# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 13 25

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Cal vi n B ern ha rd t,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta - Bi sm arck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 18

Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 12 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Cal vi n Bern ha rd t of se v e ral fed eral of fen se s: at te m

pt ed

ex pl oi ta ti on of a ch il d, att em pt ed rece ip t of im ag es de pi ct in g sex ua l exp lo it at io n of

a ch il d, po ss es si on of co un te rfei t ob li ga ti on s, two co un ts of at te m pt ed w i t n e s s

Thi s op in io n is fil ed by Ch ie f Ju dg e Sm it h an d Ju dg e Co ll ot on un de r Eig ht h *

Ci rcu it Ru le 47 E.ta m

pe rin g, and at te m

pt ed tra ve l with in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t sex ua l con du ct

. The

di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bern ha rd t to a to ta l of 60 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. On ap pe al

, Bern ha rd t ch al l e n g e s fo ur co un ts of co nv ic ti on an d arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on a b l e

. W e reject al l of Bern ha rd t’s ch al le ng es to th e

co nv ic ti on s bu t on e: we co nc lu de th at th ere is in su ffi ci en t e v i d e n c e to su pp or t hi s

co nv ic ti on fo r at te m

pt ed tra ve l. W e th eref

or e rem an d fo r res en te nc in g ba se d on th e

rem ai ni ng fiv e co un ts of c on vi ct io n.

I.

Acco rd in g to th e ev id en ce at t r i al

, in Ju ly 20 15

, Bern ha rd t be ga n

co m m un ic at in g wit h a wom an in t h e P hi li pp in es wit h th e in it ia ls J.O.B. The two

co m m un ic at ed pri m ari ly t hr ou gh Face bo ok Mes se ng er, t he so ci al ne two rk ’s on li ne

ch at se rv ic e, bu t th ey al so se nt each ot he r e-ma i l s a n d sp ok e by t el ep ho ne

. Dur in g

th ei r co nv ers at io ns , J.O.B. to ld Bern ha rd t th at sh e ne ed ed fin an ci al su pp or t. Sh e al so

to ld hi m th at sh e h ad a te en ag e d au gh te r na m ed L.O.B.

Bern ha rd t fir st co nt act ed L.O.B. d ire ct ly i n Nov em be r 20 1 5 u s i ng Face bo ok

Mes se ng er. L.O.B. to ld Bern ha rd t th at sh e was fo ur te en y ears ol d; de sp it e he r y ou th

, Bern ha rd t as ke d L.O.B. to sen d h im nu de im ag es of her se lf. Bern ha rd t to ld L.O.B.

th at if s he di d wh at he want ed , he wo ul d h el p J .O.B. fin an ci al ly.

At fir st

, L.O.B. refu se d, te ll in g Bern ha rd t, “ You are ba d gu y ” an d “ No th an ks

. I he lp m y m ot he r. I wor k ha rd to o an d I wi l l c o n t i n u e my st ud y .” Bu t Bern ha rd t

pe rs is te d, of

feri ng L.O.B. 10 ,00 0 Ph il ip pi ne pe so s (ap pr ox im at el y $2 00 ) in ex ch an ge

fo r th e im ag es

. Eve nt ua ll y , L.O.B. acq ui es ced a n d s e n t Bern ha rd t se ve ral nu de

pi ct ur es of h ers el f th ro ug h F aceb oo k M es se ng er.

Dur in g hi s co nve rs at ion s w ith J. O

. B. an d L

. O

. B.

, Be rn hard t di sc us se d tra ve li ng

to th e Ph il ip pi ne s to ha ve se x wit h L.O.B. at a ho te l in Man il a. H e to ld J.O.B. th at

-2

-he wan te d he r to bri ng L.O.B. to a ho te l t o m eet hi m , and he to ld L.O.B., “ You an d

I wil l do th in gs to ge th er at th e ho te l.” He of fere d L.O.B. “ 25 ,00 0 ph p fo r on e week

at th e ho te l.

. . . Anythi ng go es ,” an d to ld he r, “ You an d I are go in g to pl ay ga m es

. . . . Sex xx x ga m es .” Bern ha rd t la te r to ld in ve st ig at or s th at hi s co mm un ic at io ns ab ou t

tra ve li ng to th e Ph il ip pi ne s wer e jus t “ sm ok e an d m irr or s,” a nd in ve st ig at or s fo un d

no ev id en ce th at Bern ha rd t pu rch as ed a pl an e ti ck et fo r tra ve l to t h e P h i l i pp in es or

res erv ed a ho te l ro om

th ere.

Law en fo rcem en t be cam e aware of Bern ha rd t’s co m m un ic at io ns wit h L.O.B.

in Feb ru ary 20 16

. Face bo ok

, In c., ha d no ti fie d th e Nati on al Cen te r fo r Mi ss in g an d

Exp lo it ed Ch il dr en of a po ss ib le in st an ce of en ti cem en t of ch il dr en fo r se xu al a ct s.

In ve st ig at or s trac ed th e m es sa ge s to Bern ha rd t’s resi de nc e in Tut tl e, Nor th Dako ta

.

La w en fo rcem en t ag en ts th en ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt at Bern ha rd t ’s

res id en ce. Fro m th e ba se m en t, ag en ts se iz ed W es te rn Uni on rece ip ts fo r m on ey th at

Bern ha rd t se nt to J.O.B. in th e Ph il ip pi ne s, nu m ero us el ect ro ni c de vi ces , an d $3 4,6 40

in su sp ect ed co un te rfei t U.S

. cu rren cy lo cat ed in a cu pb oa rd in th e ba th ro om

. The

ag en ts who ex am in ed th e m on ey ex pl ai ne d th at so m e of th e bi ll s were pr in te d on on ly

on e si de ; so m e were pr in te d on bo th si de s us in g th ic k pa pe r or card st oc k; an d so m e

w e r e p r i n te d on bo th si de s us in g pa pe r th at was “ no t as th ic k, bu t pr ob ab ly m or e

co ns is te nt wit h ou r cu rren cy .” Sp eci al Age nt Trud el l of th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d

S e c u r i t y te st ifi ed th at th e va ria nc e in th ic kn es s of th e pa pe r us ed to pr in t th e bi ll s

de m on st rat ed a pr og res si on in te ch ni qu e an d was co ns is te nt wit h an effo rt to pe rfec t

th e bi ll s. The cu rren cy al so bo re le gi ti m at e se ria l nu m be rs co rres po nd in g to ge nu in e

cu rren cy

.

In an in te rv ie w wit h in ve st ig at or s, Bern ha rd t di sc us se d th e o rig in of t he fak e

m on ey . He t ol d i nv es ti ga to rs th at he an d hi s co us in were “ jus t go of in g aro un d on e

da y ” an d crea te d th e m on ey by ta ki ng pi ct ur es of real bi ll s or sc an ni ng th em , pr in ti ng

th e im ag es on to pa pe r, an d th en cu tt in g th e pa pe r in to th e sh ap e of bi ll s us in g a pa pe r

-3

-cu tt er. Bern ha rd t st at ed th at hi s co us in su gg es te d th at th ey ke ep th e m on ey fo r “ bo ard

ga m es , li ke Mo no po ly,” or fo r po ke r b e t w e e n th e two of th em , an d de ni ed ev er

pa ss in g t he bi ll s.

Bern ha rd t was arre st ed an d ch arg ed wit h a tt em pt ed ex pl oi ta ti on of a ch il d i n

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a) an d (e), at te m pt ed rece ip t of im ag es de pi ct in g se xu al

ex pl oi ta ti on of a ch il d in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d (b)( 1)

, po ss es si on

of co un te rfei t ob li ga ti on s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 47 2, an d at te m pt ed tra ve l wit h

in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (b ) an d (e).

Afte r hi s arre st

, whi le he was rel eas ed pe nd in g tri al

, Bern h a r d t co nt act ed

J.O.B., who ha d be co m e a wit ne ss i n t h e i n v e st ig at io n. Twice he wro te to J.O.B.,

us in g a ni ck na m e fo r he r da ug ht er L.O.B.:

Sweet he art

, th ere is a po li ce in ve st ig at io n go i n g o n rig ht no w

co nc ern in g m

y co nv ers at io n wit h pr in ces s. If an y on e fro m th e po li ce

co nt act s y ou or pr in ces s, do no t an swe r an y qu es ti on s. You do n’t kn ow

m e. It’s fo r al l of ou r be st in te res t. The y are lo ok in g fo r hu m an

tra ffi ck in g a nd ch il d p or n.

In a se pa rat e m es sa ge , B ern ha r d t t o l d J.O.B. to “ m ak e su re pr in ces s do es n’t ta lk to

an y on e an d de le te an y nu de pi cs of he r or m e, ok ? ” Afte r la w en fo rcem en t

di sc ov ered th es e co m

m un ic at io ns , th e gr an d jury ch arg ed Bern ha rd t wit h two co un ts

of att em pt ed wit ne ss tam

pe rin g, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(2 ) an d (b )(3 ).

Bern ha rd t pl ead ed no t gu il ty to th e si x- co un t su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. Afte r a

th ree- da y tri al

, a jury co nv ic te d Bern ha rd t of al l si x co un ts

. The co ur t se nt en ced hi m

to 60 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

-4

-II.

A.

Bern ha r d t fir st ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si on of co un te rfei t

ob li ga t i o n s in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 47 2, arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at

tri al was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e jury’ s gu il ty ve rd ic t. “ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy

of ev id en ce su pp or ti ng a co nv ic ti on de no vo , vi ewin g all ev id en ce i n th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. W il de r , 59 7 F.3 d 93 6, 94 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ).

W e wil l ov ert ur n th e jury’ s ve rd ic t “ on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e

de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

.

Sect io n 4 72 m ak es it a cri m e fo r a p ers on to po ss es s “ wit h i nt en t t o d efra ud ”

a “ co un te rfei te d

. . . ob li ga ti on

. . . of th e Uni te d St at es .” Alt ho ug h Bern ha rd t ad m it s

th at he po ss es se d th e m o n e y f o u n d i n hi s ba th ro om cu pb oa rd

, he co nt en ds th at th e

go ve rn m en t fai le d to p r e s e n t su ffi ci en t ev id en ce of hi s in te nt

. He cl ai m s th at he

n e ve r ci rcu la te d th e m on ey an d arg ue s th at it was so ob vi ou sl y fak e th a t n o

reas on ab le jury co ul d in fer an in te nt to de frau d. In te nt to de frau d “ can no t be pr ov ed

by a sh owi ng of po ss es si on or pa ss in g al on e , ” bu t it m ay be in ferr ed fro m ot he r

ci rcu m st an ces

. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ar mst ro ng , 16 F.3d 28 9, 2 92 (8t h C ir. 1 99 4)

.

Th e e v id en ce at tri al sh owe d th at Bern ha rd t ke pt th e fak e cu rren cy in a

ba th ro om cab in et in th e ba se m en t, aw ay fro m hi s ot he r po ss es si on s. The “ se gr eg at io n

of co un te rfei t bi ll s fro m ge nu in e bi ll s” is on e reco gn iz ed in di ci a of in te nt to de frau d.

Id

. Fed eral ag en ts al so ex pl ai ne d th at Bern ha rd t’s us e of pa pe r of di ffer en t

th ic kn es se s de m on st rat ed a pr og res si on in hi s te ch ni qu e, co ns is te nt wit h an in te nt to

pe rfec t th e pr in te d cu rren cy

. The jury, of co ur se , was no t req ui red to cred it

Bern ha rd t’s ex cu lp at or y ex pl an at io n fo r th e bi ll s. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, we co nc lu de th at th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce o f Ber nh ard t’s i nt en t.

-5

-Bern ha rd t al so arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to pr ov e th at th e cu rren cy was

“ co un te rfei t.” Sect io n 47 2 do es no t de fin e th e te rm “ co un te rfei t,” bu t co ur ts ha ve

ap pl ie d th e so -cal le d “ si m il it ud e te st ” to de te rm in e whe th er th e cu rren cy qu al ifi es as

“ co un te rfei t.” Uni te d St at es v. Hal l

, 80 1 F.2 d 35 6, 35 7- 58 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (co ll ect in g

cas es ). Thi s te st da te s to a jury in st ru ct io n gi v e n b y J u d g e Hen ry Cl ay Cal dwe ll

(la te r, th e fir st ch ie f jud ge of th e Eig ht h C irc ui t) in th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s

du rin g th e ni ne te en th cen tu ry

. Se e id

. at 35 7 & n.3 ; Uni te d St at es v. Ku hl

, 85 F. 62 4,

63 1 (S.D. Io wa 18 98 ); Ri ch ard S. Arn ol d & G e o r g e C. Free m an , III, Ju dg e Hen ry

Cl ay Ca ld

wel l

, 23 UALR L. Rev

. 31 7, 31 7 (2 00 1)

. Und er th is ap pr oa ch

, cu rren cy is

“ co un te rfei t” if it “ be ars su ch a li ke ne ss or res em bl an ce to on e of th e ge nu in e bo nd s

of th e Uni te d St at es as to be cal cu la te d to de cei ve an h o n e s t

, se ns ib le

, an d

un su sp ect in g m an of or di na ry ob se rv at io n an d care , de al in g wit h a m an su pp os ed to

be ho ne s t

. ” H

a l l

, 80 1 F.2 d at 35 7 n.3

. The di st ric t co ur t ga ve an eq ui va le nt

in st ru ct io n i n t hi s ca se . R. Doc. 6 3, at 19

.

Bern ha rd t co nt en ds th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at t h e m on ey was

co un te rfei t be cau se m an y of th e bi ll s were pr in te d on on ly on e si de us in g pa pe r th at

was ei th er to o th ic k or to o th i n

. Th e N i n t h Ci rcu it

, he no te s, on ce rev ers ed a

co nv ic ti on un de r § 47 2 whe re no te s were pr i n t e d on “ po or pa pe r” an d on ly on on e

si de

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 43 4 F.2 d 82 7, 82 9 (9 th Ci r. 19 70 ). Bu t acco rd in g

to te st im on y fro m an in ve st ig at or in th is cas e, at le as t so m e of Bern ha rd t’s m on ey was

pr in te d on bo th si de s us in g pa pe r th at was “ m or e co ns is te nt wit h ou r cu rren cy .” The

bi ll s al so bo re le gi ti m at e se ria l nu m be rs

. Fro m th is ev id en ce, a reas on ab le jury co ul d

ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e bi ll s se iz ed fro m th e cu pb oa rd su ff ic ie ntl y res em

bl ed ge nu in e

cu rren cy so as to qu al ify as “ co un te rfei t” un de r § 47 2

. B e r n h a r d t’s own fav or ed

au th or it y si m il arl y affi rm ed a co nv ic ti on un de r § 47 2 whe n no te s were do ub le -s id ed

ph ot oc op ie s of ge nu in e cu rren cy

. Jo hn so n , 43 4 F.2 d at 82 9. W e th eref or e af fir m

Bern ha rd t’s co nv ic ti on for po ss es si on of c ou nt erfe it ob li ga ti on s.

-6

-B.

Bern ha rd t ra is es th ree cha ll en ge s re la te d t o h is co nv ic ti on s fo r two co un ts of

at te m pt ed wit ne ss tam

pe rin g. We add res s ea ch arg um en t i n t ur n.

1.

Bern ha rd t fir st arg ue s th at th e two co un ts of at te m pt ed wit ne ss ta m

pe rin g are

m ul ti pl ic it ou s. Bern ha rd t’s ob jecti on al le ge s a de fect in th e in di ct m en t; un de r th e

ru le s of pr oc ed ur e, th is po in t m us t b e rai se d i n a m ot io n b efo re t ria l. Fed . R. Cri m

. P. 12 (b )(3 )(B) (ii ). Und er Ru le 12 (c)( 3)

, a co ur t m ay co ns id e r an un ti m el y

m ul ti pl ic it y ob jecti on if t he de fen da nt “ sh ows go od cau se ” fo r hi s fa il ur e to rai se it

be f o r e t r ia l. Se e Uni te d St at es v. And er so n , 78 3 F.3 d 72 7, 74 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ).

Bern ha rd t co nc ed es th at he di d no t rai se hi s ob jecti on in a pr e-t ria l m ot io n, an d he ha s

of fere d n o e x p l a n a t i o n, le t al on e “ go od cau se ,” fo r hi s fai lu re to do so

. He m erel y

co nt en ds th at th is co ur t s h o u l d r e v ie w th e ob jecti on fo r pl ai n erro r, an d th e

go ve rn m en t ap pe ars to ag ree. Alt ho ug h th ere is au th or it y su gg es ti ng th at th e ab se nc e

of go od cau se fo recl os es th e po in t al to ge th er, se e id

. , we wil l as su m e fo r th e sa ke of

an al y si s th at pl ai n- erro r rev ie w is av ai la bl e. Cf

. Uni te d St at es v. Hin kel de y , 62 6 F.3 d

10 10

, 10 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). To ob ta in rel ie f un de r th e pl ai n- erro r st an da rd

, Bern ha rd t

m us t sh ow an ob vi ou s erro r th at affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d se rio us ly affe ct ed

th e fai rn es s, int eg rit y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Uni te d St at es v.

Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 2 (1 99 3)

.

“ An in di ct m en t is m

ul ti p l i c i t o u s if it ch arg es th e sa m e cri m e in two co un ts .”

Uni te d St at es v. Ch ip

ps , 41 0 F.3 d 43 8, 44 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W he re “ th e sa m e act or

tra ns act io n con st it ut es a v io la ti on of t wo d is ti nc t s ta tu to ry pr ov is io ns , th e te st to be

ap pl ie d to de te rm in e whe th er th ere are two of fen se s or on ly on e is whe th er each

pr ov is io n req ui res pr oo f of a fact whi ch th e ot he r do es no t.” Uni te d St at es v. Gri mes , 70 2 F.3 d 46 0, 46 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ( q u o t i n g Blo ckb ur ge r v. Uni te d St at es , 2 84 U.S.

-7

-29 9, 30 4 (1 93 2) ). “ [U]nle ss th e two off en se s each co nt ai n an el em en t no t fo un d in

th e ot he r, th ey are th e sa m e of fen se an d do ub le jeop ard y ba rs ad di ti on al pu ni sh m en t.”

Id

.

One co un t ch arg ed Bern ha rd t wit h vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(2 )(B)

. Tha t

pr ov is io n m ak es it a cri m e to :

kn owi ng ly us e[] in ti m id ation

, thr ea te n[ ]

, or co rru pt ly pe rs ua de [] an ot he r

pe rs on , or at te m

pt [] to do so , or en ga ge [] in m is le ad in g co nd uc t to ward

an ot he r pe rs on , wit h in te nt to

. . . cau se or in du ce an y pe rs on to

. . . al te r, de st ro y , m

ut il at e, or co nc eal an ob

ject wit h in te nt to im

pa ir th e ob

ject’s

in te gr it y or a va il ab il it y

for us e in an off

ic ia l p ro ceed in g.

A se co nd co un t al le ge d th at Bern ha rd t vi ol at ed 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (b )(3 ), whi ch m ak es

it un la wfu l t o:

kn owi ng ly us e[] in ti m id at io n, th reat en [], or co rr upt ly pe rs ua de [] an ot he r

pe rs on , or at te m

pt [] to do so , or en ga ge [] in m is le ad in g co nd uc t to ward

a n o t he r pe rs on , wit h in te nt to

. . . hi nd er, de la y , or pr ev en t t h e

co m m un ic at io n to a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er or jud ge of th e Uni te d

St at es of in fo rm at io n rel at in g to th e co m m is si on or po ss ib le co m

m is si on of a Fed eral off

en se

.

Co m pa rin g th e two pr ov is io ns , we co nc lu de th at each st at ut or y su bd iv is io n req ui res

pr oo f of an el em en t th at th e ot he r do es no t. W he reas § 1 51 2( b) (2 )(B) req ui res th at

th e de fen da nt in te nd to “ cau se or in du ce an y pe rs on to

. . . al te r, de st ro y, mut il at e, or

co nc ea l an ob

je ct wit h in te nt to im

pa ir th e ob

ject’s in te gr it y or av ai la bi li ty fo r us e in

an of fic ia l pr oc eed in g,” id

. (em ph as is ad de d)

, § 1 5 1 2 ( b) (3 ) do es no t. Co nv ers el y , whi le § 15 12 (b )(3 ) req ui res pr oo f th at th e de fen da nt act ed wit h th e in te nt to “ hi nd er,

de la y , o r pr ev en t th e co mmun ic at io n

. . . of in fo rma ti on rel at in g to th e c o mm i s s i on

or po ss ib le co m

m is si on of a Fed eral of

fen se ,” id

. (em

ph as is ad de d)

, § 15 12 (b )(2 )(B)

do es no t. The two co un ts are t he refo re n ot m ul ti pl ic it ou s.

-8

-Bern ha rd t sa y s th e co un ts are m ul ti pl ic it ou s be cau se th ey aro se fro m a si ng le

“ im pu ls e”— na m el y , th e se t of th ree m es sa ge s he se nt to J.O. B

. B u t t h e “ im pu ls e

te st ,” whi ch tre at s al l vi ol at io ns th a t a r i s e f r om a si ng le “ im

pu ls e” as on e of

fen se ,

ap pl ie s on ly whe re m

ul ti pl e co un ts ch arg e vi ol at io ns of th e sa me st at ut or y pr ov is io n,

an d t h e c o ur t m

us t de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te un it of pr os ecu ti on

. Uni te d St at es v.

Sa nd st ro m , 59 4 F.3 d 63 4, 65 1- 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); Ch ip ps , 41 0 F.3 d at 44 7- 49

. The

two co un ts at is su e he re ch arg ed vi ol at io ns of di ff er en t su bd iv is io ns of § 15 12 (b ), so

th e rel ev an t i nq ui ry

is whet he r eac h s ub di vi si on “ req ui res pro of of a fact whi ch th e

ot he r do es no t.” Gri mes , 70 2 F.3 d at 46 7; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Gal va n , 94 9 F.2 d

77 7, 78 2 (5 th Ci r. 19 91 ). Beca us e § 15 12 (b )(2 )(B) an d (b )(3 ) eac h h as at le as t on e

un iq ue ele m en t, t he two co un ts are n ot m ul ti pl ic it ou s.

2.

Bern ha rd t al so ch al le ng es th e co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io n de fin in g “ co rru pt ly

pe rs ua de ” as it is us ed in § 15 12 (b ). Bern ha rd t di d no t ti m el y ob ject to th e in st ru ct io n

in th e di st ric t co ur t, so we rev ie w for pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v. Poi tr a , 6 48 F.3 d

88 4, 8 87 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Fe d. R. C rim. P. 30 (d ).

The di st ric t co ur t reci te d th e de fi n i t io n of “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de ” as su gg es te d

by th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it ’s Mo de l Ju ry In st ru ct io ns

. Se e Eig ht h Ci rc ui t Man ua l of Mod el

Ju ry In st ru ct io ns 6.1 8.1 51 2 (2 01 4)

. The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury as fo ll ows : “ To

co rru pt ly pe rs ua de so m eo ne m ean s to pe rs ua de wit h co ns ci ou sn es s of wro ng do in g.”

Thi s co ur t arg ua bl y en do rs ed th at in st ru ct io n in Uni te d St at es v. Cr af t

, 47 8 F.3 d 89 9,

90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Se e Uni te d St at es v. M an n , 70 1 F.3 d 27 4, 30 5- 06 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 1 2 ). Bu t rel y in g on Uni te d St at es v. Far re ll

, 12 6 F.3 d 48 4 (3 d Ci r. 19 97 ), a n d

Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 18 3 F.3 d 23 1 (3 d Ci r. 19 99 ), Bern ha rd t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t’s defi ni ti on of “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de ” was in co rrec t. H e su gg es ts th at th e co ur t

sh ou ld ha ve in st ru ct ed th e jury th at co rru pt pe rs ua si on in cl ud es “ at te m pt s to pe rs ua de

th at are co erci ve in so m e way or th at en ta il a req ue s t of an ot he r to vi ol at e a le ga l

-9

-du ty.” He co nt en ds th at th e de fin it io n sh ou ld ex cl ud e “ no nc oe r ci ve at te m pt s to

pe rs ua de so m eo ne els e [n ot ] to vo lu nt eer i nf or m at io n t o l aw en fo rcem en t ag en ts or

to di sp os e o f ph y si cal m at eri al s.”

In Far re ll

, a di vi de d pa ne l of th e Thi rd Ci rcu it he ld th at a de fen da nt ’s at te m pt s

to pe rs ua de a co -co ns pi rat or to refr a i n f r om vo lu nt eeri ng in fo rm at io n to la w

en fo rcem en t di d no t am ou nt to co rru pt pe rs ua si on un de r § 1 5 1 2 ( b )

. The co ur t

ob se rv ed th at th e co -co ns pi rat or en joy ed a Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht ag ai ns t se lfin cri m in at io n an d ru le d th at “ m or e cu lp ab il it y is req ui red fo r a st at ut or y v i o l a t i o n

th an th at in vo lv ed in th e act of at te m pt in g to di sc ou rag e di sc lo su re in or de r to hi nd er

an in ve st ig at io n.” 12 6 F.3 d at 48 8- 89

. Dav is

, in di ct a , di sa pp ro ve d a jury in st ru ct io n

th at “ ‘corru pt ly’ m ean s ha vi ng im pr op er m ot iv e or pu rp os e of ob st ru ct in g ju s t i c e ,”

be cau se Fa r r e ll he ld th at “ ‘corru pt pe rs ua si on ’ in vo lv es m or e th an an im pr op er

m ot iv e.” 1 83 F.3d at 2 50 n.6

.

O the rs ha ve not un iv ers al ly en do rs ed th e Thi rd Ci rcu it ’s in te rp ret ation

. F arr el l

it se lf in cl ud ed a di ss en ti ng vi ew th at “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de ” m ean s “ pe rs ua si on th at is

m ot iv at ed by an im

pr op er pu rp os e.” 12 6 F.3 d at 49 2 (Cam pb el l, J., di ss en ti ng ). Two

ci rcu it s are al ig ne d with th e di ss en t in Far re ll

, se e Uni te d St at es v. Sh ot ts

, 14 5 F.3 d

12 89

, 13 00 -0 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ); Uni te d St at es v. Th omp so n , 76 F.3 d 44 2, 45 2 (2 d Ci r.

19 96 ), whi le th e Nin th Ci rcu it ha s si de d wit h th e Thi rd C i r c ui t. Uni te d St at es v.

Dos s , 63 0 F.3 d 11 81

, 11 89 -9 0 (9 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W it ho ut reh ears in g th e arg um en ts on

each si de of th e de ba te

, it su ff i c i e n t o n p la in erro r rev ie w to sa y th at th e Far re ll

maj o rit y ’s vi ew is at le as t su bjec t to reas on ab le di sp ut e, an d th at th e jud ge s w h o

di sa gr ee wit h Far re ll are no t ob vi ou sl y w r o n g. In th is cas e, m or eo ve r, th e di st ric t

co ur t’s jury in st ru ct io n req ui red no t m erel y an “ im pr op er pu rp os e,” bu t a

“ co ns ci ou sn es s of wro ng do in g,” a st an da rd th at m ay well pa ss m us te r wit h th os e who

en do rs e Far re ll

. Se e Dos s , 63 0 F.3 d at 11 89 -9 0. Req ui rin g th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e

co ns ci ou sn es s of wro ng d o in g li ke ly wou ld pr ecl ud e a co nv ic ti on fo r in no cen t

co nd uc t su ch as en co ur ag in g a pe rs on to ex erci se a Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht to rem ai n

-1 0-si le nt or to in vo ke an ev id en t i a r y p r i vi le ge

. Se e Art hu r And er so n LLP v. Uni te d

St at es , 54 4 U.S. 69 6, 70 4 (2 00 5) ; Dos s , 63 0 F.3 d at 11 90

. On th e in st ru ct io n in th is

cas e, th ere was no pl ai n e rro r warra nt in g re li ef.

3.

Bern ha rd t al so co m

pl ai ns th at in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce su pp or te d th e ve rd ic ts th at

he “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de [d ]” J.O.B. in vi ol at io n of § 15 12 (b ). Bern ha rd t arg ue s th at hi s

st at em en ts to J.O.B. a r e i n s u f fic ie nt to sh ow co rru pt pe rs ua si on be cau se he di d no t

ad vi se he r to ta ke un la wfu l act io n. Acco rd in g to Bern ha rd t, J.O.B. was un de r no du ty

to sp eak wit h of

fic ers or ret ai n il li ci t ph ot os , so he c o mm i tt ed no cri m e by

en co ur ag in g h er t o re m ai n s il en t an d d is po se of t he im ag es

.

W e ha ve co nc lu de d th at th e jury in st ru ct io n de fin in g “ co rru pt ly pe rs ua de ” was

no t pl ai nl y erro ne ou s. Und er th at in st ru ct io n, th e go ve rn m en t was req ui red to pr ov e

th at B ern ha rd t at te m

pt ed to “ pe rs ua de wit h co ns ci ou sn es s of wro ng do in g.” The re

was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he co nv ic ti on s u nd er t ha t s ta nd ard

.

C ou nt Fo ur ch arg ed th at Bern ha rd t at te m pt ed to co rru pt ly pe rs ua de J. O

. B

.

w i t h i nt en t to hi nd er, de la y , or pr ev en t th e co m m un ic at io n to la w en fo rcem en t o f

in fo rm at io n rel at in g to a fed eral of fen se

. The ev i d e n c e sh owe d th at Bern ha rd t

ex pe ct ed in ve st ig at or s to co nt act J.O.B. an d L.O.B. ab out hum an traffi ck in g an d ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Bern ha rd t th en im pl or ed J.O.B. no t m erel y to ex erci se a rig ht to rem ai n

si le nt bu t to li e if as ke d ab ou t hi m , sa y in g “Yo u d o n ’t kn ow m e.” Evi de nc e th at

Bern ha rd t at te m

pt ed to pe rs ua de so m eo ne to p r o v id e fal se in fo rm at io n to fed eral

in ve st ig at or s is su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on

. Uni te d St at es v. Pen ni ng to n , 16 8

F.3 d 1 06 0, 1 06 6 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ); Far re ll , 12 6 F .3d at 4 88

.

Co un t Fi ve ch arg ed th at Bern ha rd t at te m pt ed to co rru pt ly p ers ua de J.O.B. to

de st ro y or co nc eal se xu al ly ex pl ic it im ag es wit h in te nt to im pa i r t he av ai la bi li ty of

-1 1-th os e im ag es fo r us e in an of fic ia l pr oc eed in g

. Th e ev id en ce sh owe d th at aft er

Bern ha rd t was ch arg ed wit h ch il d ex pl oi ta ti on , an d th us ha d kn owl ed ge of an of fic ia l

pr o c e e d i n g , he as ke d J.O.B. to de le te an y nu de im ag es of hi m se lf an d L.O.B.

Alt ho ug h L.O.B. he rs el f m ay ha ve ha d no ob li ga t i o n t o r e ta in th os e im ag es ,

es pe ci al ly if sh e la ck ed kn owl ed ge of an in ve st ig at io n, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

th at Be r n h a r dt act ed wit h co ns ci ou sn es s of wro ng do in g to m ak e th e im ag es

un av ai la bl e fo r us e in hi s cri m in al cas e. He was aware of th e pe nd in g pr oc eed in g an d

ex pe ct ed th at in ve st ig at or s w o u l d be se ek in g th e im ag es

. A reas on ab le jury th us

co ul d f i n d th at he di d no t act wit h an in no cen t pu rp os e bu t wit h co ns ci ou sn es s of

wro ng do in g. Se e Man n , 70 1 F.3 d at 30 6- 07

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm Bern ha rd t’s two

co nv ic ti on s fo r at te m

pt ed wit ne ss ta m

pe rin g in vi ol at i o n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1 51 2( b) (2 )(B) an d (b )(3 ).

C.

Bern ha rd t ne xt ch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (b ) an d (e) fo r

at te m pt ed tra ve l wit h in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t. Bern ha rd t co m pl ai ns

th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct ed th e jury an d th at su ffi ci en t ev id en ce do es

no t s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t.

1.

“ The el em en ts of at te m

pt are (1 ) in te nt to co m

m it th e pr ed ic at e of

fen se , an d (2 )

co nd uc t th at is a su bs ta nt ia l st ep to ward it s co m m is si on .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ur lo ck

, 49 5 F

. 3 d 10 11

, 10 14 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Bern ha rd t co nt en ds th at th e jury in st ru ct io n

de fin in g “s u b s t a n t i al st ep ” was erro ne ou s. Bern ha rd t di d no t ti m el y ob ject to th e

in st ru ct io n, so we rev ie w hi s arg um en t on ap pe al fo r pl ai n erro r. Poi tr a , 64 8 F.3 d at

88 7.

The co ur t g av e th e fo ll owi ng in st ru ct io n:

-1 2-Att em pt req ui res a “ su bs ta nt ia l st ep ” to co m m it th e cri m e. A su bs ta nt ia l

st ep m us t be so m et hi ng m or e th a n mer e p rep arat io n, y et m ay be le ss th an th e la st act ne ces sa ry be fo re th e act ua l co m m is si on o f t he

su bs ta nt iv e cri m e. In or de r fo r be ha vi or to be pu ni sh ab le as an at te m pt

, it ne ed no t be in co m

pa ti bl e wit h in no cen ce, y et it m us t be ne ces sa ry to
th e co ns um m at io n of th e cri m e an d be of su ch a na tu re th at a reas on ab le

ob se rv er vi ewin g it in co nt ex t co ul d co nc lu de be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t th at it was un de rta ke n in acco rd an ce with a de si gn to vi ol at e th e

st at ut e.

Bern ha rd t co m

pl ai ns th at th is in st ru ct io n was fla wed in th ree res pe ct s. He co nt en ds

th at th e co ur t sh ou ld ha ve in fo rm ed th e jury th at a su bs ta nt ia l st ep m us t

un eq ui vo cal ly in di cat e th e act or ’s cri m in al in te nt

, se e Uni te d St at es v. Vil la rr ea l

, 70 7

F.3 d 94 2, 96 0 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 3 )

, t h a t a su bs ta nt ia l st ep is on e th at wil l le ad to th e

co ns um m at io n of th e cri m e un le ss in te rru pt ed by ex te rn al fo rces , se e Uni te d St at es

v. C ar li sl e , 11 8 F.3 d 12 71

, 12 73 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ), an d th at a su bs ta nt ia l st ep is

so m et hi ng m or e th an “ m ere ab st ract ta lk .” Se e Uni te d St at es v. Mims

, 81 2 F.2 d 10 68

, 10 78 (8t h C ir. 1 98 7)

.

A di st ric t co ur t ha s wide dis cr et ion in fo rm ula tin g ap pr op ria te jury in st ru ct io ns , Poi tr a , 64 8 F.3 d at 88 7, an d a de fen da nt is “ no t en ti tl ed to a pa rti cu la rly wor de d

in st ru ct i o n w h ere th e in st ru ct io ns gi ve n by th e tri al jud ge ad eq ua te ly an d co rrec tl y

co ve r th e su bs ta nc e of th e req ue st ed in st ru ct io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng , 61 8 F.2 d

45

, 48 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ). Alt ho ug h Bern ha rd t’s su gg es te d l a n g u a g e is dr awn fro m

de ci si on s el ab or at in g o n th e m ean in g of “ su bs ta nt ia l st ep ,” th e di st ric t co ur t’s

in st ru ct io n reci te d v e r b a t i m th e la w of at te m pt as we ha ve ex pl ai ne d it

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. La ri ve , 79 4 F.3 d 10 16

, 10 19 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). The in st r uc ti on was

th eref or e n ot pl ai nl y

erro ne ou s.

-1 3-2.

Eve n acce pt in g th at th e jury was pr op erl y in st r u c t e d o n th e de fin it io n of

“ su bs ta nt ia l st ep ,” Bern ha rd t co nt en ds th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t

th e co nv ic ti on un de r § 24 23 (b ) an d (e). W e a gr ee wit h th is po in t, be cau se th e

go ve rn m en t fa il ed to pre se nt su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f a s ub st an ti al st ep

.

The go ve rn in g st at ut e m ak es it a cri m e fo r “ a Uni te d St at es ci ti zen ” to at te m pt

to “ tra ve l[] in fo rei gn co m m erce [] fo r th e pu rp os e of en ga gi ng in an y il li c i t s e x u al

co nd uc t wit h an ot he r pe rs on .” 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (b ), (e). “ Th e el em en ts of at te m pt

are (1 ) in te nt to co m

m it th e pr ed ic at e of

fen s e , a n d ( 2 ) c on du ct th at is a su bs ta nt ia l

st ep to ward it s co m

m is si on .” Sp ur lo ck

, 49 5 F.3 d at 10 14

. Fo r pu rp os es of § 24 23 (e),

th e “ pr ed ic at e of

fen se ” is tra ve li ng wit h th e in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t.

Se e § 24 23 (b ). Thu s, to pr ov e th at Bern ha rd t at te m pt ed to tra ve l, th e go ve rn m en t was

req ui red to pr ov e th at he to ok a su bs ta nt ia l ste p to ward tra ve li ng to th e Ph il ip pi ne s.

The ev id en ce at tri al sh owe d th at Bern ha rd t ha d di sc us se d m eet in g J.O.B. an d

L.O.B. at a ho te l in Man il a fo r th e pu rp os e of en ga gi ng in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t wit h

L.O.B., use d t he word “ ho te l” m or e th an twen ty ti m es in co nv ers at io n wi th L.O.B.,

an d of fere d L.O.B

. mo n e y fo r on e week at a ho te l. Rel y in g on ou r de ci si on in

Sp ur lo ck

, th e go ve rn m en t argu es th at Bern ha rd t’s m es sa ge s t o L.O.B. co ns ti tu te an

“ at te m pt to gr oo m an d pr ep are [h er] fo r su ch ti m e as Bern ha rd t c o u l d t r a v el to th e

Ph il ip pi ne s to en ga ge in se x wit h [h er]” an d th at bu t fo r hi s arre st

, Bern ha rd t wou ld

ha ve co m pl et ed th e cri m e.

Thi s arg um en t co nf

us es an at te m

pt to en ti ce a m in or wit h an at te m pt to tra ve l.

Sp ur lo ck co ns id ered co nd uc t am ou nt in g to a su bs ta nt ia l st ep in th e c o n t e x t of a

di ffer en t of

fen se —n am el y , at te m

pt in g to en ti ce a m in or to en ga ge in un la wfu l se xu al

act iv it y , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ). 49 5 F.3 d at 10 13

. The de fen da nt th ere

at te m pt ed to en ti ce m in or s th ro ug h hi s c o nv ers at io ns wit h th ei r pu ta ti ve m ot he r by

-1 4-pl ay in g on th e m ot he r’s “ in flu en ce an d co nt ro l ov er he r da ug ht ers .” Id

. at 10 14

. In

th is res pe ct

, Sp ur lo ck ’s co nv ers at io ns wi t h t he m ot he r “ wen t be y on d m ere

pr ep arat io n; th ey were ne ces sa ry to th e co ns um m at io n of th e cri m e; an d th ey st ro ng ly

co rro bo rat e[d ] Sp ur lo ck ’s cri m in al in te nt to en ti ce th e gi rls .” Id

. Alt ho ug h Bern ha rd t

en ga ge d in si m il ar be ha vi or , he was ch arg ed wit h a d iff eren t cri m e. His se xu al ly

ex pl ic it co nv ers at io ns wit h L.O.B. an d st at em en ts to J.O.B. ab ou t wan ti ng to ha ve se x

wit h L.O.B. at a ho te l ev in ce an in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t se xu al co nd uc t wit h L.O.B.

Bu t t he y are n ot a st ep to ward th e act of tr av el in g to do so

.

T he gove rn m en t al so ci te s a j ai lho us e reco rd in g be twee n Bern ha rd t an d an ot he r

pa rty in whi ch Bern ha rd t di sc us se d hi s rel at io ns hi p wit h L.O.B. Bern ha rd t rem ark ed

th at “ it ’s a st res s, y ou kn ow, fo r th is gi rl to co m e,” an d th at “ it is qu it e a le ng th y tri p,

a bi t li ke a 24 -h o u r or de al .” Bern ha rd t rep or te d th at “ I ch eck ed in to it

, a li tt le bi t,

go in g th e ot he r way of co ur se

. Tha t’s ab ou t wh a t it was du e to la y ov ers an d tra ve l

ti m e.” He co nc lu de d by de sc rib in g th e la rg e ti m e di ffer en ce be twee n th e two

co un tri es an d sa y in g, “ sh e’s no t ex act ly go in g to be feel in g ro sy whe n sh e ge ts ov er

he re.” The go ve rn m en t su gg es ts th at whe n Bern ha rd t “ ch eck ed i n t o i t

, a li tt le bi t,

go in g th e ot he r way ,” he ch eck ed in to tra ve l fro m th e Uni te d St at es to th e Ph il ip pi ne s

an d t oo k a su bs ta nt ia l s te p t owa rd tra ve l.

Thi s ev id en ce is to o th in to su pp or t a co nv i c t i o n fo r at te m pt ed tra ve l.

Bern ha rd t di d no t pu rch as e a pl an e ti ck et

, se e Uni te d St at es v. Se lj an , 54 7 F.3 d 99 3,

99 8 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ), arri ve at th e ai rp or t, se e Uni te d St a t e s v. Van ce , 4 94 F.3 d 98 5,

99 0 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ), or tra ve l fro m hi s ho m e to an ot he r lo cat io n whe re fu tu re tra ve l

wou ld oc cu r. Uni te d St at es v. W al tma n , 52 9 F. App ’x 68 0, 68 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (p er

cu ria m ). At m os t, a jury co ul d in fer th at he res earc he d “ a li tt le bi t” ho w to tra ve l by

ai r fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s t o t he Ph il ip pi ne s an d l earn ed ab ou t “ la y ov ers an d t rav el

ti m e.” Thi s is no t th e so rt of co nd uc t th at “ wou ld ha ve res ul te d in a cri m e” if “ it ha d

no t be en ex tra ne ou sl y in te rru pt ed .” Ca rl is le

, 11 8 F.3 d at 12 73

. The reco rd he re do es

no t sh ow ev en de ta il ed it in erar y pl an ni ng , so we ne ed no t ad dr es s whe th er th at wou ld

-1 5-be su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h an at te m pt to tra ve l. Th e g ov ern m en t in th is cas e pr ov ed

no th in g m or e th an m ere pr ep arat io n. W e th eref or e va cat e Bern ha rd t’s co nv ic ti on fo r

at te m pt ed tra ve l wi th in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t s ex ua l co nd uc t.

* * *

Fo r th e fo r e g o i n g reas on s, we affi rm Bern ha rd t’s co nv ic ti on s fo r po ss es si on

of co un te rfei t ob li ga ti on s an d at te m pt ed wit ne ss ta m

pe rin g bu t va cat e hi s co nv ic ti on

fo r at te m pt ed tra ve l an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-