You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


    Case: 16-40438   Document: 00513773577     Page: 1   Date Filed: 11/28/2016




         IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                  FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                                                                 United States Court of Appeals

                               No. 16-40438
                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                                                        FILED
                             Summary Calendar                   November 28, 2016
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                        Clerk


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                          Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO PENALOZA-CARLON,

                                          Defendant–Appellant.




                Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Texas




Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

      Eduardo Penaloza-Carlon pleaded guilty of having been found unlaw-
fully in the United States after deportation after a felony conviction, and he
was sentenced, below the advisory guideline range, to twenty-two months of
imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Penaloza-
Carlon contends that the district court erred in applying the twelve-level
    Case: 16-40438    Document: 00513773577     Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/28/2016


                                 No. 16-40438

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) (2015) based on his Oregon
conviction of rape in the third degree. He contends that the Oregon statute
sweeps more broadly than the generic definitions of statutory rape, forcible sex
offense, and sexual abuse of a minor for purposes of the § 2L1.2 crime-of-
violence enhancement.

      In the district court, Penaloza-Carlon urged that the § 2L1.2 enhance-
ment did not apply because the Oregon statute lacks an age difference. Thus,
we review de novo whether that conviction is a crime of violence under § 2L1.2
on that basis. See United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 651–52 (5th Cir.
2008). Because Penaloza-Carlon did not maintain, in the district court, that
the conduct proscribed by the Oregon statute is broader than the generic, con-
temporary meaning of, inter alia, sexual abuse of a minor, we review that point
for plain error. See United States v. Garcia-Perez, 779 F.3d 278, 281 & n.2 (5th
Cir. 2015).

      The Oregon statute defines rape in the third degree as “sexual inter-
course with another person under 16 years of age.”             OR. REV. STAT.
§ 163.355(1). To determine whether conduct criminalized under a statute
constitutes “sexual abuse of a minor,” this court examines (1) whether the con-
duct involved a minor; (2) whether the conduct was “sexual”; and (3) whether
the conduct constituted “abus[e].” United States v. Puga-Yanez, 829 F.3d 317,
320–21 (5th Cir. 2016).

      The first two prongs are satisfied. First, the Oregon offense requires the
involvement of a minor because it calls for the victim to be under the age of
sixteen. Penaloza-Carlon’s argument to the contrary is foreclosed. See United
States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 560 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Second, the
offense is “sexual” in nature because it has “sexual arousal or gratification as
its purpose.” United States v. Olalde–Hernandez, 630 F.3d 372, 375 (5th Cir.


                                       2
     Case: 16-40438       Document: 00513773577          Page: 3     Date Filed: 11/28/2016


                                       No. 16-40438

2011).

       Penaloza-Carlon disputes the third element—whether the conduct was
“abusive.” He relies on decisions of the Ninth Circuit that the Oregon offense
does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor because it lacks the abuse element
in that it does not expressly prohibit conduct that causes physical or psycho-
logical harm in light of the age of the victim. Those decisions, however, are not
binding authority in this circuit and are inconsistent with our precedent. 1

       Penaloza-Carlon therefore has failed to show that the district court com-
mitted clear or obvious error by finding that the Oregon conviction was categ-
orically sexual abuse of a minor. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). Accordingly, he has not shown that the court erred in applying the
twelve-level enhancement under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)

       AFFIRMED.




       1  See United States v. Sauseda, 596 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that other
circuits’ decisions are persuasive only); Puga-Yanez, 829 F.3d at 322 & n.10 (holding that,
even though psychological or physical harm to the minor often stems from the defendant’s
conduct, “harm to the minor is not an element of the generic crime of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’
[under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii)]”).


                                              3