FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 23, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1372 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00588 -CR- 1-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us STEPHEN EDMUND BOLEN, JR., D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 23, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Stephen Edm

und Bolen, Jr. a

ppeals his con viction and 110-m onth sentence fo r usi ng a

f ac ili ty and m eans o f int er state c om m er ce f or e nti ce m en t t o c om

m it2

ch ild m ole statio n, in vio la tio n of 18 U . S. C. § 24 22( b) . B ole n and the gov er nm en t stipu lated to certain fa cts: (1) S pecial A gent Nikki Badolato of the Federal Bureau of I nvestig ation (“ FBI” ) used a com puter connected to the Internet in an unde rc ove r ca

pa ci ty , pos ing a s a25- y ear- old sin gle m oth er

nam ed “ Pa uli na ” w ith a 3-y ear- old daug hter nam ed “ Rachel, ” (2) S pecial A gent Badolato was in an int er ne t c ha t r oom

ti tle d “ se x w ithy oung er ” w he n B ole n c ont ac te d he r via ins tant m essage, ( 3) Bolen and Special A gent Badolato engaged in an internet chat that too k pl ac e ove r a num

be r of day s, ( 4) Bo le n and S pe ci al A ge nt B ad olato com m unicated by

telephone and finalized their plans to m eet, and (5) Bolen had co nta ct onl y w ithan un de rc ove r of

fi ce r posi ng a s an a dul t and n o c ont ac t w itha m ino r or w ithan un de rc ove r of

fi ce r posi ng a s am ino r. T he gov er nm en t and Bo le n e nte re d in to a

w ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t, in w hic h B ole n c onc ed ed in the agreem ent that he was guilty of the crim e char ged in the ind ictm ent and waived his r igh t t o a

ppe al his se nte nc e an d th e ri ght to co llate ra lly

a tta ck his se nte nc e in an y pos t- co nvi ct ionpr oc ee din g onany gr ound , e xc ep t tha t B ole n r es er ve d th e ri ght to ap pe al any

upw ar d de part

ur e an d th e adve rs e de te rm inatio ns o f his m ot io ns to supp res s ev id en ce an d d is m is s t he in di ct m en t. On appeal, Bolen’ s prim ary argum ent is that § 24 22(b) does no t prohibi t an ind ivi dua l f

ro m arr an gin g to have se x w itham ino r thr oughc om m uni catio ns w ith3

an adult interm ediary , a s oppo sed to direct com m unication s with a m inor. Bolen al so arg ue s th at

§ 24 22( b) doe s no t pr ohi bit an in div idu al f

ro m arr an gin g to have sex with a fic titiou s m inor. Bolen ar gues that if the statute is in terpreted a s pr oh ib it in g s uc h a ct iv it ie s i t i s u nc on st it ut io na ll y va gu e. T he int er pr et at ionof

§ 24 22( b) is a que sti on o f lawsub j ec t t o de nov o rev ie w. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Mu rrel l, 3 68 F.3d 12 83 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Se ct ion242 2( b) pr ovi de s inr el ev an t part a s f oll ow s: Who ev er, u si ng . . . an y

faci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te . . . co m m erce , . . . knowingl y

persuades, induces, entices, or coerce s any indiv idual who has not a tta ine d th e ag e of

18 y ears , to en ga ge in . . . any se xua l a ct ivi ty

f or w hic h any

pe rs on c anbe c harg ed

w ithac ri m ina l of

fe nse , or a tte m pts to do so, sha ll be . . . im

pr iso ne d no t l es s th an5 y ears and n ot m or e than 30 y ears . 18 U. S. C. 2422 (b). W e have re cently

held that “ direct com

m unication with a m inor or supp osed m ino r is unne ce ssary

und er the te xt o f § 24 22( b) . ” Murr el l, 368 F . 3d at 12 88 (11th Cir. 2004) (af

firm ing a convictio n und er § 2422(b) wher e the defe ndant us ed the int er ne t t o c om

m uni cate w ithan un de rc ove r ag en t po sin g a s an a dul t int er m ed iary w ho w oul d arr an ge f

or the de fe ndant t o e nga ge in vari ous unl aw fu l sexual activities with a m inor). W e held that § 242 2(b) encom passes condu ct w he re ade fe ndant arr an ge s to have se x w itham ino r thr oughc om m uni catio ns w ithan a dul t i nte rm ed iary , inc lud ing an a dul t l awe nf or ce m en t a ge nt p osi ng a s a4

pare nt o f a m ino r ch ild . I d. a t 12 86; se e al so Unit ed S ta te s v. H or

na day , 392 F . 3d 1306 , 1310 (11th Cir. 2004) (stating that, in Murrell, we held that the use of an adult int erm ediary , such as an a dult law enforce m ent agent posi ng as a parent of a m ino r ch ild , doe s no t t ak e a de fe ndant’ s a ct ion s ou tsi de the pr ohi bit ion s of § 24 22( b) ). I n M ur

re ll, w e re as one d th at , in suc h asit ua tio n, by

ne got ia tin g w ith the pur porte d pare nt o f a m ino r, the de fe ndant atte m pts “ to s tim

ulate or c au se the m i n o r t o en g ag e i n s ex u al ac t i v i t y wi t h h i m ,” th er eb y b ri n g i n g th e d ef en d an t ’s co nduc t w ith in the de fi nit ionof “ ind uc e. ” I d. a t 12 87. W e ha ve a lso r ec en tly he ld that any arg um en t tha t § 2422 (b ) is “ voi d f or va gue ne ss i nsof

ar a s a dul t int er m ed iary sit ua tio ns are c onc er

ne d c an not

be r ec onc ile d w ithMurr el l’ s ho ldi ng that the plain lang uage of § 2422 (b) clearly applies to tho se situation s.” H or na day , 392 F . 3d at 13 10. He re, Bolen’ s argum ents, that § 2422(b) do es not prohi bit an ind ividu al fr om arr an gin g to have se x w itham ino r thr oughc om m uni catio ns w ithan a dul t int er m ed iary or f ro m arr an gin g to have se x w itha f ic tit iou s m ino r, are w ith out m er it. T his arg um en t ha s be ene xpl ic itl y r ej ec te d inc as es that w er e fa ct ua lly in di st in gu is habl e. See M urrel l, 3 68 F.3d at 1 28 6; Horn ad ay , 39 2 F .3dat 1 31 0. Furthe r, w e ha ve he ld tha t § 2422 , a s so int er pr et ed , is not

unc onst itu tio na lly va gu e. See Ho rn ad ay , 39 2 F .3dat 1 31 0.5

Bo le n ne xt arg ue s onappe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in dis m iss ing his m oti on t o su

ppr es s e vid en ce be ca

use the pol ic e of

fi ce rs did not have pr oba

ble cause to arr est him

and conduct a war

rantless search incident to arre st. Bolen bases this argum ent on the fact that the governm ent and Bolen stip ulated that Bo le n ha d no c ont ac t w itham ino r or w ithan un de rc ove r of

fi ce r posi ng a s a m inor, contending that, a s such, he could not exercise undu e influence over a m in orwit hi n t he pl ai n m ean in g o f § 2 42 2( b) .

“ T his c our

t r ev ie w s adis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ade fe ndant’ s m oti on t o supp re ss unde r a m ixe d st an dard of r ev ie w , r ev ie w ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s of f ac t un de r the c le ar ly

e rr one ous standard

and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppl ic at ionof lawto tho se f

ac ts d e novo . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. D es ir , 257 F . 3d 1 233, 123 5- 36 ( 11th Ci r. 20 01 ). “Un d e r th e F o u rt h an dF o u rt e e n th Ame n d men t s , an arr e s t i n g o f f i c e r may, w ith out aw ar rant, se ar chape rs on v al idl y arr es te d. ” Mi ch igan v. D eF ill ipp o, 443 U . S. 31, 35, 99 S . Ct . 262 7, 263 1 ( 1979 ). “ [T ] he Co nst itu tio n pe rm its an of fi ce r to ar re st a sus pe ct w ith out aw ar rant i f the re is pr oba

ble c au se to be lie ve that the su sp ectha s co m

m it te d o r is co m

m it ti ng an off

en se .” Id . at 3 6, 9 9 S .Ct. at 26 31 .

“ ‘ A lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce r ha s pr oba

ble c au se to ar

re st a sus pe ct if the f ac ts and ci rc um stanc es w ith in the of fi ce r’ s kn ow le dge , of

w hic h he or

she ha s r ea sona

bly6

tr ustw orthy

inf orm at ion , w oul d c au se apr ude nt p er son to b el ie ve , und er the ci rc um stanc es sho w n, that the sus pe ct ha s c om m itt ed , is co m

m itt ing , or

is ab out to co m m it anof fe nse . ’ ” W ill iam son v. Mi lls , 65 F . 3d 1 55, 158 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) (quotin g Von Stein v. B rescher , 904 F. 2d 57 2, 578 (11th Cir. 1990)). Se ct ion242 2( b) pr ohi bit s, in re le vant p ar t, ind ivi dua ls f

ro m usi ng any fa ci lity of int er state c om

m er ce f ro m a tte m pti ng t o in duc e an y

m ino r ch ild

to engage in any

sexual activity

for which any

person can be charged w ith a crim inal of fe nse . 18 U . S. C. 242 2( b) . A s di sc uss ed above , w e ha ve he ld tha t § 2422 (b ) en co m pa sse s c ondu ct

w he re ade fe ndant arr an ge s to have se x w itham ino r through com

m unication s with an adult interm ediary , including an adult law en fo rc em en t a ge nt p osi ng a s apare nt o f a m ino r ch ild . T he c ri m e of a tte m pt requires (1) that the defendant had the specific intent to eng age in the crim inal conduct for which he is charged and (2) that he tooka substantial step to ward co m m iss ionof

the of fe nse . I d. He re, the agents had probabl e cause to ar rest Bolen because they

had inform ation that would cause a prudent person to believe that Bolen had attem pted to i nduc e a m ino r ch ild

to en ga ge in se xua l a ct ivi ty f or w hic h any

pe rs on c anbe charged w ith a crim inal offense. Specif ically , the a gents had in form ation that Bo le n ha d sp ec if

ic int en t t o in duc e a m ino r to e nga ge in unl aw fu l se xua l a ct ivi tyF or e xamp le , B ole n a dv ise d “ Pa uli na ,” (1 ) via ins tant me ssa g e , to b ri nghe r d a ughte r w ith 1 he r t o th e ir

me e tin gbe c a

us e he wa nte d to me e t th e m bo th a nd he “ [t]ho ught [Pa

uli na] wan ted t o sh owhe r [his] c oc k” and , ( 2) ov e r t he ph on e , th at at th e pla

nn e d me e tin ghe wa

nte d to g o a s f

ar w ith “R achel” a s “ Pa

uli na ” wa s w ill ingto l e t hi m g o, sp e c if ic a lly statin gthat he wa

nte d “ Ra c he l” to pe rf or m or a l se x on h im. 7 in the form

of instant m essage and phon e com m unication s in which he negotiated w iththe pur

porte d m oth er

of am ino r fo r the m ino r to e nga ge in se xua l a ct ivi ty w ithhim . S ee Murr el l, 368 F . 3d at 12 87. T he f ac t tha t the se ne got ia tio ns 1 invo lved the purpo rted m other of the m inor and no t the m inor herself is if no legal sig nif ic an ce und er

§ 24 22( b) . S ee id. a t 12 86. T he a ge nts a lso ha d in fo rm at ion that B ole n to ok a

sub stanti al ste p to w ar d th e co m m iss ionof

the of fe nse , in that he ar range d m ee tin g w iththe pur porte d m oth er

and the m ino r an d arr ive d a t the m ee tin g si te a t the pl an ne d ti m e. B ec au se the a ge nts ha d pr oba ble c au se to ar

re st Bo le n, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing Bo le n’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s ev id en ce. N ex t, Bo le n arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing Bo le n’ s m oti on t o dism iss the ind ictm ent as he never c omm unicated with a m inor or an undercover officer posin g as a m inor. Whe the r anind ic tm en t su ff ic ie ntl y a lle ge s astatut or ily

pr osc ri be d of

fe nse is a que sti on o f lawthat w e re vie wde nov o. U nit ed S ta te s v. S te el e, 178 F . 3d 1 230, 1233 (11th Cir. 1999). An indictm ent is sufficient if it (1) pre sents the essential8

el em en ts o f the c harg ed

of fe nse , ( 2) not if

ie s th e ac cu se d of

the c harg es to be de fe nde d a ga ins t, and ( 3) e nable s th e ac cu se d to r el y upo n aj udgm en t un de r the ind ic tm en t a s abar ag ai nst double j eo pardy

f or any sub se que nt p ro se cu tio n f or the sa m e of fe nse . I d. a t 12 33- 34. T his r ule “put s th e de fe ndant o n no tic e of ‘ the na tur e an d c au se of

the a cc usa tio n a s r equir ed by the S ixth A m en dm en t of the Co nst itu tio n . . . [ an d] it

f ulf ill s th e Fi fth A m en dm en t’ s in dic tm en t r equir em en t, en sur ing that a

gr an d j ur y onl y r et ur n an in dic tm en t w he n it

f ind s pr oba

ble c au se to s uppo rt

a ll the ne ce ssary

e le m en ts o f the c ri m e. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. F er

n, 155 F. 3d 13 18, 1325 (citation o m itted). Here t he in di ct m en t, t ha t ch arg edBo le n, t rack edth e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. Sp ec if ic al ly , it c harg ed him w ith“ usi ng a

f ac ili ty and m eans o f int er state co m m er ce , that i s ac om

put er c onne ct ed

to the I nte rn et , a tte m

pte d kn ow ing ly

to pe rs ua de , ind

uc e, e nti ce , and c oe rc e anind ivi dua l w ho h ad not a tta ine d th e ag e of 18 y ears to en ga ge in pr ohi bit ed se xua l c ondu ct , that i s c hil d m ole statio n . . . , in vio la tio n of

T itl e 18, U nit ed

S ta te s C ode , S ec tio n 24 22( b) . ” Co m pari ng the ind ic tm en t t o th e ch ar ge d st at ute of vio la tio n, it

is cl ear that the ind ic tm en t suf fi ci en tly a lle ge d e ac h e le m en t of

the of fe nse , that i s, ( 1) usi ng a

f ac ili ty of int er state c om

m er ce , ( 2) in ana tte m

pt, ( 3) to know ing ly

ind uc e anind ivi dua l w ho had not attained th e age of 18 y ears, (4) to engage in illegal sexual activity . See9

18 U . S. C. § 24 22( b) . B ec au se the ind ic tm en t su ff ic ie ntl y a lle ge d e ac h e le m en t of the of fe nse , it ( 1) pr ovi de d a de qua te not ic e of the c harg e, ( 2) e nable d B ole n to r el y uponthe j udgm en t un de r the ind ic tm en t a s abar ag ai nst double j eo pardy , and ( 3) ensured that the grand jury found prob able cause to support all the necessary elem ents. Se e Stee le, 178 F.3d at 1233 -34; Fern, 155 F.3d at 1325. Further, as dis cu sse d a

bove , any f ind ing of pr oba ble c au se doe s no t c onst itu te le ga l e rr or he re . A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in de ny ing Bo le n’ s m oti on t o d i s mi s s th e i n d i c tmen tf

o r i n s u f f i c i e n c y. La st, Bolen ar gues that, in the event the Suprem e Court rules in United St at es v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. ___ , 125 S . Ct . 738 ( 2005 ), that the F ed er al S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, or

e nhanc em en ts the re unde r, are unc onst itu tio na l, thi s c as e shou ld b e rem an de d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r res en te nc in g i n a cco rd an ce wi th th e ru li ng . H ow ev er , Bo le n si gne d an a ppe al w ai ve r that barr ed

appe al of his se nte nc e unl es s the dis tr ic t c ourt de part ed upw ar d. W e upho ld a

ppe al w ai ve rs a s va lid

if the y are kno w ing ly

and v oluntari ly en te re d. U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bu ch an an , 131 F . 3d 1 005, 100 8 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) ( ci tin g United States v. Bushert, 997 F. 2d 13 43, 1350 (11t h Cir. 1993 )); see also United St at es v. Be nit ez -Z ap at a, 131 F . 3d 1 444, 144 6 ( 11th C ir . 1997 ) (“ W ai ve r w ill be en fo rc ed if the gov er

nm en t de m onstrate s e ith er : ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt sp ec if ic al ly10

que sti one d th e de fe ndant a bout the w ai ve r dur ing the ple a co llo quy , or ( 2) the record c learly

shows that the defendant otherwise understoodthe full signi ficance of the wa iver.” ). Rec ently , w e explained that “ the right to appeal a sentence based on Apprendi/ Book er grounds can be wa ived in a plea agreem ent. B road wa iver langua ge c ove rs tho se gr ound s of appe al . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ru

bbo, 396 F . 3d 1330 , 1335 (11th Cir. 2005) (dism issin g the appeal because the broad appeal wa iver provision precluded defendant from raising sentencing issues arising u nder Appr en di/ Bo oke r lin e of

c as es on a

ppe al , and r ej ec tin g th e ar gum en t tha t those iss ue s f el l w ith in an e xc ep tio n to the appe al w ai ve r in the w ri tte n pl ea a gr ee m en t fo r se nte nc es above “ statut or y m ax im um ” be ca use the part ie s in te nde d th at te rm to have its ordinary

m eaning, nam ely , a

sentence above the m axim um in the United St at es Co de , not

the te rm -o f- ar

t de fi nit ionde ve lop ed

in the Appr en di/ Bl ak el y

li ne of c as es ); se e al so Unit ed

S ta te s v. G ri nard -H en ry , 399 F . 3d 1 294, 129 6- 97 ( 11th Ci r. 200 5) ( de ny ing the m oti on t o r ec onsi de r dis m iss al of the appe al be ca

use the ap pe al w ai ve r w as kno w ing and v oluntary , the ge ne ra l a ppe al w ai ve r langua ge br oa d e noug h to inc lud e anAppr en di/ Bl ak el y /B ooke r cl ai m , and the c la im did not fall w ithin an exception to an appeal waiver for “ a sentence in violation of the law ap artfro m

th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ”).11

He re, the broad appeal wa iver provision in the plea agreem ent encom passes th e so le sen te nc in g i ss ue ari si ng un de r th e App ren di /B la ke ly/Bo ok er l in e o f cas es . Se e Ru bbo, 396 F . 3d at 13 35. T he onl y e xc ep tio ns t o th e ap pe al w ai ve r pr ovi sio n that wer e provided in th e plea agr eem ent relate to Bolen’ s right to app eal an upw ar d de part

ur e fr om the appl ic ab le gui de lin e range and the a dve rs e de te rm inatio ns o f his m oti on t o su ppr es s e vid en ce and h is m oti on t o di sm iss the indictm ent. B olen’ s Booker argum ent, then, does not s atisfy any of the specified ex ce pti ons to the w ai ve r. Mo re ove r, be ca use Bo le n ( 1) ha s no t arg ue d inhis ap pe llate br ie f that the w ai ve r w as not va lid be ca use it w as not kno w ing and vol unt ar y , ( 2) f ai le d to have his ple a co llo quy tr an sc ri be d f

or ac ourt de te rm inatio n of w he the r the w ai ve r w as kno w ing and v oluntary , and ( 3) f ai le d to f ile ar ep ly brief in re spon se to the governm ent’ s contentio n that his Boo ker ar gum ent was w ai ve d by

the te rm s of

his ple a ag re em en t, w e co nc lud e that the w ai ve r m ust be uphe ld. S ee L or env. S as se r, 309 F . 3d 1 296, 130 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( hol din g, in the context of a civil proceeding, that we m ust affirm the district court when an appellant fails to provi de all the evidence that the district court had before it w hen m ak ing c ont es te d r

uli ngs, r el y ing on F ed . R. App. P. 10( b) (2 ), w hic h pr ovi de s th at if anappe llant i nte nds to urg e on a ppe al that a

c onc lus ionis unsu

ppor te d by the evidence, the a

ppellant m

ust inclu de in the record a transcript of all evidence12

re le vant t o th at

c onc lus ion ). T hus, Bo le n ha s w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o a ppe al his se nte nc e unde r Bo oke r. A s su ch , w e dis m iss Bo le n’ s se nte nc e ap pe al .

AF FIRMED in partand D ISMISS ED in part.