## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1012 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ONAL D Z AWADA, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No . 3:0 6-CR-00 12 0(0 1)RM

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Chief Judge.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 15, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 18, 2008

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d C OFFEYa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. In thi s case , a s i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. D avey, N o. 07

- 3533 ( i ssued t od ay), we m ust deci de w hat i t ta k es t o c om m it the o ff en se o fa tt empti ngt o v i o l at e th e sta tute that prohibi ts knowingl y per suading, i nd uci ng, enti ci ng, o r coe rcing a m in or to e ngage i n cr i m i nal se xual ac tiv ity , see 18 U .S.C . § 24 22 (b ). A j u ry fou n d D on ald Zawa da g ui l tyofat te m ptingt o v i o l at e bo th§ 2 42 2(b) a nd2 N o. 08

- 1012 18 U. S

. C. § 1 47 0, whi chpr o hibi ts know in g l y t r an sfer r i ng obsc en e m aterial to a pe rson un d er the age of 16

. Th ere is am p le evi d en c e i n th e record to sup p ort the j ury’s ver dicto n the l att ero ff ense. Our r ev i ew o fthe § 2 422(b) c o n v i c t i o n o n th i s p o i n t i s f o r p l a i n e r r o r o n l y , a s we ex p lain l a t e r . F ro m th at p er sp ec tiv e, w e h av e n o t ro u b le co nc l udi ngtha t th e s te ps Zawa da to o kt o b r i ngabo ut a f orbi dd en sexual encounterwith a m i nor were subs t a n t i a l e n o u g h t o s u p p o r tth e a t t e mp tc o n v i c t i o n. We th e r e f o r e a ffi r m.

I Lik e Davey, Z aw ada’ s down f al l cam e about thro ugh anI nt erne t st i ngo per at i o n. I n May 20 06 , so m eo ne us i ng the nam e “ pla nnerdud e97” ente re d a Yahoo ! ch at r oo m and m ade co ntac t with “so uthbendkel sey 13” ( to w hom w e r eferas “Kel sey ” f orsi m pli ci ty ). Kels ey pu rpor ted to be a 13- yea r- ol d g i rl, but i n re al i ty “she” was Com m ander M i tchel l Kaj zero fthe H i gh T ec h Cri m es U ni t o fthe St

. J o se ph Co unty ( I ndi an a) Pro se cut o r ’ s Of fi ce . Ov erthe ne xt th r ee months , Kel se y and “ pl an ne r dude9 7” ha d ni ne conve rs ati ons usi ng inst ant m ess agi ng; i n additi on, Kels ey h ad th re e m or e s u c h co n ve rs at ion s w ith “b ec ke rb 00 3.” Du ri ng “he r” fi rs t conver sat i on with “bec kerb003 , ” Kel sey lea rn ed th at h e w as th e sam e p er so n as “p lan n er d u d e9 7.” ( W e there f or e r eferto “pl annerdude97” t o i ncl ud e bo th sc re en n am es .) At t r i al, Zawada di d notdi spu te the f ac t tha t the o nl i ne m ess age s s hare d between “pl annerdude97” an d K el sey w er e a i m ed at enti ci ng Kel seyto e ngage i n sexualact i vi ty.N o. 08

- 1012 3 N ordi d he dis pu te that som e o fthe i m age s that “p lan n er du de97” sent to K el sey, ei therdi re ctl y o r by use o fa l i nk, we r e o b s c e ne . I ns t e a d, h e a t t e mpt e d t o persuade the j ury that he was n ot the perso n ass oci ate d wi th th o s e na mes . Z a wa d a w a s 4 4 y e a r s o l d a tth e t i me o fthe se ev en ts , l i vi ngi n Ro l l i ngM ea do ws, I l l i no i s. At o ne po i ntdur i ngthe s ting o per at i o n, a femal e o ffi ce r po sing as K el s e y pl a c e d a t e l e ph o ne c a l l t o a mal e b e l i e v e d to b e “ p lan n er d u d e9 7 .” T h e t ap e o f th at co n ve rs at ion ind ic at es th at th e m an id en tifie d h im se l fa s T om or D an iel. The cal l l ast ed ei ght m in u te s, but i t was nottr aced to a parti cul arte l ephone o r add re ss. ( Later, a tr i alwitness w h o w or ke d w ith Z a w a d a id en tifie d h im as th e m ale speake r. ) The pol i ce were abl e t o tr ace the inter net pr oto col addr e s s ( “ I P a ddres s”) f orthe em ai l s that “ pla nnerdud e97” sent to K el seyo n J une 8, 20 08. Cm dr. Ka j zer l ear ned that thi s I P add re ss w as re gi ste re d t o SBC I nter net, an i nter net ser vi ces provi der. H e then se nt a subpoena t o SBC I nter net re q u es tin g a ll ac c ou n t in for m at ion for t h e a c c ou n t a ss o c iate d w i th thatI P address. S BC I nter net’ s r esp onse l ed him t o 2802 Fli cker L an e, in Rolli ng M ead ow s. C m d r. Kaj ze r a l so l ea r ne d tha t o ne n am e as so ci at ed wi ththe Fl i ckerLane address was that ofDonal d Zaw ada. Th e Go v e r nme nth a d a ddi t i o na l e v i de nc e ty i ngZ a wa da t o “ pl a nn e r du de 9 7
. ” OnAugus t2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , Cmdr

. Kaj zer and Speci alA gent A l l en Ti ffi n ofthe U ni ted S tat es Se cre t Service d rove to 2802 Fl ic k e r La ne and established survei l l ance there

. A t a pp ro xi m ate l y 6 : 40 p. m ., a c arpull ed i nt o the d riv ewa y ; the dr i ve r was Di an e Zawa da, a nd the p assen ger w as D ona ld

. Dian e Za w ad a gave th e officers pe r mi s s i o n t o l o o k a t the de s k t o p c o mput e r l o c a t e d ins i de4 N o. 08

- 1012 th e r es i den ce . Tha t co m put erwas c onn ect ed to the I nter net usi ng a DSL s er vi ce, and i t w as equi p p ed w ith a r outer
. The offi cer s a l so too k Donal d Zaw ada’ s ba ckp ac k, w h ich h e h ad w ith h im in t h e c ar . Th ey ad vis ed h im of hi s const i tuti onal ri ghts, and a fter he w ai ved th ose ri ghts, he s poke bri efl y w i th the o ffi cer s a nd al l owed them to l oo k i nto the b ac kp ack. There theyf ound a l aptop c o mput e r, a thu mb d r i v e , a n e t wo r kc a b l e car d, a nd a wi r e l e s s n e t wo r kc a r d. A f or ensi c exam i nati on o fthe l aptop r eve aled that Yahoo! M ess engerwas i nstal l ed on i t, and that M ess enger had l ast b een acces sed o n A ugust 2 1, 20 06, the day o f Zaw ada’ s a rr est
. I n additi on , l oca ted i n the Yahoo! di re ctor y on the l aptop were the s cre en nam es “pl annerdude97” and “beck erb003

. ” These were the o nl y t w o scr een nam es the invest i ga tor s f ound. St or ed on the co m pu terwas an e xc e r pto fa n Aug us t1 7o nl i ne c o nv e r s a t i o n b e t w een “b ec ke rb 00 3” an d K els ey an d th e Y ah oo ! m e m b er p ro file o f“ sou thbe ndk el se y 13

. ” Zawa da ha d a l so t ak enthe p re c au tio n of in s ta llin g t h e p ro gr am H ist or y K ill on h is lap to p . A s the nam e s ugges ts, thi s i s a pro gr am that cl ai m s t o be abl e s ecure l y to del ete i nfo rm ati on fro m th e c o mpu t e r b y o v e r wr i t i n g i t i n a wa y th a t ma k e s t he ol d data unrec ove rabl e. Fi nal l y, Cm dr. K ajze r ra n a t ra ce ro u te to deter m i ne wh er e the near estr outerf or
“ p l a n ne r d u d e 9 7 ” a n d “ b e c k e rb 0 0 3 ” wa s l o c a t e d

. He f ound one a sho rtdi sta nce from the Fl i ckerLane hom e, nor theas t o fN aperv i l l e, I l l i noi s. Du ri ng the o n-l i ne co nver sat i ons, Zaw ada ask ed K el sey i fs he want ed to “ m ake a da te , ” an d, i fs o , whethe r s heN o. 08

- 1012 5

w as usi ng so m e k i nd o fb irt h contr olm eas ure. Kels ey sa i d tha t sh e was i nt er es te d a nd o ff er ed he r teleph o ne n u m b er . Th at w as w h at p ro m p te d th e ca ll w ith th e fe m ale offi cer . Duri ng tha t co nver sat i on, Zaw ad a t ol d K el sey th at he w ou ld visit he r “one of these da ys, if n o t tom orro w. ” Th e y di s c us s e d the ne e d t o wo r k a r o und bot h Zaw ada’ s w or k s chedule and that o fKels ey’ s m othe r. They also ch atted abou t w ha t th ey w ou ld d o onc e th e y w ere t o g e th e r . I n th e e n d , h o w e v e r, th e y n e v e r s e t a f i r m t i me a nd pl a c e f o r a me e t i n g, a n d n o me e t i n ge v e r o c c u r r e d. Zawa da’ s ar r es t o n A ug us t 21 b r o ug hta n e nd t o the ruse . I nt erest i ngl y, Cm dr. Kaj zerte sti fi ed that A ugust 2 1, 2006 , was the l astti m e he had a co nver sat i on with eit h er “p lan n er d u d e9 7” or “ b ec ke rb 00 3.”

II W e co nsi der fi rs t Zawad a’ s co nvi cti on under § 24 22( b) f o r a tt empti ngt o e nt i ce ( et c. ) a min o r t o e nga g e i n a cr i m i na l s ex ua l act. A s i n D avey, s upra, th e r e a r e t wo cr i ti cal ques ti o ns : fi r st, di d Za wada pr es er ve hi s r i g ht to com pla i n that hi s a c tio n s were not substa nti aleno ugh to a m o untt o a n a tt empt to co m m i t th e cr i m e, a nd seco nd , under the appropr i ate st andard ofr eview , does the r eco rd support a fi nd i ng o fthe re quir ed substa nti al st ep. Thi s co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n i n U nited S ta tes v. G la dish , 536 F. 3d 646 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , pro vi des o ur s tar ti ng poi nt. I n G la dish , we hel d t h at m er e t al k i n an I nter net c hat room i s no t e nough to support a co nvi cti on f oran att em pt to vi ol ate § 2422 ( b)

. I nstea d, m ore concr ete m easu r es s ucha s m aki nga r r an g ement s f o r meet i ngthe6 N o. 08

- 1012 (sup p osed ) girl, agreeing o n a ti m e and place for a m eet i ng, m aki ng a hote l r ese rv ati on, purchasi ng a gi ft, o r tr avel i ng to a rendezvous poi nt, ar e nec ess ar y. S ee 536 F. 3d at 649; se e a l so D a vey , N o. 07-3533, [ sl. op . a t 9-10]. G l a dish a l s o r e c o g ni z e s tha t c hi l d s e xu a l a b us e i s o f ten eff ectuat ed thr ough a per i od of “gr oo m i ng” a nd se xuali zati o n o fa r el at i o ns hi p. 5 36 F. 3d at6 49

. W e r ev er se d the convi cti on f oran a tte m pt to enti ce a m in or into a sexual en c ou n t e r w ith d ire c tio n s t o a c q u it, be c au se “h ot air is al l the re cor d show s. ” Id. at65 0. Insu p p lem en ta l brie fs filed aft er or a l arg u m en t in th is case , co unsel f orZaw ad a ar gues that Zaw ada did not f o r f ei t hi s r i g htt o r ai se a n a r g um en t bas ed o n G la dish l ar gel y b ecause G la dish ha d no t y etb ee n de ci ded atthe t im e o f tria l an d als o b ec au se Z aw ad a a rg u ed ge n er ally that the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent to supp ort a co nvi cti on. H e no tes thatthe j ury w as i nstr ucted thati t had to fi nd a substa nti alst ep to w ar d the com m i ssi on o fan a ct o fe nt i ce m en t. ButZa wada’ s i ns uffi ci en cya r g um en t r el i ed al m o ste nt i r el y o n h i s th eo r y tha t th e Gov ernm en t coul d not prove thathe was the wrongdoer

. H e di d not f ocus on the subst anti alst ep el em en t. T h e fa ct that G la dish had not b ee n deci ded does nothel p him

. I fanythi ng, th e fa ct that there was an i nstr ucti on o n the “substa nti al ste p” i ssue dem onst ra tes that the ar gum ent w as avai l abl e had co un se l tho ught t o m ake i t. W e co ncl ud e, on thi s r eco rd, thatZaw ada f or f ei te d a n y arg um ent that he mightha ve made al o ngthe l i ne s di sc us se d i n Glad i s h. T h at m e a n s th at w e c an co n sid er th is q u es tio n on ly thro ugh the l ens o f pla i n er ro r. Zaw ada m ust s how ( 1) thatN o. 08

- 1012 7 ther e w as er ro r, (2) that the erro r w as pla i n ( i n the sense o f obvi ous) , ( 3) thatthe er ro r aff ecte d his s u b st anti alr i ghts, an d ( 4) tha t, i fthe fi r stthr ee po i nts a r e es tabl i sh ed, the er ro r se riou sly affe c ts th e fa irn e s s, in te gr ity , or p u b lic re pu tat i on o fthe j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano, 507 U

. S. 725, 73 0- 35 ( 1993 )

. A l though Zawad a m ake s a va l i an t eff o r t i n h i s s up p lement alb r i eft o c o nv i nc e us th at h is c ase m eet s these dem anding cri ter i a, we cannot a g r e e w i th h i m. U nl i ke Davey, Zaw ada neve r tr avel ed to a pre - ass i gned r e n d e z v o u s p o i n ti n o r d e r t o me e tKe l s e y . B u t, a s we no te d i n G la dish , “ [ t] r av eli s no t a sine qua no n o ff indi ng a s ubstanti alst ep i n a s ecti on 2422(b) cas e. ” 5 36 F. 3d at 64 9. Zaw ada a nd Kel se y ha d a r el at i ve l y c o nc r et e co nv e r s a t i o n a b o utma k i nga “ da t e, ” a nd the y di s c us s e d a sp ec ific d at e a n d tim e o f d ay th at th ey th ou gh t w ou ld w ork . Z aw ad a ch ecke d on th e intim ate d etail of Ke lsey’s bi r thc o nt r o l pr ac ti ce s, a nd he a sk ed herwhethe r he sh o ul d b r i ngs o m e k i nd o fpr o te ct i o n wi thhi m . I n the end, their p lan s nev erge l l ed, but thi s i s s om ew hat cl ose r to a s ubstantials te p tha n the “ ho t ai r ” an d ne bul o us c om m en ts ab ou t m ee tin g “ so m et im e ” th at to ok p lac e in Glad i s h. Even i f we we r e t o c o nc l ud e tha t the e v i de nc e o f Z aw ad a’s ac tio n s fa lls sh or t o f th e s ta n d ar d d es c rib ed in Glad i s h, we cannot say th at it is so wanting that i t m eet s th e s e c o n d e l e me n to fth e p l a i n e r r o r t e s t
. No r c a n we say thata convi cti on r est i ng o n the evi dence thatwas bef or e the j ury w oul d am ount t o a m ani f estm i scar ri age ofj usti ce. The j u ry was proper l y c harg ed on a l l el em ents8 N o. 08

- 1012 ofthe off ense, i ncl ud i ng the need t o fi nd a substa nti alst ep t o wa r d c o mpl e t i o n o f the o ff e ns e , a nd i ts o f o un d. Z a wa da tal ked with K else y m any t i m es, and the j ury m i ght ha ve v i e we d th o s e c o n v e r s a t i o n s a s “ g r o o mi n g ” e ff o r t s . We ther ef or e fi nd no pla i n er ro r w i th r espectto the substa nti alst ep r equi re m ent. Zaw ada’ s pri m ar y a rg um ent, bo th be for e the di str i ct cour t a n d o n ap peal, has al w ays bee n that the e vi dence w as not suf fi ci ent t o show that he was “pl annerdude97” and “ beck erb003

. ” A t thi s sta ge, how eve r, w e m us t v iew th e evide nc e in t h e l igh t m ost favorable to the j ury’s verd ict
. Jac ks on v. Vi rgi ni a, 4 43 U. S

. 3 07, 3 19 ( 19 79 )

. The ac c ou n t o ft h e fa c ts th at w e h av e a lre ad y fu rn ish ed is en ou gh to show that the j u ry had am p le evi d en ce before i t th atper m i tt ed i t to fi nd tha t Zawa da was the o ne c ha t t i ngwi th Ke l s e y . No thi ngmo r e n e e d b e s a i d. Zawa da al so a r g ue s th atthe di strict cou r t wentb ey o nd the b oundari es es tabli shed by F ED . R. E V ID . 40 3 w h en it perm i tte d t he Gover nm ent t o i ntro du ce the i m age s that he se nt to Kels ey and to pu bl i sh t o th e j ury the t exts of th e in stant- m ess age co nver sat i ons. W e s ee no abuse o f disc re ti on, however

. The p hoto gr aphs w er e r el evantto both the § 24 22( b) char ge and to the § 14 70 charg e. W i th re spect to the f or m er, th ey hel ped the Gover nm ent t o pr o ve tha t Zawa da was t r y i ngt o e nt i ce K el se y i nt o e ngagi ngi n un l awful s ex ua l a ct i vi ty
. W i thr es pec t to the l att er, the photog rap h s h el ped to pr ove thatZaw ada w as se n d in g ob sc en e m at t e r t o h er . W h ile th es e m at er ials und oubte dly m ad e a si gni fi cant i m press i on o n the j ury, they w er e no t un fai rl y pr ej ud i ci al

. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v.N o. 08

- 1012 9 B urt, 495 F.3d 733 , 7 4 0 (7th C ir. 2007) (“Th ere is a d ifferen ce be twe en ev i den ce th at br i ng s unf ai r pr ej udice a nd evid en ce th at is dam nin g.”)

.
III Zaw ada off er s no o therr ea son to ove rturn hi s co nvi cti on under § 14 70 othe r than the i denti fi cati on poi nt that w e have al re ady rej ecte d. W e ther ef or e A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

12- 18- 08