United States v. Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 663 F.3d 53

Rodríguez-Rodríguez was convicted after a four-day trial in the District of Puerto Rico for using an interstate facility to attempt to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity with him under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
The one-count superseding indictment charged Rodríguez with attempting to persuade a fourteen-year-old female, whom he believed to be under eighteen, to engage in sexual activity with him, for which Puerto Rico law could apply as an offense.
The government presented testimony from FBI agent Segarra and other agents, along with transcripts and recordings of chats, IMs, and phone calls; Rodríguez did not cross-examine the government witnesses.
The undercover target Patsy was actually Segarra; Rodríguez was arrested when he arrived at a sandwich shop to meet Patsy.
During trial, the court instructed that conviction required knowingly attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity, that he believed the minor was under sixteen, and that the activity would have been a Puerto Rico offense; the jury convicted after about three hours of deliberation.
Post-trial, Rodríguez argued the indictment charged only enticing Patsy to have sex with another minor and that the jury instructions constructively amended the indictment; the district court denied these motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictment charged enticing Patsy to have sex with him versus another minor	Rodríguez argues the indictment targeted sex with another minor.	Rodríguez contends the phrasing created a different target than Patsy.	Indictment fairly read as charging enticing Patsy to engage in sex with him.
Whether jury instructions constructively amended the indictment	Rodríguez claims instructions broadened the charged acts beyond sexual intercourse.	The government contends instructions aligned with Puerto Rico law and the indictment.	No constructive amendment; instructions did not introduce a new charge.
Whether the jury instructions created a prejudicial variance	Rodríguez argues variance occurred by applying broader Puerto Rico sexual-activity rules.	The government argues any variance was not prejudicial and the same offense remained charged.	No prejudicial variance; the statutory violation remained the same.

United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (constructive amendment standard applies when charging terms are altered)
Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (S. Ct. 1960) (charging terms must not be effectively altered after grand jury)
United States v. Bucci, 525 F.3d 116 (1st Cir. 2008) (when objection preserved, constructive amendment requires reversal)
United States v. Fornia-Castillo, 408 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2005) (variance vs. constructive amendment; prejudice matters)
United States v. Mueffelman, 470 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2006) (line between variance and constructive amendment is fuzzy)
United States v. Fisher, 3 F.3d 456 (1st Cir. 1993) (definition of variance factors into prejudice inquiry)
Coffin v. Bowater, Inc., 501 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation and last-antecedent rule context)
Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (last antecedent rule and textual interpretation guidance)