[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-13495

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:16-cr-00251-RBD-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

STEVEN ARTHUR MORRILL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 12, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Steven Morrill appeals his conviction for attempting to induce a minor to 

engage in sexual activity. 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Morrill argues that the district court 

erred by instructing the jury that “induce means to stimulate the occurrence of or to 

cause” because that definition could have caused him to be convicted for causing a 

minor to engage in sexual activity instead of causing the minor to assent to engage 

in unlawful sexual activity. We affirm.

“We review de novo the legal correctness of jury instructions, but we review 

the district court’s phrasing for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Seabrooks, 

839 F.3d 1326, 1332 (11th Cir. 2016). “We review jury instructions ‘to determine 

whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the 

objecting party.’” Id. at 1333 (quoting United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256, 

1275 (11th Cir. 2013)).

Section 2422(b) punishes “[w]hoever, using the mail or any facility or 

means of interstate or foreign commerce, . . . knowingly persuades, induces, 

entices, or coerces any individual . . . [less than] 18 years [old], to engage in 

prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a 

criminal offense, or attempts to do so . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). An attempt

occurs if the defendant, “using the internet, act[s] with a specific intent to 

persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in unlawful sex.” United 

States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). We have explained that 

Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

“induce” means “to stimulate the occurrence of; cause.” Id. at 1287. “With regard 

to intent, the government must prove that the defendant intended to cause assent on 

the part of the minor, not that he acted with the specific intent to engage in sexual 

activity.” United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904, 914 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). We held in Murrell that, “[b]y negotiating 

with the purported father of a minor, [the defendant] attempted to stimulate or 

cause the minor to engage in sexual activity with him,” which “fit[] squarely within 

the definition of ‘induce.’” 368 F.3d at 1287.

The district court did not err in instructing the jury about the charged 

offense. The district court correctly defined “induce” by employing the same 

definition we used in Murrell. See United States v. Rutgerson, 822 F.3d 1223, 1232 

(11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2158 (2017). And the district court did 

not need to include the phrase “the assent of” in its definition. The district court 

instructed the jury repeatedly that the government had to prove that Morrill was 

guilty of “persuading, inducing, or enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity.”

The instructions required the jury to find that Morrill acted with the intent to 

induce a minor, not with the intent to engage in sexual activity with a minor. See 

Murrell, 368 F.3d at 1286.

We AFFIRM Morrill’s conviction.

Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 3 of 3