down to the choice of movie they would see on their “date”), and his trip to the airport to meet her, a jury could have concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Walizer’s conduct “(1) advance[d] the criminal purpose charged, and (2) provide[d] some verification of the existence of that purpose.” United States v. Goetzke, 494 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). As to Count 2, Walizer contends, the Government concedes, and we conclude, that the district court erred by usurping the jury’s role in determining that Walizer violated 18 U.S.C. § 2260A — irrespective of whether Section 2260A defines a criminal offense or a sentencing enhancement. See Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 243 n. 6, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct.
holding that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact other than fact of prior convictions which increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that facts that increase the maximum sentence a defendant faces must be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt holding facts that increase the maximum penalty for a crime must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that any fact  that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in an indictment submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt