Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in disregarding review of essential elements at 18 U.S.C.§2251(a) and relying solely on circumstantial evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : I. Whether if was prejudicial error for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , : to depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings by ~ disregarding review of essential elements at 18 U.S.C.§2251(a), in conflict with Supreme Court doctrine under Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979); and to rely solely on “circumstantial evidence of a substantial step" pointed toward "sexting" behavior, but not pointed , toward the charged offense? : ; 7 ; oe Il. The Supreme Court is needed to settle a recognized conflict between the : Circuit Courts of Appeals concerning criminal liability and procedures ; at 18 U.S.C.§2422(b) and to define a term. III The Tenth Circuit decision below conflicts with a recent state supreme a court decision on the important question: whether evidence of the behavioral theory of "grooming" requires a foundational showing of scientific validity to be admissible and relevant to a jury? The Supreme Court is needed to settle the conflict and to decide, in light ‘ of Oregon v Henley. 363 Or 284 (2018), whether the federal court : . abdicated its gatekeeping function under Daubert v Merrell Dow, 509 , U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael, 119 S Ct 1167 (1999), 7 _by allowing a fact witness' erroneous definition to materially — oO _ influence the jury? . : 2 of 2:9 . No. 194220 oo, Lo .