[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 32 Ste ven Morrill appeals his conviction for attempt ing 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” becau se 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 misstat ed 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 fore ign 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 hav e explained that

Case: 17-13495 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 2 of 33 “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 enga ge in sexual activity.” United States v. Lee , 603 F.3d 904, 914 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We held i n Murrell that, “[b]y negotiating with the purported father of a minor , [ the defendant ] attempted to stimulate or

cau se the minor to engage in sexual activity with him , ” which “fit[] squarely within the definition of ‘ induce .’” 368 F.3d at 1287.
T he district court did not err in instructin g the jury about the charged offense

. The district court correctly defined “induce” by employing the sam e 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 th e phrase “the assent of” in its definition

. The district court instruct ed 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 act ivity 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