133 F.4th 1256
11th Cir.2025Background
- Jordan Pulido began an online relationship with I.G., a Croatian minor, and traveled to Croatia with the intent to have sex with her, with his father Roberto Jimenez’s assistance.
- Pulido later facilitated I.G.’s travel to the United States, again aided by Jimenez, where the sexual relationship continued.
- Both were indicted on charges including use of the internet to entice a minor, traveling with intent for illicit sexual conduct, and conspiracy/transportation of a minor for sexual activity.
- Pre-trial, Pulido moved to dismiss the indictment on several grounds (including duplicity of the enticement charge) and to suppress electronic evidence; both motions were denied.
- At trial, both defendants were convicted on all counts; post-trial motions and sentencing challenges followed, particularly regarding duplicity, sufficiency of evidence, mistrial, and sentencing enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplicitous Enticement Count | Pulido: The enticement count improperly charged multiple offenses in a single count. | Gov’t: Enticement is a continuing offense, can be proven by pattern/activity. | Count was duplicitous and not harmless; conviction vacated and remanded for resentencing on this count. |
| Constitutionality: Foreign Commerce Clause (Travel) | Pulido: Statute exceeds Congress’s authority and burdens travel/free thought rights. | Gov’t: Statute regulates channels of foreign commerce, within commerce authority. | § 2423(b) is constitutional as applied; government within its authority regulating foreign commerce. |
| Suppression of Device Evidence (Border Search) | Pulido: Forensic search of electronic devices at border required warrant or suspicion. | Gov’t: Border search exception applies, does not require suspicion for property search. | Warrantless forensic border searches of electronic devices are reasonable under current 11th Cir. precedent. |
| Sufficiency, Sentencing Enhancements, and Mistrial | Jimenez: Insufficient evidence, immigration status reference, error in enhancements. | Gov’t: Evidence sufficient, court cured immigration reference, enhancements proper. | Denial of acquittal/mistrial affirmed; sentencing enhancements for undue influence and custody/control upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (enticement offense complete at act of persuading, not consummation)
- United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018) (border searches of electronic devices do not require suspicion)
- United States v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) (border search exception framework)
- United States v. Parker, 839 F.2d 1473 (11th Cir. 1998) (circumstantial evidence may prove conspiracy)
- United States v. Whyte, 928 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2019) (undue influence enhancement standards)
- United States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2009) (clear error standard on sentencing enhancements)