The Single-Enticement Rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b): Unanimity and Duplicitous Indictments

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s April 8, 2025 decision in United States v. Jordan Jysae Pulido, 22-10709 (11th Cir. 2025), which addressed a complex federal prosecution of online enticement and transportation of a minor for sexual activity. The key actors were Jordan Pulido, who cultivated a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old Croatian girl known as I.G., and his father, Roberto Santana Jimenez, who facilitated travel, lodging, and asylum paperwork. Over a ten-month online courtship, Pulido and I.G. engaged in multiple sexual encounters abroad and in Florida. A federal grand jury charged Pulido with:

Enticement of a minor under 18 via the internet, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
Traveling in foreign commerce with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
Conspiracy to transport a minor for sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a) & (e).
Transporting a minor for sexual activity, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).

Pulido and Jimenez were each convicted on all counts in the district court. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all rulings except one: it vacated the § 2422(b) enticement conviction as duplicitous and remanded for resentencing.

Summary of the Judgment

After thorough review, the Eleventh Circuit:

Affirmed the constitutionality of the travel-with-intent statute (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)) under the Foreign Commerce Clause, holding that Congress validly regulates “channels of foreign commerce.”
Upheld the district court’s denial of Pulido’s motion to suppress electronic evidence seized at the border, reaffirming that forensic searches of devices at the border do not require suspicion or a warrant (United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018)).
Rejected Pulido’s claim of translation irregularities and evidentiary errors as insufficient to render the trial fundamentally unfair.
Vacated Pulido’s enticement conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), finding the single-count indictment duplicitous because multiple discrete enticement acts were aggregated in one count without unanimous agreement as to which act formed the basis for conviction.
Affirmed the convictions and sentences of both defendants on the conspiracy and transportation counts, including the district court’s two-level “undue influence” and “custody, care, or supervisory control” enhancements to Jimenez’s Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) & (b)(1)(B).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) – § 2422(b) punishes the act of enticing a minor to sexual activity, not merely the sexual act itself.
United States v. Rojas, 718 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013) – continuing offenses doctrine.
United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616–19 (1977) & United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) – border-search exception to Fourth Amendment.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) – cell phone searches and privacy interests (distinguished in the border context).
Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 16–17 (2005), United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995), United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651 (11th Cir. 2016) – scope of Commerce Clause power.
United States v. Whyte, 928 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2019) – Guidelines enhancement for “undue influence” over a minor.
United States v. Isaac, 987 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2021) – “custody, care, or supervisory control” enhancement.

Legal Reasoning

1. Duplicitous Indictment under § 2422(b): The Court reaffirmed that an indictment is duplicitous if one count charges “two or more separate and distinct offenses,” risking non-unanimous verdicts and double-jeopardy issues (Seher, 562 F.3d 1344). § 2422(b) is violated the moment a defendant persuades, induces, entices or coerces a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, even if no physical act occurs. In Pulido’s case, a 10-month online and in-person relationship encompassed multiple distinct enticements (before, during, and after travel). Charging only one count to cover that series imperils unanimity. The Court vacated the enticement conviction and remanded with an instruction to dismiss that count.

2. Foreign Commerce Clause and § 2423(b): The panel concluded that § 2423(b), which prohibits traveling in foreign commerce with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor, validly regulates a “channel of foreign commerce.” Analogizing the statute to regulations combating “immoral and injurious uses” of interstate channels (Lopez, Heart of Atlanta Motel), the Court held Congress acted within its Article I, § 8 power.

3. Border-Search Exception: Rejecting Pulido’s reliance on Riley, the Court held that forensic, suspicionless, warrantless searches of electronic devices at the border remain categorically reasonable. Touset and Vergara control; the only Fourth Amendment threshold at the border is whether the search is of a person’s body (e.g., strip search requires suspicion).

4. Trial Fairness & Evidence Rulings: The Court upheld the district court’s handling of Croatian-English interpretation lapses as non-structural, cured by limiting instructions and a predominantly Croatian-language testimony. It also found no abuse in admitting evidence of the minor’s chastity predisposition (Rule 412 does not bar relevant testimony about virginity or purity). Finally, a stray, corrective instruction cured an agent’s unsolicited remark about Jimenez’s immigration status.

5. Sentencing Enhancements: For Jimenez, the Court affirmed two two-level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3:

Undue Influence (b)(2)(B): a rebuttable presumption arises if the defendant is ≥10 years older than the minor (Comment 3(B)). Jimenez’s coaching, doctor-impersonation, flight-cancellation and communication control easily met the “abuse of superior knowledge, influence, or resources” standard (Whyte).
Custody, Care, or Supervisory Control (b)(1)(B): committed where a defendant temporarily assumes a caretaker role. Housing I.G. alone in Florida for a week sufficed (Isaac).

Impact

This decision sharpens two important doctrines:

Duplicitous Indictments and Jury Unanimity: Prosecutors in the Eleventh Circuit must now charge each distinct enticement under § 2422(b) in its own count, ensuring juror unanimity about the precise act of enticement. This may lengthen indictments and complicate grand‐jury presentations, but it conforms to the Circuit’s stringent non‐duplicitousness standard.
Border Searches of Digital Devices: The ruling cements that the border-search exception extends to forensic examination of electronics without any suspicion, insulating CBP’s practices from Fourth Amendment challenge in this Circuit.

Practitioners should carefully segment enticement charges and must anticipate more granular indictments in online child-exploitation prosecutions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duplicitous Indictment: One count cannot cover more than one crime. Each distinct “enticement” must be alleged separately so jurors unanimously agree on the same criminal act.
Continuing Offense vs. Single Act: A continuing offense “perpetuates” over time (e.g., conspiracy). § 2422(b) is not inherently “continuing”—the crime is complete when the minor is first enticed.
Border-Search Exception: Customs agents need no warrant or suspicion to search phones or laptops at U.S. borders; only “highly intrusive” body searches like strip searches require suspicion.
Foreign Commerce Clause: Congress may regulate “channels” of commerce (air travel, shipping) to prevent immoral uses (sexual exploitation abroad).
Rule 412 (“Rape Shield”): Bars evidence of a sexual‐assault victim’s past sexual behavior or disposition—but does not bar testimony that the minor was a virgin or value-driven about chastity.
Sentencing Enhancements (U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3):
- Undue Influence (+2 levels): Presumed when defendant is ≥10 years older than the minor, focuses on whether the adult used power to sway the child’s choices.
- Custody, Care, Supervisory Control (+2 levels): Applies when an adult temporarily “takes charge” of the minor’s living or personal decisions.

Conclusion

United States v. Pulido reaffirms that for § 2422(b) prosecutions in the Eleventh Circuit, each instance of persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor must be separately charged to protect jury unanimity and guard against double jeopardy. The decision also solidifies the broad scope of border search powers over digital devices and upholds Congress’s authority to regulate travel channels for preventing sexual exploitation. For defense counsel, the ruling highlights potential challenges to broad enticement indictments. Prosecutors must now draft multi-count 2422(b) indictments with care, and trial courts will remain vigilant in safeguarding jury unanimity and Fourth Amendment rights at the border.