Court Opinion

ID: 9408582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 14:00:44.160989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.834000
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10164    Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 1 of 41

                                                              [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10164
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        EDWARD WALKER,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20087-AHS-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1    Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 2 of 41

        2                      Opinion of the Court               22-10164

                           ____________________

                                  No. 22-10782
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        EDWARD WALKER,

                                                      Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cr-20087-AHS-1
                           ____________________

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and HULL, Circuit
        Judges.
        HULL, Circuit Judge:
               Defendant Edward Walker, a pimp, transported three
        young women from Connecticut to Miami, Florida for his
        prostitution business shortly before Super Bowl LIV. Following a
        jury trial, Walker was convicted of three sex-trafficking-related
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 3 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                        3

        crimes: (1) sex trafficking of an adult (Juanita Barr) by coercion
        (Count 1); (2) sex trafficking of a person (A.H.) who is a minor and
        alternatively of a person (A.H.) by coercion (Count 2); and
        (3) transporting a person (Simone King) to engage in sexual activity
        (Count 3). In a special verdict form as to A.H., the jury found
        Walker guilty on Count 2 on both of the alternative liability
        theories: minor status and coercion.
               On appeal, Walker challenges his convictions on Counts 1
        and 2, but not on Count 3. As to Barr in Count 1, Walker argues
        there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he coerced
        Barr into engaging in prostitution. As to A.H. in Count 2, Walker
        does not challenge his conviction on the minor status theory.
        Rather, Walker asserts that the government’s failure to disclose
        properly expert testimony—about how pimps use romantic
        relationships to coerce women to prostitute—requires that his
        Count 2 conviction on the coercion theory as to A.H. be vacated.
               After review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
        conclude (1) there was ample evidence to support Walker’s
        coercion conviction in Count 1, and (2) as to Count 2, Walker did
        not challenge the government’s amended notice of its expert
        testimony in the district court, plain error review thus applies, and
        Walker has not shown any alleged error in the notice prejudiced
        him on the coercion conviction. We thus affirm Walker’s
        challenged convictions.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 4 of 41

        4                     Opinion of the Court                  22-10164

                          I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
               The following facts are based on witness testimony and the
        exhibits admitted during Walker’s October 2021 jury trial.
        A.    Pimping and Prostitution Generally
               As background to the testimony of several witnesses,
        Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) Special Agent Alex Loﬀ
        explained pimping and prostitution generally.
               A “date” is a commercial sex act. There are typically two
        ways prostitutes ﬁnd customers for dates: (1) posting online
        advertisements and (2) walking the street or “blade,” which is
        another word for “the street that girls typically walk up and down
        to solicit commercial sex acts.”
              “A pimp is a [sex] traﬃcker who is more or less the leader of
        the group.” Pimps “are responsible for directing . . . things like
        how to engage customers, how to speak with them, [and] all the
        various activities of the girls in order to make money.”
               Usually, a pimp will recruit prostitutes by ﬁnding them on
        diﬀerent online platforms, such as MeetMe, Facebook, or
        Instagram. The pimp will either (1) transparently state he is a pimp
        and ask the individual to work for him or (2) use deception, such as
        “pretend[ing] to have a romantic interest in” the girl.
              If the pimp uses the guise of a romantic relationship,
        generally
              the pimp will build this future life goal with the
              victim[,] so they’ll talk about all these plans that they
USCA11 Case: 22-10164       Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 5 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                          5

               have, these travels, this luxurious lifestyle, and it will
               slowly develop [in]to, if we’re going to achieve those
               goals, we need to make money; and the only way we
               can make that money is if [the victim] engage[s] in
               these commercial sex acts.
                If a pimp has more than one prostitute under his control, he
        will have a “bottom,” which is short for “bottom bitch.” The
        bottom is the individual who is responsible for (1) organizing the
        other prostitutes, (2) recruiting new women to join the pimp’s
        group of prostitutes, (3) collecting money and posting
        advertisements for the prostitutes, and (4) doing whatever else the
        pimp delegates. In other words, the bottom is a pimp’s “main girl
        that makes the money” and tells other women what to do. A
        bottom can be charged criminally along with the pimp in sex
        trafficking cases, but a bottom also can be a victim of sex trafficking.
        We now turn to Walker and his three victims.
        B.     Walker and Victim A.H.
               Defendant Walker lived in Connecticut and worked as a
        truck driver. In 2018, Walker, at age 44 or 45, met A.H., a 15-year-
        old runaway, “out in society” by the roadside at “a really weird
        location [in] East Hartford.” A.H. is the minor victim in Count 2.
               Walker seduced A.H. into a romantic and sexual
        relationship, moved her into his house, and began to hire her out
        for prostitution. On Walker’s phone, both the lock screen and the
        home screen had a photo of him and A.H. Walker’s contact name
        for A.H. in his phone was “Wife at home.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164           Document: 72-1        Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 6 of 41

        6                            Opinion of the Court                22-10164

               Prior to their Miami trip, Walker and A.H. advertised A.H.
        on prostitution websites and hired her out for $160 for a half hour,
        of which Walker took at least half. The record is replete with
        instances—especially text messages—of Walker manipulating A.H.
        to engage in commercial sex acts in order to meet his and A.H.’s
        material needs. For example, in October 2019, Walker texted A.H.,
        “Baby did you try posting out calls? It is friday?!” An out-call is
        when the prostitute goes to the customer’s residence.
               A.H. replied, “That’s all I do everyday all day and everyone
        asks for incall.” An in-call is when the customer comes to the
        prostitute’s residence. Walker answered, “Take some. We cant
        starve and die.”
               A.H. was also Walker’s bottom and actively recruited other
        women to join Walker’s small prostitution ring. For example, in
        October 2019, A.H. texted Walker, “Think I found a p101 ready at
        the store.” This text indicated A.H. found “a person who [was]
        ready for an intro[duction] into pimping,” meaning “a girl who
        would be directed to work and engage in commercial sex acts by a
        pimp.” Walker texted A.H., “Your [sic] my wife, who teaches
        others our game.” 1
        C.        Victim Simone King
              Simone King is the victim in the Count 3 conviction that
        Walker does not challenge on appeal. However, the recruitment
        and prostitution of King is interwoven with that of A.H. and Barr.

        1   “Game” refers to “the lifestyle of pimping.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 7 of 41

        22-10164              Opinion of the Court                        7

               Around May 2019, Walker recruited King (age 18) on
        MeetMe. Walker asked King if she wanted to meet and get
        “[s]ituated,” to which she replied she was open to meeting,
        provided there was no sex involved. Walker responded, “Oh wait
        that’s what escorting is about, my bad, I thought you understood.
        Pardon me, have a great day, and [a] great summer.”
               King said, “I’m ﬁne with it. It’s just I was asking because I
        didn’t know escort was also prostitute.” Walker replied, “We are a
        family style unit, no disrespecting or demeaning, you know?!”
        Walker also mentioned A.H., calling her his “girl.” Walker told
        King that A.H. would be reaching out to her.
               Walker and A.H. groomed King to work for Walker. When
        A.H. texted King, A.H. conﬁrmed that (1) Walker was her “man”
        and (2) the women who worked for him “service[d] men for
        money.” King asked a few questions, such as whether the work was
        hard, how much money they make, and whether the men were
        clean. A.H. explained, “It can range from $400-800 a day,
        depending on how motivated you are. And we use condoms.
        Nothing we oﬀer is unprotected.” A.H. also said that they “live[d]
        a lavish lifestyle.”
               Eventually, King moved in with Walker and A.H. in their
        house. Walker and A.H. taught King all about prostitution, and
        King began to “service men for money.” Walker and A.H. set the
        prices for King’s sex work. King gave all her earnings from her sex
        work to Walker and A.H. “[b]ecause [she] was living there,
        and [she] felt like . . . [she] had to chip in all the way.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 8 of 41

        8                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10164

                Because King had no car and no driver’s license, King would
        either take an Uber or have Walker or A.H. drive her to her
        out-calls. Walker ensured A.H. and King had condoms for their
        dates. For example, in September 2019, A.H. told Walker that
        King’s date had arrived, and Walker asked, “You guys are str8 with
        condoms for this date correct?!” Walker also instructed King not
        to talk to the police if they were ever arrested to ensure they “didn’t
        get in trouble.”
               While King lived with Walker and A.H., King slept in a
        separate room. At one point, though, Walker suggested that he
        join King and A.H., who were sleeping in King’s room, but A.H.
        said no. Walker told King, “[A.H.] is weird sometimes let me
        Daddy this,” which King understood to mean that he would “take
        care of it.”
               At another point, A.H. complained to Walker that King
        would “smile and giggle at her phone” when Walker would text
        her. Walker responded, “I’m so disappointed, I really believed the
        hype[.] This certainly will go no further if I cant talk to, direct[,]
        and preside over the [girls]. I cant pimp thru you.” Similarly, when
        A.H. complained about King, Walker told A.H., “Your feelings
        wont have me broke, looking foolish and like a suckah. . . . I cant
        pimp according to your feelings[,] love.”
                King believed Walker and A.H. were in a “boyfriend and
        girlfriend relationship.” King overheard noises coming from
        Walker’s bedroom consistent with him having sex with A.H., but
        Walker also repeatedly had sex with King.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164         Document: 72-1   Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 9 of 41

        22-10164                 Opinion of the Court                     9

               While Walker had sex with both A.H. and King, he would
        also withhold sex if he believed they had not made enough money
        for him. For example, one day, Walker texted King, “Gmorning, I
        just woke up, I want You . . . and [A.H.], but none of yall made
        money! How this is gonna work is. NO ONE, gets any unless we
        stacking.” King testiﬁed that this text message meant Walker
        would not sleep with them “at all” unless they were making money.
               Walker encouraged King to “obtain some new hoes to
        increase [their] payroll.” For example, Walker texted King, “[Y]ou
        must remember, I own the lick her store, if you hand them over[,]
        I can put this double dose of P in their lives and wrap them up.” 2
        Walker continued, “[L]eadership is mine and that will demand a
        prospects respect and loyalty.”
               Additionally, Walker texted King that prospects have “Daddy
        issues that cant be addressed by females,” and there is “[n]othing
        more alluring then [sic] telling a bitch about your Daddy, and how
        she gone beneﬁt. That blows a bitches [sic] mind.” Walker added,
        “This is the spirit of the game, working through yall, showing
        charity to a bitch who may beneﬁt from my game and be a blessing
        to our family.”
               To that end, Walker taught King about his recruiting
        preferences. Walker explained that he “prefer[red] fresh turnouts”
        because even though they are “[m]ore work,” they have “no bad

        2   “P” means pimp.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164          Document: 72-1        Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 10 of 41

        10                          Opinion of the Court                   22-10164

        habits and such from lame ass dudes disguised as the pimp[].”
        Walker also said:
                  The problem is a bigger girl isnt really great outdoors,
                  it’s a speciﬁc crowd that likes them . . . . I wont spend
                  our hard earned on a[n] unproven prospect. Clothing
                  or travel wise. Not saying she isnt sporting and up to
                  muster, but we dont need a mouth to feed that cant
                  put it out on the road.
        D.        Walker’s Social Media Presence
                Walker regularly posted about pimping on his social media.
        For example, Walker shared memes on Instagram that said the
        following: (1) “Getting Pussy From Her For The First Time Don’t
        Mean Shit … Getting Her To Sell It Is When You Actually Did
        Something!”; (2) “HOTEL CLERKS BE LIKE OH YOU ABOUT
        TO SELL SOME PUSSY HUH”; (3) “You told her on your life you
        only fuck bitches who pay you. let’s go PimPin”; (4) “As a pimp you
        should break your bitch every morning for everything. An[d] give
        her a new daily goal to reach for as your issue” 3; (5) “Idgaf how
        pretty you are Bitch I d[o]n’t like squares That play I like hoes that
        pay” 4; (6) “Whatever a P is desiring from his Hoe he must ﬁrst
        deposit into her. He cannot expect to get from her that which is
        not put into her already. If you want [money] from her, you must

        3 “Breaking”
                   is when a pimp “get[s] a girl into [his] crew and ha[s] her perform
        commercial sex acts under [his] direction.”
        4   A “square” is “anyone not involved in the life of pimping.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 11 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                         11

        ﬁrst deposit [game] into her”; and (7) “stretch Her mind to a new
        reality of possibility and potential, it will be impossible for Her to
        return to Her previous dimension or circumstance #KHM #HGO
        cause #PGO #comeFWM304 #Blessing2DGame.” 5
        E.     Houston, Texas
              In December 2019, Walker, A.H., and King traveled to
        Houston, Texas. Around the time of this trip, Walker performed
        an Internet search for “how many years for a human traﬃcking
        charge.”
               When they arrived in Houston, Walker sent an Instagram
        message that said, “Without doubt, I think [A.H.] just bumped her
        1st white bitch and we didn’t even leave the airport.” This message
        meant A.H. had “ma[d]e contact with someone and attempt[ed] to
        recruit them.”
              While in Houston, Walker, A.H., and King went sight-seeing
        during the day, but at night, King and A.H. “walk[ed] the blade” to
        make money for Walker by engaging in commercial sex acts.
               This trip was part of a broader “plan,” where Walker, A.H.,
        and King were supposed to travel across the country to make
        money from prostitution. When Walker, A.H., and King got back
        to Connecticut after their Houston trip, they decided their next
        stop for making prostitution money would be Miami, Florida.

        5“HGO” means “[h]oe-ing [g]oing [o]n,” “PGO” means “pimping going on,”
        and “304” means “ho[e]”—i.e., a “girl working under the direction of the
        pimp.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 12 of 41

        12                    Opinion of the Court                22-10164

        F.    Grooming of Victim Juanita Barr and Inviting Barr to
              Miami in 2020
              Juanita Barr is the victim in Count 1. At some point before
        May 2019, A.H. met Barr on MeetMe. Barr used MeetMe “[t]o try
        to make friends” because she did not have many friends in her area.
        Meanwhile, A.H. used MeetMe to meet and groom girls—like King
        and Barr—for Walker.
               Barr was born and raised in Connecticut. When she was
        growing up, Barr lived with her mother and six siblings in Section
        8 housing, and “money was tight.” Barr had family support “[f ]or
        the most part,” meaning she did not “really ask for much, but if
        [she] need[ed] help, [her] mom or [her] sister would help [her].”
        Barr did not ﬁnish high school but tried to get her credits for high
        school through adult learning classes.
              The day that A.H. and Barr met on MeetMe, Walker and
        A.H. picked Barr up and drove her to their house in Bridgeport,
        Connecticut. Walker went to work, while A.H. and Barr “sat on
        the couch and . . . got to know each other.” A.H. told Barr that
        Walker was “her man” and that “she didn’t work, that she just
        hangs out and that’s it.”
              After that ﬁrst meeting, A.H. and Barr hung out “every other
        two or three days” at Walker’s house. When A.H. and Barr hung
        out, Walker was “[u]sually[] at work,” but if Walker was around,
        he would “[b]rieﬂy” speak to Barr. Eventually, Walker and A.H.
        moved to New Haven, Connecticut, and Barr visited their New
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 13 of 41

        22-10164              Opinion of the Court                       13

        Haven house “once every two months or once a month.”
        Sometimes, Barr would stay overnight during these visits.
               Barr never started a relationship with Walker and never had
        sex with Walker because he was “not [her] type,” as she “prefer[red]
        females over men.” At one point, though, Walker and A.H., as part
        of the grooming, asked Barr to “have sex with one of them,” but
        Barr declined.
               On January 15, 2020, A.H. texted Barr, “[S]o you basically
        moving with us. We gonna get a house in Arizona when we done
        hitting all the big cities.” Barr understood this text to mean that
        Walker and A.H. were going to Miami for a trip and then moving
        to Arizona, and Barr was invited to go with them. Barr initially
        agreed to go with them.
               That same day, A.H. texted Walker that she got Barr “on
        board” for the Miami prostitution trip. Walker asked, “She coming
        for the whole trip or just Miami?!” A.H. replied, “She’s coming for
        the whole trip + the rest of her life.”
                Walker praised A.H. for being “a positive witch, casting
        spells and such.” A.H. replied, “Its that IZM,” which is “knowledge
        of the game or knowledge of pimping.” Walker agreed with A.H.,
        writing, “Indeed great game love.”
              Later, Barr learned that Walker and A.H. were actually
        planning to do “a lot of other moving around” to other cities, and
        they were not going straight from Miami to Arizona. Barr “didn’t
        want to travel,” “had a lot going on for [her]self like school,” and
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 14 of 41

        14                    Opinion of the Court                22-10164

        her “sister’s birthday was coming up in February,” so Barr “didn’t
        want to go anymore.”
               The plan then became that Walker, A.H., and King would
        (1) go to Miami “to celebrate” for a week, (2) backtrack to North
        Carolina to “drop oﬀ some luggage and stuﬀ,” and (3) return to
        Connecticut to “pick up their other stuﬀ” before going to Arizona.
        Because they were going to stay in Miami for only a week and could
        drop Barr oﬀ in Connecticut afterwards, Barr ultimately agreed to
        go on the Miami trip.
               Barr later told a friend via Facebook that she went to Miami
        because she had “never been to [M]iami b[efore], and [she] wanted
        to go for [a] ﬁrst vacation.”
        G.    Pre-Miami Preparations
               To get ready for his money-making prostitution business in
        Miami, Walker quit his job as a truck driver to pimp full time. In
        addition, Walker, A.H., and King packed up their house and
        returned the keys to the landlord.
              Before the Miami trip, Barr told A.H. that she “didn’t have
        any money.” As part of her grooming of Barr, A.H. replied that all
        of Barr’s expenses, such as food, drinks, and hotel, “would be taken
        care of ” while they were in Miami. So Barr “assumed [the trip]
        would be paid for” and “thought they had a lot of money.”
               A.H. also told Barr that “[w]e got family down there” who
        own three strip clubs that they were “[a]bout [to] get into” and
        instructed Barr to pack heels and “hoe outﬁts.” Barr testiﬁed that
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 15 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                          15

        she understood A.H. to be telling her to bring “really cute outﬁts”
        and that A.H. was “going to be dancing somewhere.” But Barr was
        “sure . . . they ha[d] other jobs that [she] c[ould] participate in while
        [A.H.] danced.” Barr testiﬁed that she “would have never imagined
        that . . . anyone expected [her] to have sex with anyone” on the
        Miami trip.
                Meanwhile, Walker prepared for all three women—A.H.,
        King, and Barr—to do sex work for him in Miami. In an Instagram
        message to his niece, who lived in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Walker
        said, “[M]e and my team will be in . . . ur town for the superbag at
        the superbowl, can we get a couple auditions at your folx place(s)”?
        In a January 16, 2020, text message to King, Walker said, “I trust
        you stayed up with [Barr] and chopped it up, she is good people,
        she will be better away from CT [and] the best when she realizes
        she can do very well with Our program.”
                Walker reminded King of their roles via text: “You coming
        at me like I owe you love, that’s not the case[.] Even when you
        speak like that to me, I am carrying you . . . , let’s not forget our
        roles[,] our lanes[,] and who we are.” And Walker warned King
        that “we just arent tolerating anything less than 100%
        participation” and instructed King to “change the attitude[,] get the
        phuck in gear[,] and get the phuck involved[,] or [she] w[ould] have
        to stay” in Connecticut.
        H.     Driving to Miami on January 23–24, 2020
             On January 23, 2020, Walker drove A.H., King, and Barr
        from Connecticut, where they all lived at the time, to Florida. At
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 16 of 41

        16                    Opinion of the Court                 22-10164

        the time of this trip, Walker was 46, A.H. was 17, King was 18, and
        Barr was 23.
               Barr was not close to her fellow travelers. Barr did not know
        King “very well,” as they had “talked, like, two days . . . before
        leaving [on] the trip.” Before A.H. invited Barr to Miami, Barr had
        an on-again, oﬀ-again friendship with A.H. and had not spoken to
        A.H. for three or four months.
              On the drive down to Miami, Walker, A.H., King, and Barr
        spent a night in Daytona, Florida. Once in the Miami area, they
        checked into one room together at a Comfort Inn & Suites in
        Kendall at 6:46 p.m. on January 24, 2020.
        I.    Indefinite Stay in Miami
               Upon arrival in Miami, Barr quickly became disillusioned
        and learned the reality of the trip. In their room at the Comfort
        Inn, Barr overheard the group discussing the plan for Miami, which
        quickly became two weeks, then a month, and then an indeﬁnite
        stay in Miami. Barr testiﬁed that the news was “overwhelming”
        because it upended her plans to return to Connecticut. Barr had
        belongings in Connecticut, she had planned to be back in time to
        celebrate her sister’s birthday, and she was not having fun because
        she was “constantly playing referee” during arguments between
        A.H. and King.
               Upon learning that this was not a short trip, Barr wanted to
        go home, but she had no money. Barr asked Walker how she would
        get back home, and Walker replied that she should take an airplane.
        Barr told Walker that an airplane was “out of the question” because
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 17 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                         17

        she is “terriﬁed of heights.” Walker then said that she could take a
        train but that the trains depart from Miami to Connecticut only
        once per month.
              Barr later found out by searching online that trains leave for
        Connecticut twice daily. But the ticket price for a train from Miami
        to Connecticut was $156, which Barr did not have. Barr “thought
        maybe they would . . . give [her] the money” or she “would
        probably try to ask [her] sister if she had the money.”
               During the trip, Barr texted, FaceTimed, and called her sister
        several times and spoke with her mother every day. At 12:32 a.m.
        on January 25, Barr’s sister messaged her on Facebook, asking
        when she was coming back to Connecticut. 6 Barr replied, “I
        already know how to take the train [$]156 is my ticket which is
        nothing.”
        J.     Low on Funds
               However, other Walker surprises awaited Barr. After
        waking up and showering later that morning, Barr learned that the
        group had only $50 left. This was also not the all-expenses-paid trip
        Barr thought she was taking. Because they did not have any money,
        Walker instructed the women to share “a tub of yogurt” and
        controlled how many “spoonfuls” of yogurt the women were
        allowed to have for breakfast.

        6The time stamps for all messages are in Universal Time Coordinated. For
        ease of reference, we have converted the times to Eastern Standard Time.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 18 of 41

        18                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10164

               With no money for even food, Barr had to call her sister to
        ask for money so that she could buy a pizza to share with A.H. and
        King. Barr’s sister sent $20 via CashApp. Barr did not tell her sister
        what was going on, but her sister “put two and two together” and
        “kind of ﬁgured [it] out.”
        K.     Strip Club on January 25
               At 12:49 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker, “Just
        an idea. You should take [Barr] to work the club and me and [King]
        will do everything else. She is over 21 there’s possibilities and
        opportunities for her.” Walker responded, “Great idea[,] we arrived
        at the same conclusion at the same time, you know, great minds
        think a like [sic].”
              Around 3:40 p.m. on January 25, Walker took A.H., Barr, and
        King to a strip club. They stayed at the strip club only brieﬂy
        because A.H. and King did not have identiﬁcation.
                After leaving the strip club, Walker, A.H., and King went to
        a store to buy heels. Barr “was a little aggravated and annoyed”
        because she “didn’t want to get heels” and “didn’t want to dance”
        at a strip club. So Barr stayed in the car while the others went into
        the store.
        L.     Ocean Drive in Miami on January 25
              Later on January 25, Walker directed the women—A.H.,
        King, and Barr—to walk around Ocean Drive and “talk to some
        guys” to gather funds for food and lodging. More speciﬁcally,
        Walker instructed the women “to walk around and see if
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 19 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                        19

        somebody would . . . buy [them] some food and drinks, and then
        maybe afterward, they would want to probably hang out.”
              Barr testiﬁed that, at this point in the trip, she was “[t]rying
        to ﬁnd a way to get home” because she was hungry, stranded, and
        “no longer having any fun.” So Barr walked the blade with A.H.
        and King to try to make money to go home.
               Eventually, the Miami heat took a toll on Barr. Barr told
        A.H. and King that she was not feeling well, so she went to lie down
        in the car. Only Walker and Barr were in the car. Barr again told
        Walker that she wanted to go home, but to no avail. Walker “didn’t
        say anything”; instead, “[h]e just looked at [Barr] and then turned
        back around and put his hat down and crossed his arms . . . [like he]
        was going to sleep or something.”
        M.    Yacht on January 25
               At 6:18 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker: “We got
        oﬀered to go somewhere for free so we gonna go.” A.H. called
        Barr to tell her that two men had oﬀered to buy them food and that
        Barr should join them. A.H. also told Barr that the men had oﬀered
        to pay the women to join them on their yacht, which Barr
        understood to mean payment for sexual favors. Speciﬁcally, Barr
        testiﬁed that she thought the women “were going to have to at least
        sleep with the[] [men] to try to make the money” because she was
        “a hundred percent sure that they wasn’t just going to give [the
        women] the money just if [they] asked for it.”
              Once again, Barr felt compelled to go in hopes of collecting
        the $156 for a train ticket home. So, at 7:20 p.m. on January 25,
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 20 of 41

        20                    Opinion of the Court                22-10164

        Barr texted A.H., “Where u guys at i was gonna walk to u.” Barr
        added, “Sorry wasnt feeling well felt nausea [sic].” Barr met up
        with A.H. and King on a street corner, and they left in a car with
        the two men—Yachty Lou and Miami Tom.
              At 8:35 p.m. on January 25, A.H. texted Walker: “We all with
        2 dudes gonna go on the[ir] boat for an hour and make money.”
        When Barr boarded the yacht, she was suspicious of Yachty Lou
        and Miami Tom, going so far as to throw out the wine that they
        had poured for the women out of fear of being drugged. A.H.
        followed Miami Tom into one of the downstairs rooms. Barr and
        King went into another room with Yachty Lou.
               King told Yachty Lou that she could not have sex with him
        because she was menstruating. Looking at Barr, Yachty Lou said,
        “Well, I’m looking for more than just, you know, a dance; so one
        of you guys gotta do something.” Barr and King began to “dance
        naked” for Yachty Lou, “but then he couldn’t do anything [sexually]
        because he was drunk and he was nervous.” Yachty Lou
        nonetheless paid them.
               King gave the money to A.H., which thwarted Barr’s eﬀorts
        to get home to Connecticut. Barr was “very disappointed” that
        King handed over the money because Barr and King talked
        beforehand about their plan to use “the money to take a taxi and
        take a train together back home to Connecticut.” Barr did not ask
        A.H. for the money though “because [she] kn[e]w that she
        wouldn’t have gave it back to [her].”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023       Page: 21 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                           21

              At 11:16 p.m. still on January 25, A.H. texted Walker that
        they were on the way to the hotel. A.H. added that they “only
        made $700 but that’s awesome for [their] ﬁrst break luck.”
              At 12:38 a.m. on January 26, Barr messaged her sister on
        Facebook, saying that she was “ready to go the fuck home.” A few
        minutes later at 12:43 a.m., A.H. texted Walker that they were
        “[a]lmost there.”
               Later that January 26th afternoon at 2:17 p.m., Barr
        messaged her sister on Facebook that “[y]o ho[m]e girl wa[s] gonna
        get beat up.” This message meant that Barr “was really upset at
        [King]” for giving the money from the yacht date to A.H. because
        King “kn[e]w [Barr] was going to use the money to go home.”
        Basically, Barr “felt like [King] played [her].” Barr was thus still
        stuck in Miami with Walker and his women.
        N.     Sex Advertisement for Barr’s Services
               Low on funds again, Walker and A.H. decided to post
        advertisements for the women to engage in commercial sex acts
        “because [the women] weren’t making any money” and the group
        had only one more night paid at the hotel. Walker and A.H. “came
        up with the idea” to advertise Barr online.
               Taking Barr’s cellphone, Walker and A.H. posted an
        advertisement for Barr on skipthegames.com. 7 The advertisement

        7Skipthegames.com is an “adult posting website where people can put their
        advertisement out there to engage in sexual encounters for the exchange of
        money.”
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 22 of 41

        22                      Opinion of the Court                   22-10164

        promoted “foxxy,” who was “new in th[e] area [and] looking for a
        great night.” The advertisement listed Barr’s phone number. Barr
        did not write any of the advertisement. When Barr got her
        cellphone back, Barr learned of the advertisement, and Walker told
        her to answer her cellphone “[i]f men called for a date.”
        O.     Barr’s January 27th Date that Led to Walker’s Arrest
               On January 27, Barr received a text message from a
        customer asking if she was available for a date that evening, but she
        ignored it at ﬁrst. Both Walker and A.H. asked if she had gotten
        any texts from customers and ordered her to show them her
        cellphone. Walker ordered Barr to text or call the customer back.
        Barr called the customer, and they agreed to meet at Walker’s hotel
        room at the Comfort Inn for a one-hour date in exchange for $300.
                Barr had never had sex with men for money. Walker knew
        Barr had no money and eﬀectively stranded her indeﬁnitely in
        Miami. Barr agreed to meet the customer and do it so that she
        could get money and leave Miami. After the customer paid her,
        Barr planned to take a taxi to the train station or ask the customer
        to take her to the train station. Barr felt like she had to do it because
        she had no money and “when [she] tried to ask [Walker] if [she]
        c[ould] go home,” she was ignored. Barr felt like sex work was
        “literally . . . the only way” to get home because she had no other
        way to earn money.
              Walker drove Barr, A.H., and King to the Comfort Inn.
        Once there, Barr went inside with her cellphone and condoms—
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 23 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                        23

        which Walker gave to her—to have her date, while Walker, A.H.,
        and King waited in the car.
               Right before meeting the customer, Barr got nervous but
        told herself that if the customer ended up being a cop, she would
        ask him for help and if the customer was not a cop, she would get
        her money and leave.
              Once Barr let the customer into the hotel room, Barr talked
        to him and oﬀered him a massage. Barr did not immediately tell
        him that she was trapped in Miami because she feared he would
        not care or, worse, would turn aggressive toward her. The
        customer gave Barr $300, and then they talked for a little bit.
        Eventually, Barr took oﬀ her shirt. The customer’s cellphone rang,
        so he went into the bathroom, claiming that his wife was calling.
               Barr testiﬁed that, “at this point,” she knew “he [wa]s a cop.”
        Barr was right. This operation was part of a human traﬃcking task
        force in Miami that was focused on the upcoming Super Bowl. The
        task force had a full week of proactive prostitution operations,
        where oﬃcials would look for indicators of human traﬃcking on
        websites. An undercover oﬃcer would reach out to the contact on
        the advertisement, schedule a date, and go determine who was at
        the location.
               The undercover oﬃcer’s cellphone rang because his team
        called “to see if [he] was okay” because “they were having issues
        hearing” through a one-way monitoring device. Still on the phone,
        the undercover oﬃcer conﬁrmed the hotel room number, and then
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 24 of 41

        24                    Opinion of the Court                 22-10164

        there was a knock on the door, followed by 20 people coming in.
        The arriving oﬃcers pretended to arrest the undercover oﬃcer.
               The oﬃcers took Barr downstairs “to a separate area.”
        Then, one oﬃcer asked Barr what happened, and Barr explained
        that she was stuck in Miami with no money and no way to get
        home. At the time, Barr had $70 in cash and was saving that money
        to buy a train ticket to Connecticut.
               Some of the oﬃcers took Barr to the police station, where
        she repeatedly told them “everything that happened to [her] while
        [she] w[as] in Miami.” Barr was given food and clothes to wear,
        and she was taken to a room where she could sleep on a couch.
               The next day, oﬃcers (1) asked Barr more questions in a
        transcribed interview under oath, (2) bought her a train ticket to
        Connecticut, and (3) took her to a safe house where she could stay
        until she left on the train.
        P.    Walker’s Arrest
               Back at the Comfort Inn, other oﬃcers conducted
        surveillance and ultimately also detained A.H., King, and Walker.
        All three individuals were brought back to the police station, where
        they were interviewed. A.H. and King were later released.
                  II. INDICTMENT AND PRETRIAL ISSUES
        A.    Superseding Indictment
              A superseding indictment charged Walker with (1) sex
        traﬃcking of an adult victim (Barr) by force, threats of force, or
        coercion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) and (b)(1) and 18
USCA11 Case: 22-10164           Document: 72-1         Date Filed: 07/13/2023            Page: 25 of 41

        22-10164                      Opinion of the Court                                25

        U.S.C. § 2 (Count 1); (2) sex traﬃcking of a minor victim (A.H.) by
        force, threats of force, or coercion and of a victim (A.H.) who had
        not attained the age of 18 years, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
        § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2); and
        (3) transporting an individual (King) to engage in sexual activity, in
        violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a) (Count 3). Walker pleaded not
        guilty.
        B.        Notice of Expert Testimony
                Before trial, the government ﬁled a notice of expert
        testimony pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
        16(a)(1)(G). The notice identiﬁed Special Agent Loﬀ as the
        government’s expert and indicated that “a summary of [his]
        [t]raining and [q]ualiﬁcations . . . ha[d] been provided to the
        defense.”
              The government’s notice explained that Special Agent Loﬀ
        would (1) testify about cellular telephone data extraction and
        preservation, “practices and methods used to advertise and manage
        persons who engage in commercial sex acts,” and terminology
        used in human traﬃcking and (2) opine that the advertisements,
        methods, and terminology used by Walker and the victims were
        “consistent with the engagement in commercial sex acts.”
              Walker moved to (1) exclude Special Agent Loﬀ’s expert
        testimony, (2) demand further notice regarding his expert
        testimony, and (3) request a Daubert8 hearing (“Walker’s Motion”).

        8   Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
USCA11 Case: 22-10164          Document: 72-1         Date Filed: 07/13/2023        Page: 26 of 41

        26                          Opinion of the Court                      22-10164

        Walker objected to the government’s notice on several bases:
        (1) allowing Special Agent Loﬀ’s testimony risked invading the
        province of the jury in areas where expert testimony was
        unnecessary and unhelpful; and (2) the government’s notice was
        insuﬃciently speciﬁc as to Special Agent Loﬀ’s qualiﬁcations as well
        as the content of, and basis for, his expected testimony.
               After reviewing Special Agent Loﬀ’s curriculum vitae in
        camera, the district court agreed with Walker and found the
        government’s notice was insuﬃcient to satisfy its obligations under
        Rule 16(a)(1)(G). The district court ordered the government to ﬁle
        an amended notice containing a complete summary of Special
        Agent Loﬀ’s expert testimony, his opinions, the bases and reasons
        for those opinions, and a list of his qualiﬁcations.9
              The government then ﬁled a new notice of expert testimony,
        again identifying Special Agent Loﬀ as its expert witness. This
        notice attached Special Agent Loﬀ’s full curriculum vitae and
        summarized his “training and qualiﬁcations in [both] the area of

        9   At the time, Rule 16(a)(1)(G) provided:
                  At the defendant’s request, the government must give to the
                  defendant a written summary of any [expert] testimony that
                  the government intends to use . . . during its case-in-chief at
                  trial. . . . The summary provided under this subparagraph
                  must describe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for
                  those opinions, and the witness’s qualiﬁcations.
        Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) (2020).
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 27 of 41

        22-10164              Opinion of the Court                      27

        extracting data from cellular telephones” as well as “the area of
        human traﬃcking.”
               Speciﬁcally, the government noted that Special Agent Loﬀ
        (1) was “assigned to the Child Exploitation and Human Traﬃcking
        Task Force”; (2) “was recently named Human Traﬃcking
        Coordinator for the FBI-Miami Field Oﬃce”; (3) had participated
        in approximately 20 to 30 investigations and interviewed more than
        50 victims, defendants, and prostitutes; and (4) was familiar with
        “the methods and tactics used by those engaged in human
        traﬃcking activities,” “the methods of advertising traﬃcking
        victims for purposes of prostitution,” and the terminology used to
        advertise commercial sex acts.
               In addition, the government detailed Special Agent Loﬀ’s
        anticipated testimony regarding cellphone data extraction. Finally,
        the government explained that, “based on his training, experience,
        and knowledge,” Special Agent Loﬀ would testify about “the
        prostitution and traﬃcking of [A.H.] and [Barr],” speciﬁcally
        related to the use of internet advertisements on the website
        “skipthegames.com” that were consistent with advertisements for
        prostitution.
              “[I]n light of ” the government’s new notice, the district
        court denied without prejudice Walker’s Motion. Walker never
        claimed that the new notice was insuﬃcient until his brief in this
        appeal.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 28 of 41

        28                    Opinion of the Court                 22-10164

        C.    Hearing on Motions in Limine
             Before trial, the district court held a hearing on the parties’
        motions in limine.
               Walker contested the admissibility of evidence of a
        preexisting sexual relationship between Walker and A.H. based on
        Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and the Confrontation Clause. The
        government explained that the sexual relationship “[went] to the
        coercion.”
               In response, Walker argued that because A.H. never told law
        enforcement that “she was forced or threatened or coerced into a
        commercial sex act by the defendant,” the government would have
        to prove coercion by “one, proving that the relationship happened,
        and, two, having their expert witness, [Special] Agent Loﬀ, testify
        that, I guess, this is what happens in cases involving minors and
        individuals involved in commercial sex acts.”
              Ultimately, the district court allowed the prior-relationship
        evidence, ﬁnding that it was “inextricably intertwined and also
        oﬀer[ed] evidence of preparation, plan, knowledge, absence of
        mistake, intent, so it would be admissible under [Federal Rule of
        Evidence] 404(b) also.”
               III. JURY VERDICT, SENTENCE, AND APPEAL
               After a seven-day trial, the jury found Walker guilty of all
        three counts in the indictment.
              Walker’s advisory guidelines range was 292 to 365 months.
        The district court sentenced Walker to 300 months on Count 1, 300
USCA11 Case: 22-10164          Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 29 of 41

        22-10164                    Opinion of the Court                      29

        months on Count 2, and 120 months on Count 3, all to be served
        concurrently, to be followed by 25 years of supervised release. 10
              Walker timely appealed. During closing arguments, Walker
        conceded guilt as to Count 3 (King) and does not challenge that
        conviction on appeal.
                           IV. SEX TRAFFICKING STATUTE
               Both of Walker’s challenged convictions are under 18 U.S.C.
        § 1591, which is entitled “Sex trafficking of children or by force,
        fraud, or coercion.”
               As relevant here, § 1591(a)(1) provides that a defendant
        commits the offense of sex trafficking if he (1) knowingly, in or
        affecting interstate commerce, transports a person (2) knowing, or
        in reckless disregard of the fact, either:
                  [(i)] that means of force, threats of force, fraud,
                  coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any
                  combination of such means will be used to cause the
                  person to engage in a commercial sex act, or [(ii)] that
                  the person has not attained the age of 18 years and
                  will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act . . . .
        18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) (emphasis added).
               As to Barr in Count 1, the indictment charged Walker with
        using force, threats of force, or coercion, but not fraud. At trial,
        however, the government admitted that there was no evidence of

        10   Walker does not appeal his sentence.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 30 of 41

        30                    Opinion of the Court                22-10164

        any force or threats of force. Rather, the government proceeded
        under only a theory of coercion. Walker’s appeal as to Barr in
        Count 1 focuses on the “coercion” element.
               As to A.H. in Count 2, the government proceeded
        alternatively under two theories: her status as a minor and
        coercion. The jury completed a verdict form finding Walker guilty
        of Count 2 on both theories. That verdict form showed the
        following:

               Walker’s conviction under the minor status theory carried a
        mandatory minimum of 10 years, whereas his conviction under the
        coercion theory carried a mandatory minimum of 15 years. See id.
        § 1591(b). During closing arguments, defense counsel conceded
        guilt as to A.H.’s status as a minor but maintained that Walker was
        not guilty under the coercion theory. Walker contends that his
        conviction under the coercion theory as to A.H. must be vacated
        because it depended on the government’s expert testimony about
        how pimps use romantic relationships to coerce women into
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 31 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                        31

        prostitution, but the government’s notice failed to sufficiently
        disclose that testimony.
              We first address Count 1 as to Barr.
                               V. COUNT 1 – BARR
               As to Count 1, Walker argues that the government’s
        evidence of coercion of Barr is insufficient to support his
        § 1591(a)(1) conviction because “Barr voluntarily decided to
        engage in prostitution [to get money for] a train ticket home when
        she stopped having fun.”
               Because Walker moved for a judgment of acquittal on this
        specific issue after the government rested and then renewed his
        motion for judgment of acquittal on this specific issue at the close
        of the evidence, he preserved this sufficiency issue for appeal. Cf.
        United States v. Bichsel, 156 F.3d 1148, 1150 (11th Cir. 1998).
               “The district court’s denial of the motions for a judgment of
        acquittal will be upheld if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude
        that the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a
        reasonable doubt.” United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244
        (11th Cir. 2000). We review the sufficiency of the evidence de
        novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
        government[] and drawing all reasonable factual inferences in
        favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280,
        1284 (11th Cir. 2009).
              Under § 1591(e)(2), coercion is defined as (1) “threats of
        serious harm to or physical restraint against any person”; (2) “any
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 32 of 41

        32                     Opinion of the Court                 22-10164

        scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that
        failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical
        restraint against any person”; or (3) “the abuse or threatened abuse
        of law or the legal process.” 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(2). At trial, the
        government proceeded under the second theory of coercion.
                “Serious harm,” in turn, is “any harm, whether physical or
        nonphysical, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm,
        that is sufficiently serious, under all the surrounding circumstances,
        to compel a reasonable person of the same background and in the same
        circumstances to perform or to continue performing commercial
        sexual activity in order to avoid incurring that harm.” Id.
        § 1591(e)(5) (emphases added).
                Here, a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a
        reasonable doubt that Walker knew or was in reckless disregard of
        the fact that his conduct caused Barr to believe that not engaging
        in prostitution would result in harm so serious that it would
        compel a reasonable person of Barr’s background and
        circumstances to perform a commercial sex act to avoid that harm.
        See id. § 1591.
               First, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could
        conclude that Walker had a “scheme” or “plan.” Id. § 1591(e)(2)(B).
        Not only did Walker’s social media presence demonstrate a general
        intent to pimp women—some of his milder postings refer to
        “Getting Her To Sell It,” “break[ing] your bitch every morning,”
        “giv[ing] her a new daily goal,” and “deposit[ing game] into her”—
        Walker also specifically planned for Barr to engage in commercial
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 33 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                        33

        sex work in Miami. Walker even told King that Barr would “be
        better away from [Connecticut]” and “best” once “she realize[d]
        she c[ould] do very well with [their] program.” Walker praised
        A.H. for using the IZM (i.e., knowledge of the pimping game) to
        get Barr “on board” for Miami. And before their arrival in Miami,
        Walker contacted his niece for “auditions at [her] folx place(s)” for
        his “team.”
               Second, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury
        could conclude that Walker’s scheme or plan was “intended to
        cause [Barr] to believe that failure to perform a[] [commercial sex]
        act would result in serious harm.” Id. § 1591(e)(2)(B). To begin
        with, although Barr was told that “everything would be taken care
        of” on the trip, Barr testified that, once the group arrived in Miami,
        Walker told the women that they needed to “talk to some guys” to
        gather funds for food and lodging. Barr added that Walker
        instructed the women “to walk around and see if somebody
        would . . . buy [them] some food and drinks, and then maybe
        afterward, they would want to probably hang out”—which the
        jury could infer meant having a “date” involving a commercial sex
        act.
              Walker rationed the women’s food, permitting them only a
        few “spoonfuls” of yogurt one morning because the group was
        short on money. And, after the women went out on the yacht,
        Walker and A.H. used Barr’s cellphone to post an online
        advertisement for Barr to engage in a commercial sex act “because
USCA11 Case: 22-10164    Document: 72-1    Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 34 of 41

        34                   Opinion of the Court               22-10164

        [the women] weren’t making any money” and the group had only
        one more night paid at the hotel.
               Once the advertisement was posted, Walker directed Barr to
        answer her cellphone “[i]f men called for a date.” When a man—
        the undercover officer—reached out, Walker ordered Barr to text
        or call him back. Then, once Barr set up the date, Walker drove
        her to the Comfort Inn and gave her condoms.
               Moreover, the evidence showed that, when Barr learned
        that the group planned to stay in Miami longer than one week,
        Walker was actively unhelpful when Barr expressed a desire to go
        home. At one point, Walker ignored her plea. At another point,
        Walker suggested an airplane. But when Barr demurred out of fear
        of heights, Walker told her there was only one train per month
        traveling from Miami, Florida to Connecticut. A reasonable jury
        could view this evidence as Walker misleading Barr because trains
        actually leave Miami for Connecticut twice daily.
              In short, a reasonable jury could view the evidence as
        showing that Walker intended Barr to believe that, if she did not
        engage in sex work, she was at risk of (1) losing her lodging in
        Miami, (2) continuing to go hungry, and (3) remaining stuck in an
        unfamiliar city hundreds of miles from her home and family.
              Third, there was evidence from which a reasonable jury
        could conclude that Barr subjectively believed that she had to
        engage in commercial sex acts to avoid serious harm. Barr went
        out on the yacht for sex work to earn money for the train ticket
        home. And Barr felt like she had to go on the Comfort Inn date
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023     Page: 35 of 41

        22-10164               Opinion of the Court                         35

        because “when [she] tried to ask [Walker] if [she] c[ould] go home,”
        she was ignored, and she had no money. Barr testified that she
        thought sex work was “literally . . . the only way” to get home
        because she had no other way to earn money.
               Fourth, and finally, there was evidence from which a
        reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable person with
        Barr’s background and in her circumstances would feel compelled
        to engage in commercial sex acts to avoid serious harm. Barr did
        not finish high school, grew up in Section 8 housing where “money
        was tight,” had never been to Miami before, and had almost no
        money with her on the trip. Barr was in an unfamiliar city
        hundreds of miles from home and entirely dependent on Walker
        for lodging, food, and transportation.
               Walker faults Barr for not asking her mother or sister for
        help. This ignores that Barr testified that “money was tight” when
        she was growing up and she “d[id]n’t really ask for much” from her
        mother and sister. Barr also testified that her family would help
        her out “with whatever money that they do have.” That is
        evidenced by the fact that Barr’s sister gave her $20 for pizza when
        Barr asked. But a $156 train ticket is nearly eight times that
        amount. A reasonable jury was entitled to infer that (1) Barr did
        not feel like she could ask for that much money from her sister and
        (2) Barr’s sister did not have the means to pay for Barr’s train ticket
        because Barr told her the cost of the train ticket, she knew how
        unhappy Barr was in Miami, and she knew about Barr’s financial
        situation in light of her request for money to buy pizza.
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 36 of 41

        36                     Opinion of the Court                22-10164

               Walker also faults Barr for not seeking help from law
        enforcement or otherwise using her cellphone to obtain help. The
        jury was entitled to credit Barr’s testimony that she did not ask the
        undercover officer for help because she feared he would not care
        or, worse, would turn aggressive toward her. Similarly, a
        reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable person with
        Barr’s background could be at a loss for how to obtain help in an
        unfamiliar city with little money and no independent means of
        transportation.
              To be clear, Walker does not win on sufficiency review by
        merely pointing to other, different evidence in the record that
        supports an acquittal. See United States v. Toll, 804 F.3d 1344, 1354
        (11th Cir. 2015) (“The defendant must do more than put forth a
        reasonable hypothesis of innocence[] because the issue is not
        whether a jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it
        reasonably could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
        (quotation marks omitted)).
              In short, there was sufficient evidence of Walker’s coercion
        with respect to Barr. We affirm Walker’s conviction as to Count
        1.
                               VI. COUNT 2 – A.H.
               As noted, Walker argues that his coercion conviction as to
        A.H. in Count 2 should be vacated because the evidence of
        coercion hinged on expert testimony that was not disclosed before
        trial, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
        16(a)(1)(G). Walker contends that the government did not disclose
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 37 of 41

        22-10164                Opinion of the Court                         37

        that its expert, Special Agent Loff, would testify about how pimps
        often use romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in
        prostitution. Walker claims that this prejudiced his defense
        because the expert testimony was critical to the government’s
        coercion theory in Count 2 and Walker did not have a meaningful
        opportunity to rebut that testimony either through
        cross-examination or a rebuttal witness.
        A.     Plain Error Applies
                We first explain why Walker did not adequately preserve
        this issue for appeal. “To preserve an issue for appeal, one must
        raise an objection that is sufficient to apprise the trial court and the
        opposing party of the particular grounds upon which appellate
        relief will later be sought.” United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003,
        1011 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “The objection
        must be raised in such clear and simple language that the trial court
        may not misunderstand it.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
               Here, after the government filed its amended Rule 16 notice,
        the district court denied without prejudice Walker’s Motion.
        Walker filed nothing on the docket reasserting his Rule 16
        objection as to the amended notice between the district court’s
        denial of Walker’s Motion and the trial. Walker also did not raise
        his Rule 16 concern at the hearing on the parties’ motions in limine.
                Then, during Special Agent Loff’s testimony at trial, Walker
        did not object on Rule 16 grounds. Instead, Walker objected to
        Special Agent Loff’s qualifications to testify as an expert in human
        trafficking—an issue Walker does not raise on appeal. And when
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1      Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 38 of 41

        38                     Opinion of the Court                22-10164

        Special Agent Loff testified about how pimps use romantic
        relationships to coerce sex trafficking victims, Walker objected
        only once that the testimony “invad[ed] the province of the jury.”
        Indeed, Walker concedes on appeal that is the objection he made.
              Because Walker did not preserve this Rule 16 notice issue,
        our review is limited to a plain error analysis. United States v.
        Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014).
        B.    No Prejudice
               “To prevail under the plain error standard, an appellant
        must show: (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; (3) it
        affected his substantial rights; and (4) it seriously affected the
        fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Id. at 822. We need not
        determine if any error occurred in the government’s amended
        notice of Special Agent Loff’s expert testimony because any such
        error so clearly did not affect Walker’s substantial rights for two
        reasons.
               First, Walker anticipated Special Agent Loff’s testimony
        before trial. At the district court’s hearing on the parties’ motions
        in limine, which took place about two weeks before trial, the
        government defended its motion to admit evidence of the sexual
        relationship between Walker and A.H., asserting that it “[went] to
        the coercion.” In response, defense counsel walked through how
        the government might use the sexual-relationship evidence to
        prove coercion. Specifically, defense counsel theorized that the
        government could do that by “one, proving that the relationship
        happened, and, two, having their expert witness, [Special] Agent
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023    Page: 39 of 41

        22-10164              Opinion of the Court                       39

        Loff, testify that, I guess, this is what happens in cases involving
        minors and individuals involved in commercial sex acts.”
               That is what happened at trial. The government offered
        evidence of the relationship between Walker and A.H. through
        text messages and testimony from Barr and King. The government
        also offered testimony from Special Agent Loff about how coercion
        may “start[] under the guise of a relationship,” but then “the pimp
        will build this future life goal with the victim” by talking about
        “travel[ing]” and a “luxurious lifestyle, and it will slowly develop
        [in]to” that they “need to make money” to achieve that goal, and
        “the only way [they] can make that money is if [the victim]
        engage[s] in these commercial sex acts.” Special Agent Loff then
        opined that the text messages between Walker and A.H. were
        “consistent” with this pattern “based on [his] training and
        experience in other cases.” Accordingly, because Walker
        anticipated Special Agent Loff’s testimony, any error with the
        notice did not affect Walker’s substantial rights.
               Second, there was ample other sufficient evidence of
        coercion as to A.H. for a reasonable jury to convict Walker on
        Count 2. The jury learned that A.H. was a 15-year-old runaway
        when she met Walker, who was 44 or 45. The jury heard that
        Walker and A.H. lived together and they were in a romantic and
        sexual relationship but that he hired her out for sex. The jury saw
        text message conversations (1) where Walker instructed A.H. to
        “[t]ake some” in-calls because they “cant starve and die”; (2) where
        Walker told A.H., “Your feelings wont have me broke, looking
USCA11 Case: 22-10164      Document: 72-1       Date Filed: 07/13/2023      Page: 40 of 41

        40                      Opinion of the Court                   22-10164

        foolish and like a suckah. . . . I cant pimp according to your
        feelings[,] love,” when A.H. complained about another woman;
        and (3) where Walker said he was “so disappointed” and threatened
        that “[t]his certainly w[ould] go no further if [he] c[ouldn’t] talk to,
        direct[,] and preside over the [girls].”
                A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that
        (1) A.H.’s young, runaway background and dependent
        circumstances made her particularly susceptible to sex trafficking
        and (2) A.H. feared that stopping the prostitution would result in
        serious harm in the form of losing Walker’s emotional,
        psychological, and financial support. See 18 U.S.C. § 1591(e)(5)
        (defining serious harm as “any harm, whether physical or
        nonphysical, including psychological[] [or] financial . . . harm, that is
        sufficiently serious . . . to compel a reasonable person of the same
        background and in the same circumstances to perform . . . commercial
        sexual activity in order to avoid incurring that harm” (emphases
        added)).
              Walker argues that the government’s case was weak
        without Special Agent Loff’s testimony that pimps often use
        romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in prostitution
        because “there was substantial evidence that [A.H.] was an eager
        and complicit participant in Mr. Walker’s prostitution enterprise.”
        To be sure, there was significant evidence of A.H.’s active
        involvement in recruiting new women and advertising the
        women’s services. And, during her custodial interview, A.H. told
        law enforcement that she was “not th[e] type of girl” to be forced
USCA11 Case: 22-10164     Document: 72-1     Date Filed: 07/13/2023   Page: 41 of 41

        22-10164              Opinion of the Court                      41

        into anything. But the jury also heard Special Agent Loff testify
        that a bottom does what the pimp directs and delegates and a
        bottom can also be a victim of sex trafficking. Walker’s text
        messages to A.H. support Special Agent Loff’s testimony in that
        regard. We are bound to assume the jury found Special Agent Loff
        credible—and A.H. not credible—on this point. Jiminez, 564 F.3d
        at 1285 (“[W]e assume that the jury made all credibility choices in
        support of the verdict.”).
               In sum, Special Agent Loff’s testimony about how pimps
        often use romantic relationships to coerce women to engage in
        prostitution was a small part of a much larger case showing that
        Walker coerced A.H. to engage in prostitution.
                              VII. CONCLUSION
              We affirm Walker’s convictions on Count 1 and the
        coercion theory in Count 2.
              AFFIRMED.