993 F.3d 839
10th Cir.2021Background
- Defendant (online handle “Talk Big”) contacted an undercover FBI profile on an adult dating site; the agent’s profile initially presented as an 18‑year‑old “Brooke,” later revealed as a 17‑year‑old “Nikki” created by Agent Tangeman with a confidential source for calls.
- Defendant solicited Nikki to be his “business partner” (prostitute), promised luxury, urged discretion, recommended a fake ID, requested nude photos, explained prostitution rates, and bought her a one‑way bus ticket to California before her 18th birthday.
- FBI arrested Defendant at a California bus terminal; he was charged with attempted sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)) and transporting an individual to engage in prostitution.
- At trial Defendant argued he intended only to wait until Nikki turned 18, asserted entrapment, sought disclosure of the confidential source, objected to Agent Tangeman’s expert testimony, and challenged admission of a large site‑comments exhibit and his sentence.
- A jury convicted Defendant on both counts; the district court sentenced him to 188 months; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted sex‑trafficking of a minor | Evidence (texts, calls, actions) shows intent to have Nikki engage in commercial sex while a minor | No evidence he intended illegal commercial sex before she turned 18; at most speculation | Affirmed — viewing evidence in government’s favor, jury reasonably inferred intent to traffic a minor |
| Entrapment jury instruction | Govt did not induce; defendant remained predisposed | Undercover profile and delay in revealing age induced belief she was adult, so instruction required | Denied — no sufficient evidence of inducement; defendant continued recruitment after learning age |
| Disclosure of confidential source (Roviaro claim) | Identity needed to support entrapment defense | Transcripts of all communications were admitted; source had no unique, non‑cumulative testimony | Denied — informant identity not material; disclosure would be cumulative |
| Admission of Agent Tangeman’s expert testimony | Testimony on pimping culture was irrelevant and prejudicial | Expert linked culture to elements (intent, recruitment tactics); testimony helped infer intent | Affirmed — expert testimony was relevant to an element and properly admitted; defendant waived instruction objection by agreeing at trial |
| Admission of long site‑comments exhibit / Rule 106 | Court should have admitted full 207‑page exhibit for completeness | Defense objected to irrelevancy at trial and thereby caused exclusion | No review — exclusion was invited error by defense, waived on appeal |
| Substantive reasonableness of 188‑month sentence | Sentence unreasonable; government conduct was outrageous; he accepted responsibility | Government conduct not outrageous; defendant did not accept responsibility | Affirmed — within Guidelines, no abuse of discretion; no outrageous conduct shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Isabella, 918 F.3d 816 (10th Cir. 2019) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (informant‑identity disclosure framework)
- United States v. Scull, 321 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2003) (entrapment‑instruction standard)
- United States v. Vincent, 611 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2010) (entrapment jury‑instruction requirements)
- United States v. Nguyen, 413 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2005) (entrapment elements: inducement and predisposition)
- United States v. Abdush‑Shakur, 465 F.3d 458 (10th Cir. 2006) (expert testimony relevance analysis)
- United States v. Cornelius, 696 F.3d 1307 (10th Cir. 2012) (invited‑error doctrine)
- United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1994) (outrageous government conduct standard)
- United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006) (Guidelines range presumption of reasonableness)