FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 12, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14825 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 0 4 0 - CR - J LK U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N D R E S R O J A S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A ugus t12, 2005)

B efo re B L A C K , D U B IN A an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A n d r e s R o

ja s ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o ru s in g af

a c ilityo f in te r s ta te com m er ce t o ent i ce a per son u nd er18 ye ar s of a ge t o eng age i n cri m i nal se xu al c o n ta c t, in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 ( b ) . R o ja s a s s e rts 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 ( b ) is unc ons t i tut i ona l l yvoi d f orva gue ne s s , be c aus e : ( 1) i tf a i l s t o c l e a r l yde f

i ne the pr os c r i be d c onduc t ; ( 2) m ul t i pl e us e s of the w or d “ a ny ” c aus e the s t a tut e t o be a mb i g u o u s ; a n d ( 3 ) th e s t a tu t e i mp l i e s th e r e q u i r e me n tth e o f f e n s e i n v o l v e s s o me form of transpo rt at i on i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . R oj as al so cont ends the di stri ct c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b yp e rm ittin g th e G o v e rn m e n t to in tr o d u c e , p u r s u a n t to F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 404( b) , unc ha r ge d “ ba d” a c t s s uc h a s c onve r s a t i ons R oj a s ha d w i th a nothe runde r - a ge d f e m a l e I nt e rne tus e r . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not e rr , a nd w e a f

f i rm R oj a s ’ s c onvi c t i on.

I . DI S C US S I ON A. 18 U

. S. C . § 2422(

b) T he i nt erpret at i on of the const i tut i on al i ty of § 24 22 (b) i s aqu es t i on of l aw s u b je c t to d e n o v o r e v ie w . See U n ite d S ta tes v . P a n

fil , 3 3 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). S ect i o n 2 4 2 2 (b ) p ro v i d es i n rel ev an tp artas fo l l o w s: W h o e v e r , u s in g . . . a n yf a c ilityo rm e a n s o f

in te r s ta te . . . c o m m e r c e , . . . k n o w i n g l y p ersu ad es, i n d u ces, en t i ces, o r co erces any i nd i vi du al w ho has n o t a tta in e d th e a g e o f

1 8 y e a r s , to e n g a g e in . . . anys e xua l a c t i vi tyf or w hi c h anype r s on c a n be c ha r ge d w i th ac r i m i na l of f e ns e , ora tt e m pt s t o do so , sh al l b e . . . i m p ri so n ed n o tl ess th an 5 years an d n o tm o re th an 3 0 years.3

18 U . S . C . § 2 42 2(b) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). “ T he vo i d-for- vagu enes s doctri ne re qu i re s thata penal st atut e ‘ defi ne the cr i m i nal offe nse w i th suffi ci entdefi ni t enes s that ordi narypeop l e c an un ders t and w hatcond ucti s prohi bi t ed and i n a m anner that do es no tencourage arbi traryand d i sc ri m i nat ory e nforcement. ’ ” U ni ted States v. M a r te , 35 6 F . 3d 13 36 , 13 42 (11th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). W e r ec ent l y hel d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 42 2(b) w as no tun const i tut i on al l y overbroad o rv a g u e . P a n

fil , 338 F . 3d a t1301. I n P a n fil , the de f

e nda nt , l i ke R oj a s , us e d the I n te rn e t to p e r s u a d e a n a g e n t, w h o w a s p o s in g a s a1 3 - y e a r - o ldg ir l, to m e e t h im to e n g a g e in s e x u a l a c tiv ity . I d. a t1300. T he de f

e nda nti n P a n

fil a s s e rt e d 1 8 U . S. C. § 2422( b) w a s unc ons t i tut i ona l l yove rbr oa d a nd va gue byr e l y i ng on R eno v. ACLU, 117 S . C t . 2329 ( 1997) , i n w hi c h the S upr e m e C ourti nva l i da t e d pr ovi s i ons of the C om m uni c a t i ons D e c e nc yA c t( C D A ) , 47 U . S . C . §§ 223 e t s e q. P a n

fil , 338 F . 3d a t1301. I n R e no , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt ru le d b e c au s e th e C D A “e f f e c tiv e ly s u p p r e s s e [ d ] ala r g e a m o u n t o f s p e e c h th a t a d u lts h a v e ac o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to r e c e i ve a nd t o a ddr e s s t o one a nothe r , ” the C D A m i ghtpr ohi bi tapa r e ntf r om s e n d in g c o n tr a c e p tiv e in f o rm a tio n o v e rth e in te rn e t to h is te e n a g e r . R e no , 1 1 7 S. C t . a t2346–48. I n rul i ng the C D A w a s ove rbr oa d, the S upr e m e C ourtf oc us e d on the t e rm s “ i nde c e nt ” a nd “ pa t e nt l yof f e ns i ve , ” w hi c h the C ourtf ound w e r e not4

s pe c i f i c a l l yde f i ne d s o tha ts uc h t e rm s e nc om pa s s e d m a t e r i a l w i th s e r i ous e d u c a tio n a l a n d o th e rv a lu e . R e no , 1 1 7 S . C t. a t 2 3 4 7 . S i m i l a r l y , the de f

e nda nti n P a n

fil c ont e nde d be c aus e the t e rm s “ e nt i c e ” a nd

“ i n d u ce” u sed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 4 2 2 (b ) w ere n o td efi n ed i n t ern al l y o r b y cro ssr e f e r e n c e , th e s ta tu te h a d ac h illin g e f f e c t o n th o s e w h o w is h to e n g a g e in le g itim a te s p e e c h w ith m in o r s o n s e x u a l to p ic s . P a n fil , 3 3 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 1 . H o w e v e r , w e h e ld§ 2 4 2 2 ( b ) d idn o t s u f f e rf r o m th e s a m e c o n s titu tio n a l in f irm ity a s the C D A be c aus e i n § 2422( b) “ [ t ] he w or ds ‘ e nt i c e ’ a nd ‘ i nduc e ’ [ w e r e ] not am bi gu ou s or s ubj ec tt o v aryi ng st andards. ” I d. T he de f e nda nti n P a n

fil a l s o a s s e rt e d 18 U . S . C . § 2422( b) w a s voi d f or vagu enes s. H e argued “ the sam e f ai l ure t o d ef

i ne ‘ ent i ce ’ and ‘ i nd uce, ’ as w el l as ‘s e x u a l a c tiv ityf

o rw h ic h a n yp e r s o n c a n b e c h a r g e d w ith ac r im in a l o f f e n s e ’ le [ f t] ordi naryci t i ze ns t o g uess atw hatcom m un i ca t i on s w ou l d con st i tut e i l l egal ent i ce m entor i nd ucem ent . ” I d. I n r e s pons e , w e he l d the t e rm s c i t e d bythe de f e nda nti n P a n

fil had p l ai n and ordi narym eani ng and the st atut e di sc ou ra ged u n scru p u l o u s en fo rcem en tb y en su ri n g “ th ato n l y th o se w h o ‘ k n o w i n g l y’ engage[d] i n the i l l egal cond uctar e s ubj ec tt o p rose cut i on . ” I d. S ec t i on 24 22 (b) i s notun const i tut i on al l y vague. T he st atut e c l earl y s t at es th e p r o s c r ib e d c o n d u c t, a s a d m itte d to b yR o ja s , a s u s in g af

a c ilityo f in te r s ta te5

com m er ce t o ent i ce a per son u nd er18 ye ar s of a ge t o eng age i n cri m i nal se xu al c ont a c t . R e ga r di ng the i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e r e qui r e m e nt , R oj a s s t i pul a t e d a nd agre ed thatthe “ Int erneti s afa ci l i ty or m eans of i nt er st at e and fore i gn com m er ce . ” T he m ul t i pl e us e s of

the w or d “ a ny ” w i thi n 18 U . S . C . § 2422( b) do notr e nde rthe st atut e uncon st i tut i on al l y vague. E ven tho ug h the P a n fil de f e ndantf oc us e d on the w ords “ ent i ce ” and “ i nd uce” i n argui ng the st atut e w as un const i tut i on al l y vague, w e di s m i s s e d the de f

e nda nt ’ s a r gum e ntbyhol di ng the phr a s e “ s e xua l a c t i vi tyf or w hi ch any pers on can b e c harged w i th a cr i m i nal offe nse” di sc ou ra ges u n s c ru p u lo u s e n f

o r c e m e n t b ye n s u r in g “o n lyth o s e w h o ‘k n o w in g ly ’ e n g a g e [ d ] in the i l l egal cond uctar e s ubj ec tt o p rose cut i on . ” Se e P a n fil , 3 3 8 F . 3 d a t1 3 0 1 . At tr i a l , R oj a s s t a t e d he r e c ogni z e d the bounda r i e s of the l a w r e ga r di ng the l e ga l i tyof o r a l s e x b e tw e e n h im a n d a1 3 - y e a r - o ldg ir l. Se e M a r te , 3 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 2 . M or e ove r , R oj a s a c know l e dge d ha vi ng s e x w i th am i nori s i l l e ga l . T he us e s of

“ a ny ” i n the s t a tut e de f

i ne the c r i m i na l of

f e ns e w i th s uf

f i c i e ntde f

i ni t e ne s s by s ta tin g w h o is s u b

je c t to th e s ta tu te a n d w h a t c o n d u c t is p r o h ib ite d . Se e P a n fil , 338 F . 3d a t1301. T he m a nne ri n w hi c h the othe rus e s of “ a ny ” a r e us e d doe s not e n c o u r a g e a rb itr a rya n d d is c r im in a to rye n f o r c e m e n t s in c e th e s ta tu te ap p lie s o n ly to th o s e w h o “k n o w in g ly ” e n g a g e in th e ille g a l c o n d u c t. Se e i d.Fe deral Rule of Evidence 403 provides, “[ a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded 1 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice , confusion of the issue s, or mis le ading the jur y, or by c on siderations of undue de lay, wa ste of ti me, or nee dle ss presentation of cumulative evidence .” 6 B. R ule 404(

b) W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ru l i n g s o n ad m i ssi o n o f ev i d en ce fo r an ab u se o f d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . H

e nde rs on , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . F e de r a l R ul e of

E vi de nc e 404( b) “ i s arul e of i nc l us i on, a nd . . . a c c or di ngl y404( b) e v id e n c e , lik e o th e rr e le v a n t e v id e n c e , s h o u ldn o t b e e x c lu d e d w h e n it is c e n tr a l to the prosecut i on ’ s c as e. ” U ni te d State s v . J

e rni gan , 34 1 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 80 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e ru le s ta te s : E vi de nc e of

othe rc r i m e s , w r ongs , ora c t s i s nota dm i s s i bl e t o pr ove th e c h a r a c te ro f

ap e r s o n in o r d e rto s h o w a c tio n in c o n f o rm ity there w i th. Itm ay , ho w ever , be adm i ss i bl e f or other purpo se s, such as proo f of m ot i ve, op po rtun i ty, i nt ent , preparat i on , pl an, kn ow l edge, id e n tity , o rab s e n c e o f

m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t . . . . F e d. R . E vi d. 404( b) . W e ha ve e s t abl i s he d tha t , t o be a dm i s s i bl e : ( 1) R ul e 404( b) e vi de nc e m us tbe r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue othe rtha n the de f e nda nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r ; ( 2) the pr i ora c tm us tbe pr ove d s uf f i c i e nt l yt o pe rm i taj uryde t e rm i na t i on the de f e nda nt c o m m itte d th e a c t; a n d ( 3 ) th e e v id e n c e ’s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e c a n n o t b e s u b s ta n tia lly outw e i ghe d byi t s undue pr e j udi c e , a nd i tm us ts a t i s f yR ul e 403. J

e rni gan , 341 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 .7

R e g a r d in g th e f

ir s t p r o n g , s im ila r ityo f

e x tr in s ic a c ts to th e o f

f e n s e s w ith w hi ch the defendanti s c harged i s the st andard by w hi ch re l evancyi s m ea sure d u n d e r4 0 4 ( b ) . Un i te d

S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 8 1 6 F .2 d 1 5 2 7 , 1 5 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . R egar di ng the thi rd pron g, w e have s t at ed, “ the prob at i ve val ue of the evi dence m ustno tbe substan t i al l y outw ei gh ed byunf a i rpr e j udi c e . . . . [ T ] hi s de t e rm i na t i on l i es w i th i n th e so u n d d i scret i o n o f th e d i stri ctj u d g e an d cal l s fo r a co m m o n sen se a s s e s s m e ntof

a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s s urr oundi ng the e xtr i ns i c of f e ns e , i nc l udi ng prosec ut ori al need, ov er al l si m i l ar i ty betw ee n the extri nsi c a ctand the charged offe nse, as w el l as t em po ra l re m ot enes s. ” J e rni gan , 34 1 F . 3d at12 82 (i nt ernal ci t at i on s and qu ot at i on s om i tt ed) ( em ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng e vi de nc e of R oj as ’ s c hat s w i th ano ther und er -a ged Int ernetuser , m ar i am i agi rl . T he evi dence w as re l evantt o sho w R oj as ’ s i nt entt o eng age i n sexual ac t i vi ty w i th an u nd er -a ged gi rl si nce, as adm i tt ed by R oj as , he kn ew atthe t i m e thatm ar i am i agi rl w as 14 ye ar s ol d, a nd he ha d a s ke d m a r i a m i a gi r l s om e of the s a m e s e xua l l - e xpl i c i tque s t i ons th a t h e h a d a s k e d lis a

_ n

_ m ia m i. Se e J e rni gan , 341 F . 3d a t1280. M or e ove r , the evi dence, as a pri or ac t , w as suff i ci ent l y proved t o p erm i ta j ury det erm i nat i on that R oj a s c om m uni c a t e d w i th m a r i a m i a gi r l i n the s a m e w a ya nd m a nne rhe com m un i ca t ed w i th l i sa_n _m i am i si nce the A gentac t i ng as m ar i am i agi rl t es t i fi ed8

to th e c o m m u n ic a tio n w ith R o ja s , th e A g e n t p r e s e n te d p r in to u ts o f h is c om m uni c a t i on w i th R oj a s , a nd R oj a s a dm i tt e d t o a s ki ng m a r i a m i a gi r l s om e of the s a m e s e x u a llye x p lic it q u e s tio n s h e h a d a s k e d lis a

_ n

_ m ia m i. Se e J e rni gan , 341 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 . L a s tly , th e e v id e n c e ’s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e w a s n o t s u b s ta n tia lly ou tw ei gh ed by i t s und ue prej ud i ce si nce the evi dence w as si m i l art o R oj as ’ s i l l egal c onduc tw i th l i s a_n_m i a m i , a nd s i nc e R oj a s s t a t e d i n hi s de f e ns e he w a s not lo o k in g f o ru n d e r - a g e d g ir ls o n th e I n te rn e t, w a s n o t p ic tu r in g a n u n d e r - a g e d g ir l in hi s hea d, and h ad no i nt ent i on of engagi ng i n sexual cond uctw i th an u nd er -a ged g ir l. T h u s , th e e v id e n c e w a s n e e d e d b yth e p r o s e c u tio n to s h o w R o ja s ’s in te n t to h a v e s e x u a l c o n ta c t w ith u n d e r - a g e d g ir ls . Se e J e rni gan , 3 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0

– 8 2 . I I . C ON C L US I ON W e c onc l ude 18 U . S . C . § 2422( b) i s notunc ons t i tut i ona l l yvoi d f or vagu enes s. A dd i t i on al l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n adm i tt i ng as evi dence c o n v e r s a tio n s R o

ja s h a d w ith a n o th e ru n d e r - a g e d f e m a le I n te rn e t u s e r . AF F I R ME D.