I. Does a constructive amendment occur when the government
substitutes Congress's intended object of the actus reus of 18
U.S.C. § 2422(b), "any individual who has not attained the age
of eighteen years" with its opposite, an adult?

II. When a trial court finds sufficient evidence of inducement to
permit an entrapment defense, is it prosecutorial misconduct
for the government to relieve themselves of the burden of
proving predisposition by repeatedly telling the jury that it
is unnecessary for the government to prove the essential
element?

Does a constructive amendment occur when the government substitutes Congress's intended object of the actus reus of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), 'any individual who has not attained the age of eighteen years' with its opposite, an adult?