Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jason Craig Montgomery v. United States

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 17-41182 · judgment August 27, 2018


Certiorari denied · February 25, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 6% cert probability (95% interval 4%–8%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Question presented

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), prohibits using interstate communications to “persuade[], induce[], entice[], or coerce[]” a minor to engage in sexual activity. An attempt conviction requires evidence that the defendant possessed the requisite intent and took a substantial step toward completing the crime. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s motion(s) to dismiss the indictment, for judgment of acquittal and for new trial, concluding that evidence the Petitioner agreed or arranged to have sex with a fictitious, willing minor through an adult intermediary – without communicating with the fictitious minor, or evidence of intent to overcome the minor’s will – and then traveled to meet the fictitious minor, violated 18 U.S.C. §2422(b). The questions presented, on which the Fifth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit are in conflict, are: I. Does a defendant attempt to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §2422(b), where the defendant communicates solely with an adult intermediary and those communications cannot be seen as an effort to overcome the minor’s will? II. Does an action that might only cause a minor to engage in sexual activity – such as travel to meet the minor in person – satisfy the substantial step requirement of a §2422(b) attempt?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Heather Jean Barbieri
Barbieri Law Firm, P.C.

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Feb 25 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Feb 06 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
  3. Jan 22 2019
    Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
  4. Dec 13 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 22, 2019.
  5. Dec 12 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2018 to January 22, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  6. Nov 14 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2018)