Schnepper

MEMORANDUM **

1. The jury heard sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant *680 engaged in sexually explicit discussions with someone he believed was a minor, and attempted to entice her to fly to Maui to have sex with him. See Jackson v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 307 , 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Defendant’s knowing use of the Internet to solicit sex from “Mandy” violated 18 U.S.C. § 2422 (b). The jury also heard sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant emailed obscene pictures to a person he believed was a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 . 1 While defendant testified that he believed he was corresponding with an adult because he was in an “adults only” chat room, the jury was not required to credit his explanation.

2. Defendant was entrapped as a matter of law only if, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable jury could have found in favor of the government as to inducement or lack of predisposition.” United States v. Poehlman, 217 F.3d 692, 698 (9th Cir.2000). Defendant began emailing pornographic pictures of himself minutes after initiating contact with the undercover agent, who he…