Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-16-05139/USCOURTS-ca6-16-05139-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Juan Alberto Robles Zavala
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0139n.06 

No. 16-5139 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JUAN ALBERTO ROBLES ZAVALA, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 

BEFORE: KEITH, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges. 

DAMON J. KEITH, Circuit Judge. Juan Alberto Robles Zavala (“Zavala”) appeals his 

conviction for attempting to induce a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2422(b). Zavala argues that: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the 

district court improperly instructed the jury; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by 

allowing testimony concerning unrelated undercover investigations. We AFFIRM. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Zavala was a paid subscriber of GetItOn.com, an adult sexual website. On October 13, 

2014, Zavala sent a message to KelliWilliams (“Kelli”), another profile on the website 

KelliWilliams’ profile stated that Kelli needed “a teacher for taboo” and was “[l]ooking for an 

experienced dom wanting to train.” The profile stated, “I have myself and a younger version of 

me.” Kelli responded to Zavala by providing her e-mail address, which he contacted on October 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 1
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

2 

18, 2014. Zavala asked Kelli whether she thought the relationship would work, to which she 

replied, “If you are wanting to train my little me.” Kelli explained that her “little me” is 

“younger and curious” and “almost a mirror image of [Kelli] at her age.” On November 21, 

2014, Kelli explained that she was “looking discreetly for someone for [her] daughter . . . she has 

become interested in sex . . . .” On November 13, 2014, Kelli asked Zavala “how low” he goes, 

and on November 23, 2014, Zavala replied, “age is not [a] problem if > 12 and you are present 

and support the situation.” In another e-mail, Zavala stated that he “also know[s] about legal 

risks” but that he was “building trust.” Kelli sent Zavala a picture of her daughter, “Amy,” to 

which Zavala replied, “[s]he is really beautiful, her eyes and smile are capturing my mind!” 

Zavala also began sending messages for Amy to Kelli, and explained what he wanted to do with 

Amy, sexually. Zavala scheduled a date and time to meet Kelli and her daughter at a hotel, and 

to engage in sexual activity with Amy. Unbeknownst to Zavala, undercover law enforcement 

agents maintained the KelliWilliams profile. Thus, when Zavala went to the hotel to meet with 

Kelli and Amy, agents promptly arrested him for attempting to induce a minor to engage in 

sexual activity. Zavala waived his Miranda rights and told agents that he knew “that it’s not 

right . . . to have sex with a child.” 

At trial, the government asked the undercover officers questions concerning other 

investigations they conducted on GetItOn.com. Over defense counsel’s objection, the jury heard 

that at least fifteen individuals had contacted the KelliWilliams profile on GetItOn.com since it 

was posted. An officer testified that once Kelli disclosed that her “little me” was twelve years 

old, some would say “that’s too young. That’s illegal, and I want nothing to do with it.” The 

officer testified that she would then cease communication. Over defense counsel’s objection, 

another officer testified that once an individual has communicated with a minor about sex, 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 2
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

3 

investigators want to get him or her to “a particular location . . . [because] you can certainly 

determine if that individual had the intent to have sex with that child, if they show up at the 

appointed place with condoms in their pocket, et cetera.” 

Zavala testified on his own behalf. Zavala told the jury that he believed Amy was a real 

twelve-year-old girl until November 30, 2014, when he started to believe that Kelli was roleplaying the part of the minor child. 

The district court instructed the jury that it was to find whether the government proved 

beyond a reasonable doubt the following: 

First, that the defendant knowingly used a means or facility of interstate or 

foreign commerce; that is, the Internet, [facsimile] or telephone, a computer, or email to attempt to persuade, induce, or entice an individual under the age of 18 

years to engage in unlawful sexual activity. 

Second, that the defendant believed the individual was under – under the 

age of 18. 

Third, that if sexual activity had occurred the defendant could have been 

charged with a criminal offense under state law. 

Fourth. That the defendant did some overt act that was a substantial step 

towards committing the crime of using interstate commerce to entice the minor to 

engage in unlawful sexual activity. 

The jury convicted Zavala as charged, and he was sentenced to 120 months’ 

imprisonment. Zavala timely appealed. Zavala argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

convict him, that the district court’s jury instruction was erroneous, and that the district court 

abused its discretion when it allowed the officers’ testimony regarding other investigations. 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence 

We review a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence de novo. United States v. Owens, 

426 F.3d 800, 808 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). However, we view “the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the prosecution.” Id. “Indeed, a defendant bears a very heavy burden 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 3
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

4 

when he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, lest the matter of his guilt be re-litigated.” 

Id. (internal marks and citation omitted). 

1. Adult intermediary 

Zavala argues that to be convicted under § 2422(b), he must have enticed an actual 

minor. Zavala argues that, because he engaged in conversation with adults pretending to be a 

minor, and not an actual minor, his conviction cannot stand. Our precedent forecloses this 

argument. In United States v. Roman, 795 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir. 2015), we held that “a 

defendant violates § 2422(b) by communicating only with an adult intermediary if the 

defendant’s communications with that intermediary are intended to persuade, induce, entice, or 

coerce the minor child’s assent to engage in prohibited sexual activity.” Id. (emphasis added) 

(citations omitted). Further, “[t]he crime is complete when the defendant both intends to 

persuade the minor child to assent to sexual activity and the defendant takes a substantial step 

toward completing the crime—for example, by engaging in communications with an adult 

intermediary who can exert influence to help achieve the child’s assent.” Id. As we have stated, 

“Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade.” Id. 

(citation omitted). The record establishes that Zavala intended to communicate with an adult 

intermediary who disclosed that she would influence a minor child to have sexual relations with 

him. The record establishes that Zavala sent communications of a sexual nature to the person he 

believed to be the minor child, establishing his intent when he used the adult intermediary. Thus, 

there was sufficient evidence to determine that Zavala’s communications to the intermediary 

were intended to induce and entice a minor to engage in prohibited conduct. Accordingly, the 

evidence was sufficient to support Zavala’s conviction. 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 4
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

5 

2. Entrapment 

Zavala argues that the undercover officers entrapped him and the evidence was 

insufficient to show otherwise. “The defense of entrapment has two elements: (1) government 

inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal 

activity.” United States v. Poulsen, 655 F.3d 492, 502 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). When 

a defendant is predisposed to commit an offense, he is not entitled to argue the defense of 

entrapment. See United States v. Al-Cholan, 610 F.3d 945, 950-51 (6th Cir. 2010) 

(“[Defendant’s] entrapment defense fails because the evidence incontrovertibly establishes that 

he was predisposed to commit the offense.”). Zavala fails to argue how he lacked the 

predisposition to commit the offense, resting on an argument that the government induced the 

crime, and thus failing to make a showing of the second requisite element of entrapment. 

The evidence is sufficient to prove that Zavala was predisposed to commit the offense. 

Zavala’s messages to the adult intermediary illustrate that he was ready and willing to commit 

the offense. Further, Zavala first initiated contact with the adult intermediary after reading her 

posting that she wanted someone to “help train [her] ‘little me.’” Zavala specifically stated that 

“age is not [a] problem if >12 and you are present,” and he did so prior to believing Kelli was 

engaging in role-play. Additionally, when Kelli sent Zavala a photograph of the young girl, he 

continued to discuss having sexual relations with her. Viewing the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the government, the evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Zavala was 

predisposed to commit the crime, and the government had not entrapped him. The evidence was 

sufficient to support Zavala’s conviction.

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 5
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

6 

B. Jury Instruction 

Zavala argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that a conviction was 

warranted if they were to find that he “believed” the individual was under the age of eighteen, 

rather than requiring them to find that the individual was in fact under the age of eighteen. 

Zavala argues that the statute does not include the word “believed” and thus the jury instruction 

was erroneous. “This Court reviews challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion.” 

United States v. Kuehne, 547 F.3d 667, 679 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “When jury 

instructions are claimed to be erroneous, we review the instructions as a whole, in order to 

determine whether they adequately informed the jury of the relevant considerations and provided 

a basis in law for aiding the jury in reaching its decision.” Id. (citation omitted). As this court 

explained in Roman, “the focus [under § 2422(b)] always remains on the defendant’s subjective 

intent because the statute is ‘designed to protect children from the act of solicitation itself.’” 

Roman, 795 F.3d at 516 (citation omitted). Further, “[w]e have held that the statute is violated 

even if the targeted minor is not a real person as long as the defendant demonstrates that he is, or 

is attempting to, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce the minor to engage in sexual activity.” Id. 

Because the instructions adequately informed the jury of the relevant considerations, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion when it provided those instructions. 

C. Prior Investigation Testimony 

Lastly, Zavala argues that the district court erred in allowing police testimony regarding 

interactions with other suspects in unrelated cases. Zavala states that the evidence was more 

prejudicial than probative and was irrelevant testimony that should have been excluded. “We 

review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings.” United States v. Wagner, 

382 F.3d 598, 616 (6th Cir. 2004). “[R]eversal is appropriate only if the abuse of discretion was 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 6
No. 16-5139, United States v. Robles Zavala

7 

not harmless error, that is, only if the erroneous evidentiary ruling affected the outcome of the 

trial.” United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal marks and citation 

omitted). Zavala does not argue on appeal how the evidence prejudiced him. Even assuming the 

district court abused its discretion in admitting this testimony, the testimony did not affect the 

outcome at trial. Zavala testified that, until November 30, 2014, he believed that Amy was a 

twelve-year-old girl. Further, Zavala testified that he knew that he “did wrong at following this 

communication” when he knew it “involve[d] a child.” Thus, given Zavala’s own admissions to 

the jury, any alleged error was harmless. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the evidence was sufficient to support Zavala’s conviction, the 

jury instructions were not erroneous, and any officer testimony at trial did not prejudice the 

outcome at trial. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. 

 Case: 16-5139 Document: 24-2 Filed: 03/03/2017 Page: 7