UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 22-14054-CR-CANNON/MAYNARD 

22-14048-CR-CANNON/MAYNARD(s)(s)(s) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

DUSTIN SINGLETON, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE 

PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT 

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States 

Attorney, hereby responds to the Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) 

submitted by the defendant, Dustin Singleton (“Singleton”). 

BACKGROUND 

On August 25, 2022, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an 

Indictment charging Singleton with possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance 

containing a detectible amount of methamphetamine (Count One), possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (Count Two), and possession of a firearm and ammunition 

as a convicted felon (Count Three). United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14054-AMC (S.D. 

Fla.) (Doc. No. 3.) 

On April 27, 2023, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned a Third 

Superseding Indictment, in a separate case, charging Singleton with production of visual 

depictions involving the sexual exploitation of minors (Counts One, Two, Four, Five, Six, and 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 1 of 12
2 

Seven), and possession of visual depictions involving the sexual exploitation of minors (Counts 

Three and Eight). United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC (S.D. Fla.) (Doc. No. 

234.) 

On May 2, 2023, Singleton pled guilty to Counts One and Three of the Indictment in United 

States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14054-AMC, and Counts One, Two, and Five of the Third 

Superseding Indictment in United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC,1 pursuant to 

written plea agreements with the United States. 

In United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14054-AMC, the United States and Singleton 

agreed to “jointly recommend that the Court impose a total sentence of fifteen years’ 

imprisonment, consisting of fifteen years on Count One and ten years on Count Three, to be served 

concurrently to each other.” (Doc. No. 163 at ¶ 8.) 

In United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC, the United States and Singleton 

agreed to “jointly recommend that the Court impose a total sentence of thirty years’ imprisonment, 

consisting of 30 years on Counts One, Two, and Five, to be served concurrently to each other.” 

(Doc. No. 244 at ¶ 15.) 

The United States and Singleton further agreed to recommend that the Court run the 

sentences imposed in each case concurrent to each other. United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-

cr-14054-AMC (Doc. No. 163 at ¶ 9); United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC (Doc. 

No. 244 at ¶ 16.) 

1

 Each count of the Third Superseding Indictment Singleton pled guilty to involved a different 

victim. 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 2 of 12
3 

Singleton’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 18, 2023. The Probation Office 

prepared one Presentence Investigation Report that encompasses both cases. According to the PSI, 

Singleton has a Total Offense Level of 43 and criminal history category of I, which yields an 

advisory sentencing guideline range of life imprisonment. (PSI at ¶¶ 111, 119, 162.)2

 

Singleton’s total offense level includes several guideline enhancements. With respect to 

Victim JG (hereinafter “Victim 1”) in United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC, 

Singleton received a two-level enhancement under Section 2G2.1(b)(1)(B) of the Guidelines 

because the offense he pled guilty to involved a minor under the age of sixteen, a four-level 

enhancement under Section 2G2.1(b)(2)(B) because the offense involved the commission of a 

sexual act and conduct described in 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) or (b), a four-level enhancement under 

Section 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) because the offense involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic 

conduct or other depictions of violence, and a two-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) 

because he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in 

Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment. (PSI at ¶¶ 80-82, 84.) 

With respect to Victim JD (hereinafter “Victim 2”), Singleton received a two-level 

enhancement under Section 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) because the offense involved the commission of a 

sexual act or sexual contact, and a two-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) because he was 

an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count Three of the 

Third Superseding Indictment. (PSI at ¶¶ 88, 90.) 

2

 The statutory maximum allowable sentence for Counts One, Two, and Five in United States v. 

Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC, is 30 years’ imprisonment per count. The statutory 

maximum allowable sentence for Count One in United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14054-

AMC, is 20 years’ imprisonment, and the statutory maximum allowable sentence for Count Three 

is 10 years’ imprisonment. 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 3 of 12
4 

With respect to Victim AG (hereinafter “Victim 3”), Singleton received a two-level 

enhancement under Section 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) because the offense involved the commission of a 

sexual act or sexual contact, and a two-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) because he was 

an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count Five of the 

Third Superseding Indictment. (PSI at ¶¶ 94, 96.) 

On June 27, 2023, Singleton filed Objections to the PSI. United States v. Dustin Singleton, 

22-cr-14054-AMC (Doc. No. 171); United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC (Doc. 

No. 258.)3 

In summary, Singleton raises the following objections to the PSI: 

First, Singleton objects to Paragraphs 67 and 69 of the PSI. Singleton claims the precise 

number of images of child pornography he possessed (5,182) does not impact his guideline range, 

and should therefore be excluded from the PSI. 

Second, Singleton objects to the two-level enhancement he received in Paragraph 90 of 

the PSI for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in 

Count Two of the Third Superseding Indictment. 

Third, Singleton objects to the two-level enhancement he received in Paragraph 96 of the 

PSI for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count 

Five of the Third Superseding Indictment. 

Fourth, Singleton objects to the multiple count adjustment he received in Paragraph 105 of 

the PSI based on Section 3D1.4. 

Fifth, Singleton objects to Paragraph 163 of the PSI, which states that his guideline range 

is life imprisonment. 

3

 Singleton filed identical objections in both cases. 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 4 of 12
5 

Sixth, Singleton objects to Paragraph 169 of the PSI because it fails to reflect that the 

mandatory $5,000 special assessment for each count of conviction in United States v. Dustin 

Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC, only applies to “non-indigent” defendants. 

ANALYSIS 

 The government bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to support a sentencing 

enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Dimitrovski, 782 F.3d 622, 628 

(11th Cir. 2015). 

A. The number of images of child pornography Singleton possessed was properly 

included in the PSI. 

It is well established that district courts are entitled to consider a wide range of information 

when fashioning an appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3661 

(“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and 

conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may receive and 

consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”) (emphasis added). As the 

Supreme Court explained in Pepper v. United States, by way of Section 3661 Congress “expressly 

preserved the traditional discretion of sentencing courts to conduct an inquiry broad in scope, 

largely unlimited either as to the kind of information [they] may consider, or the source from which 

it may come.” 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1240 (2011) (internal marks and citation omitted). District courts 

are even authorized to consider acquitted conduct at sentencing. See, e.g., United States v. Faust, 

456 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Singleton does not dispute that he possessed 5,182 images of child pornography as set forth 

in the PSI; rather, he claims this information is somehow irrelevant because it does not impact his 

guideline range. The United States does not seek to limit the information available to the Court 

at sentencing, or presume what information the Court might deem relevant. The PSI in this case, 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 5 of 12
6 

as in all cases, was prepared by the United States Probation Office, “an arm of the United States 

District Court[,]” and not the United States Attorney’s Office. United States v. Reyes, 283 F.3d 

446, 455 (2nd Cir. 2002) (internal marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). At the end of the 

day, it is the Court, and not the United States, that is tasked with fashioning an appropriate sentence 

in this case.4

The number of images of child pornography Singleton possessed was properly included in 

the PSI, and Singleton has failed to articulate a cognizable basis for striking this information from 

the PSI. 

B. Role enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) as to Victim 2. 

 The United States agrees that a two-level enhancement for being an organizer, leader, 

manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count Two of the Third Superseding 

Indictment is not warranted under the present set of circumstances. 

C. Role enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) as to Victim 3. 

 Section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines directs courts to apply a two-level increase to the 

defendant’s base offense level “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor 

in [the] criminal activity [for which the defendant is held accountable].” USSG § 3B1.1(c). “[T]he 

assertion of control or influence over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) 

enhancement.” United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2000); see also USSG § 

3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (“To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been 

4

 The United States agrees with Singleton that the number of images of child pornography he 

possessed has no impact on his advisory guideline range. Cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (“At 

sentencing, the court: must--for any disputed portion of the presentence report or other 

controverted matter--rule on the dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary either because 

the matter will not affect sentencing, or because the court will not consider the matter in 

sentencing[.]) (emphasis added). 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 6 of 12
7 

the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.”). “Participant” is 

defined as “a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense[.]” Id., cmt. 

n.1. 

Factors the court should consider in determining whether the defendant qualifies for the § 

3B1.1(c) role enhancement include: (1) the exercise of decision-making authority; (2) the nature 

of participation; (3) the recruitment of accomplices; (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the 

fruits of the crime; (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense; (6) the 

nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the degree of control and authority exercised over 

others. USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. Although the Guidelines Commentary speaks in terms of 

distinguishing leadership roles from “mere management” or supervisory roles, the Eleventh Circuit 

has approved using the same factors to evaluate whether a defendant occupied a managerial or 

supervisory role. United States v. Reyes, 781 Fed.Appx. 965, 970 (11th Cir. 2019). “There is no 

requirement that all of these factors must be present; they are merely considerations for the 

sentencing judge.” United States v. Escudero, 761 Fed.Appx. 949, 953 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal 

marks and citation omitted). 

At bottom, Section 3B1.1(c) is triggered when a preponderance of the evidence establishes 

that the defendant exerted some control, influence or decision-making authority over another 

participant in the criminal activity. 

Against this backdrop, the United States submits the evidence and testimony at Singleton’s 

sentencing hearing will establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was an organizer, 

leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count Five of the Third 

Superseding Indictment. Specifically, the United States anticipates the evidence and testimony at 

Singleton’s sentencing hearing will establish the following: 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 7 of 12
8 

Records from both Singleton’s iPhone (TL107) and Snapchat show text and audio 

Snapchat messages between Singleton and 13-year-old JG (hereinafter “Victim 1”), discussing her 

previous tattoo, prices for a new tattoo, and her being picked up. Victim 1 provided her address 

to Singleton, on December 12, 2021, at 8:59 p.m., and again on January 30, 2022, at 9:20 p.m. 

Victim 1 advised Singleton she needed to sneak out of her house to meet him, on January 30, 2022, 

at 9:48 p.m.. A few hours later, on January 31, 2022, at 12:39 a.m., Singleton informed Victim 1 

that, “My Nephew coming as soon as I’m done with this tattoo.” A little over an hour later, at 1:43 

a.m., Singleton again states, “In 30 minutes I’ll be done with this tattoo and my nephew will be on 

his way.” A few hours later, in his “inkBoyz” tattoo shop, Singleton produced videos of child 

pornography of himself, co-defendant Elijah Shaw (“Shaw”). and Victim 1, on January 31, 2022, 

which continued for over a span of six hours. 

During an interview with investigators, Shaw admitted his involvement, and that Singleton 

instructed him to pick up Victim 1 and bring her to the tattoo shop. Shaw stated there was 

methamphetamine in the pipe Victim 1 was smoking at the shop, after being shown a still image 

from one of the videos. 

Similarly, in Singleton’s iPhone (TL107), there are instant messages with Shaw, whose 

contact information is listed as “Gonzo-Assistant.” On February 12, 2022, at 9:20 p.m., Singleton 

supplied Shaw the address for 17-year-old Victim 3. At 9:23 p.m., Shaw reported to Singleton, 

“I’m bout to go get her.” At 9:47 p.m., Singleton told Shaw “15 mins.” At 9:48:51 p.m., Shaw 

reported to Singleton that he is outside, saying, “Lettell her I’m outside.” A few hours later, 

Singleton produced videos of child pornography with Victim 3, on February 13, 2022, at 1:56 a.m. 

In an interview, Victim 3 told investigators Singleton had “Gonzo,” pick her up from her 

home, and bring her to the tattoo shop. Victim 3 stated that “Gonzo” was there, and that Singleton 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 8 of 12
9 

would just tell him what to do, if he had to go somewhere and pick somebody up. She stated that 

“Gonzo” kind of does everything for Singleton.5

A two-level enhancement under Section 3B1.1(c) is warranted under these facts. See 

United States v. Harris, 291 Fed.Appx. 300, 302-03 (11th Cir. 2008) (finding in a criminal 

prosecution for child pornography production that a defendant’s base offense level was properly 

enhanced for his role as an organizer under section 3B1.1(c), where the defendant had videotaped 

his co-defendant engaged in sex acts with minor boys). 

D. Multiple count adjustment based on Section 3D1.4. 

Given that the United States agrees a two-level enhancement for being an organizer, leader, 

manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity charged in Count Two of the Third Superseding 

Indictment is not warranted, the total number of units under Section 3D1.4 should be 1.5 and not 

2.0. As a result, Singleton’s offense level should only be increased by one level, as opposed to 

two levels, resulting in a Combined Adjusted Offense Level of 45.6

E. Singleton’s adjusted guideline range is 1,440 months’ imprisonment. 

 According to the PSI, Singleton has a Total Offense Level of 43 and criminal history 

category of I, which yields an advisory sentencing guideline range of life imprisonment. (PSI at 

¶¶ 111, 119, 162.) The guideline range of life imprisonment, however, is higher than the highest 

applicable statutory maximum (30 years). To that end, Section 5G1.2 instructs courts to impose 

5

 The United States anticipates that Singleton’s sentencing hearing will last approximately 90 

minutes, and involve testimony from one witness, Martin County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO) 

Detective Matthew Killough. 

6

 In the event the Court sustains Singleton’s objection to the two-level enhancement he received 

in Paragraph 96 of the PSI for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal 

activity charged in Count Five of the Third Superseding Indictment, his Combined Adjusted 

Offense Level would drop to 44, resulting in a Total Offense Level of 42 and advisory sentencing 

guideline range of 360 months to life imprisonment. 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 9 of 12
10 

consecutive sentences on different counts of conviction to achieve a combined sentence equal to 

the total punishment when: (1) a defendant has been convicted of multiple counts; (2) at least one 

of those counts has a statutory maximum; and (3) the guideline sentence is higher than the highest 

statutory maximum. USSG § 5G1.2(d). When the defendant’s guideline range is life, as here, a 

combined sentence equal to the total punishment is accomplished by imposing the statutory 

maximum sentence for each count of conviction, to be served consecutively. As a result, 

Singleton’s adjusted guideline range is 1,440 months’ imprisonment. See, e.g., United States v. 

Alpizar, 743 Fed.Appx. 928, 933 (11th Cir. 2018) (“With a total offense level of 43 and a criminal 

history category of I, Alpizar’s guidelines sentence was life in prison. His guidelines range was 

adjusted, however, to 1,440 months, the statutory maximum of 20 years for each of the six counts, 

running consecutively) (citing USSG § 5G1.2(d)). To the extent Singleton claims the PSI should 

be revised to reflect that his adjusted guideline range is 1,440 months’ imprisonment, the United 

States agrees. 

F. Application of the mandatory $5,000 special assessment. 

 The United States agrees the mandatory $5,000 special assessment set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 

3014(a) does not apply if the defendant is found to be indigent by the Court. Nevertheless, when 

determining whether a defendant is indigent pursuant to Section 3014(a), a court may consider 

both the resources available to the defendant at the time of sentencing, and the defendant’s future 

earning potential. Indeed, the defendant’s obligation to pay the $5,000 special assessment 

continues for 20 years after entry of judgment or release from prison, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 3014(g), 3613(b). This long payment period “underscores that a district court must impose the 

assessment unless it finds the defendant could not pay it today—or at any point for the next twenty 

years.” United States v. Graves, 908 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir. 2018); accord United States v. 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 10 of 12
11 

Rosario, 7 F. 4th 65, 70-71 (2d Cir. 2021); United States v. Shepherd, 922 F.3d 753, 758 (6th Cir. 

2019). “[I]t would make little sense for the district court to consider only the defendant’s financial 

condition at the time of sentencing” because “[t]hat snapshot in time may not accurately represent 

the defendant’s condition five, ten, or twenty years after sentencing.” Shepherd, 922 F.3d at 758. 

 The United States submits the Court should assess Singleton’s ability to the pay the 

mandatory special assessment set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a) based on his future earning potential 

after he is released from prison. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the United States respectfully submits Singleton’s Total Offense 

Level is properly calculated as 43, resulting in an advisory sentencing guideline range of life 

imprisonment, and an adjusted guideline range of 1,440 months’ imprisonment. The United States 

further request the Court to impose a total sentence in United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr14054-AMC and United States v. Dustin Singleton, 22-cr-14048-AMC, consistent with the parties’ 

joint recommendations in the plea agreements. 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

 MARKENZY LAPOINTE 

 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

 By: /s/Michael D. Porter_________ 

 Michael D. Porter 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

 Florida Bar# 0031149 

 101 South U.S. Highway 1 

 Suite 3100 

 Fort Pierce, Florida 34950 

 Telephone: (772) 293-0950 

 Email:michael.porter2@usdoj.gov 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 11 of 12
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on July 14, 2023, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties 

indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by either regular U.S. 

mail or inter-office delivery. 

 /s/Michael D. Porter______ ___ 

 Michael D. Porter 

 Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 2:22-cr-14048-AMC Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/14/2023 Page 12 of 12