The HONORABLE JIMM LARRY HENDREN, Chief Judge, United States

1

District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2806

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Guy Wesley Hamilton, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: January 15, 1999

 Filed: February 2, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guy Wesley Hamilton pleaded guilty to transportation and possession of child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1) and (a)(4)(B). The district court1

sentenced him to 51 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. Hamilton

appeals this sentence, challenging his five-level enhancement for “engag[ing] in a

pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” See U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.2(b)(4). We affirm. 
-2-

While investigating reports that Hamilton had sexually abused the seven-yearold daughter of his live-in girlfriend, investigators uncovered a box of pornographic

videos and photographs and evidence Hamilton had downloaded child pornography

off the Internet onto his computer hard drive, back-up tapes, and diskettes. Hamilton

pleaded guilty to transporting and possessing the child pornography. The five-level

enhancement was imposed based upon the district court’s finding that he had sexually

abused the seven-year-old girl at least twice.

Application Note 1 to § 2G2.2(b)(4) was amended in 1996 to expressly provide

that the five-level enhancement applies “whether or not the abuse or exploitation (A)

occurred during the course of the offense, (B) involved the same or different victims,

or (C) resulted in a conviction for such conduct.” In adopting this amendment, the

Sentencing Commission noted the enhancement therefore “is broader than the scope

of relevant conduct typically considered under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).” U.S.S.G.

App. C, amendment 537, effective Nov. 1, 1996; see United States v. Anderton, 136

F.3d 747, 750-51 (11th Cir. 1998). Hamilton first argues the amendment is

unconstitutional because it allows unrelated behavior to be used to enhance a sentence.

However, the enhancement is expressly authorized by § 2G2.2(b)(4), as amended, and

does not exceed the very broad constitutional power to legislatively define relevant

factors at sentencing. See United States v. Galloway, 976 F.2d 414, 422-27 (8th

Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 974 (1993). 

Hamilton next argues the district court clearly erred in finding sufficient

evidence that he warranted a § 2G2.2(b)(4) enhancement. We disagree. The

presentence report stated that the daughter told her mother Hamilton had “touched” her

on at least two occasions, the daughter&s school counselor “confirmed” the girl had

been sexually abused, and rape and sexual exploitation charges were brought against

Hamilton following his statement to investigators. Hamilton did not object to those

factual allegations. Moreover, at sentencing Hamilton denied he had inappropriately

touched the young girl but conceded his excessive drinking during this period may
-3-

have caused him to forget such incidents. Hamilton also admitted sending a message

over the Internet stating he was sexually involved with a seven-year-old girl. Thus,

there was ample evidence supporting the district court’s finding the enhancement was

warranted. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.