FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 2, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 13 32 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 20 99 4- CR-J IC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOR GE M. MUENTES, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 2 , 20 09 ) Befo re BI RCH, BLACK an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo rg e M. Mu en te s ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r at te m pt in g t o i nduc e a m in or to en ga ge in a co m

m erci al sex act , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) (Co un t 1 ), an d a tt em pt in g t o t rav el infor ei gn co m m erce to en ga ge in il li ci t s ex ua l co nduc t, i n vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 3( e) an d (b ) (Co un t 2 ). The co nv ic ti on s s te m fro m Mu en te s’ con ta ct s wi th anun de rco ve r FBI a ge ntto arra ng e a trip to Co st a Ri ca fo r th e p ur po se of h av in g s ex with 1 4- to 16 -y ear- ol d p ro st itut es . Mue nt es rai se s fo ur is su es on ap pe al : (1 ) whe th er the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt M ue nt es ’ co nv ic ti on s, (2 ) whe th er the di stric t co urt erredby ins tru ct in g t he jury reg ard in g th e in te ntrequi rem en t i n C ou nt1, (3 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n a ndvi ol at edMu en te s’ Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts by den y in g h is m ot io n to in fo rm th e jury of th e st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e fo r Co un t 1 , and (4 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t i m pr op erl y sh ift edth e b ur de n o f pr oo f by repe at ed ly as ki ng a wit ne ss whet he r Mu en te s h adwithd rawnhi s re qu es t fo r 14 - to 16 -y earol d p ro st itut es . Upo n re vi ew of th e rec or d andth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm Mu en te s’ con vi ct io ns be cau se no ne of h is arg um en ts rai se s re ve rs ib le erro r. I.

“ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of e vi de nc e to supp ort a c on vi ct io n de no vo , vi ewin g the ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d drawi ng al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces infav or

of t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” 2Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ylor , 48 0 F .3d10 25 , 10 26 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 12 8 S . Ct. 13 0 (2 00 7) . Howev er, wh enth e d efen da ntfai ls to ob ject i n t he di st ric t co urt, o ur rev ie w is on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu ne rlac h , 19 7 F .3d19 59 , 19 68 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . If th e d efen da ntfai ls to pre se rv e anarg um en t i n h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , we are p recl ud edfro m rev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce ex cep t wh ere am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e wou ldres ul t, wh ic h re qu ire s fin di ng “ th e ev id en ce o n ake y ele m en t o f th e o ffen se is so ten uo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta pi a , 76 1 F .2d14 88 , 14 91 -9 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (pe r curia m). Inth e p res en t ca se , Mu en te s fa il edto pre se rv e h is cla im of i ns uf fic ie nt ev id en ce as to eit he r co un t. The refo re, we rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce on ly for p la in erro r. Hun er la ch , 19 7 F .3dat 1 96 8. A. 18 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b) (Co unt 1 ) Mu en te s ar gu es he co ul d n otha ve in te nd edto in du ce a m in orto en ga ge in il le ga l s ex act s wi th ou t ac tu al ly spe ak in g t o ape rs on who he be li ev edto be a m in oror t o b e act in g o n b eh al f of a m in or . He furt he r arg ue s h is act io ns were t oo at te nu at edto co ns ti tu te in du cem en t b ecau se he ne ve r co m m un ic at edhi s re qu es ts to a se co ndin te rm ed ia ry

in Co st a Ri ca, the in di vi du al actua ll y res po ns ib le for

all es co rt a rran ge m en ts . Fin al ly, Mu en te s co nt en ds he can no t h av e in du ceda m in or 3to en ga ge in un la wfu l s ex ua l ac ti vi ty whe n t he m in orwas a lre ady en ga ge d i n pr os ti tu ti on . Sect io n 2 42 2( b) st at es , inrel ev an t p art : Who ev er, u si ng th e m ai l o r an y faci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m

m erce , . . . kn owi ng ly pers ua de s, i nduc es , ent ic es , or co erce s an y

in di vi du al who ha s n otatt ai ne d t he ag e o f 18 y ears , to en ga ge in pro st itut io n o r an y sex ua l ac ti vi ty for wh ic h a ny pers on can be ch arg edwith acri m in al off en se , or a tt em

pt s t o d o s o, s ha ll be fin ed[an d i m

pr is on ed ]. 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . This st atut e cri m in al iz es bo th th e co m pl et edoff en se an d a n at te m ptto co m m itth e o ffen se . Se e id. ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Roo t , 29 6 F .3d 12 22 , 12 27 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). To s us ta ina co nv ic ti on forth e cri m e o f at te m pt , th e Gov ern m en t n eedon ly pro ve (1) th e d efen da ntha d t he sp eci fic in te ntto en ga ge in th e cri m in al co nduc t fo r whi ch he is ch arg edan d (2 ) he to oka subs ta nt ia l s te p to wardco m

m is si onof t he off

en se . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba pt is ta -Rod

ri gu ez , 17 F.3 d 1 35 4, 1 36 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . In the co nt ex t o f § 2 42 2( b) , th is requi res a sh owi ng th atth e d efen da nt , us in g afaci li ty of in te rs ta te co m m erce , “ act edwith a sp eci fic in te ntto pe rs ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce a m in orto en ga ge inun la wfu l se x.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mu rr el l , 36 8 F .3d12 83 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). “ The un de rlyin g c riminal co nduc t t ha t Co ng res s ex pr es sl y pro sc rib edin pa ss in g

4§ 2 42 2( b) is th e p ers ua si on , in du cem en t, en ti cem en t, o r co erci on of t he m in or

rat he r th anth e se x a ctit se lf.” Id. In Mur re ll , th is Co urt re

jecte d t he arg um en t tha t d ire ctco m m un ic at io n wi th a m in oror s up po se d m in or is ne ces sa ry

un de r th e te xtof § 24 22 (b ). Id. at 1 28 8. Indo in g s o, t hi s C ou rt n ot edth e te rm “ in du ce” i s n otam

bi gu ou s an d m ean s “ to st im ul at e th e o ccu rren ce o f; c au se .” Id. at 1 28 7 (a lt ern at io n o m it te d) . This Co urt th enhe ldth at , by co nt act in g an u nd erco ve r po li ce o ffi cer, wh o was po si ng as a n adul t m anwith afic ti ti ou s t een daug ht er, t o “ cau se th e m in orto en ga ge insex ua l act iv ity with h im ,” th e d efen dantha d t he ne ces sa ry sp eci fic in te ntto vi ol at e th e at te m ptpro vi si on of § 24 22 (b ). Id. at 1 28 7- 88 . This Co urt re as on edth atth e de fen da ntco m

m un ic at edwith a n a du ltwho he be li ev edto be th e fathe r of th e te en gi rl a ndwho “pr es um ab ly exerc is edin flu en ce o ve r [h er]” an d t ha t “ th e eff ic acy of § 2 42 2( b) wou ldbe ev is cera te d i f a d efen da ntco ul d c irc umve ntth e st atut e si m pl y by em pl oyin g a n i nt erm ed ia ry

to carry ou t h is in te nd edob

jecti ve .” Id . at 1 28 7. Here, al th ou gh Mu en te s n eg ot ia te d wi th a pu rp orte d p im p ra th er tha n a pu rp orte d fa th er, thi s d is ti nc ti on do es no t ch an ge th e o ut co m e. By ne go ti at in g wit h apu rp orte d p im

p, an adul t wh o p res um ab ly exerc is edin flu en ce o ve r pr os pe ct iv e m in or

pro st itut es , Mu en te s at te m pt edto st im

ul at e o r cau se a m in orto en ga ge in sex with h im . Se e Mu rr el l , 36 8 F .3dat 1 28 7. 5W it h re ga rdto Mu en te s’ att enua ti onarg um en t, thi s C irc ui t h as no t yet

rev ie weda sc en ari o i n wh ic h t he sec on d i nt erm ed ia ry pro vi de s anad di ti on al layer of sep arat io n b etweena de fen dantan d am in or . Giv enth e ab se nc e o f an y cas e la w on po in t, the re ca nn otha ve be enanerro r th atis pl ai n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Eva ns , 47 8 F .3d13 32 , 13 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Notwiths ta nd in g the ab se nc e o f pl ai n e rro r, Mu en te s’ con du ctst il l fi ts withi n t he ele m en t o f at te m pt edin du cem en t. The rel ev an t i nt en t i s M ue nt es ’ in te ntto in du ce a m in orto en ga ge in un la wfu l s ex , no t whe th er a m in or

was a ctua ll y

in du ced . Se e Mu rr el l , 36 8 F .3dat 1 28 6. Mu en te s’ co m m un ic at io ns with t he FBI ag en t, i n wh ic h h e st at ed“ le t’s g o you ng , very y ou ng ,” an d h is rep eat edreque stforth e b oo k c on ta in in g p ho to s o f pr os ti tu te s ran gi ng in ag e fro m

14 - to 16 -y ears -o ldsh ows anin te nton hi s p artto cau se or st im ul at e th e o ccu rren ce o f un lawfu l s ex ua l co nt actbe twee n h im se lf a nda m in or . The factth atMu en te s’ in te ntha d n otbe enful ly execu te d i s n o o bs ta cl e to an at te m ptco nv ic ti on . Se e Roo t , 29 6 F .3dat 1 22 7 (a ffi rm in g aco nv ic ti on un de r § 2 42 2( b) no twi th st an di ng th e fac t t ha t t he “ cri m e h adno t ri pe ne d i nt o a co m pl et edoff en se ”). Mo reo ve r, al th ou gh Mu en te s l at er re qu es te d abo okof a du lt pr os ti tu te s i n a dd it io n t o t he bo okof m in orpro st itut es , th ere i s n o e vi de nc e to su gg es t h e ev er ab an do ne d h is rep eat ed ly exp res se d d es ire to pro cu re s ex with a m in or . 6Fi na ll y , Mu en te s’ arg um en t t ha t h e can no t h av e in du ceda m in orto en ga ge

in un la wfu l s ex ua l ac ti vi ty whe n t he m in orwas a lre ady en ga ge d i n p ro st itut io n i s al so un av ai li ng as t he re i s n o i nd ic at io n § 24 22 (b ) was in te nd edto de te r th e vi ct im iz at io n o f ch il dr ensel ect iv el y . Mu en te s’ neg ot ia ti on s wi th a pu rp orte d p im p, i n wh ic h h e rep eat ed ly co m m un ic at edhi s p refe ren ce fo r m in orpro st itut es , sh ows hi s i nt en t t o i nduc e a m in orto en ga ge in un la wfu l s ex ua l ac ti vi ty. Fu rth er, b ecau se Mu en te s t oo k a subs ta nt ia l s te p t owa rdco m m is si on of t he off

en se by pay in g fo r th e tr av el pa ck ag e, whi ch in cl ud edth e se rv ic e o f m in orpro st itut es , andby atte m pt in g t o bo arda fl ig htbo un d fo r Co st a Ri ca, the ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im is no t s o t enuo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Mu en te s’ co nv ic ti on as t o C ou nt1.

B. 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (b) a nd (e) (Cou nt 2 ) Mu en te s d oe s n otdi sp ut e th athe att em pt edto tra ve l t o C os taRic a o r th athe rep eat ed ly spe ci fie d h is pre fere nc e fo r a 1 4- to 16 -y ear- ol d e sc ort, b utrathe r th at he lac ke d t he sp eci fic in te ntto en ga ge in sex ua l ac ti vi ty w it h am in or . Sect io n 2 42 3( b) an d (e ) cri m in al iz es tra ve l an d a tt em pt edtrave l b y

a Uni te d St at es cit iz enin for ei gn co m m erce with the in te ntto en ga ge in il li ci t s ex ua l co nduc t wi th an othe r pe rs on . 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 3( b) an d (e ). To s up po rt a 7co nv ic ti on un de r § 2 42 3( b) an d (e ), th e Gov ern m en t m us t p ro ve th e d efen da nt tra ve le d o r at te m

pt edto tra ve l wi th th e in te ntto en ga ge in th e il le ga l s ex ua l act iv ity , whi ch in cl ud es any sex ua l ac t wi th a pe rs on un de r 18 y ears of a ge . See id. ; se e a ls o Ro ot , 29 6 F .3dat 1 23 1. Here, Mu en te s i ni ti al ly requ es te d an e sc ort ra ng in g i n a ge be twee n 1 4- to 16 -y ears -o ldan d h el d t o t hi s re qu es t thr ou gh ou t h is ne go ti at io ns with the un de rco ve r FBI a ge nt . Mor eo ve r, Mu en te s co nt act edth e ag en t t o re qu es t as su ran ce h e wou ldno t g et“bu st ed ;” itis reas on ab le to co nc lu de Mu en te s in te nd edto en ga ge inil le ga l ac ti vi ty. Viewi ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d a ccep ti ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof th e v erd ic t, the ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f th e jury’ s fi nd in g t ha t s ex ua l ac ti vi ty w it h 14 - to 16 -y ear- ol d g irl s was th e p ur po se of M ue nt es ’ at te m

pt edfor ei gn tra ve l i s no t s o t enuo us th ata co nv ic ti on wou ldbe sh oc ki ng . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Mu en te s’ con vi ct io n a s t o C ou nt2. II. Mu en te s ar gu es th e jury ins tru ct io ns , as o rig in al ly giv en , neg at edth e el em en t o f in du cem en t an d l es se ne d t he Gov ern m en t’s b ur de n o f pr oo f. Whe re the de fen da ntch al le ng es th e jury ins tru ct io ns as r ead , we rev ie w th e le ga l co rrec tn es s o f a jury ins tru ct io n de no vo bu t d eferto th e d is tri ctco urt o n 8qu es ti on s o f ph ras in g abs en t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr athe r , 20 5

F.3 d 1 26 5, 1 27 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . If, ho wev er, the pa rty fail s t o o bjec t, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch le i , 12 2 F .3d94 4, 9 73 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). “ Ju ry in st ru ct io ns wil l b e rev ers edforpl ai n e rro r on ly if, th e ch arg e, co ns id eredas a who le , is so cle arl y

erro ne ou s as to res ul t i n ali ke li ho odof agra ve m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce, o r th e err orser io us ly affect s t he fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Beh et y , 32 F.3d50 3, 5 11 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Sect io n 2 42 2( b) of Ti tl e 1 8 c riminal iz es th e u se of afaci li ty of in te rs ta te or fo rei gnco m

m erce to att em

ptto kn owi ng ly pers ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce a m in orto en ga ge in pro st itut io n o r an y sex ua l ac ti vi ty for wh ic h a ny pers on canbe ch arg edwith acri m in al off en se . Se e 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . Our p rece de nt es tabl is he s t ha t § 24 22 (b ) requi res th e Gov ern m en t t o p ro ve “ a sp eci fic in te ntto pe rs ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce a m in orto en ga ge in un la wfu l s ex ,” no t t ha t t he de fen da ntin te nd edto en ga ge in un la wfu l s ex . Mur re ll , 36 8 F .3dat 1 28 6. A rev ie w of t he di st ric t co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns m ak es cle ar tha t the Gov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th e d efen da ntin te nd edto in du ce a m in orto en ga ge in sex ua l ac ti vi ty. A po rti on of t he in st ru ct io n s ta te d t he Gov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th e d efen da ntin te nd edto en ga ge in so m e fo rm of u nl awfu l 9se xu al act iv ity with t he m in or , whi ch is in co ns is te ntwith t hi s C ou rt’s h ol di ng in Mur re ll , 36 8 F .3dat 1 28 6. Ho wev er, the erro r di d n otim pr op erl y gu id e th e jury in su ch a subs tant ia l way as to res ul t i n agra ve mis carr ia ge of ju st ic e as th e in st ru ct io ns , when readas awho le , di d n otne ga te th e el em en t o f in du cem en t, b ut requi redth e Gov ern m en t t o s at is fy a hi gh er b ur de n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o th is is su e. III. Mu en te s ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh t t o t ria l by an i nf orm edjury whe n i t d en ie d h is m ot io n t o i nf orm th e jury of th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e fo r hi s o ffen se in Co un t 1 . A cou rt’s re fu sa l t o g iv e a reque st edjury in st ru ct io n i s re vi ewedforab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Eck ha rdt , 46 6 F .3d93 8, 9 47 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ).

“ The fai lu re o f a d is tri ctco urt t o g iv e anin st ru ct io n i s re ve rs ib le erro r whe re the reque st edin st ru ct io n (1 ) was co rrec t, (2 ) was no t s ub st an ti al ly cov eredby the ch arg e actua ll y

gi ve n, an d (3 ) de al t wi thso m e p oi ntin th e tr ia l s o i m po rta ntth at fai lu re t o g iv e th e reque st edin st ru ct io n s eri ou sl y im pa ire d t he de fen da nt ’s abi li ty to co nduc t h is de fen se .” Id. at 9 47 -4 8. A def en da ntis no t en ti tl edto anin st ru ct io n i nf orm in g t he jury of

th e co ns eque nc e o f a g ui ltor i nn oc en ce fi nd in g i n t erm s o f pu ni sh m en t. Uni te d Sta tes 10v. Del T

or o , 42 6 F .2d18 1, 1 84 (5t h C ir. 1 97 0) (reject in g t he de fen da nt ’s reque st to in fo rm th e jury of th e m an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e). “ The jury is to fin d g ui lt orin no cen ce o n t he ba si s o f th e le ga l s ta nd ard s s etou t i n t he Ju dg e’s ch arg e, an d th e co ns eque nc e in term s o f pu ni sh m en t i s a m at te r fo r Co ng res s o n m an da to ry se nt en ces or f

orth e Co urt wi th in li m it s fi xe d b y th e st atut e.” Id. Mo reo ve r, de fen se co un se l m ay

no t ra is e arg um en ts th atwou lden co ur ag e jury nu ll ifi cat io n. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Tr uj il lo , 71 4 F .2d10 2, 1 05 -0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d ecl in in g t o g iv e th e reque st edin st ru ct io n b ecau se th e in st ru ct io n c on tra ve ne s o urest ab li sh ed pr eced en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o t hi s i ss ue . IV. Fi na ll y , Mu en te s ar gu es th e Gov ern m en t i m pr op erl y sh ift edth e b ur de n o f pr oo f by repe at ed ly ask in g i ts own witne ss whet he r Mu en te s ev er wi th dr ew hi s reque stfora 14 - to 16 -y ear- ol d p ro st itut e. Gen eral ly, we rev ie w de no vo cl ai m s o f pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, wh ic h a re a m ix edqu es ti on s o f la w andfact . Eckh ar dt , 46 6 F .3dat 9 47 . “ To fi nd pr os ecu to ria l m is co nduc t, a t wo- pr on ge d t es t m us t b e m et : (1 ) th e rem ark s m us t b e im pr op er, an d (2 ) th e rem ark s m us t p reju di ci al ly affectth e subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of t he de fen da nt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Eys te r , 94 8 F .2d11 96 , 12 06 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). To 11m eetth e “pr ejud ic e” p ro ng , th e im pr op er co m

m en ts m us t “ so in fectth e tr ia l wi th un fai rn es s as to m ak e th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on a de ni al of due pro ces s.” Id. (al te rat io n o m it te d) . Any po te nt ia l p reju di ce re ga rd in g b ur de n- sh ift in g i s di m in is he d b y

th e p ro se cu to r’s st at em en t dur in g c lo si ng arg um en t t ha t t he Gov ern m en t al on e b ears th e b ur de n o f pr oo f an d “ th e tr ia l co urt’s ex pl ic it in st ru ct io n a fte r cl os in g a rg um en ts to th atsame effect .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Herna ndez , 14 5 F .3d14 33 , 14 39 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The Gov ern m en t’s re pe at edqu es ti on in g a fte r su st ai ne d o bjec ti on s was im pr op er. Nev ert he le ss , th e Gov ern m en t’s que st io ni ng di d n otpre jud ic ia ll y affe ct Mu en te s b ecau se bo th th e Gov ern m en t an d t he di st ric t co urt re m in de d t he jury th at th e Gov ern m en t al on e b or e th e b ur de n o f pr oo f. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm as t o t hi s is su e. AFFIRMED.

12