United States of America v. Jason Dominik Tyler Rodriguez

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued October 28, 2022
Decided December 15, 2022
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1575
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JASON DOMINIK TYLER RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 4:20-CR-40049
Staci M. Yandle,
Judge.
O R D E R
A jury convicted Jason D.T. Rodriguez of attempting to entice a minor to engage
in sexual activity and attempting to commit aggravated sexual abuse with a child under
12. During trial, the Government presented evidence showing that Rodriguez made
arrangements to pay for sex with someone who he believed to be an eight-year-old girl
and traveled across state lines to do so. Rodriguez testified that he did not actually
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 22-1575 Page 2
intend to have sex with the girl, but rather, was running his own “sting” operation to
uncover child abusers on the internet and turn them in to law enforcement. Rodriguez
moved for acquittal at the close of the Government’s case and again at the close of
evidence, but the judge denied both motions, and the jury found Rodriguez guilty on
both counts. On appeal, Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We find
the evidence more than sufficient and affirm his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
In March 2020, FBI Special Agent Brian Wainscott posed online as “Codey
Stanley,” a father of an eight-year-old girl, who was willing to offer her to others for sex.
He posted an advertisement on Craigslist that stated, “Single dad looking to share my
ta booh fetish with like minded and if the circumstances are right HMU.” Rodriguez
responded to the advertisement asking: “What’s your fetish? You have me interested!”
Wainscott responded: “No limits family fun.”
Wainscott asked what Rodriguez was interested in, to which Rodriguez
responded, “New experiences but a young girl would be ideal. … The younger the
better!” Upon learning that Wainscott had an eight-year-old daughter, Rodriguez
responded, “Fuck yes! Got a pic? What are your circumstances?” They then exchanged
phone numbers and continued their conversation on Google Chat. Rodriguez
confirmed he was seeking to have a “personal experience” with the girl. He agreed to
pay Wainscott $150 to have sex with her while Wainscott watched. Rodriguez
repeatedly asked for pictures of the girl. In response, Wainscott sent fake pictures of his
fictional daughter. Satisfied with the pictures, Rodriguez expressed his hope “to make it
a regular thing” in the future but also asked whether it would be alright if nothing
illegal happened at the first meeting. Wainscott rejected that suggestion. He faked
concern that Rodriguez would go to the police and stated, “First time will be what we
all want so we’re in it together.” Rodriguez agreed but asked if he could talk with her
himself. Wainscott declined that request. Instead, Rodriguez agreed that Wainscott
should talk to his daughter to prepare her for the next day and asked Wainscott to “[l]et
[him] know what she sa[id]” afterwards. Wainscott also stated that “candy is a great
starter for her” and suggested that Rodriguez bring her gummy bears. Rodriguez said
he would pick some up.
The next day, Rodriguez drove from Missouri to a Menards in Illinois to meet
Wainscott and his daughter. When he arrived at the agreed upon location, law

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 22-1575 Page 3
enforcement arrested Rodriguez. He had $152 in cash and a package of gummy bears
was sitting in the front passenger seat of his car. Police also found a backpack that
contained a phone with hundreds of videos and images of child pornography. One of
the videos—downloaded just a few hours before Rodriguez responded to Wainscott’s
advertisement—depicted the exact same sexual scenario Rodriguez had been planning
to carry out with the daughter.
Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for both counts of
conviction. In evaluating such arguments, ‘‘[w]e consider the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, making all reasonable inferences in its favor, and affirm
the conviction so long as any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant to
have committed the essential elements of the crime.’’ United States v. Paneras, 222 F.3d
406, 410 (7th Cir. 2000).
First, Rodriguez argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for attempted enticement of a minor because he did not take a substantial
step toward persuading, inducing, or enticing a minor. In United States v. McMillan, we
held that § 2442(b) criminalizes adult-to-adult communications that are designed to
persuade a minor to commit the forbidden act and affirmed the defendant’s conviction
for attempted enticement. 744 F.3d. 1033, 1036–37 (7th Cir. 2014). The defendant had
posted an advertisement entitled “sell me your teenage daughter” and an undercover
agent responded in the guise of a father willing to solicit his minor daughter. Id. at 1034.
Their following conversation involved the defendant asking how much the undercover
agent would charge, if he could talk to the minor directly, and for nude pictures of her.
Id. at 1034, 1037. We found that the defendant attempted to use the father as an
intermediary to convey his message to the fictitious child, and held that “[a] minor can
be the object of the defendant’s efforts even if a third person functions as an
intermediary.” Id. at 1036. We applied this standard again in a similar case, where the
undercover agent suggested that his daughter would love a princess dress and the
defendant purchased one for her. United States v. Hosler, 966 F.3d 690, 693 (7th Cir. 2020)
(affirming defendant’s attempted enticement conviction). Here, Rodriguez made similar
inquiries to Wainscott and arrived with a gift he was told the child would like. A

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 22-1575 Page 4
rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant attempted to persuade, induce,
or entice the fictional daughter as required by § 2422(b). *
Second, Rodriguez argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 12 because he did
not intend to have sex with the minor at the time he drove from Missouri to Illinois.
This argument is without merit. The evidence established that Rodriguez drove roughly
120 miles across state lines to have sex with an eight-year-old girl. Although he first
asked whether it “would be cool” if “[n]othing illegal” happened at this first meetup,
Wainscott very clearly rejected that suggestion, and Rodriguez and Wainscott agreed
that the sexual act would take place at this first meeting. Rodriguez’s intent was further
established by the evidence that he had $152 in cash (enough to pay the $150 fee) and
the gummy bears in his car, facts which he could not explain at trial. Sufficient evidence
supports his conviction under § 2241(c).
AFFIRMED
* Rodriguez’s counsel argued for the first time at oral argument that our holding in McMillan is
inconsistent with the text of § 2422(b) and thus should be overruled. We decline to do so.

-- 4 of 4 --