Sistrunk was involved in committing an armed robbery at a residence being used as a "stash house." This residence, however, was actually a police setup, organized by an anonymous informant as well as an undercover agent, Juan Sanchez. Sistrunk attended meetings concerning the robbery and was informed that participants would be armed. The confidential informant met with Sistrunk to travel to the stash house. When the confidential informant, Sistrunk, and the other defendants arrived, they were arrested. Sistrunk's argument did not initially mention entrapment or refer to the jury instruction for the entrapment defense; however, Sistrunk's closing attorney included the facts that Sistrunk now argues serve as the evidentiary basis for the entrapment instruction. The district court ruled that the entrapment defense did not apply as a matter of law, and the court with- drew the entrapment instruction as to count seven of the indictment for Sistrunk. One of the arguments that Sistrunk raised on appeal was that he had in fact been entrapped and the District Court for the Southern District of Florida was incorrect in ruling that the entrapment defense did not apply. Do you think Sistrunk's conviction should have been overturned on grounds that he had been entrapped? Why or why not?