United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1877 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL J. BAIRD, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 20-cr-40043 — J. Phil Gilbert, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED OCTOBER 28, 2022 — DECIDED JUNE 7, 2023 ____________________

Before SCUDDER, KIRSCH, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Michael Baird responded to an online FBI sting operation advertising the opportunity to have sex with a ten-year-old girl. Believing the ad’s author was the child’s father, Baird discussed his desired sexual activity in graphic detail and also offered to bring the child candy as a gift. Baird drove to the agreed-upon meeting place later that day only to encounter the FBI and find himself under arrest. 2 No. 22-1877 Federal charges followed under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for at- tempted enticement of a minor. The district court held a one- day bench trial and found Baird guilty. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to convict and affirm. I A On April 28, 2020, FBI Agent Brian Wainscott posted an ad on Craigslist that hinted at an opportunity to engage in sexual activity with a minor. Baird responded to the post during the middle of the night on May 4. Agent Wainscott, posing as a man named Codey, claimed to be the father of a ten-year-old girl with whom Baird could have sex. Baird expressed inter- est, which prompted a flurry of emails and texts over the next thirteen hours discussing the opportunity. Suffice it to say the exchanges between Baird and Wain- scott were graphic in the extreme. Baird left no doubt about his desire to have sex with the ten-year-old girl. Eventually the conversation turned to logistical details. Beyond discuss- ing where and when to meet, Agent Wainscott suggested that Baird bring gummy bears as a gift for the child. Baird agreed to buy the candy on his way over. He then drove to the ad- dress that Wainscott gave him later that afternoon. Law en- forcement observed Baird park two houses away from the designated address. The agents arrested Baird and found three packages of gummy bears in his car. B The federal indictment followed in June 2020. After stipu- lating to all of the evidence, Baird opted for a bench trial on the briefs one year later in June 2021. The district court found No. 22-1877 3 him guilty of attempted enticement of a minor in violation of § 2422(b). In its written decision, the district court focused on whether Baird had attempted to “knowingly persuade, in- duce, entice, or coerce” a minor, as required by § 2422(b). The district court concluded that Baird had done so because he “inquired into what this child liked sexually, indicated what he liked and what he would do sexually to this child, re- quested photographs of the child and continued to engage the father in conversations about the child.” These messages—alt- hough conveyed to Agent Wainscott posing as the girl’s fa- ther—still fell within the scope of § 2422(b). See United States v. McMillan, 744 F.3d 1033, 1036 (7th Cir. 2014). The district court also found the intended gift to be a significant piece of evidence. By bringing candy that the child supposedly liked to the planned sexual encounter, Baird had purchased an item that he intended to use to entice her. All of this sufficed, the district court concluded, to prove a violation of § 2422(b). In May