WPC  8&%' B:2P1=$سb!Pg#z_cD+lGѺanX=IJ 1tiT3AHV@X]߫uǘۡ^p)j JTXy{m:go͑g8)s"(^jBKؔlJֺ);IjCh_+ 6QjrggALNO"Hb/raw TN2W̓kjYyvVg3yd{eNQ h]+VY^Kxj'4/ Ea> TBïe%ET 32~plX8錌 [X~7!޸51RTXcpq8+#Z %# 0D) 0GmU: 0U8nTN" UN$ UFr ^ w 4   E f a m N    ^UBz 1{b7U>?}}* 72 1u 72_ 0c B,HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2#$ !XFXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@(A Z6Times New Roman RegularQ 9Z+.Courier New Regularyw3 rZ36Xy File3|xTABLE AU _ #X]XXX      1     ` Therequestedinstructionprovided:  Ѐ8  0`    DustinButtrickassertsasadefensethathe \ renunciatedorabandonedanyefforttocommitthe 2 crimewithwhichheischarged.Itisacomplete X defensetothechargeagainstthedefendantthathe . renunciatedorabandonedhisefforttocommitthe   crimeorotherwisepreventeditscommission.Such   abandonmentorrenunciationmustbecompleteand `  voluntary.6  ` `  0  8` (#(# Renunciationisnotvoluntaryifitis  \  motivated,inwholeorinpart,bycircumstances,  2  notpresentorapparentattheinceptionofthe   actor'scourseofconduct,thatincreasethe   probabilityofdetectionorapprehensionorthat d  makemoredifficulttheaccomplishmentofthe :  criminalpurpose.` ` `  0  8` (#(# Renunciationisnotcompleteifitis 6 motivatedbyadecisiontopostponethecriminal   conductuntilamoreadvantageoustimeorto  transferthecriminalefforttoanotherbutsimilar h objectiveorvictim.>` `  0  8` (#(# TheGovernmenthastheburdentoprovebeyond d areasonabledoubtthattheDefendant's : renunciationorabandonmentofthecrimewasnot   voluntaryornotcomplete.` `  0  8` (#(# IfyoufindthattheDefendantvoluntarilyand  completelyrenunciatedorabandonedaneffortto \ committhecrimechargedintheindictmentthenyou 2 mustfindhimtobenotguilty.Ifyoufindthat X hisabandonmentorrenunciationwasnotvoluntary . orcompleteandthattheGovernmenthasproventhe   elementsoftheoffenseasIhaveexplainedthemto   youthenyoushouldfindtheDefendanttobe `  guilty. L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi83CIOU[agmLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.- -\( 9Z+&Courier Regular  #$X]XXX      4    _ ` EveninBailey,inwhichthiscourtreservedthequestion  oftheavailabilityoftheabandonmentdefenseforattemptcrimes,  theprofferedabandonmentinstruction,heldnottobewarrantedby \ theevidence,placedtheburdenofpersuasiononthedefendant. 2 834F.2dat226n.6. BarbadoroIacopinoLenehanPappsColantuonomeritlessDurexPujolsGenlyte TumShelton cmt i]trenunciated t]heMontanezDoyonDworkenGamacheBredimus Hokeproferred MPC SLLScisumarguendoHartsockMontaButtrickA.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)!i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    #$X]XXX      2    _d ` dWenotethatButtrickwaschargedwiththesubstantive  crimeunder18U.S.C.2423(b).Wethusalsodonotreachany  questionsaboutavailabledefensestoaidingandabetting,see \ UnitedStatesv._Garrett_,720F.2d705,71314(D.C.Cir.1983) 2 (consideringanabandonmentdefensetothechargeofaidingand X abettingtheviolationof2423),ortoconspiracycrimesofthis . ilk.Nordowereachanyquestionsaboutanentrapmentdefense. d  #$X]XXX      3    _ ` Again,westressthatwedonotdecidethevalidityof  defendant'stheorythattheabandonmentdefenseisapplicabletoa  prosecutionunder18U.S.C.2423;wenoteonlythattodateno \ courthasacceptedthetheoryinthiscontext. !X]XXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * ! X6XXX] rX X6     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals k r  FortheFirstCircuit   k X]X   A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.051451 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @,,"DUSTINBUTTRICK, K  @ Defendant,Appellant.  A') ` dE<R` A S @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 8   FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE ^ g@` ` [Hon.PaulJ.Barbadoro,U.S.DistrictJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, G CampbellandCyr,SeniorCircuitJudges.  A') ` dE<N ` A O "       MichaelJ.Iacopino,withwhomBrennanCaronLenehan& 4!$ Iacopinowasonbrief,forappellant.  "Z%   PeterE.Papps,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorney,withwhom "0& ThomasP.Colantuono,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrief,for #' appellee. $( *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  '^"+'^"  SIr'", @38678@SNovember23,2005 H(#.  RHC)n$/" @38678 @ R(r'"0  (  * !   ,'3?   8]XXdd8*,X` XX*=]XXdd= ` X]XX X]LYNCH,CircuitJudge .DustinButtrick,atwentytwo  yearoldman livinginElliot,Maine, crossedoverthestateline x intoNewHampshire,havingarrangedtorendezvouswithafourteen $t yearoldgirlhemetovertheInternettohavesex. The"girl"   turnedouttohavebeenafiction;Buttrickwascaughtinasting |  operationsetupbythePortsmouth,NewHampshire,Police ( x  Department. Thereisnodisputethatthe"girl"toldButtrickthat $  shewasunderage, andthereisnodisputethathecrossedoverthe   statelinefortheanticipatedtryst. Buttrickneverfoundhis ,|  intendedparamour;thePortsmouthpolicearrestedhimfirst.His D defensewasthatmerecuriositydrovehim;althoughhebrought  alongcondoms,ashehadtoldthe"girl"thathewould,hesaid L thathehadneverintendedtohavesexwithher. H  ` OnSeptember9,2004,ajuryfoundButtrickguiltyof  travelingininterstatecommercewiththepurposeofengagingin P illicitsexualconductwithanotherpersonbetweentwelveand L sixteenyearsofage,inviolationof18U.S.C.2423(b).See   also18U.S.C.2423(f),2241(c).Buttrickwassentencedto T!" eighteenmonthsinprison,followedbyafiveyearperiodof #P$ supervisedrelease.  $&  ` Thisappealaddressestwolegalquestionspreviously X&!( raisedindefendant'smotionforajudgmentofacquittalor,inthe (T#* alternative,anewtrial.Buttrickarguesthatthestatuteof )%, conviction,18U.S.C.2423(b),isunconstitutionalasappliedto \+&. himbecauseitpunishesmerethoughtandburdenstherightto  travel.Thestatuteprovides,inrelevantpart: \ 8 ` Apersonwhotravelsininterstatecommerce X ...forthepurposeofengaginginany . illicitsexualconductwithanotherperson   shallbefinedunderthistitleorimprisoned   notmorethan30years,orboth.# X]XXX]P #X]XX X]` ` x` x Buttrick'ssecondargumentisthatthedistrictcourterredin  \  denyinghisrequestforajuryinstruction,drawnfroman   affirmativedefenseundertheModelPenalCode,onabandonmentor d  renunciationofintenttocommitthecrime.# X]XXX]_#X]XX X] `   ` Weholdthattheclaimofstatutoryunconstitutionality   ismeritlessanddevolvesintonothingmorethananinsufficiency h ofevidenceclaim.Onthesecondissue,weagreewiththedistrict d courtthatevenif,intheory,anabandonmentdefensewereever  availableinresponsetoaprosecutionunder18U.S.C.2423(b), l aquestionwedonotaddress,theprofferedinstructionwas h properlyrejectedbecauseitwasanerroneousstatementofthelaw.  Weaffirm. p  @tt) I.  !l"  ` ThefactsrecitedcomelargelyfromButtrick'stestimony. "4$ Thattestimonyincludestheevidenceastowhichtheproposed $& instructionwasdirectedandprovidesthebasisforevaluatingthe <&!( claimsthatthestatutewasunconstitutionallyapplied.Thereis '8#*  noneedtodiscussthegovernment'sadditionalevidenceofguilt. )$,  ` Buttricktestifiedasfollows.Beforetheincidentin   question,hehadvisitedchatroomsthirtyorfortytimes. Hehad \ explicitsexualconversationswithwomensevenoreighttimesand $t madearrangementstomeetthreeorfourofthesewomen.    ` OnJune8,2003,ButtrickloggedintoaYahoo!chatroom. |  Hewasattractedtoanindividualusingthescreenname ( x  "baybeedaw188"andcontactedherviainstantmessaging. Heasked $  theindividualherage,andsheidentifiedherselfasafourteen   yearoldgirl.Thechatquicklybecamesexuallygraphic,with H  Buttricksuggestingthattheygettogetherto"foolaround." He D alsosaidto"baybeedaw188,"untruthfully,thathewasonly  nineteenyearsold,thathewasfromDover,NewHampshire,andthat L hehad"fooledaround"beforewithsomeonehemetonline. H  ` Buttricktestifiedattrialthathehadnointenttogo  anyfurtherthanconversationthatitwasalljustfantasy. He P continuedthefantasy,replyingtoemailmessagesfrom L "baybeedaw188"andengaginginothersexuallyexplicitonline   conversationswithher. DuringaJune22chatroomconversation, T!" however,hewentastepbeyondfantasyandsuggestedthattheymeet #P$ inperson.Heand"baybeedaw188"# X]XXX]#X]XX X]agreedtomeetat8:30a.m.on $& Tuesday,June24,2003,attheNewHampshireStateLiquorStoreon X&!( theRoute1trafficcircleinPortsmouth,NewHampshire. (T#*  ` Buttricktestifiedthathedidnotbelievethestatements )%, from"baybeedaw188"thatshewasfourteenyearsold. Overthe \+&. weekendbeforethemeeting,Buttricktalkedaboutthesechatroom  conversationswithafriend,TomWhelan,whowasaparttimepolice \ officer. ButtricktoldWhelanaboutthemeeting,sayinghe"would X justdrivebyandtakealook"andthathe"wascurioustoseewho   [he]wastalkingto."Whelanadvisedhimthatitwasabadidea.  `   ` Still,onMonday,June23,Buttrickand"baybeedaw188"  \  hadanothersexualchatroomconversation,duringwhichthey   confirmedthattheywouldmeetasplannedthenextmorning. d   Accordingtothetestimonyofthedetectivebehindthesting `  operation,Buttricktold"baybeedawl88"thathewouldbring   "Durex"brandcondomswithhimtotheirmeeting. Buttrick's h testimonywasthathehadnointenttoperformanysexualactwith d heroreventomeether.Hesaidthatheintendedtodrivetothe  meetingplaceinNewHampshirefromhishomeinMaine,aboutfive l milesaway,"justseewhothispersonwas.Iwasjustcurious."  h  ` OnTuesday,June24,ashedressedbeforedrivingtothe  meeting,Buttrickgrabbedvariousitemsfromhisdresser,including p  condoms.Hetestifiedthathedidnotbringthecondomstohave !l" sexwith"baybeedaw188";rather,hesaid,"I'vebeengoingouta "$ lotandItrytomakeitahabitofcarryingcondomsonme."He t$& alsotestifiedthatashedrovetothemeeting,itstillhadnot  &p!( crossedhismindthatperhapshewouldhavesexwithherafterall. '#*   ` Buttrickdroveacrossthestatelinetowardthemeeting x)$, place.AtthetrafficcircleinPortsmouth,hedrovearoundthe $+t&. circleonce,thenpulledofftolooktowardtheliquorstoretosee  ifsomeonewasintheparkinglot.Hethendrovearoundthecircle \ anothertimeandagainpulledoff. Heintended,hetestified,to X getonthetrafficcircleathirdtime.Beforehecoulddoso,   however,hewaspulledoverbythePortsmouthpoliceandarrested. `   AdetectivetestifiedthatherecoveredtwocondomsfromButtrick's  \  frontpocket,oneofwhichwasa"Durex"brandcondom.     ` Buttrickadmittedattrialthatduringapostarrest d  interviewbythepolice,hewasaskedwhether"thepurposeofthis `  wholething"wasthathe"wantedtohavesexwitha14yearold   girl,"andthatheanswered,"Yeah." Hetestified,however,that h whathesaidtothepolicewasnotanadmissionofguilt,justan d acknowledgmentthatheknewwhyhehadbeenarrested. Headmitted  thatwhenhewasaskedinthepostarrestinterviewwhathis l purposewasincrossingthestateline,hehadsaidthathedidnot h know,butthathisintentionwastodrivehomefromthetraffic  circlebecausehe"knewitwasn'tagoodidea." Hefurther p  admittedthatwhenaskedattheinterviewwhetherhewouldhave !l" stoppedhadheseenafourteenyearoldgirlintheparkinglot,he "$ hadreplied,"no,"andsaidthathe"wouldhavebeenfreakedout t$& and...wouldhaveknownit...wasn'tagoodidea." He  &p!( stressedthatifhehadseenagirlatthelot,hewouldnothave '#*  hadsexwithher. x)$,  ` ThecruxofButtrick'sdefense,then,wasthathenever   hadanyintenttoengageinillicitsexualconductevenbeforehe \ lefthishomeonhistriptothemeetingplace.Curiosity,in X otherwords,notsex,ledhimacrossthestateline.   @88) II.  `   (93! A. ` UnconstitutionalityoftheStatuteasApplied  ( x   ` WequicklydisposeofButtrick'sasapplied @  constitutionalchallenge,sincetheclaimofunconstitutionalityis   controlledbyourpriordecisioninUnitedStatesv.Gamache,156 H  F.3d1(1stCir.1998)# X]XXX];##X]XX X].Gamacherejectedtheargumentthat18 D U.S.C.2423(b)punishesmerethought.Seeid.at78.Other  circuitshavecometothesameconclusion.UnitedStatesv. L Bredimus,352F.3d200,20809(5thCir.2003);# X]XXX]Q8#X]XX X]UnitedStatesv. H Han,230F.3d560,563(2dCir.2000);seealsoHokev.United  States,227U.S.308,323(1913)(upholdingasconstitutional P similarstatutorylanguageintheMannAct). L  ` AsGamacheholds,thestatutepunishesthosewhoperform   theactofcrossingthestatelinewiththeintenttoengageinthe T!" specifiedwrongfulconduct.See156F.3dat8.Theintent #P$ requirementisoftenprovedthroughanotherseriesofacts.See $& id.Here,asinGamache,thoseactsincludedefendant'srepeated X&!( correspondencewithhisintendedparamour,hissettingupthe (T#* detailsoftheassignation,hisbringingofthecondoms,andhis )%, actualtravelingtothegeneralvicinityoftherendezvouspoint, \+&. onthescheduleddateandatthescheduledtime.Seeid.Buttrick  "didnotabstractlycontemplatecrossingstateboundarieswitha \ thoughttocommittingacrimeuponreachinghisdestination";he X didmuchmore.Id.    ` ButtrickattemptstodistinguishGamacheontheground `  thatheallegedlydisplayedaclearintentnottoengageinany  \  illicitconduct.Thisargumentisnothingmorethananattackon   thesufficiencyoftheevidenceanddoesnotstateaconstitutional d  claim. `   ` Hisargumentthatthestatuteviolatesdueprocessby   interferingwiththerighttotravelsuffersfromthesame h infirmity.HearguesnotthatCongresscannotregulatetravelas d itdoesinthestatute,butthatsincehelackedtherequisite  intent,thestatuteasappliedisunconstitutional. # X]XXX]9#X]XX X]Ԁ Again,thisis l nothingmorethananattackonthejury'sfindingthathehadthe 4 requisiteintent.Cf.Bredimus,352F.3dat20910(holdingthat 0 2423(b)doesnotimpermissiblyburdentherighttoforeigntravel   becauseitonlycriminalizestraveldonewithillicitintent). 8!" # X]XXX]?B# B.  ` RequestforanInstructionontheAbandonmentor "4$  ` RenunciationDefense  #% D ` Wereviewaproperlypreservedobjectiontothefailure % ' togivearequestedjuryinstructiondenovo.SanchezLopezv. .'~") FuentesPujols,375F.3d121,133(1stCir.2004)(citingGrayv. (*$+ GenlyteGroup,Inc.,289F.3d128,133(1stCir.2002)).Sucha *%- refusalconstitutesreversibleerroronlyifitwasprejudicialin 2,'/ lightoftheentirerecord.Id.at133.Iftheproffered  instructionmisstatestheapplicablelaw,itcannotbeaccepted. \ SeeUnitedStatesv.Monta ez,105F.3d36,39(1stCir.1997) X X]XX X]("[A]defendantisentitledtoaninstructiononhistheoryof   defenseifsufficientevidenceisproducedattrialtosupportthe `  defenseandtheproposedinstructioncorrectlydescribesthe  \  applicablelaw.").# X]XXX]ȲG#    ` Attrial,thedefensetheorywasthatButtrickhadnever d  formedanintenttoengageinillicitsexualcontact,thathewas `  merelyavictimofhisowncuriosity.Nonetheless,atthecloseof   trial,ButtrickrequestedanX]XX X]instruction #  1      ׀basedon# X]XXX]:J#X]XX X]ԀModelPenalCode h 5.01(4),whichdefinesrenunciationasanaffirmativedefenseto  attemptcrimes.Forshorthandwerefertothedefenseasoneof \ abandonment. X  ` TherationaleintheModelPenalCodeforrecognizing   suchadefensetoattemptcrimesissaidtobetwofold:"First, `  allowanceofthedefenserecognizesthattheactor'sconductno  \  longerposesadangertosociety.Second,theavailabilityofthe   defenseprovidesactorswitha'motivefordesistingfromtheir d  criminaldesigns,therebydiminishingtheriskthatthesubstantive `  crimewillbecommitted.'"UnitedStatesv.Shelton,30F.3d702,   706(6thCir.1994)(quotingModelPenalCode5.01(4)cmt.8 h (OfficialDraft1985)).# X]XXX]J#X]XX X]# X]XXX]N#X]XX X] d  ` Thedistrictcourtrejecteddefendant'srequestforan  abandonmentinstructiononanumberofgrounds.Oneofthose l groundsthatButtrick'sproposedinstructionwasnotacorrect h  statementoftheapplicablelawsufficestoaffirm.   ` ButtrickadmitsthattheModelPenalCodedefensebyits  termsappliesto"attempt"crimes.% #  2      # X]XXX].O#X]XX X]ԀSee,e.g.,18U.S.C.751(a) \  (attempttoescapefromcustody);21U.S.C.841(b)(1)(A),846 X (attempttopossesscocaineforresale).Hereliesoncasesthat   heclaimsrecognizethedefenseofabandonmentorrenunciationof `  anattemptcrime.SeeUnitedStatesv.Doyon,194F.3d207,212  \  (1stCir.1999);UnitedStatesv.Dworken,855F.2d12,20(1st   Cir.1988);UnitedStatesv.Bailey,834F.2d218,227(1stCir. d  1987).Thesecasesdonotholdthattheaffirmativedefenseof `  abandonmentis,infact,available,butmerelyassumesoarguendo.   Thegovernment,inturn,reliesoncasesthatexplicitlyrejectthe h abandonmentdefenseinattemptcrimes.See,e.g.,Shelton,30F.3d d at706.Thiscircuithasreservedthequestionoftheavailability  ofthedefenseinattemptcrimes,seeBailey,834F.2dat227& l n.7,and,despitethebattlewagedinthiscaseusingtheproxyof h attemptcrimes,westillreservethequestion.   ` Itisunnecessarytoaddresstheargumenttoresolvethe p  case.Weexpresslydonotreachthequestionsof(1)whetherthe !l" ModelPenalCodedefenseofabandonmentiseveravailableforan "$ attemptcrime,and(2)whether,iftheanswertothefirstquestion t$& were"yes,"18U.S.C.2423(b)issufficientlylikeanattempt  crimethatsuchanaffirmativedefensecouldintheorybe \ applicable. X  ` Thedistrictcourt,assumingarguendothatthelawonthe   twopointsabovecouldbereadindefendant'sfavor,nonetheless `  rejectedtheproposedinstructiononthegroundthatitmisstated  \  thelawbymisallocatingtheburdenofproof.Theproposed   instructionplacedtheburdenonthegovernment"toprovebeyonda d  reasonabledoubtthat[Buttrick's]renunciationorabandonmentof `  thecrimewasnotvoluntaryorcomplete."    ` Thedistrictcourtgavethreereasonsforitsconclusion. h First,thecourtnotedthatwhiletheModelPenalCodeappearedto d placetheburdenofpersuasiononthegovernmentonthedefenseof  renunciation,seeModelPenalCode5.01(4)cmt.8,at35859,361 l (OfficialDraft1985)# X]XXX]ȧQ#X]XX X],thatallocationofburdenshadnotgenerally h beenacceptedbythestates,seeid.at361&n.282(citingstate  statutesandproposals).# X]XXX]]#X]XX X] p   ` Second,thecourtpointedoutthatthestatuteof !l" conviction,18U.S.C.2423,itselfdefinedanaffirmativedefense "$ tocertainconductcriminalizedbythestatute.Inthat t$& affirmativedefense,setforthat2423(g),Congressplacedthe  &p!( burdensofbothproductionandpersuasiononthedefendant: '#* 8 ` Defense.Inaprosecutionunderthissection x)$, basedonillicitsexualconductasdefinedin N*%- subsection(f)(2),itisadefense,whichthe $+t&. defendantmustestablishbyapreponderanceof +J'/ theevidence,thatthedefendantreasonably  believedthatthepersonwithwhomthe  defendantengagedinthecommercialsexact \ hadattainedtheageof18years.2` x` x _18U.S.C.2423(g).Itwouldbe,thecourtreasoned,inconsistent . toalterthisallocationofburdensforanaffirmativedefensenot   evenrecognizedbythestatute. 6    ` Lastly,thecourtreasonedthattheallocationofburdens  2  intheproposedinstructionwasinconsistentwithUnitedStatesv.   Hartsock,347F.3d1(1stCir.2003).FollowingHartsock'sruleof :  examiningboththeparticularcrimeandtheparticulardefenseto 6 determinewhohastheburdenofpersuasiononanaffirmative  defense,seeid.at89,thedistrictcourtheldthat"theburden > ofproofshouldbeonthedefendantwithrespecttothis : affirmativedefenseinstruction."   ` Thecourtnotedthatthedefendant'spremisewasthat B evenifalloftheelementsofthecrimehadbeencommittedhe > hadcrossedthestatelinewiththepurposetoengageinsexwith  aminorhecouldnonethelessbefoundnotguiltybecausehehad F ! abandonedthatintentbythetimehewasstoppedbythepolice.* #  3      ׀ !B# Acceptingarguendothepremisethatanabandonmentoffensecould #% lie,thedistrictcourtheldthatthedefendantismorelikelythan J% ' theprosecutiontobeinpossessionoftheinformationnecessaryto &F") establishthedefense,andsothedefendantshouldbeartheburdens  ofbothproductionandpersuasion.Accordingly,thecourt \ concludedthatunderHartsock,Buttrick'sproposedinstruction X incorrectlyplacedtheburdenofpersuasionfortheaffirmative   defenseonthegovernment. #  4       `   ` Thedistrictcourtnotifieddefensecounselofthis  \  problemintheproposedinstructionandgavecounselachanceto   proposearevisedinstructionthatwouldplacetheburdenofproof d  backontothedefendant.Counseldeclinedtodoso. `   ` Weagreewiththedistrictcourt'sanalysisthatthe   proposedinstructionwassimplywrongastotheallocationof h burdensofthisassumeddefenseunder18U.S.C.2423,even d indulgingeverypreliminaryassumptionindefendant'sfavor.# X]XXX]^#X]XX X]ԀThere  isnoneedtoaddtothedistrictcourt'sthoughtfulanalysisof l theproblem. h  ` # X]XXX]$m#X]XX X]@( III.    ` We affirm thejudgmentofconviction.# X]XXX]n#