[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-10707

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00363-CEH-AEP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

DAMEON KERK ALLEN, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(August 23, 2021)

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 1 of 7
2

Dameon Allen appeals his conviction for attempting to entice a minor to 

engage in illegal sexual activity, arguing that the government failed to present 

sufficient evidence of his predisposition to commit the offense. After careful 

review, we affirm.

I.

Here we recount only the facts necessary to decide this appeal. Allen 

pursued a sexual relationship with a person who purported to be a 14-year-old girl, 

but who actually was an FBI Special Agent. As a result of his conduct, a grand 

jury indicted him on one count of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal 

sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He pled not guilty and 

proceeded to a jury trial. 

At trial, the government presented testimony from the agent who 

communicated with Allen under the guise of an underage girl. The government 

also introduced the online and text messages between Allen and the agent. We 

describe this evidence in further detail below. At the close of the government’s 

case, and again after the defense rested, Allen moved for a judgment of acquittal, 

arguing that he was entrapped into committing the offense and that the government 

failed to establish that he was predisposed to engage in the unlawful conduct. The 

district court denied the motion on both occasions but permitted the jury to 

consider Allen’s entrapment defense, instructing the jury as to its elements. The 

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 2 of 7
3

jury found Allen guilty. The district court sentenced Allen to 120 months’ 

imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised release. 

This is Allen’s appeal.

II.

“Entrapment is an affirmative defense that requires (1) government 

inducement of the crime, and (2) lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant 

to commit the crime before the inducement.” United States v. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 

1223, 1234 (11th Cir. 2016). If a jury rejects a defendant’s claim that he was 

entrapped, our review is limited to determining whether the government presented 

sufficient evidence to the jury for it reasonably to have concluded that the 

defendant was predisposed to take part in the crime. Id. at 1234–35.

Because entrapment generally is a jury question, review of an entrapment 

claim is, as a matter of law, a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry. United States v. 

Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 622 (11th Cir. 1995). We review a jury’s rejection of an 

entrapment defense de novo, viewing all the evidence and inferences drawn 

therefrom in the government’s favor. United States v. Francis, 131 F.3d 1452, 

1456 (11th Cir. 1997). We cannot overturn the jury’s verdict if there is any 

reasonable construction of the evidence that would allow the jury to have found the 

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 3 of 7
4

III.

Allen argues that insufficient evidence supported the jury’s rejection of his 

entrapment defense and its finding that he was predisposed to commit the crime. 

We disagree.

Whether a defendant is predisposed “is a fact-intensive and subjective 

inquiry, requiring the jury to consider the defendant’s readiness and willingness to 

engage in the charged crime absent any contact with the government’s agents.” 

Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1235. Although there is no set list of factors used to weigh 

an entrapment defense, we have applied the following guiding principles: 

Predisposition may be demonstrated simply by a defendant’s ready 

commission of the charged crime. A predisposition finding is also 

supported by evidence that the defendant was given opportunities to 

back out of illegal transactions but failed to do so. Post-crime 

statements will support a jury’s rejection of an entrapment defense. 

Existence of prior related offenses is relevant, but not dispositive. 

Evidence of legal activity combined with evidence of certain 

non-criminal tendencies, standing alone, cannot support a conviction. 

Finally, the fact-intensive nature of the entrapment defense often 

makes jury consideration of demeanor and credibility evidence a 

pivotal factor.

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Brown, 43 F.3d at 625 (“The 

government need not produce evidence of predisposition prior to its 

investigation”).

Allen was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which prohibits 

attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. 18 U.S.C. 

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 4 of 7
5

§ 2422(b). In Rutgerson, we reviewed a lack-of-predisposition claim from a 

defendant who also argued that he was entrapped into violating § 2422(b). 822 

F.3d at 1234. There, the defendant made the initial contact with the purported

minor, “readily proceeded to attempt to arrange a sexual encounter with her” after 

learning her age, “never once said that he did not want to have sex with” the minor

or attempted to back out despite having the opportunity to do so, and admitted after 

his arrest that he believed that he was texting a minor. Id. at 1235. We determined 

that the government “simply provided [the defendant] with the opportunity to 

commit a crime by [posing as a minor], and his ready commission of the criminal 

act amply demonstrated his predisposition.” Id. at 1236 (alterations adopted) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). 

Much like in Rutgerson, the evidence in this case was sufficient to support 

the jury’s finding that Allen was predisposed to violate § 2422(b). An FBI agent 

testified that he made a fake online dating profile depicting himself as “Maddie,” a 

14-year-old girl. As a profile photo he uploaded a photo of a female agent when 

she was approximately 14. Here, as in Rutgerson, the agent testified that he did 

not reach out to Allen, but rather, Allen sent a message to “Maddie” first. The 

online messages between “Maddie” and Allen, admitted into evidence at trial, 

show that the same night their communication began, “Maddie” told Allen that she 

was 14 years old. “Maddie” told Allen several more times that she was a minor, 

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 5 of 7
6

even once asking “R u sure its ok that I’m only 14”; Allen reassured her that he 

was still interested and continued to pursue a sexual encounter with her. Doc. 66-4 

at 7.

1

 This evidence demonstrated that Allen had an opportunity to back out of the 

transaction and did not take it, but rather “readily proceeded to attempt to arrange a 

sexual encounter” with “Maddie.” Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1235. Plus, like in 

Rutgerson the government introduced evidence that upon his arrest Allen told 

agents that he believed he was arrested “because of the back-and-forth texting.” 

Doc. 110 at 76; see Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1235.

Allen notes that there is no evidence that he previously had behaved 

inappropriately toward young girls or sought young girls for sexual encounters and 

argues that this demonstrates he lacked any predisposition to commit the offense. 

However, the existence (or nonexistence) of prior related offenses is not 

dispositive to the predisposition inquiry. See Rutgerson, 822 F.3d at 1234. He 

also notes that “Maddie’s” online dating profile stated that she was 18—a 

requirement for registration on the site—and so he could have believed that 

“Maddie” was role-playing as a minor when she told him she was only 14. Even if 

the jury could have made that inference, however, our standard of review requires

us to assume that it did not. Francis, 131 F.3d at 1456. Finally, Allen points out 

that although he had agreed over text messages to meet “Maddie” with flowers, 

1 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 6 of 7
7

champagne, and condoms in hand, he did not possess any of those items when 

agents arrested him. Even if showing up empty handed could be considered 

evidence of his lack of predisposition, the government introduced evidence that 

Allen agreed to meet “Maddie” at a Winn-Dixie grocery store, as well as testimony 

that the store generally sold these items. The jury could reasonably have inferred 

that Allen would purchase the promised items at the store where he parked and 

rejected the notion that his empty-handedness was indicative of his innocence. See 

id.

The government presented sufficient evidence that Allen was predisposed to 

attempt to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity. Thus, the jury was 

entitled to reject Allen’s entrapment defense. We affirm his conviction.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-10707 Date Filed: 08/23/2021 Page: 7 of 7