United States v. Gary Schatz, 545 F. App'x 934

Schatz was convicted of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and sentenced to 264 months’ imprisonment.
Detective Ramos posed online as a 15-year-old on Boyahoy, using alias Rick with an 18‑minus‑three age setting to lure Schatz.
Schatz exchanged text messages with Rick, discussed meeting, and allegedly implied sexual activity with a minor before being arrested.
Klein testified that he had sexual interactions with Schatz starting at age 12, with recantation occurring at age 14; Schatz argued Klein had motive to lie.
Schatz testified that he believed Rick was at least 18 and denied knowingly engaging with a minor; Schatz challenged various trial rulings on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 404(b) timing of admission	Schatz argues the court failed to state reasons beforehand.	Schatz contends pre-admission reasoning was required; objection to timing preserved only for plain error.	No reversible plain error; timing error not established under circuit precedent.
Cross-examination limit on Klein	Limitations prevented exposing Klein’s credibility motive to lie.	Defense had opportunity; lines pursued were sufficient; no abuse.	No Confrontation Clause error; no abuse of discretion.
Mistrial for officer’s comment on silence	The comment warranted mistrial.	Curative instruction mitigated prejudice; no mistrial necessary.	No mistrial; curative instruction plus strike disposed of issue.
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing	Closing remarks improperly shifted burden and echoed non-record evidence.	Any improper remarks were harmless given overwhelming independent evidence of guilt.	Harmless error; guilt upheld due to substantial independent evidence.

United States v. Madruga, 810 F.2d 1010 (11th Cir. 1987) (plain-error review for admissibility objections)
United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Youts, 229 F.3d 1312 (10th Cir. 2000) (Rule 404(b) articulation timing guidance)
United States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain-error review when no controlling precedent)
United States v. Diaz, 26 F.3d 1533 (11th Cir. 1994) (Cross-examination limits and confrontation considerations)
United States v. Kendrick, 682 F.3d 974 (11th Cir. 2012) (evidence of intent and credibility relevant to guilt)
United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531 (11th Cir. 1992) (prejudice considerations where other explanations exist)
United States v. Dodd, 111 F.3d 867 (11th Cir. 1997) (curative instructions and prejudice assessment)
United States v. Townsend, 630 F.3d 1003 (11th Cir. 2011) (jury is presumed to follow curative instructions)