United States v. Harry McMillian, 744 F.3d 1033

McMillan, a 2L, posted a Craigslist ad inviting sexual activity with a purported underage girl; an undercover officer posed as the girl's father and arranged a meeting at a theater.
McMillan was charged with one count of knowingly persuading or enticing a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); he was convicted after a three‑day jury trial.
Evidence included email exchanges with the officer in character as both a father and the girl, and the discovery of condoms and a laptop with a separate persona “Kellie” used to simulate a minor.
The defense claimed the statute requires direct contact with a minor and argued insufficient evidence of intent to persuade a minor; McMillan also challenged the admissibility of the “Kellie” emails under Rule 404(b) and potential due process concerns.
The district court admitted the “Kellie” emails under Rule 404(b); on appeal, the Seventh Circuit concluded the evidence was relevant to McMillan’s intent and that any error was harmless, affirming the conviction.
The court acknowledged the district court’s lack of explicit Rule 403 balancing but found any error harmless in light of the direct relevance and limited scope of the emails.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is § 2422(b) limited to direct minor contact?	McMillan argues it requires direct contact with the minor.	Court should analyze broader interpretations allowing intermediaries.	Statute can reach adult–to–adult communications via intermediary.
Was there sufficient evidence of intent to persuade a minor?	Evidence shows attempts to persuade the father to let the daughter engage.	Evidence insufficient to prove intended persuasion of a minor.	Evidence sufficient to support conviction.
Admissibility of Kellie emails under Rule 404(b)	Emails are propensity evidence and should be excluded.	Emails show intent and course of action; admissible.	Admissible; error harmless.
Prosecutor’s references to Kellie during closing	Such references violated fair-trial rights.	Deny reversible error.	Prosecutorial references rejected; no reversible error.

United States v. Berk, 652 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2011) (statutory reach to adult‑to‑adult communications)
United States v. Douglas, 626 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2010) (enforcement via intermediary to minor)
United States v. Nestor, 574 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2009) (intermediary theory of § 2422(b))
United States v. Caudill, 709 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (broader readings upheld in some circuits)
United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (intermediary reliance recognized)
United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (intermediary theories acknowledged)
United States v. Laureys, 653 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam on Rule 404(b) framework)
United States v. Brooks, 60 M.J. 495 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (military version of § 2422(b))
United States v. Gomez, 712 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc briefing on Rule 404(b) test)
United States v. Knope, 655 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) balancing framework)
Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010) (statutory clarity and notice principles)
United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007) (explanation of § 2422(b) scope)
United States v. Loughry, 660 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2011) (illustrative Rule 404(b) cautionary precedent)