Court Opinion

ID: 9838235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-05 20:00:41.958847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:47:19.153244
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12097    Document: 43-1     Date Filed: 09/05/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12097
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       ZACHARY S. SPIEGEL,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-14005-AMC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12097      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12097

       Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Zachary Spiegel, proceeding with counsel, appeals his con-
       viction for attempted enticement of a minor to engage in sexual
       activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, he argues
       that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment
       of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to show that he
       intended to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity and that he
       took a substantial step toward committing that offense. He con-
       tends that he lacked the requisite intent under § 2422(b) because he
       broached the topic of sex with the fictitious minor before learning
       she was a minor and initially indicated that he could not engage in
       sexual activity with her after learning her age. He also argues that
       he did not take a substantial step under § 2422(b) because he only
       had explicit sex talk with the minor and never traveled to meet her.
              We review whether sufficient evidence supported a jury’s
       guilty verdict de novo, resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of
       the verdict. See United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904, 912 (11th Cir.
       2010). We will not disturb the verdict unless no trier of fact could
       have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.
              The statute at issue here, § 2422(b), makes it unlawful to
       knowingly attempt to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual
       activity. To secure a conviction under § 2422(b), the government
       must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) had
       the specific intent to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual
USCA11 Case: 22-12097      Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12097               Opinion of the Court                          3

       activity, and (2) took a substantial step toward the commission of
       that offense. See Lee, 603 F.3d at 913-14.
              The government must prove that the defendant intended to
       cause assent on the part of the minor, not that he acted with specific
       intent to engage in the sexual activity, and that he took a substantial
       step toward causing assent, not toward causing actual sexual con-
       tact. See id. at 914. To determine whether a defendant took a sub-
       stantial step under § 2422(b), we consider the totality of the defend-
       ant’s actions. See id. at 914, 916. We have held that a defendant’s
       sexually solicitous communication can constitute a substantial step
       under § 2422(b) because the principal, if not exclusive, means of
       committing the offense require oral or written communications.
       See United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 626-27 (11th Cir. 2010).
       A defendant takes a substantial step when his communication
       crosses the line from sexual banter to criminal enticement. See id.
       at 627. Evidence that the defendant traveled to meet the minor is
       not necessary to sustain an attempt conviction under § 2422(b). See
       United States v. Yost, 479 F.3d 815, 819-20 (11th Cir. 2007).
              The district court did not err by denying the motion for a
       judgment of acquittal. The evidence was sufficient to convict un-
       der § 2422(b) because the jury could have reasonably found that
       Mr. Spiegel—despite not meeting with the minor—intended to
       cause the minor to assent to sexual activity and that he took a sub-
       stantial step toward causing the minor’s assent through his com-
       munications. See § 2422(b); Lee, 603 F.3d at 912-14. For example,
       after learning the minor’s age, he continued to send the minor
USCA11 Case: 22-12097     Document: 43-1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12097

       messages describing the sex acts he wanted to perform with her,
       sent the minor a picture of his penis, exchanged phone numbers
       with the minor, and made arrangements to meet her at a movie
       theatre. See Lee, 603 F.3d at 912-14; Rothenberg, 610 F.3d at 626-27.
       Indeed, the evidence here is very similar to that which we found
       sufficient in Yost, 479 F.3d at 819-20.
             AFFIRMED.