UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 19, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 22-5088 v.

JOHN WILLIAM THOMAS FLECHS,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 4:21-CR-00026-CVE-1) _________________________________

Amy W. Senia, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender with her on the briefs), Denver, Colorado for Defendant - Appellant.

Thomas E. Duncombe (Clinton J. Johnson, United States Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma; and Katherine A. Gregory, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Buffalo, New York, on the brief), for the Plaintiff - Appellee. _________________________________

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

MATHESON, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

A jury convicted Defendant-Appellant John William Thomas Flechs of attempted

enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). On appeal, he argues (A) the Appellate Case: 22-5088 Document: 010111034849 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 2

evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction and (B) the district court erred

in giving a jury instruction on the term “grooming.” Exercising jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History 1

In January 2021, Mr. Flechs, using the pseudonym “John Breezy,” began

conversations on the Kik online messaging platform with someone he believed to be a

14-year-old boy. Suppl. ROA, Vol. II at 47, 114. In fact, Mr. Flechs was messaging

Sergeant John Haning, a member of the Rogers County, Oklahoma Internet Crimes

Against Children Task Force. Id. at 41. 2 The minor told Mr. Flechs he was 14 years old

and shared two photos of his face. Id. at 54; Suppl. ROA, Vol. III, Ex. 1 at 8, 18.

Mr. Flechs responded that he was 35 and shared a photo of his face. Suppl. ROA, Vol. II

at 51; Suppl. ROA, Vol. III, Ex. 1 at 18-19. 3

Over the next four days, Mr. Flechs and the minor discussed sexual topics in

graphic detail, including oral sex, masturbation, the size of the minor’s penis, and their

previous sexual experiences. See Suppl. ROA, Vol. III, Ex. 1 at 10-71. Mr. Flechs asked

1 This factual summary derives from the evidence presented at trial. 2 We refer to Sergeant Haning as “the minor.” 3 We caution the reader that the communications between Mr. Flechs and the minor were sexually graphic. Because Mr. Flechs was convicted of a sexual crime and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we recount the communications to evaluate whether the evidence was sufficient and to explain our decision.

2 Appellate Case: 22-5088 Document: 010111034849 Date Filed: 04/19/2024 Page: 3

multiple times about the minor’s sexual desires, id. at 23, 45, and shared his own. At

other points, the minor asked Mr. Flechs to “teach” him how to have sex. Id. at 29, 42,

56. Mr. Flechs said, “Lol That’s illegal,” but continued the conversation. Id. at 56.

After they discussed meeting in person, including Mr. Flechs’s telling the minor

that he was driving near the minor’s home, id. at 60,