Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13589 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JELANI AMIRI PETERSEN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:25-cr-00018-AW-MAF-1 ____________________ Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jelani Petersen appeals his conviction for attempting to entice a minor to engage in unlawful sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He argues that the district court erred when it USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13589 granted the government’s motion in limine and refused to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of entrapment. After review, we affirm. I. Background In September 2024, federal and state law enforcement in Tallahassee, Florida conducted a multi-agency undercover operation to apprehend individuals seeking to engage in unlawful sexual activity with minors. As part of that operation, law enforcement posted advertisements on known prostitution websites. When someone responded, an undercover agent— posing as an underage girl—would ask the person to meet at a predetermined location. Law enforcement would then place the person who arrived under arrest. On the night of September 5, 2024, Petersen responded to one of the government’s posts of a 19-year-old girl on “Skip the Games,” a website that hosts advertisements for prostitution. Unbeknownst to Petersen, he started texting with an undercover agent who represented that the girl’s age was actually 14. Their conversation reads as follows: Petersen: Are you available? Agent: hiii Agent: ya i am Petersen: How much for a [quick visit]? Agent: 60 Petersen: Wya , and have you ever did anal before ? Agent: im by n monroe Agent: ya once USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-13589 Opinion of the Court 3 Petersen: Can we ? Agent: im down Agent: u okay if im 14?? Agent: im chill tho Petersen: Are you serious ? Send me a picture Agent: ya why haha Agent: u first then i will Petersen: You said you down I’m just curious Petersen: But nvm I can just pull up on you . Agent: okkk Agent: u wanna do anal Petersen: Addy? Petersen: Yea Agent: okk lemme shower [real quick] Agent: can u scoop me from gas station Petersen: What gas station ? Agent: let me look and ill shoot it to u Petersen: K Agent: im about to get out of the shower Agent: can u bring condoms Petersen: Aite Petersen: Yea Agent: can u scoop me from [the] sunstop [gas station] Agent: it says 3500 n monroe Petersen: Aite I’m like 35 minutes away tho Agent: bet Petersen: Or is that too long to wait Agent: lmk when ur 10 min and ill walk there Petersen: Okay , you stay w your parents ? Agent: i am visiting my step dad but hes at gf’s house USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 4 of 9 4 Opinion of the Court 25-13589 Petersen: You got Apple Pay ? Petersen: Or cash app Agent: ya i do Petersen: Ok Petersen: You’re pretty, have you f***ed a black guy before ? Agent: nope ud be the first haha Agent: thxxx Agent: what do u look like Petersen: And how long your stepdad going to be out ? And im decent , I’m lowkey scared to send a pic because you’re 14 , so I rather just see you in person . I’m older so ion wanna get caught up ya know , I’m in my 20s not too old . Agent: hes gone for the night at gf’s. he wont be home til tomorrow. Agent: and okk Agent: r u on ur way Petersen: Can I send you an Uber instead ? Agent: thats sketch Agent: i dont wanna do that Petersen: Actually nvm Agent: What Petersen: But yeah I’m otw , you know a spot or do you wanna go to a park Agent: okk lmk when ur 10 away Agent: park is straight Petersen: Okay Agent: im lexie btw Agent: how far does it say Petersen: I actually just about to get in car USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 5 of 9 25-13589 Opinion of the Court 5 Petersen: Nice meeting you Lexie Petersen: You know what , can I just come see you tomorrow ? Ima be on that side of town Agent: u playing Petersen: Well can we change the address . It be too much police out there sometimes at sunspot Agent: okk let me see Agent: idk where else to go but i can tell u when i get there if i see any [before] u pull up A few minutes later, Petersen messaged the person he thought was “Lexie” that he was on his way to the SunStop gas station. Petersen: Okay I’m otw Agent: okk lmk when ur 10 away and ill walk over let u kno Petersen: Okay Petersen: How far are you from the gas station Agent: im close. I can check for cops now Agent: how far r u Petersen: Almost there . Like 12 minutes Petersen: And yes check [please] ... Agent: ok give me just a min im checking Petersen: How’s it’s looking Agent: there was this car that just left and a gas truck but no cops Petersen: You still there ? USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 6 of 9 6 Opinion of the Court 25-13589 Agent: ya im inside Petersen: Okay come outside , I’m around the corner by the truck Agent: okk Agent: coming out of bathroom Petersen: Aite When Petersen arrived at the SunStop gas station, law enforcement arrested him. Police then searched Petersen’s car, where they found his cellphone, wallet, driver’s license, and condoms. A forensic analysis of Petersen’s cell phone showed that it was used to communicate with the undercover agent about the illegal sexual encounter. A grand jury returned an indictment charging Petersen with one count of attempting to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). Petersen pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial with the intention of relying on the affirmative defense of entrapment. The government moved in limine to preclude Petersen from raising his entrapment defense, arguing that no government inducement occurred which would support the defense. After a hearing, the district court granted the government’s motion because Petersen had failed to identify sufficient evidence that the government induced him to violate § 2422(b). Petersen renewed his request for an entrapment instruction at trial, but the district court again refused. The jury convicted Petersen, and he was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. This is his appeal. USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 7 of 9 25-13589 Opinion of the Court 7 II. Standard of Review Generally, we review “a district court’s grant of a government’s motion in limine [for an] abuse of discretion.” United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir. 1994). However, we review the refusal of a district court to instruct the jury on entrapment de novo. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1346 (11th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Mayweather, 991 F.3d 1163, 1174 n.13 (11th Cir. 2021) (“Whether a defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction depends on whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment, and the sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question that we review de novo.” (quotations omitted)). III. Discussion Entrapment is an affirmative defense that consists of two elements: government inducement of the crime and a lack of predisposition on the part of the defendant. Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1346. The defendant bears the initial burden of production to show government inducement. Id. A defendant can meet this burden “by producing any evidence sufficient to raise a jury issue that the government’s conduct created a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it.” Id. (alterations adopted) (quotations omitted). If the defendant satisfies his burden, “he is entitled to have his defensive theory of the case put before the jury with appropriate instructions from the trial judge.” Mayweather, 991 F.3d at 1176 (alterations adopted) (quotations omitted). USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 8 of 9 8 Opinion of the Court 25-13589 On appeal, Petersen argues that he satisfied his burden to show government inducement based on two relevant facts. First, the government placed an advertisement for a 19-year-old girl on a prostitution website “known . . . to be used by adults.” Second, after Petersen asked the undercover agent—who Petersen believed was an underage girl named “Lexie”—whether they could meet the next day instead, the agent “coerce[d] [him] to remain engaged in the conversation” and to drive to the SunStop gas station by texting him “u playing” thereby “rop[ing] [him] back into the conversation.” Neither interaction shows that the government manipulated or coerced Petersen to commit an offense he would not have otherwise committed. The government’s online advertisement may have created the circumstances that led to Petersen’s arrest, but “a defendant must prove more than that the government . . . provided the opportunity for the crime” to establish inducement. Cannon, 987 F.3d at 943 (quoting United States v. West, 898 F.2d 1493, 1502 (11th Cir. 1990)). Instead, a defendant must “show ‘an element of persuasion or mild coercion,’ in other words, ‘opportunity plus something like excessive pressure or manipulation of a non-criminal motive.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 623 (11th Cir. 1995)). Petersen has not made such a showing. Petersen’s second argument fails for a similar reason. After Petersen asked the undercover agent whether they could meet the next day and the agent texted back “u playing,” Petersen USCA11 Case: 25-13589 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 11/13/2026 Page: 9 of 9 25-13589 Opinion of the Court 9 responded, “[w]ell can we change the address . . . [i]t be too much police out there sometimes at sunspot.” These text messages support the district court’s conclusion that Petersen never abandoned his freestanding intent to engage in sex acts with a person he believed was a 14-year-old girl, but rather that he only wished to avoid detection by police. Because Petersen failed to produce sufficient evidence that the government induced him to violate § 2422(b), the district court did not err when it granted the government’s motion in limine and refused to instruct the jury on entrapment. IV. Conclusion We affirm Petersen’s conviction. AFFIRMED.