## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 22

- 1740

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Vincent Michael Perez

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern

____________
Submitted: November 16, 2022 Filed: March 7, 2023

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Ju dges.

____________
KELLY, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Vincent Michael Perez of two child pornography

- related offenses. On appeal, Perez challenges the district court ’ s admission of social media evidence at trial, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the court ’ s application of a
5- level enhancement at sentencing. After careful review, we affirm his convictions
but vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.-2- I.

On December 31, 2019, Detective Shane Hardie of the Watertown Police Department in South Dakota received a cybertip 1 from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) about possible child exploitation

. According to NCMEC, a user on a n online social networking platform called MeWe
had sent and received files that d epicted nude or semi

- nude images of children.
Associated with the MeWe user’s account was the username “tatted up meskin perez,” an email address of vmpsr85@gmail.com

, and a Vast Broadband 2 Internet Protocol (IP) address.

Using subpoenas, Detective Hardie learned that the Vast Broadband account

was registered to a “Vincent Perez” living in Watertown, South Dakota, with a 1985
date of birth and 605 area code phone number. Bills for internet service were sent

to the account holder at the listed Watertown address. Detective Hardie also learned that the Google subscriber information for vmpsr85@gmail.com showed the account
holder’s name was “V1nny Per3z .” Th e vmpsr85@gmail.com account used the
same 605 phone number and was regularly acces sed using the same IP address
associated with the Vast Broadband account. The recovery email for the Google

account was vinnysrjr2701@yahoo.com

.

Additionally, Detective Hardi e obtained a search warrant for the contents of
the “tatted up meskin perez” MeWe account and found numerous images that appeared to depict child pornography. Messages from the account also showed that
this user received and distributed similar images via chat messages with other MeWe

users

. In one message, the user referred to himself as “Vinny

, ” a nd t he profile

1 At trial, Detective Hardie described a cybertip as a report made to NCMEC by a n online service provider like Facebook, Google, or Dropbox regarding evidence of possible child exploitation. NCMEC then forwards the information to local law enforcement.

2 Vast Broadband is a cable and internet service provid er.-3- picture for the account was a photo of Perez with his tattooed chest visible. The
MeWe account also contained numerous selfies of Perez, including photographs of
Perez ’ s tattooed arm s, back, and torso , a s well as his exposed penis. The detective
connected the IP address used to log in to the MeWe account to the IP address
associated with the Vast Broadband account registered to Vincent Perez

.

On August 17, 2020, a grand jury indicted Perez on one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1), and one count of transportation of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). Pe rez plead ed not guilty

. At trial, over Perez ’ s objection, t he government introduced records f rom Vast Broadband, Google, and
MeWe. The government argued, and the district court agreed, that this evidence w as “self

- authenticating” and “require [d] no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order
to be admitted .” Fed. R. Evid. 902. At the close of evidence, Perez moved for a judgment of acquittal. The court denied the motion , and the jury returned a guilty
verdict

.

At sentencing, the district court determined the advisory sentencing
Guidelines range was 2 62 to 3 27 months ’ imprisonment

, based in part on a 5- level
enhancement that applies when a “defendant’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct .” United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.5(b)(1) (2021)

. The court sentenced Perez to 262 m onths ’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, followed by 10 years of supervised release

. Pere z appeals.

II.

A.

P erez first argue s the district court abused its discretion in admitting records from MeWe because this evidence was not properly authenticated. “We review evidentiary issues for clear abuse of discretion.” United States v. Omar, 786 F.3d-4- 1104, 1112 (8th Cir. 2015). We will reverse “only when an improper evidentiary

r uling affected the defendant ’ s substantial rights or had more than a slight influence
on the verdict.” Id. (quoting United States v. Anderson , 783 F.3d 727, 745 (8th Cir. 2015)).

“ To authenticate eviden ce, a party must clear only a low bar.” United States
v. Lamm , 5 F.4th 942, 947 (8th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). U nder the Federal Rules of Evidence, to authenticate an item of evidence, “the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it
is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). “Sufficient evidence may include the testimony of a witness with knowledge, or ‘ the appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns,
or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the
circumstances. ’ ” Lamm , 5 F.4th at 946 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4) ).

A s we have recognized, the “a uthentication of social media evidence presents some special challenges because of the great ease with which a social media account may be falsified or a legitimate account may be accessed by an imposter.” Id. at 947 (cleaned up) (quoting United States v. Browne , 834 F.3d 403, 412 (3d Cir. 2016)). Thus, a certification from a social media platform alone is insufficient to establish authenticity. See id. at 947

– 48; cf. Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) (business records may be authenticated, in relevant part, by a certificate from the records custodian). But a party may authenticate social media evidence with circumstantial evidence that adequately links a particular person to the social media account. Lamm , 5 F.4th at
948

. “[C] onclusive proof of authenticity is no t required

, ” Browne , 834 F.3d at 413

, and “ [o] nce the threshold requirement is met [,] any question as to whether the evidence is authentic is for the jury.” Lamm , 5 F.4th at 947 (cleaned up) (quoting Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic , 653 F.3d 720, 726 (8th Cir. 2011) ); see also Browne , 834
F.3d at 413 ( “[T] he jury, not the court, is the ultimate arbiter of whether an item of evidence is what its proponent claims it to be.” ).

I n this case, to authenticate the MeWe records

, the government needed to produce suff icient evidence linking Perez to the account at issue. See Fed. R. Evid.-5- 901(a); L amm , 5 F.4th at 94 7– 48. The government did so. First, the government
tied Perez to a Vast Broadband account and Google email address. The subscriber
information for these accounts matched Perez ’ s personal biographical information

, such as his first and last name, home address, date of birth, and phone number. The government then tied Perez to a specific IP address

, which was associated with both
the Vast Broadband and Google account s

. Finally, the government put for th
evidence linking Perez to the MeWe account, including evidence showing that (a) the user of “tatted up meskin perez” referred to himself as “Vinny,” (b) the account was created using P erez ’ s Google email address , (c) the account was regularly accessed by the IP address associated with Perez ’ s Vast Broadband account, and (d) the account contained numerous personal photographs of Perez, including at least one photograph depicting Perez’s genitalia

.

Ta ken together, t h is circumstantial evidence provided a sufficient basis for the district court to permit the jury to decide whether the MeWe account belonged to
Perez

. See United States v. Recio , 884 F.3d 230, 237 (4th Cir. 2018) (finding the
defendant ’ s Facebook account authenticated where “(1) the user name associated
with the account was ‘ Larry Recio, ’ (2) one of the four email addresses associated
with the account was ‘ larryrecio20@yahoo.com, ’ (3) more than one hundred photos

o f Recio were posted to the account, and (4) one of the photos posted to the user ’ s timeline was accompanied by the text ‘ Happy Birthday Larry Recio ’ ”)

. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the MeWe records

. 3

B.

Next, Perez argu es that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions

. “We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, resolving conflicts in the government ’ s favor, and

3 Because we find no error in admitting the MeWe records, we do not address Perez’s arguments concerning hearsay and prejudice, both of which rely on his assertion that the government presented insufficient evidence to authenticate the MeWe records

.-6- accepting all reasonabl e inferences that support the verdict.” United States v.
Acosta , 619 F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted)

. “ Evidence supporting [a] conviction ‘ need not preclude every outcome other than guilty. ’ ” United States v. Pierson, 544 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States
v. Ramirez , 362 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2004) ). We will overturn a conviction on appeal only if no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Stevens, 439 F.3d 983, 987 (8th Cir. 2006).

Perez argues that the government failed to prove that he “ was the person who used the MeWe account to receive, distribute, and transport child pornography ,” and
he contends that “anyone could have created” the account. Viewing t he evidence in the light most favorable to the government, th ere was strong circumstantial evidence showing that Perez owned the “tatted up meskin perez” MeWe account
, and there
was no evidence that a third

- party had access to or used the account while posing as
Perez. A reasonable jury could have found Perez guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

C.

F inally, Perez appeals his sentence. He asserts that the district court erred in applying a n enhancement under USSG § 4B1.5(b)(1) because he was not convicted
of a “covered sex crime .” “Generally, we review the district court ’ s application of
the Guidelines de novo and the court ’ s factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Poe, 764 F.3d 914, 917 (8th Cir. 2014)

. But because Perez did not object on this basis at sentencing, we review for plain error. See United States v. Price , 851 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam )

. Under plain error review, Perez must show: “(1) an error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.” United
States v. Coleman , 961 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir. 2020)

.

Guideline s § 4B1.5(b)(1) imposes a 5- level enhancement if “the defendant ’ s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime,” and the defendant “engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” “[C] overed sex crime [s] ”
include certain offenses “perpetrated against a minor ,” but do not include-7- “traffic ki ng in, receipt of, or possession of, child pornography, or a recordkeeping offense.” USSG § 4B1.5, c om m en t. (n.2). Perez was convicted on one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography, and one count of transportation of child pornography

, offenses that are expressly excluded from the definition of
“covered sex crime” under the Guidelines. See id.; see also United States v. Horn

, 187 F.3d 781, 790 (8th Cir. 1999) (“[T]rafficking . . . include[s] receiving, transporting, shipping, advertisin g, or possessing material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor . . . .” ( citation omitted) ). It was, therefore , plain error to impose a n enhancement under § 4B1.5(b)(1)

. See , e.g. , United States v. Wikkerink

, 841 F.3d 327, 336 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016) ( finding that the district court committed a “clear and obvious error” when it applied the § 4B1.5(a) enhancement to a receipt
of child pornography offense ).

Wi th the 5- level enhancement, Perez’s advisory Guidelines range was 262 to 327 months of imprisonment; w ithout it, the range would be 1 80 to 188 months. 4 Under these circumstances, Perez has shown “a reasonable probability that but for
the error he would have received a more favorable sentence.” United States v.
Harrell , 982 F.3d 1137, 1140 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Bonnell , 932
F.3d 1080 , 1083 (8th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) ). W e vacate Perez ’ s sentence and
remand to the district court for re sentencing without the application of the
enhancement.

III.

Perez ’s conviction s are affirmed

, but we vacate his sentenc e and remand to the district court for resentencing

.

______________________________

4 B ecause of Perez’s previous felony conviction for accessing child pornography, he faced statutory mandatory minimum sentences of 180 months in prison on Count s 1 and 2.