Did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err in determining that Mr. Robinson was not entitled to a jury instruction regarding the affirmative defense of entrapment as to the Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Child count?

QUESTION PRESENTED: An undercover officer created a fake social media profile for a fictitious 18-yearold woman on a website where a user must expressly represent her age as being over 18. Mr. Robinson initiated contact with the fictitious profile and began a friendly relationship with the “18-year-old woman” and expressed interest in being the woman’s pimp. Only after this relationship had been cultivated by the officer through months of communications, did the officer change the age of the fictitious woman to 17 and a half years of age. The undercover officers then continued communicating with Mr. Robinson and cultivating the relationship between the (now) fictitious woman and Mr. Robinson. During the communications, Mr. Robinson frequently made clear that he did not wish for commercial sex activities to begin until the “woman” attained majority. On that understanding, Mr. Robinson arranged for the “woman” to travel to California. When Mr. Robinson arranged to pick up the fictitious woman from a bus station, Mr. Robinson was arrested and subsequently charged with “Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Child” and “Transporting an Individual to Engage in Prostitution.” Under these facts, did the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals err in determining that Mr. Robinson was not entitled to a jury instruction regarding the affirmative defense of entrapment as to the Attempted Sex Trafficking of a Child count because the Government “offered a chance to back out” of the potential crime—an exception absent from this Court’s decisions on entrapment? i