United States v. Adrian Galvin Ruiz, 701 F. App'x 871

Adrian Galvin Ruiz was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for knowingly attempting to persuade a 13‑year‑old (an undercover officer posing as the child’s father) to engage in unlawful sexual activity; arrested at a hotel carrying condoms, lubricant, and a T‑shirt.
Prior to the charged conduct, Ruiz posted a Craigslist ad seeking sexual encounters with "taboo" dads/young boys and exchanged emails with Detective Masters (undercover), who posed as a father of young children; those communications discussed sexual plans though no meeting occurred.
At trial the government introduced the Masters communications as extrinsic evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Ruiz testified and admitted the communications but argued his contact with the charged undercover operation blurred fantasy and reality and he decided not to proceed.
Ruiz was convicted by a jury of attempted enticement of a minor and sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal Ruiz challenged the district court’s admission of the Masters communications under Rule 404(b), arguing relevance only to propensity and that unfair prejudice outweighed probative value.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the prior communications were admissible to prove intent and were not substantially more prejudicial than probative under Rule 403.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior communications under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) (relevance to intent)	Ruiz: communications only show propensity/are just "talk" and not probative of intent	Government: prior communications show same state of mind and plan — sexual interest in children and intent to arrange a meeting — so relevant to intent	Admissible: court held evidence relevant to intent because it showed sexual interest in children and attempts to arrange encounters similar to charged offense
Rule 403 balancing (unfair prejudice vs. probative value)	Ruiz: evidence was unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded	Government: strong need to rebut Ruiz's defense that he lacked intent to follow through; high similarity and close temporal proximity support admission; limiting instruction reduces prejudice	Admissible: probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting jury instruction mitigated risk

United States v. Ellisor, 522 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing 404(b) evidence)
United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (Rule 404(b) is one of inclusion)
United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (three‑part test for extrinsic evidence admissibility)
United States v. Zapata, 139 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 1998) (intent as a material issue when defendant pleads not guilty)
United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must prove specific intent under § 2422(b))
United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1997) (factors for Rule 403 balancing of extrinsic evidence)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (consider temporal remoteness and similarity in 403 analysis)
United States v. Woods, 684 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2012) (admission of highly prejudicial sexual‑conduct statements affirmed)
United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2011) (limiting instruction can cure unfair prejudice from 404(b) evidence)