## Facts

- Jeffrey P. Taylor engaged in sexually explicit online chats in a public internet chat room with an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old girl.
- During the chats, Taylor discussed sexual topics and, at least once, masturbated on webcam while believing the officer was a minor observing him.
- When the undercover officer suggested meeting in person, Taylor declined and described the interaction as an “online fantasy.”
- Taylor was charged with attempt under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for using the internet to persuade, induce, or entice a minor to engage in “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”
- The government relied on Indiana statutes criminalizing (1) self-touching in the presence of a child with sexual intent and (2) solicitation of a child to engage in such conduct, as the predicate “criminal offense” incorporated by § 2422(b).
- Taylor did not dispute that his alleged conduct would violate the cited Indiana offenses; he argued instead that the conduct was not “sexual activity” under § 2422(b).

## Issues

1. Whether “sexual activity” in 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) requires physical contact between the defendant and the minor.
2. Whether attempting to persuade a minor to observe or participate in the defendant’s sexual self-touching can qualify as “sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense” when state law criminalizes that behavior.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Taylor’s conviction.
- The court held that “sexual activity” in § 2422(b) does not require physical contact and can include masturbation performed in the presence of a perceived minor when state law makes such conduct criminal.
- The court accepted state-law crimes as qualifying predicate “criminal offense[s]” under § 2422(b) and concluded the Indiana statutes satisfied that requirement here.
- The court rejected importing narrower definitions of “sexual act” from other federal statutes into § 2422(b), reasoning Congress used the broader term “sexual activity.”
- The court emphasized § 2422(b) targets attempts to obtain a minor’s assent to unlawful sexual conduct, and the purely online setting did not remove Taylor’s conduct from the statute’s reach.

## Legal Principles

- “Sexual activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) can include non-contact sexual conduct, including a defendant’s masturbation in the presence of a person the defendant believes is a minor.
- For § 2422(b), the referenced “criminal offense” may be a state offense, so long as the conduct constitutes sexual activity for which a person can be charged under that law.
- Courts should not narrow § 2422(b) by importing definitions of “sexual act” from other statutory schemes when Congress used different, broader language.
- Attempt liability under § 2422(b) focuses on the defendant’s effort to persuade or entice a minor to agree to engage in criminal sexual conduct, regardless of whether an in-person encounter occurs.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Taylor’s § 2422(b) attempt conviction, ruling that “sexual activity” is not limited to physical contact and includes online masturbation observed by a perceived minor when state law criminalizes the underlying conduct.


United States v. Taylor, 640 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2011)