United States v. Robert Hosler, 966 F.3d 690

Undercover detective posing as a mother posted on a dark‑web site offering a 12‑year‑old daughter for sex; Robert Hosler responded and communicated with the decoy about arranging sex.
Communications covered the child’s sexual experience and preferences, specific acts, Hosler’s suitability, gifts (a princess dress), and Hosler asking to hear the child’s reaction and at one point requesting direct contact.
Hosler traveled from Texas to Eau Claire for a planned meeting and was arrested; charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (enticement), § 2423(b) (interstate travel), and child pornography statutes.
He waived a jury, proceeded to a bench trial on the enticement and travel counts, and was convicted; later pleaded guilty to the child‑pornography count and received concurrent 120‑month sentences.
On appeal Hosler argued his messages did not attempt to overcome or change the minor’s will and thus fell outside § 2422(b); the court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hosler’s communications satisfied § 2422(b)’s requirement to knowingly persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor (or attempt to do so)	Government: Hosler sought the minor’s assent via the parent, asked about the child’s preferences and reactions, offered gifts, and tried to reassure the parent—constituting an attempt to obtain assent	Hosler: the child was already willing; he merely responded and did not try to change or overcome the minor’s will	Conviction affirmed; a rational trier of fact could find Hosler attempted to obtain the minor’s assent through intermediary communications
Whether the district court’s denial of a Rule 29 motion and the bench verdict satisfy the legal standard for sufficiency of evidence	Government: evidence, when construed in favor of the government, supports conviction under the applicable de novo review standard	Hosler: facts warrant acquittal because communications were not aimed at persuasion	Affirmed: appellate court reviews de novo and will reverse only if no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that standard was not met

United States v. Doody, 600 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency; evidence construed in government’s favor)
United States v. McMillan, 744 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2014) (essence of § 2422(b) is attempting to obtain the minor’s assent; intermediary communications suffice)
United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (using a parent as intermediary can constitute a direct attempt to obtain a minor’s assent)
United States v. Berk, 652 F.3d 132 (1st Cir. 2011) (conviction supported where defendant solicited a parent about "renting out" a daughter)
United States v. Roman, 795 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2015) (sufficient evidence where defendant sought the minor’s readiness and preferences via an intermediary)
United States v. Cramer, [citation="789 F. App'x 153"] (11th Cir. 2019) (evidence sufficient where defendant asked about the child’s sexual history and comfort)
United States v. Vinton, 946 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2020) (contrast—reversal where the conduct did not sufficiently show an attempt to obtain assent)