[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-11904

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00014-MW-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRANDON EDWARD SIMMONS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(February 4, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 1 of 7 
2

Brandon Edward Simmons appeals his conviction for attempted enticement 

of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 

Simmons raises multiple claims of error. First, he contends the evidence was 

insufficient to show that he believed he was communicating with a minor or that he 

attempted to entice her to in engage in sexual activity. Simmons also argues the 

Government entrapped him and otherwise engaged in “outrageous conduct” 

throughout its investigation. Finally, Simmons also challenges the district court’s 

admission of certain evidence. Upon review, we reject Simmons’ arguments and 

affirm his conviction.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence1

In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, 

Simmons points to a number of facts he contends undermine the Government’s 

case. For example, Simmons argues a text message he sent on his way to meet 

“Rebecca,” the fictitious “victim” invented by the Government as part of its 

investigation, demonstrates that he did not believe she was a minor. Specifically,

Simmons set “Rebecca” a text that read, “I’m just surprised that you’re 18 and you 

still haven’t had sex.” He also points to an adults-only notice posted on the 

website through which he communicated with “Rebecca.” However, in their 

 1 We review de novo whether evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, drawing all 

reasonable factual inferences from the evidence in favor of the verdict. United States v. Beckles, 

565 F.3d 832, 840 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 2 of 7 
3

second communication, “Rebecca” told Simmons that she was 14 years old and 

asked whether that was okay. Simmons responded that it was and that he 

“connect[ed] better with younger people.” On various occasions, Simmons also 

asked “Rebecca” why she was not in school at a given time, what grade she was 

in,2

or why she was up so late. These facts provided a sufficient basis for the 

jury’s finding that Simmons believed “Rebecca” was a minor. The countervailing 

facts Simmons emphasizes show merely that the jury might have reached other 

reasonable results. They do not show that no reasonable jury could have convicted

Simmons, which is the standard required for a sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

challenge. Id. at 840-41.

Similar reasoning applies to Simmons argument that the evidence was 

insufficient to show that he attempted to entice “Rebecca.” Simmons suggests that 

evidence shows that “Rebecca” was, in fact, enticing him rather than the other way 

around. However, early in their communications, “Rebecca” expressed concern 

about her age and sexual inexperience. Simmons assured “Rebecca” that her age 

was not a problem and that he would “love to help teach” her about sex. These

sorts of assurances are a sufficient form of enticement under § 2422(b). See United 

States v. Yost, 479 F.3d 815, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, even if other 

reasonable interpretations of the evidence were impossible, Simmons has not 

 2 “Rebecca” told Simmons that she was in eighth grade.

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 3 of 7 
4

shown that a reasonable jury could not have convicted him beyond a reasonable 

doubt, and his sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument thus fails.

B. Entrapment & Outrageous Conduct

An entrapment defense requires (1) government inducement of the crime

and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to commit the crime before the 

inducement. United States v. Orisnord, 483 F.3d 1169, 1178 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Because Simmons did not present entrapment or outrageous-conduct arguments to 

the district court or rely them his motion for a judgment of acquittal, we review for 

plain error.3

 United States v. Hunerlach, 197 F.3d 1059, 1068 (11th Cir. 1999).

Simmons’ entrapment arguments fail because he has done no more than 

show “the government’s mere suggestion of a crime or initiation of contact[, 

which] is not enough.” United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 623 (11th Cir. 1995). 

Simmons’ Internet posting advertised his desire to participate in someone’s first 

sexual experience, and when the Government responded as “Rebecca” and asked at 

the outset whether it was okay that she was only 14 years old, Simmons responded 

that he was “not concerned over age.” Simmons expressed enthusiasm at the 

prospect of “teach[ing]” “Rebecca,” a fourteen year old, about sex in response to 

her concerns about her inexperience. Thus, while the Government provided the 

 3 Plain error requires (1) an error, (2) that was plain, (3) affecting substantial rights, and 

(4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 

United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1276 (11th Cir. 2007).

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 4 of 7 
5

opportunity for Simmons to commit a crime, the evidence nevertheless 

demonstrated Simmons’ own criminal predisposition, and Simmons cannot show 

that this predisposition was the product of anything amounting to “excessive 

pressure or manipulation of a non-criminal motive.” See id.; see also Jacobson v. 

United States, 503 U.S. 540, 549-50 (1992) (“[W]here the defendant is simply 

provided with the opportunity to commit a crime, the entrapment defense is of little 

use because the ready commission of the criminal act amply demonstrates the 

defendant’s predisposition.”)

Simmons’ claim of “outrageous conduct” is similarly unavailing. As a 

preliminary matter, we have “never acknowledged the existence of the outrageous 

government conduct doctrine,” United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1111 

(11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 29 (2012), so it is doubtful that the district 

court’s failure to overturn Simmons’ conviction based on outrageous government 

conduct could constitute plain error. More fundamentally, Simmons has not shown 

that the Government’s conduct was outrageous. Simmons’ argument that the 

Government acted outrageously, which largely echoes his entrapment argument, 

does not show any conduct that violates “fundamental fairness” or is “shocking to 

[a] universal sense of justice.” United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 432 (1973) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, this argument also fails.

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 5 of 7 
6

C. Evidentiary Objections

Last, Simmons argues the district court’s admission of an exhibit consisting 

of six-pages of notes of the police’s post-arrest interview with Simmons was a 

prejudicial abuse of discretion.4

 Simmons argues the interview notes, taken on a 

prepared form, prejudiced him because they (1) suggested that Simmons spoke 

with an actual child, (2) implied that Simmons lied because some of the answers 

written contradicted each other, and (3) contained references to child pornography 

even though there was no evidentiary connection between Simmons and any 

pornographic material.

Assuming the district court admitted the interview notes in error, this error 

was harmless. The notes contained no incriminating evidence beyond the 

otherwise-admissible answers Simmons gave in his post-arrest interview. The 

notes’ reference to “Rebecca” as a “child” was not prejudicial because, given the 

overall evidence, there was little chance the notes would cause the jury to believe 

an actual child was involved in the case. Similarly, the references to child 

pornography were likely not prejudicial, because the notes specifically indicate that 

Simmons said he did not possess any child pornography. Last, there is no 

 4 We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Duran, 596 

F.3d 1283, 1296 (11th Cir. 2010), and apply the harmless-error standard, United States v. 

Henderson, 409 F.3d 1293, 1300 (11th Cir. 2005). An erroneous evidentiary ruling is prejudicial 

(or not harmless) when it “ha[s] a substantial influence on the outcome of a case or leave[s] 

grave doubt as to whether [it] affected the outcome of a case.” United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 

1244, 1266 n.20 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 6 of 7 
7

indication that the unspecified contradictions the notes attributed to Simmons 

undermined his credibility and thereby substantially influenced the outcome of the 

case. Consequently, nothing about the admission the exhibit calls the verdict into 

grave doubt, and any error in its admission was harmless. See Henderson, 409 

F.3d at 1300.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-11904 Date Filed: 02/04/2014 Page: 7 of 7