These enhancements regarded the influencing of a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and the use of a computer to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct.

§ 2G1.3(b)(3)(A),[1] paved the way for future cases to argue that the lack of Internet connectivity is sufficient in dismissing similar computer related enhancements.

In July 2006, Lay began communicating via telephone, making several calls to M.V.’s house.

M.V’s mother then alerted Ohio police who discovered the mobile phone Lay had sent.

"Inside the package was two letters, four pictures, a plastic ring sizer, a music CD, a half-dollar coin, and $200.

's mother had discovered Lay's letters and had subsequently allowed police to record these phone calls.

Upon landing at Hopkins Airport, Lay was subsequently arrested by FBI agents waiting for him in the baggage claim area.

[3][4] In January 2007, a federal grand jury indicted Lay with a single count of knowingly traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

as troubled, vulnerable, and having experienced family problems, and the unidirectional material relationship he shared with M.V.

indicated undue influence.” Continuing, the Court of Appeals expanded upon the district Courts ruling by highlighting how the facts of the case were “consistent with a manipulative adult building a relationship with a minor for the purpose of eventual sexual activity.”[3] Regarding the enhancement for using a computer to entice a minor, Lay argued that such an enhancement was inappropriate because none of the communication about sexual conduct had occurred via a computer.

Subsequently, the district Court rejected Lays argument for, while “perhaps a matter for further review”, the “mere use of a computer to contact, communicate with, and entice a fifteen-year-old to begin a relationship was sufficient for the enhancement to apply”.

[2] However, this generalized application of “mere use” was not unanimously supported by the Court of Appeals, as Justices argued over the stipulation of “involving a computer or interactive computer service [to entice].”[5] The majority opinion upheld the district Court’s ruling, arguing that the Internet allowed sexual predators to “make explicit proposals of sexual activity or merely to strike up friendships with potential victims” far more readily and “more insidiously, than would be possible offline.” Then, addressing the dissenting, the majority argued how the restricting of the enhancement to only apply to sexual predators that develop relationships with minor victims, “so long as the ultimate consummation is first proposed through online communication, would not serve the purpose of this enhancement.”[3] The minority opinion, whilst agreeing with the majority in regards to the potential impact of the Internet, rejected the idea that such an enhancement could be applied so universally.