United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-2844 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD S. SEWELL, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 3:20-cr-30098-NJR-1 — Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Chief Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 2, 2024 — DECIDED JUNE 10, 2024 ____________________

Before ROVNER, HAMILTON, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. We face another appeal question- ing the need to give the jury an entrapment instruction where a law enforcement sting operation results in federal charges for attempted enticement of a minor. Line drawing in this area is difficult, for the law permits the use of sting operations to solicit the crime but not to entrap—in short, not to induce someone who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime. This case falls on the easier side of the divide, as the 2 No. 23-2844 undercover FBI agent who posed as a 15-year-old girl on Craigslist did no more than solicit Gerald Sewell’s participa- tion in sexual activity, while Sewell pressed for the encounter to occur. On these facts, the district court committed no error in denying Sewell’s request for a jury instruction on entrap- ment. So we affirm. I A On June 27, 2020, Gerald Sewell took to Craigslist seeking a sexual encounter. He responded to a post on the “Missed Connections” page and in short order found himself in a con- versation with someone he believed was a 15-year-old girl named Brionica but who turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. The conversation, which lasted just under six hours, quickly turned sexual, with the two planning to meet later the same day. They exchanged photos, discussed their age differ- ence, and in no uncertain terms conveyed their respective sex- ual interests. That same afternoon Sewell drove across state lines from Missouri to Illinois to what he believed was Bri- onica’s home where he promptly found himself under arrest. B Federal charges followed, with Sewell being indicted both for attempted enticement of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) and for traveling across state lines with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)). He pleaded not guilty, chose to go to trial, and asked the district court for a jury in- struction on entrapment. The district court deferred ruling on the motion until the close of evidence and then denied Sew- ell’s request. The district court saw no evidence of persistent persuasion by the undercover agent and no reluctance by No. 23-2844 3 Sewell. To the contrary, the court found the government properly used the sting operation to solicit the crime without overstepping and inducing Sewell. The jury convicted Sewell on both counts. Section 2422(b) carries a mandatory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment, so the district court imposed concurrent ten-year sentences on both counts. Sewell now appeals, challenging the district court’s denial of an entrapment instruction. II Our role as a court of review is to take a fresh and inde- pendent look at Sewell’s challenge to the district court’s deci- sion not to provide an entrapment instruction. See United States v. Mercado, 53 F.4th 1071, 1079 (7th Cir. 2022). A Our en banc decision ten years ago in United States v. May- field established a careful and durable framework for evaluat- ing claims of government entrapm