IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10599

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACK MARTY TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-117-1

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Following a jury trial, Jack Marty Taylor was convicted of attempting to

entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b), 

and he was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment. On appeal, he 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, urging that 

the jury’s rejection of his entrapment defense was error.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10599 Document: 00514014166 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/31/2017
No. 16-10599

2

“[R]eview for sufficiency of the evidence following a conviction is narrow,” 

and we “will affirm if a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence 

established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

United States v. Klein, 543 F.3d 206, 212 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “[T]he evidence, all reasonable inferences drawn 

therefrom, and all credibility determinations” are considered “in the light most 

favorable to the prosecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted).

To prove attempt, the government must demonstrate that the defendant 

“(1) acted with the culpability required to commit the underlying substantive 

offense, and (2) took a substantial step toward its commission.” United States 

v. Barlow, 568 F.3d 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2009). To establish a violation of 

§ 2422(b), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 

defendant intended to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a person whom he 

believed to be a minor to engage in criminal sexual conduct and “took a 

substantial step toward that persuasion or enticement.” Id. “A substantial 

step is defined as conduct which strongly corroborates the firmness of 

defendant’s criminal attempt.” United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 547 

(5th Cir. 2012). (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Here, a rational jury could have found that the evidence established the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial record is replete 

with sexually explicit text messages Taylor sent to “Bryan,” whom he believed 

to be a 14-year-old boy. More specifically, Taylor’s messages to Bryan over the 

course of several months routinely referenced nakedness, penises, erections, 

masturbation, showering together, oral sex, and sexual innuendo. Taylor 

requested to meet Bryan in person at least 40 times during the course of their 

correspondence and offered on multiple occasions to have him sleep over so 

 Case: 16-10599 Document: 00514014166 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/31/2017
No. 16-10599

3

that they could engage in sexual activities. By arriving at the place and time 

he had scheduled to pick up Bryan, Taylor took a substantial step toward the 

commission of the offense. The evidence overwhelmingly supports Taylor’s 

conviction for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity. 

See Barlow, 568 F.3d at 219; see also United States v. Rounds, 749 F.3d 326, 

333 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Lundy, 676 F.3d 444, 447 (5th Cir. 2012).

The thrust of Taylor’s appellate argument is that he was entrapped. The 

jury was instructed on entrapment, so we review that issue under the same

sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard, accepting the facts in the light most 

favorable to the verdict and reversing “only if no rational jury could have found 

beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) lack of government inducement or (2) 

predisposition to commit the charged crime.” United States v. Reyes, 239 F.3d 

722, 739 (5th Cir. 2001). 

Taylor contends that the prosecution failed to prove his predisposition 

beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the fact that he had no prior history of 

offenses involving minors. He asserts that the evidence demonstrated that (1) 

he rejected the government agent’s initial overtures and attempted to return 

to lawful conduct, (2) he offered only to mentor Bryan over a shared meal, and

(3) he changed topics whenever Bryan referred to sex. 

Taylor’s contention is unpersuasive. He mischaracterizes his role and 

wholly ignores the months-long stream of sexually explicit messages that he 

sent to Bryan, which establish his eager pursuit of, and sexual discourse with,

a person he believed to be a minor. See United States v. Theagene, 565 F.3d 

911, 919 (5th Cir. 2009); Reyes, 239 F.3d at 739. The evidence additionally 

shows that Taylor exhibited no hesitation or unwillingness to commit the 

offense. As the investigating detective testified, Taylor declined numerous 

opportunities to disengage and return to lawful conduct. See Theagene, 565 

 Case: 16-10599 Document: 00514014166 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/31/2017
No. 16-10599

4

F.3d at 919-20. A rational jury could have found that the government proved 

Taylor’s predisposition beyond a reasonable doubt and that he was not 

entrapped. See Theagene, 565 F.3d at 919; Reyes, 239 F.3d at 739. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10599 Document: 00514014166 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/31/2017