Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01093/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Robert Dickson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1093

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of North Dakota.

*

Paul Robert Dickson, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 13, 2005

Filed: September 20, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, FAGG, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Paul Robert Dickson appeals his conviction for using the Internet to attempt

to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). We

affirm.

Evidence at Dickson’s trial showed Dickson entered an Internet chat room and

initiated a private conversation with an undercover police officer using the screen

name “asl_15fnodak” (slang for age, sex, and location = 15-year-old female from

North Dakota). Dickson described himself as a 47-year-old man from Grand Forks,

North Dakota, and the undercover officer posing as “asl_15fnodak” described herself

Appellate Case: 05-1093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953716
*

The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota. 

-2-

as a fifteen-year-old girl named Katie, also from Grand Forks. After discussing

hobbies, Dickson asked Katie if she would ever consider dating a man his age. She

stated she would, and they exchanged physical addresses. Dickson then asked

whether she could meet him at the Holiday Inn parking lot located near her house,

and stated he would pick her up at a certain time and go to his apartment. Dickson

then told Katie he wanted to make love to her. When she responded that she had no

experience, he asked if he could teach her how. Dickson described his car and told

Katie he would be waiting for her near the west end of the motel parking lot. At the

appointed time, Dickson drove his car into the parking lot and parked on the west

end. 

Officers initiated a traffic stop and took Dickson to the police department for

further investigation. During questioning, Dickson admitted he had the Internet chat

room conversation with Katie and he believed she was fifteen. Dickson also told

officers that he intended to meet Katie for the purpose of having sex with her, but that

after he arrived in the parking lot, he changed his mind. A jury convicted Dickson

and the district court*

 sentenced him to sixty months in prison.

On appeal, Dickson argues the evidence was insufficient to convict him. To

prove Dickson violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), the Government had to show Dickson

(1) used a facility of interstate commerce (2) to knowingly persuade, induce, entice,

or coerce (3) an individual who was not yet 18 years old (4) to engage in any illegal

sexual activity. United States v. Munro, 394 F.3d 865, 869 (10th Cir. 2005). Because

Dickson never actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor, the Government

charged him with attempt, which requires a showing that Dickson took a “substantial

step” towards commission of the ultimate crime, and that the step was more than mere

preparation. Id. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we

Appellate Case: 05-1093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953716
-3-

conclude a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Dickson

committed the offense. Contrary to Dickson’s assertion, there is ample evidence to

show Dickson believed Katie was a fifteen-year-old girl. Katie’s age was in her

screen name, and Katie informed Dickson she was fifteen. See United States v.

Thomas, 410 F.3d 1235, 1246 (10th Cir. 2005). Further, the evidence showed

Dickson took a substantial step towards persuading a minor to engage in unlawful

sexual activity. Dickson initiated the conversation with Katie, tried to persuade her

to engage in sexual activity, arranged to meet her for that purpose, and was waiting

for her at the arranged time and place when he was arrested. See Munro, 394 F.3d at

869-70. 

Dickson contends the district court should have instructed the jury on

entrapment. The district court properly declined to give the instruction because the

evidence showed Dickson was predisposed to commit the crime without any

inducement by the undercover agent. Dickson initiated the conversation with Katie

and brought up the subjects of meeting in person and having sex. See id. at 871-72.

We thus affirm Dickson’s conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1093 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/20/2005 Entry ID: 1953716