N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HEC TOR M ANUEL C ARREON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50075

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-03419-JAH-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , PREGER SON, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s. He c tor M anue l C arre o n wa s c onvic te d of produc tion of c hild pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ); atte m pte d produc tion of c h ild pornogra p hy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ); re c e i pt of c hild pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(2); a

nd thre e c ounts of posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy in 

# FIL ED DEC 03 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(4)(B ). He a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss sta

te m e nts from an in-hom e inte rvie w, the suffic ie nc y of the e vide nc e to support two of his c onvic tions, a nd va rious a spe c ts of his 50-y e ar se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm . 1. Whe the r a

de fe nda nt wa s “ in c ustody ” for purpose s of Miranda is re vie we d de novo. Unite d State

s v . K im , 292 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2002). The volunta rine ss of sta

te m e nts to polic e is a lso re vie we d de novo. Unite d State s v . Hasw o od , 350 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th C ir. 2003). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t C arre on wa s in c ustody

for purpose s of Miranda or tha t his sta t e m e nts we re involunta

ry and the distric t c ourt e rre d in c onc luding othe rwise , a

ny e rror would be ha

rm le ss— the a dm ission of the

sta te m e n ts did not c ontributeto the ve rdic t obta ine d. Se e Unite d State s v . Barne

s , 713 F.3d 1200, 1207 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). The only argua bly “ inc rim inating” sta

te m e n ts C arre on m a de during theinhom e inte rvie w we re that he wa s the sole use r of the re le v a n t c om pute rs a nd tha t he use d file -sha ring progra

m s suc h a s Lim e W ire . Othe r e vide nc e e l ic ite d at tria l, howe v e r, e sta

blishe d the sam e . C arre on’ s wife te stifie d tha t C arre on wa s the sole use r of the c om

pute rs. C arre on’ s c onvic tions a re ba se d on se lf-re c orde d vide os. The vide o form ing the ba sis for the re c e ipt c ount wa s found in a “ Lim e w ire ” folde r 2within a

use r-c re ate d folde r e ntitle d “ H e c tor M a n ue l C arre o” [sic ] . As to the posse s sion c ounts, theillic it file s we re found in a “ Share d” folde r c re ate d by Lim e W ire , within a use r-c re ate d folde r c a lle d “ H e c tor.” The produc tion a nd atte m pte d produc tion c o nvic tions we re ba se d on se lf-re c orde d vide os tha t C arre on him se lf a ppe are d in. His sta

te m e nts during the

in-hom e inte rvie w we re thus a t m ost c um ulative of othe r e vide nc e of guilt e sta blishe d at tria l. 2. W e re vie wa

c l a im of insuffic ie n t e vide nc e de novo. Unite d State s v . Ste w art , 420 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th C ir. 2005). “ A c onvic t ion is supporte d by suffic i e nt e vide nc e if, ‘ vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the gove rnm e nt, a

ra tiona l trie r of fa c t c ould c onc lude tha t the e v ide nc e wa s a de quate to prove guilt be y o n d a

re a sona ble doubt.’ ” Unite d State s v . W hitte more , 776 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Unite d State s v . Barbosa , 906 F.2d 1366, 1368 (9th C ir. 1990)). The “ M a de in C hina ” and “ M a de in Toky o” la be l e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to support thejurisdic t ion e le m e nt for c ounts 1 a n d 2. Se e Unite d

State s v . Alv are

z , 972 F.2d 1000, 1004 (9th C ir. 1992) (pe r c uriam ) (holding tha t a n insc ription on a gun doe s not c onstitute

he a rsa y and c ould be use d by

the gove rnm e nt to show tha t the g un ha d be e n m anufa c ture d in Spa in), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by K aw ashima v . Muk

ase y , 530 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th C ir. 2008); Unite d State s v . 3C

law son , 831 F.2d 909, 913 (9th C ir. 1987) (holding tha t e vide nc e of a gun’ s fore ign m anufa c ture r is suffic ie nt to support a finding tha

t the gun m ove d in inte rstate c o m

m e rc e ). 3. The 34-se c ond vide o wa s suffic i e nt e vide nc e to support a c onvic tion of atte m pte d produc tion of c hild pornogra phy . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ) (c rim ina liz ing the use of a m inor to e nga ge in se xua lly e xplic it c onduc t for the purpose s of m aking a

visua l de pic tion of tha

t c onduc t); 18 U.S.C . § 2256(2)(A)(iii), (v) (de fining “ se xua lly e xplic it c onduc t” to inc lude

“ m a sturba

tion” and “ la sc ivious e xhibition of the ge nita ls . . . of a

ny pe rson.” ). 4. The distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte nc i ng Guide l ine s is re vie we d de novo; its a

pplic ation of theGuide l ine s to thefa c ts of the c a se is re vie we d for a b u se of disc re tion; a

n d its fa c tua l findings a

re re vie we d for c le ar e rror. Unite d State

s v . Valle j os , 742 F.3d 902, 905 (9th C i r. 2014). Unde r the c h ild pornogra phy se nte nc ing guide line s, “ distribution” c an be found whe n the de fe nda

nt knowingly “ use d a

file -sha ring progra

m to downloa d c hild pornogra

phy tha t, whe the r knowingly

or unknowingly , a llowe d othe rs a c c e ss to thosefile s.” Id . at 908. C a rre on knowingly

use d the file -sha

ring progra

m Lim e W ire and did not pre s e nt a ny e vide nc e to sugge s t ignora nc e of how the program worke d. Thus, thedistric t c ourt did not err in a pply ing a 2-le ve l 4e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G2.3(b)(3)(F) for a n offe nse involving distribution. Like

w ise , the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing a 2-le ve l re d

uc tion unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1) for la c k of inte nt to distribute . Se e id . at 908 n.5 (the re is “pre s um e d inte nt to distribute ” whe n one use s a

file -sha ring progra

m in the m anne r pre viously

de sc ribe d). The distric t c ourt a l so did not err whe n it c a lc ulat e d the offe nse le ve l for the groupe d re c e i pt a

nd posse ssion c ounts. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3D1.3, c m t. n. 3 (“ De te rm ine whe the r the spe c ific offe nse c ha ra c te ristic s . . . a

pply ba se d upon the c om bine d offe n se be havior tak e n as a w h ole .” (e m

pha sis a dde d)). It wa s not a

n a buse of disc re t ion to a

pply a 5-le v e l e nha

n c e m e n t unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5)(F) for a patte rn of a c tivity involving the se xua l a buse or e xploita t ion of a m inor be c a

use C arre on’ s c onduc t fits squa re ly within the Guide line note ’ s de finition. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, c m t. n. 1 (“ ‘ Pa tte rn of a c tivity involving the

se x ua l a buse or e xploita

tion of a m inor’ m e a

n s a ny c om b ination of two or m ore se pa

ra te insta nc e s of the se xua l a

buse or se xua l e xploita

tion of a m inor by the de fe nda

nt, whe the r or not the a

buse or e xploita

tion (A) oc c urre d during thec ourse of the offe nse ; (B ) involve d the sa m e m inor; or (C ) re sulte d in a c onvic tion for suc h c onduc t .” ). Applic ation of this enha nc e m e nt did not c onstitute im pe rm issibledouble c ounting be c a use e nha nc e m e nts “ m ay

be trigge re d by

the 5sam e c onduc t,” and “ [a ] b se nt a n instruc tion to the

c ontra ry . . . a re to be a p plie d c um ulat ive ly . ” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 c m t . n. 4(B ); se e also Unite d State s v . Smith , 719 F.3d 1120, 1123-24 (9th C ir. 2013). The re is no Guide line instruc tion to a void double c o unting under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5), whic h a ppe ars to c onte m

plate suc h double c o unting by

spe c ific a l ly

c iting 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a )— prohibiting produc tion of c hild pornogra phy

— a s c onduc t within its purvie w, a nd by sta ting that the e nha nc e m e nt will a

p p ly “ whe the r or not the a

buse or e xploita

tion . . . re sulte d in a c onvic tion.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, c m t. n.1. 5. Substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of a

se nte nc e is re vie w e d for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State

s v . C he re r , 513 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th C ir. 2008). W e c annot sa y that the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in im

posing a 50-y e ar se nte nc e . AFFIRM E D .

6