In United States v. Davis, the defendant answered an ad on looking for casual sex. Unfortunately, the “wild child” he responded to was actually a police officer engaged in a sting operation. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to convict because he believed he bought condoms and subsequently traveled across state lines to meet an adult and not a minor.  The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that the defendant believed he was meeting a minor and that the meeting would culminate in sex. The defendant also claimed that that the prosecutor made prejudicial statements that misrepresented the law and deprived him of due process, claimed that he was entrapped as a matter of law, and disputed the application of a sentencing enhancement. The Court ruled that these claims did not merit relief.