### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60556

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f – A pp el l ee v. C H A R L E S R B A R L O W D efen d a n t – A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo r th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

B ef ore W IE N E R , D E N N IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui t Ju dg es: W IE N E R , C i rcui t Ju dg e: A j ury c onvi c t ed de fendant

- appel l ant C harl es B a rl ow ( “ B ar l ow ” ) of ( 1)
a tt e m p tin g to p e r s u a d e o r e n tic e a p e r s o n h e b e lie v e d to b e a m in o r to e n g a g e in
s e xua la c t i vi t y i n v i o l at i o n of 18 U
. S. C. § 2 42 2(b) , a nd ( 2) s e ndi ng o bs c e ne m ater i al t o a person he bel i eved t o be you n ger t h an 16 years ol d i n vi ol ati on of 18 U
. S. C. § 14 70
. Bar l o w no w a ppe al s , b r i ngi ng t hr e e c l ai m s o f e r r o r . W e f

i nd
n o e r r o r a n d a f

f i r m. I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A . F a c ts I n Augus t 200 6, Bar l o w , t he n 3 9 ye ar s o l d a nd l i vi ng i n Lum be r t o n, M i ssi ssi pp i , spi ed an onl i n e pi ct u re and prof i l e of a t een age M i ssi ssi pp igi rl

United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60556

Thiso pi nio nwillr ef

ert o “R eb ec ca” a n d “E n gli sh ,”a s th e co nte xt re qu ir es . 1 2 nam e d Re be c ca and e m ai l e d he r , i nt r o duc i ng hi m s e l f a nd a s ki ng ho w o l d s he
w as . Rebec c a r es ponded t hat s he w as 14 y ear s ol d, t houg h in re al i t y, s he w as a m i dd l e- aged , m arri ed paral egal f rom D i xi e, M i ssi ssi pp i , n am ed G i n n y E n gl i sh ( “ E ngli sh ”)

. En gl i sh f r ee l ance d f

orl aw enf

or c em ent by pos i ng onl i ne as an 1
u n d e r a g e g ir l to a tt r a c t p o te n tia l s e x o ffe n d e r s . R ebecca an d B ar low th e n began an onl i n e rel ati on shi p that c on t i n u ed sp o ra d ica ll y f

or m ost of

t h e nex t year. Th ey cha t t ed m ost l y vi a Y ah oo! M e s s e n g e r , a n in s t a n t m e s s a g in g s e r v ic e , b u t a ls o b y e m a il . A t B a r lo w ’s i n s t i g a t i o n , t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e c a me e x p l i c i t i mme d i a t e l y , a n d o v e r t i me B arl ow em ai l ed R ebecca m u l t i pl e porn ograp h i c pi ct u res, i n cl u di n g of hi s er ect p e n is
. H e re p e a te d ly a s k e d h e r to s e n d e x p lic it p ic tu r e s o f h e r s e lf, o c c a s io n a lly assert i n g t h at he w as a ph ot ograp h er w h o coul d set her on t h e path to a l uc r at i ve m o de l i ng c ar e e r i f s he w o ul d c o m pl y. Al t ho ugh t he o nl i ne c o nve r s at i o ns w e r e us ual l y ab o ut s e x, t he y s om et i m e s c o ve r e d m o r e m unda ne t o p ic s , s u c h a s R e b e c c a ’s n e e d t o r e g is t e r fo r e ig h t h -g r a d e c la s s e s , h e r m o t h e r ’s
m oni t or i ng of

her c om put eruse , and B ar l ow ’ s j ob on an o f f

- sho r e o i lr i g. D u ri n g th eir corresp on d en ce, B a rl ow attem p ted to set u p a m ee ti n g w i th R eb ecca , bu t no n e tran sp i re d u n tilthe su m m er of 20 0 7 , w h en the y a gr ee d to
m ee t i n a st at e park so ut h of H at t i es burg, M i ss i ss i ppi
. B ar l ow to l d R ebe c c a t hat h e w ou l d bri n g h i s f

ost er s on s t o t h e park an d t h at i f she w ou l d m eet h i m t h ere, t h ey coul d go f

or a w al k and , t h en , w h i l e t h e boys ate l u n ch, B arl ow w ou l d sh ow her t he “i nsi de of

hi s t ent
. ” W hen R ebe c c a agr ee d, B ar l ow as ked hernot t o w ear u n d e r w e a r to th e ir re n d e z v o u s a n d s e n t h e r m o r e e x p lic it p ic tu r e s , a p p a r e n tly in te n d e d to b e in s tr u c tio n a l. O n t h e a p p o i n t e d d a y , B a r l o w a r r i v e d a t t h e p a r k b e f o r e t h e 1 1 a . m. m eeti n g. N ear10: 30 a. m . , FB I Spec i alA gent M at t hew C am pbel l , w ho w asN o. 08- 60556

Overthe cour seof the year , Rebec ca had hada birthd ay. 2 Mississippi law prohibits sexu al cont act with a minor who is at lea st 14 butyoun ge r 3 tha n 16, if the person is mor e th an 36 month s ol der tha n the minor
. M I SS . C O D E ANN . § 97-3

- 9 5( 2 0 0 7). 3 ove r se ei ng t he o per at i on, pul l ed up c l os e t o B ar l ow ’ s par ked cari n or der to r ead th e licen se pl ate ( obscured b y a boa t t rai l er B arl ow w as pu l l i n g) an d veri fy Bar l o w ’ s i de nt i t y. Se e i ng t he a ge nt , Bar l o w g at he r e d hi s f o s t e r s o ns and l e f

t t he pa r k. A r r e s t e d s ho r t l y t he r e af t e r , Bar l o w t o l d a ge nt s t hathe ha d g o ne t o t he pa r k t o m e e t a 15- ye ar - o l d gi r lnam e d “ Bec ki ” but l e f t be c aus e he di d notw ant 2 to b e th e r e w h e n s h e a r r iv e d
. A g e n ts fo u n d B a r lo w ’ s la p to p in h is ca r a n d o n it
so m e r em nants of

t he c hat s he had had w i t h R ebe c c a. B . P r oce edi ngs B ar l ow w as c harge d w i t h ( 1) at t em pt i ng t o vi ol at e 18 U
. S. C

. § 2422(b) by att em pti n g t o kn ow i n gl y persua de, i n du ce, enti ce orcoer ce a p erson he b el i eved t o b e y ounger t han 18 yea r s ol d t o engage i n se xual ac t i vi t y t hat w oul d be i l l egal
u n der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , an d ( 2) vi ol ati n g 18 U
. S

. C

. § 147 0 by u si n g a m ean s of 3 in te r s ta te co m m e r c e , vi z. , the In tern et, to kn ow i n gly se n d ob s c e n e m a terial to
a pe r s o n he b e l i e ve d t o b e y ou n ger tha n 1 6 ye ar s o l d. Bar l o w m o unt e d no defense an d di d n ott ak e t h e st an d d u ri n g t h e t w o- da y t ri al
. Th e j u ry convi ct ed hi m o n b o t h c o unt s ; he w as s e nt e nc e d t o 1 88 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n. Bar l o w appe al s , as s e r t i ng t hat( 1) t he r e w as i ns uf f i c i e nt e vi de nc e t hathe to o k a s u b s ta n tia l s te p to w a r d e n t i c in g o r p e r s u a d in g a m in o r to e n g a g e in
s e xua la c t i vi t y, ( 2) t he g o ve r nm e nt fai l ed t o l aya pr o pe r f o unda t i o n f

o r t he Yaho o ! c hat l o g pr i o r t o i t s ad m i s s i o n i nt o e vi de nc e , and ( 3) t h e governm e nt fa ile d to p r o v e th a t h is a c ts h a d a n in te r s ta te n e x u s . I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW B ar l ow s t yl es hi s f

i r stc l ai m , i nsu ff

i ci en c y o f

t he e vi denc e, as an appeal f rom the den i al of h i s m ot i on at t ri al un der F ederal R u l e of C ri m i n al P rocedureN o. 08- 60556

See , e. g. , Un ited

St atesv . Mi t ch el l , 4 8 4F .3 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 8( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 7). 4 Id
. 5 See , e. g. , F

orador i v. Ha rr is , 523 F.3d 47 7, 508(5th Cir. 200 8) (failure t o ti melyobje ct 6 tot es ti mo nyat trial re sult s inp laine rrorr evie w o napp eal)

.

United States v. Tho mpson , 4 5 4F .3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 6). 7 United States v. Alvarado-Sant ilano , 4 3 4F .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 8 United States v. Farn er , 251 F. 3d5 10 , 513 (5thC ir. 2 001 ) (addr essing attempt to 9 vio late1 8U .S .C

. § 2 4 2 2 (b ))

. 4 29
. W e r e vi ew the deni alo f a Rul e 2 9 m o t i o n de no vo . I n r e vi e w i ng t he 4 suff i ci en cy of

t h e evi den ce un derl yi n g a R u l e 29 den i al , w e l ook to “ w h et h er a r a tio n a l ju r y co u ld h a v e fo u n d th e d e fe n d a n t g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” 5 A t t ri al , B arl ow obj ect ed t o n ei t h er the au t h en t i cat i on of the chat l og n or th e a lle g e d fa ilu r e t o e s ta b lis h a n in te r s ta te n e x u s , a s a re s u lt, w e re v ie w h is second a n d thi rd cl ai m s f or pl ai n err or. To sh ow pl ai n error , an app el l an t m u st 6 dem on st rat e t h at t h e err or w as “ cl ear or obvious” an d that i t “ af fect ed [ h i s] sub st an t i al ri gh t s. ” E ven i f he m eet s t h i s t ou gh st an da rd, w e w i l lnot r everse 7
u n le s s “t h e e r r o r h a s a s e r io u s e ffe c t o n th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r i t y , o r p u b lic
r e p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” 8 I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . Su f f i ci en cy of

t h e E vi de n ce To pr o ve a t t e m pt , t he go ve r nm e nt m us t de m o ns t r at e t hatt he de fe nda nt ( 1) ac t ed w i t h t he c ul pabi l i t y r equi r ed t o c om m i t t he under l yi ng s ubst ant i ve o f fe ns e , a nd ( 2) t o o k a s ubs t ant i als t e p t o w ar d i t s c o m m i s s i on . H e r e , t he 9
u n d erl yi ng of

fens e i s t he vi ol at i on of § 2422(b)

. Th us t he gov er nm ent ha d to p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t B a rlo w in te n d e d to “p e rs u a d e [], in d u ce [], ent i c e[] , orc oe r c e[] ” a pe r so n w hom he be l i eve d t o be a m i nor i nt o i l l egals exualN o. 08- 60556

18U.S.C . § 242 2. Th e statuteal so re quires th at the defen dantu sed amea ns o f 10 inte rstate commerce in vi olating th e statute , discu ssed infra

. To beclear, the statute does n ot require that th e sexualcontact occur, but that the defen dant sought to persua de the minorto en g a ge i nth at co ntact
. See , e. g. , United States v. Bailey , 2 2 8F .3 d 6 3 7 , 6 3 9( 6 thC ir
. 2 0 0 0) (§ 242 2 c rimin ali zes “persua sionan d th e attempt to pe rsuade , not the performa nce of the sexu al a ct s th em se lves”)

.

Farn er , 2 5 1 F .3 d at 5 1 3
. 11 United States v. Mandu jano , 4 9 9F .2 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 7 4). 12 5 con tact an d took a su b stan ti a lstep tow a rd th a t p ersu a sion or en ti cem en t. W e 10 hav e de f

i ne d a “ s ubs t ant i als t e p” a s “ c o nduc t w hi c h s t r o ngl y c o r r o bo r at e s t he f i r m ne s s o f

de fe nda nt ’ s c r i m i nal at t e m pt
. ” “ M e r e pr e pa r at i o n” i s no t e no ugh
. 11 12 B arl ow asser t s t h at because he l ef t t h e park bef

ore R ebecca w as t o arri ve, h e nev er t ook a su bstanti al st ep tow ard c o m pl et i n g t h e att em pt. B arl ow e s s e nt i al l y as ks us t o i gno r e t he e l e ve n m o nt hs l e ad i ng up t o t he m e e t i ng att he par k, an i nvi t at i on w e d ec l i ne. Barl ow s pent near l y a yearpurs ui ng R ebe c c a. H e att em pted t o persua de h er t o send hi m expl i ci t ph ot o g ra ph s. H e prom i sed h er a m odel i n g career, t o spoi lher rot t en , t o m ak e h er feelgood, an d to t reat her lik e a q u e e n . H e s u g g e s te d m e e tin g s a n d p h o n e ca lls
. A n d fin a lly , h e lo a d e d h is f ost er s on s i n t o the car w i t h h i m a n d drove t o the st ate pa rk an d w ai t ed f or her arri val. N ot un t i lhe n ot i ced an ot h er adu l t i n t h e p a rki n g l ot di d B arl ow abandon t he at t em pt
. Bu t hi s ear l y de par t ure does n ot u ndo t he s ubst ant i al st eps h e h ad a l ready tak en . W e h ol d t h at there w as am pl e evi den ce f or a j u ry t o c o nc l ude t hat Bar l o w t o o k a s ubs t ant i als t e p t o w ar d p e r s uad i ng a pe r s o n he bel i eve d w as a m i nor t o e ngage i n i l l egals exualac t i vi t y. B . Fou ndat i on B ar l o w ne xt c o nt e nds t hat t he c hat l o g s ho ul d no t hav e be e n adm i t t ed becau se th e governm en t fai l ed to properl y au t h en t i cat e i t
. A l t h ou gh B arl ow protes t s t h at thi s cou l d m ean t h e t ran scr i pt of t h e chats w as al t ered, he d oes not
con ten d tha t it actu a l l y w a s altered
. E vid en ce m u st be au th en ti ca ted “t oN o. 08- 60556

F ED . R. E V ID . 90 1. 13 I nre McLai n , 51 6 F .3d 3 01, 308(5th Cir. 2 008) ( au t hentication“mere lyrequir es 14 so meevidenc e” in sup por t (quo ting United States v. Jimenez Lopez , 87 3 F .2d 7 69, 772 (5th Cir. 1 9 8 9)) ); U

n i t e d St a t e s v. Gagliard i , 50 6 F .3d 1 40, 151 (2d Cir. 2 007) (“The barfor a u th enticati on of evid ence is n otp artic u larlyhigh .”); Jimenez Lo pez , 87 3 F .2d at 7 72 (“This Court do es n ot r equire conc lusivepro of o f authent ic it y befo re allo wingth e a dmissionof di sp u te d evid ence .”). F ED . R. E V ID . 9 0 1 (b )( 1 ). 15 Uni te dSt a te sv . Smith , 48 1 F .3d 2 59, 265(5th Cir. 2 007) (a break inth e cu stodial 16 ch aingoe s t o th e we igh t of th e evid ence , n otitsa dm is sib ility). Norar e we the first c ourtto find testimony of th e o therparticipantinanonlin e ch at 17 ca nau th enticateth e co nv er sati on’stra n sc ript
. See , e. g. , Gagliard i , 5 0 6 F .3 d at 1 5 1 ; see a lso United States v. Tank , 200 F.3d 62 7, 630 -31 (9thCir. 200 0) (testimony of anoth er chatroo m user thath e r ec or d edthe ch ats and printed them out, and that th e printo uts appeare d to a cc u rate lyr ep re se nt th e ch ats , wa s s u ff ic ie nt toe st ab li shp ri maf a ci e s ho win g

of au th enticity); United States v. Simpson , 152 F.3d 12 41, 12 49-5 0 (10thC ir. 1 998) (comb inationof identifying info rm ati ongivenb y u se r in th e ch at a n d co rrob or ati n g evid ence fo u n d in de fe n da nt’ s h om e n ear hisc om pute r suff ic ie nt toau th enticatec h at lo g).

6 s u p p o r t a fin d in g th a t t h e m a tt e r in q u e s tio n is w h a t it s p r o p o n e n t c la im s .” 13 Th i s i s not a bur denso m e st andard. Test i m ony bya w i t nes s w i t h know l edge 14 t h a t t h e “ m a t t e r i s w h a t it is c la im e d to b e ” c a n b e e n o u g h to p r o v e th e th in g ’s
a u th e n tic ity
. T h e u ltim a te re s p o n s ib ility fo r d e te r m in in g w h e th e r e v id e n c e is 15
w hat i t s pro ponent s ays i t i s r es t s w i t h t he j ury. 16 A t tri al , E n gl i sh tes t i f i ed that t h e t ran scr i pts fai rl y an d f u l l y reprodu ced t h e chats betw een her ( posi n g as R ebecca) an d B arl ow . E n g li sh , a s the other pa rt i ci pa n t i n t h e year- l on g “ rel ati on shi p, ” ha d d i rectkn ow l edg e of t h e chats. H e r t e s t i m o ny c o ul d s uf f i c i e nt l y aut he nt i c at e t he c hat l o g pr e s e nt e d att r i al , a nd i t w as not pl ai n l y erroneou s t o adm i t t h e t ran scr i pt on t h i s basi s. 17 C. I nt e r s t at e N e xus Fi nal l y, Bar l o w c o nt e nds t hatt he g o ve r nm e nt fai l e d t o establ i s h t he
r e q u is ite in te r s ta te n e x u s to s u p p o r t e ith e r ch a r g e . T h e te s tim o n y o f a s in g le F B I agen t , w i t h n o a p p a ren t f i rst h an d k n ow l edg e, t h at Ya h oo! ha d n o ser versN o. 08- 60556

Sh oul d th ere be anydoubt, we haveh eld that transmitting ph otograph s via the 18 Intern et i s “ta nta mount tomoving ph otograph s acros s stat e line s an d thus c onstitute s tran sportation in inte rstate commerce.” United States v. Run yan , 290 F.3 d 223 , 239 (5thC ir. 200 2) (c onsi derin g 18 U.S.C. § 225 1, which contain s a more involved inter state tran smission requirement th an eith er statuteu nder consi derationh ere) (inte rna l quo tati on marks an d citati ono mitt ed). 7 i n M i ssi ssi pp iw as inad equ ate to est abli sh that t h e em ai l s and pi ct u res t ravel ed in in te r s ta te co m m e r c e , a c c o r d in g to B a r lo w ’ s a r g u m e n t. B ar l ow m i sunder st ands t h e st at ut es . N ei t her § 2422(b) nor § 1470
r e qui r e s pr o o f

o f t r av e la c r o s s s t at e l i ne s . S ect i on 2 42 2(b) r e qui r e s t he use of

“ an y faci l i t y or m ean s of i n t erst ate orf

orei gn com m erce. ” Sect i on 147 0 requ i res th e sa m e w ith th e a d d e d sp e cific th a t th e o b sc e n e m a te ria l b e “t r a n sfe r[r e d ]”
us i ng t hat“ fac i l i t y o r m e ans . ” I n 200 9, i t i s be yo nd de ba t e t hatt he I nt e r ne t a nd
em ai lar e fac i l i t i es or m eans of i nt er st at e c om m er c e. A nd, i t i s und i sput ed t hat 18 Bar l o w c o nduc t e d hi s e nt i re affai r wi t h Reb e c c a o nl i ne — t hati s , us i ng t he I nt e r ne t — a nd s e nt he ro bs c e ne m at e r i alb y em ai l
. The i nt e r s t at e ne xus r equi r em ent s of t he st at ut es w er e sa t i sf i ed i r r es pec t i ve of t he agent ’ s t es t i m ony. I V . C ONC L US I ON F o r t h e fo r e g o in g re a s o n s , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D
.