[Copernicus]

"Under 18 U.S.C. § 2422 the predator does not have to talk to an actual minor, or even a purported one, as it is the mere attempt that is sufficient to secure a conviction. In United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), the defendant was discussing the possibility, in chat rooms, of renting the fictional father’s daughter for sex. He was met at the hotel carrying $300 and a box of condoms and arrested. He was convicted of attempt under the statute as there was no minor to be coerced. Upon appeal he argued that he hadn’t communicated directly with the minor and thus could not be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422.

The Court decided that it was irrelevant whether he was actually speaking to a minor or a purported minor, and that it was his intent to have sex with a minor AND his actions towards the fulfillment of that intent that allowed the government to secure the conviction.

“In United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002), cert denied, 537 U.S. 1176, 154 L. Ed. 2d 921 (2003), we upheld an attempt conviction under 2422(b) where a defendant believed he was communicating with a minor, but was actually communicating with an undercover government agent. Id. at 1227-28. Murrell contends that Root is distinguishable from his case because it involved direct communication between the defendant and the purported minor. However, we fail to recognize how this factual discrepancy is relevant to the disposition of the charges against Murrell. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court on to went to point out:

“To sustain a conviction for the crime of attempt, the government need only prove (1) that the defendant had the specific intent to engage in the criminal conduct for which he is charged and (2) that he took a substantial step toward commission of the offense. See United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354, 1369 (11th Cir. 1994); see also Root, 296 F.3d at 1227-28. For example, we have stated that a conviction for attempted importation of marijuana requires proof of "a specific intent to import marijuana" and a substantial step towards the importation. See United States v. Collins, 779 F.2d 1520, 1527 (11th Cir. 1986)” Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 at 1286
The Court viewed Murrell’s actions as dispositive of his intent, though it pointed out that the government did not carry the burden of having to prove intent under the plain language definition of intent coupled with 18 U.S.C. § 2422. "