The H onor abl e J
. C l i ff or d W al l ace , of

t he U ni t ed St at es C our t of A ppea l s f

or t he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng by * des i gn at i on.

T he H onor abl e Son i a So t om ayo r , or i gi nal l y a m em ber of t he p ane l , was el eva t ed t o t he Supr em e C our t on ** A ugus t 8, 2009
. The tw o r em ai ni ng m em ber s of t he p ane l , who ar e i n a gr eem ent , ha ve det er m i ned t he m at t er . See 28 U
. S
. C
. 4 6 (d ); L o c a l R u le 0

. 1 4 (2 ); U n it e d S tate s v . D e sim o n e , 1 4 0 F
. 3 d 4 5 7 (2d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). 1 08- 1886- cr U ni t ed St at es v. Free m an
UN ITED STA TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m, 200 8 (A rgue d: M ay 8, 200 9 Dec id ed: Aug us t 1 0, 2 009 ) Do cket No . 08 -1 886 -c r U NI T ED S TATES O F A M ERI CA ,

Appellee ,
v. B R A NDA N R. F REEM AN ,

De fe ndant -A ppella nt .
B ef or e: C AB R ANES and W ALL ACE , Circuit Jud

ges . * * * App eal f r om a ju dgm ent

of th e Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Char

les J . Si r agu s a, Judge

) sentencing defenda nt-appellant principa lly to a seve nty-eight month te r m o f i mp r

is on men t f

or r ecei pt of childpo r no gr aph y, i n v

io lat io n o f 1 8 U. S.C. § 22 52A (a) (2). Defendant-appel lant cha llenge s the Dis trict Court’s imposition of a four -level sentenci ng enha ncement pu r s uan t t o U .S. S.G§ 2G 2.2 (b )(4) fo r th e po s s es s io n o f m ate r

ial s po r tr aying s adi s ti c or

mas ochis ti c con du ct . Wh er e, as her e, a dis tr ict cou r t f in ds th at ( 1) an i mag e de pi ct s s exu al act ivi ty invo lvi ng a mi no r and(2) the d epi ct ed ac ti

vit y wo ul d h ave c aus ed p ainto th e mi no r , the c ou r t p r ov id es an adequa te expla nation of its decision to impos e an e nhance ment under section 2G2.2(b)(4). Af fi r med

. S T EP HA N J. B ACZYN S KI , As s is tan t U ni te d S tat es At to r neyT his su bse cti on of t he U nit ed States C od e p roh i bit s t he kn ow i ng rec eipt or d i st ri bu t i on of — 1 (A ) any chi l d pornography t hat has been m ai l ed , or us i ng any m eans or f aci l i t y of i nt ers t at e or f

orei gn com m er ce s hi pped or t r ans por t ed i n or af f ect i ng i nt er s t at e or f

or ei gn com m er ce b y a ny m ean s , i ncl udi ng by com put er ; or ( B ) an y m at er i al t hat con t ai ns chi l d por nog r aph y t hat ha s bee n m ai l ed, or us i ng an y m ean s or f aci l i t y of i nt er s t at e or f

or ei gn com m er ce s hi pped or t r ans por t ed i n or af f ect i ng i nt er s t at e or f

or ei gn com m er ce by an y m ea ns, i nc l u d i ng by co m pu t er. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(2 ). 2 (KathleenM . M ehl tr et te r , Act in g Unit ed S tat es At to r ney , on the brief ), Office of the United States Attorney for the Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k, B uf

falo , N Y, for Appellee Uni te d St ate s o f A mer ic a. J AY S. O VS I O VI TCH , As s is tan t F ede r al P ub lic Def end er (M ar ian ne M ar in o, Fe der al P ub lic Def

end er , on the brief

), Office of the Federal Public Defende r for the We stern Di s tr ict of New Yor k, Ro che s te r , N Y, for DefendantAppella nt B ran dan R. F

re eman . J OS É A. C AB R ANES , Circuit Jud ge : Br andan R . Freeman appe als from a judgment of conviction entered on A pril 8, 2008, in the Unit ed S tat es Di s tr

ict Cou r t f or th e Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k ( Char

les J . Si r agu s a, Judge

), for r ecei pt of childpo r no gr aph y, i n v

io lat io n o f 1 8 U. S.C. § 22 52A (a) (2). Onapp eal, Fr eem an ch all eng es 1 his s entence on the ground that the Distr ict Court erred by imposing a four-level enha ncement for the po s s es s io n o f i mag es con tai ni ng s adi s ti c or mas ochis ti c co nd uct . See

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) (“If the of fe ns e in vo lve d m ate r

ial th at p or tr ays s adi s ti c or

mas ochis ti c co nd uct

or other dep ict io ns of vio len ce, increase by 4 level s.”). In light of the District Court’s finding that the ac ts depicted in the photographs “would ha ve to be pa inful,” J.A. 123, a nd our holding in Uni te d St ate s v . Delmar le that it is “within the [dis tr ict ] co ur t’ s di s cr et

io n t o co ncl ud e that

th e s ub ject

io n o f ayou ng c hildto a s exu al act th at w ould hav e t o b e pai nf

ul is exce s s ive ly cruel

andhen ce is s adi s ti c withi n the m eani ng o f § 2G 2.2 (b)[ (4 )] ,” 9 9 F. 3d80, 83 (

2dCir . 19 96) , we r ejec t F r eem an’ s challenge. We ho ldth at w hena Di s tr

ict Cou r t m akes an objec tive determination that (1) an ima ge depi cts s exualactivity involving a minor and (2) the depicted a ctivity woul d have c aused pain to the minor, the court establishes an adequa te basis for the applic ation of the enhanc ement set forth in section 2G2.2(b)(4). BAC KGROUND During the summer

of 2006, Freeman, then a resident of Spencerport, New York, applie d for a po s it io n i n the S her

if f’ s Of fi ce o f M ar

ico pa Co un ty , Ar

izo na. As p a rt o f th e a pp li ca ti on pro ce ss, Fr eem an wa s in te r

viewedby a p olygr aphexamin er , an d, inth e co ur s e of th at e xamin ati on , h e admit te dPurs uant t o t hi s pr ovi s i on, 2
I f (A ) t he def

endant wi l l f

ul l y ob s t r uct ed or i m peded, or at t em pt ed t o ob s t r uct or i m pede, t he a dm i ni s t r at i on o f j us t i c e wi t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , p r o s e c ut i o n , o r s e n t e n c i n g o f t h e i n s t a n t o ff

e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n , a n d ( B) th e o b stru c ti v e c o n d u c t re late d to (i) the d e fe n d a n t' s o ffe n se o f c o n v iction an d an y re lev a n t co n d u c t; o r (i i) a closely relat ed offen se, i nc rea se the o ffen se l ev el by 2 l ev els. U
. S. S. G
. § 3C 1. 1.

The go ver nm ent ha s not f i l ed a c r os s - app eal cha l l eng i ng t hi s det er m i nat i on. 3 3 that he had previously obta ined chil d pornography from the internet in his New York home. The Sheriff’s Office informed New York State a uthorities of Freeman’s admission, and the New York autho r it ies com men cedan i nv es tigat io n, ob tai ni ng awar r ant

to s ear ch the c om pu te r s lo cat ed at Fr eem an’ s r es id enc e. O n Augus t 1 7, 2 006 , p ol ice o ff icer s exec ut ed the s ear ch w ar r ant , s eizi ng t wo com pu te r s . T hey

als o ga ve F r eem an the o pp or tu ni ty to acco mp any themto th e po lic e s tat io n i n o r der to make a statement. At the station, Fr eema n admitted that he vie wed c hild pornography over the in te r net —anadmis s io n that

was corr ob or ate d b y a s ub s equ ent examin ati onof

th e co mp ut er s s eize d from F reeman’s residence, w hich conta ined over two hundred imag es of child pornography. Seve ral of the image s s tored on Fr eema n’s computers depicted a dult males vagi nally penetrating prepubescent fe mal es . The local Ne w York authorities referr ed the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Wes te r n D is tr

ict of New Yor k. O n J anu ary 3, 200 8, F r eem an p lead ed g uilt y, p ur s uan t t o a p lea agr eem ent , t o a o ne- cou nt in fo r mat io n alleg in g that he r ecei vedchildpo r no gr aph y, i n v io lat io n o f 1 8 U.S.C . § 2252A (a)(2). At his plea colloquy , Freeman admitted that he “knowingly rece ived ima ges of child pornography on a computer” and that the “i mages had be en shipped or trans ported in inters tate andfo r eign co mm er ce.” J .A. 49. T he D is tr ict Cou r t ac cep te d F r eem an’ s pl ea of guilt y andor der ed his det ent io n p endin g s ent enc in g. T he D is tr ict Cou r t h elda s ent enc in g he ar in g onApr

il 4 , 20 08. Acco r di ng t o a p r es ent enc e inves tigat ive r epo r t ( “P SR”) pr epar ed b y Unit ed S tat es Pr ob ati onOf fi ce, F r eem an’ s to tal

of fe ns e lev el under the U.S. Sente ncing Guide lines was 30, a nd his criminal histor y ca tegory wa s I , corresponding to an advisory Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months’ impris onment. Freeman’s total offense level in the PSR include d, among other things, a two-leve l enhanc ement for obs truction of jus tice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 , and a four-level e nhance ment purs uant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) for his pos sess ion 2 of sadist ic or masochistic images. C ounsel for F reeman obje cted to these two enha ncements, and the Distr ict Court sus tained the obje ction to the obstruction of justice enhanc ement, conc luding that the facts of this case did not show that Freeman had obstructed justice within the mea ning of the releva nt provision. 34

The District Court denied defense counsel’s objec tion to the four -level e nhance ment authorized by sec tion 2G2.2(b)(4) of the Guideline s for the poss ession of

image s containing sadistic or masochistic conduct. In what the District Court described as “one of the more difficult aspects of its r es po ns ib ili ti es ,” J .A. 122 , it r evi ewedth e ph ot ogr aph s inqu es ti onto det er mi ne whether th ey “po r tr ay[ed] s adi s ti c or

mas ochis ti c co nd uct

or other dep ict io ns of vio len ce,” U.S .S. G. § 2G 2.2 (b)(4)
. The Di stri ctC ou rt d esc rib ed asa mp li ng of t he ph oto gra ph s a s fol lo ws: One depic ts an obviously prepubescent [girl] engagi ng in intercourse with an adul t male. The s eco ndph ot ogr aph

. . . dep ict s . . . , again , a p r epu bes cen t g ir l, I ju dge , t o b e 7 o r

8 wi tha penis in s er te d i n h er

vagi na; . . . [an other

] i s a pi ctur e of

an o bv io us ly p r epu bes cen t g

ir l wi tha penis in her mo uth an d anadult

penis inher

vagi na at th e s ame ti me; . . . [an other ] p ictur e [i s ] o f a n ob vi ou sly pre pu be sce nt c hi ld wi th h erle gs sp re a d o pe n, a n a du ltma le ho ld in g h is p en is i n c lo se proximity to her vagina a nd there appea rs to be a sock stuck in her mouth; . . . [another picture showed] obviously, prepubescent children with their hands—with one’s hands tied to the oth er ’s l eg s. J.A. 121-22. R elying

on our holding in Delmar

le that it is “within the [distr ict] court’s dis cretion to con clu de that

th e s ub ject

io n o f ayou ng c hildto a s exu al act th at w ouldhav e t o b e pai nf ul is exce s s ive ly cr uel andhen ce is s adi s ti c withi n the m eani ng o f [ s ect io n] 2G 2.2 (b)( [4

]) ,” 9 9 F .3dat 8 3, the D is tr ict Court conclude d, based on its review of the photographs, that “an adul t male inserting his penis into th e vag in a of a pr epu bes cen t c hild

. . . [wh o i n s om e cas es was ] as you ng a s 6 o r 7 yea r s ol d wo ul d h ave to be painful,” J.A. 1 23. Havi ng made this determination, the C ourt ruled that the enha ncement app lie d t o F r eem an’ s con du ct . D ef ens e co un s el o bj ect ed t o the rul in g. Additional a rgument fr om defense counsel and the g overnment ensued. The Distr ict Court th en c alculat ed F r eem an’ s s ent enc in g r ang e un der th e adv is or y Gu id eli nes , d et er mi ni ng that

Fr eem an’ s to tal of fe ns e lev el wa s 28 a ndhi s cr im in al his to r

y cat ego ry was I , whichcorr es po nd ed t o anadv is or y sentencing range of 78 to 97 months ’ imprisonment. T he District Court s entence d Freeman at the low end of the Guideline s r ange —78 months’ impr isonment—and imposed a twenty-ye ar term of s up er vis ed r elea s e. J ud gm ent

ent er ed o n Ap r

il 8 , 20 08, andthis app eal f ollo wed

. DISCUSSI ON Fr eem an ch all eng es hi s s ent enc e onth e gr ou ndth at the D is tr ict Cou r t e r r ed b y im po s in g a four- level enhanc ement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4), for the pos sess ion of images containi ng sadistic or mas ochistic conduct. He argues that, “while [the Distr ict Court] commented that the depicted a ct ‘would have to be pa inful,’ it did not find that the images were ‘sadistic or masochistic’ or ‘otherwise depicted violence ,’ as did both the sentencing c ourt and the panel . . . in Delmar le .” App ell ant ’s B r . 11 . F r eem an cl aim s th at “ [p]ai n d oes no t m ean v io len ce,” and“a f

in di ng that

an ac tA t t h e ti m e o f D e lm a rle ’ s se n ten c ing , this p ro v isi o n w a s n u m b e re d as se c ti o n 2 G 2
. 2 (b )(3). 4 5 may hav e be en p ain ful t o o ne o f i ts s ub ject s do es no t m ean that it invo lve d s adi s ti c or

mas ochis ti c con du ct or other wis e de pi ct s vio len ce.” Id

. T he g ov er nm ent

r es po nd s th at F r eem an’ s argum ent is an “‘end run’ around Delmar

le” an d “[ n] o ‘ r ob ot ic i ncan tat io n’ of th e t er m ‘ s adi s ti c’ [

is ] r equ ir ed” by Ci r cui t pr eced ent or th e Gu id eli nes . Ap pellee’ s B r . 8- 9. Because Freeman cha llenge s the Dis trict Court’s interpretation and applic ation of the Guid eli nes , we r evi ew his challenge de novo

. See, e.g. , Uni te d St ate s v . Gr ay , 535 F.3d 128, 13 0 (2d Cir. 2008). Freeman and the g overnment agree tha t our holding in Delmar le gov erns this cas e, s o we beg in with a c lose examina tion of that decision. In Delmar le, the defenda nt was convicte d of shipping or tr ans po r ti ng v

is ual dep ict io ns of mi no r s eng aging ins exu ally exp lic it con du ct invio lat io n o f 1 8 U. S.C. § 22 52(a). See 99 F .3dat 8 2. A t s ent enc in g, the dis tr ict cou r t i mp os ed a f

ou r -l evel enh ance men t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) beca use “a photograph transmitted by Delmarle depi cts a nude boy, a bout 8-9 4 year s of age, hav in g anunid ent

if iedob ject in s er te d i nt o his anu s .” Id

. at 8 3. D elm arle ch all eng ed his s ent enc e onapp eal, con te ndin g, int er ali a , that th e “i mag e di d n ot

po r tr ay s adi s m. ” Id

. A pan el o f o ur

Cou r t r ejec te d D elam rle’ s challenge t o the ap pl icat io n o f the s ect

io n 2 G2 .2(

b) (4 ) enhanc ement. Noting that “sadism” wa s not defined in the Guidelines, the C ourt consult ed dictiona ry def init io ns of th e t er m, whi ch i ncl ud ed “ th e in fl ict io n o f p ain ” f

or s exu al gr ati fi cat

io n, “de lig

ht in ph ys ical or men tal cr uel ty ,” an d the u s e of

“ex ces s ive cr uel ty .” Id

. (quo ti ng Webster’s Third New International D ictionary

2254 (1986)). Wi th these definitions in mind, the Court described the content of the releva nt photograph: (1) “It is plain that the subjec t of the picture in question is a young child;” a nd (2) “It is also plain that a cylindrica l object, of a c ircumference sufficiently subst antial to ma ke it quite lik ely t o cau s e pai n t o o ne s o yo un g, i s bei ng i ns er te d b y an a dult han d i nt o the c hild ’s anu s .” Id

. The Cou r t al s o n ot ed the c on ces s io n o f D elm arle’ s att orney at the s ent enc in g he ar

in g that “the ac t d epi ct ed ‘wo ul d h ave t o b e pai nf

ul .’” Id . (qu ot in g the s ent enc in g tr ans cr

ip t) . I n l igh t o f thes e f

act s , the Delamr

le Court conclude d, what ever might be i nf er r ed as to th e pu rpo s e of

th e act dep ict ed o r

th e r eact io n o f the ac to r , it was withi n the [ s ent enc in g] cou r t’ s di s cr et io n t o co ncl ud e that

th e s ub ject

io n o f ayou ng c hild to a sexual a ct that would have to be pa inful is excessively cruel a nd hence is s adistic within the mea ni ng o f § 2G 2.2 (b )( [4

]) .” Id

. Delmarle’s convic tion and sentence w ere affirmed.W e no t e i n pa s s i ng t hat , eve n i f we w er e no t bound by t he h ol di ng i n D elm a rle , w e w ou l d ad op t t he se 5 pr i nci pl es as a m at t er of l og i c. 6 W hi le the a na ly sis se t fo rth is Delmar le is con cis e, i t i s als o cl ear ; an d we r ead i ts ho ldin g as est a blish in g t

wo pro po sitio ns. 5
Fi r s t, th e de te r mi nat

io n o f whether

an i mag e is s adi s ti c un der U.S .S. G. § 2G 2.2 (b)(4) is an objective one. As the Court expla ined, the “purpose of the act depi cted [and] the rea ction of the actor” ar e irr elev ant

to this det er mi nat

io n. Id

. A s ent enc in g co ur t n eedno t d et er mi ne whether th e pe op le dep ict ed i n the i mag e ar e de r ivi ng s exu al p leas ur e f

r om th e in fl

ict io n o f p ain ; n or

nee d i t g aug e wh ether th e vi ewer of th e pi ctur e is lik ely t o d er ive pl eas ur e f

r om th e f act th at the i mag e di s pl ays pai nf ul s exu al act s . T her e is als o n o n eedfo r th e s ent enc in g co ur t t o d et er mi ne e ither why th e de fe nd ant

po s s es s ed th e im ages or

whe th er he d er ive d p leas ur e f

r om th em. See United States v. Richa rdson , 23 8 F .3d837 , 84 0 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[L]iability for receiving violent chil d pornography is strict. Sentencing enhanc ements gen er ally ar e im po s ed o n the b as is of s tr ict lia bilit y r ath er th an o f the d ef

end ant ’s in te nt

io ns or evenhi s lackof care.”). In sum, the subjective intent of those depicted in the ima ge a nd of thos e who vie w the image are entirely i rrelevant to the applic ation of this enhanceme nt. All that matters, as the text of the relevant provision of the Guidelines makes cle ar, is whether the “materialportr ays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4). This determination must be made based on an obje ctive a nalysis of the material in question. Second, i f a sentencing c ourt f inds that (1) an image de picts sexual activi ty involving a minor and (2) the depic ted activi ty would have ca used pain to the minor, that court need not make a ny addit io nal fi ndin gs inor der

to im po s e a f

ou r -l evel enh ance men t u nd er

U.S .S. G. § 2G 2.2 (b)(4) . T hi s con clu s io n i s com pelledby the Delmar le Cou r t’ s ho ldin g that

“it was withi n the [ s ent enc in g] cou r t’ s discretion to conclude that the subjection of a y oung child to a sexual ac t that would have to be painful is exce s s ive ly cruel

andhen ce is s adi s ti c withi n the m eani ng o f § 2G 2.2 (b)( [4 ]) .” Delmar

le, 99 F. 3dat 8 3. We reje ct any sugge stion that a distr ict court need mak e findings beyond those listed above in order to conclude that subjecting children to pa inful sexual ac ts is objective ly sadistic under section 2G2.2(b)(4). Other Circuits have adopted simila r s tandards governing the appli cation of a sentenc ing enh ance men t u nd er

U.S .S. G. § 2G 2.2 (b)(4)
. See, e.g. , United Sta tes v. Rearden , 349 F.3d 608, 61 6 (9th Cir. 200 3) (“ [T ]h e di s tr ict cou r t didno t i mp r op erly ap ply § 2G 2.2 (b)( [4 ]) af te r fi ndin g that

th e im ages dep ict ed s ub ject

io n o f achildto a s exu al act th at w ouldhav e t o b e pai nf ul , an d thu s s adi s ti c.”); United States v. Bender

, 290 F.3d 1279, 1 286 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[A] photograph is sadistic within the mea ning of Section 2G2.2 (b)([4]) when it depi cts the subjection of a young chil d to a sexual a ct that would have to be p ain ful.” (i nt er nal

qu ot ati onmar ks omit te d) ); Uni te d St ate s v . Ly ck man , 23 5 F .3d234 , 23 9 ( 5th Ci r . 2000) (“[I]it was certainly rea sonable for the district court to inf er that the conduct depic ted by the ph oto gra ph s ca use d th e c hi ld re n p ain , p hy sic a l o r e mo ti on a l o r bo th, a nd the re fore co nsti tut es sa di smThi s f i ndi ng i s con s i s t ent wi t h t hos e of ot her cour t s t hat ha ve b een r equi r ed t o co ns i der w het her t he s exua l 6 p e n e tr a tio n o f a c h ild b y a n a d u lt m a le is p a in fu l. S ee R earden , 3 4 9 F
. 3 d at 6 1 5 -1 6 (co ll e c ti n g c a se s). 7 or vio len ce wi thinth e me ani ng o f the g ui del in e.”); United Sta tes v. T

urchen , 187 F.3d 735, 74 0 (7th Cir. 199 9) (af fi r mi ng i mp os it

io n o f e nh ance men t af

te r det er mi ni ng that

“the s exu al act

dep ict ed h er e was

. . . ‘qui te lik ely t o cau s e pai n i n o ne s o yo ung’ an d that ‘the s ub ject

io n o f ayou ng c hildto th at a ct is exce s s ive ly cruel

andhen ce is s adi s ti c.’ ” (qu ot in g Delmar

le, 99 F.3d at 83) (bracke ts omit ted)). Turning to the facts of this case, w e observe that the Distr ict Court applie d the section 2G2.2(b)(4) enhance ment after citing the holding of Delmar le and maki ng a finding tha t, based on its eval uat io n o f the r elev ant

ph ot ogr aph s , the s exu al co nt act “wo ul d h ave t o b e pai nf

ul ” t o the c hild r en dep ict ed, s om e of

who m ap pear ed t o b e as you ng a s s ix o r s evenyear s ol d. J .A. 123 . As exp lai ned 6 above, a sentencing

court need find only that (1) an ima ge depi cts s exualactivity involving a minor and (2) the d epi ct ed ac ti

vit y wo ul d h ave t o cau s e the min or pai n i n o r der

to es tab lis h a s uf

fi cien t f actual bas is fo r th e im po s it

io n o f the e nh ance men t. T he D is tr ict Cou r t m ade a dequat e f

in di ngs inthis cas e. Ins ofar as Fr eema n objects to the Distr ict Court’s failure to st ate ex plicitly tha t it found the im ages to be s adi s ti c, his argum ent is witho ut

mer it . T he D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s r ef

er enc e t o o ur

ho ldin g in Delmar le and its finding that the sex acts depicted in the photographs “would have to be painful” to the child r en d epi ct ed, J .A. 123 , m ake p lai n that th e Di s tr ict Cou r t c on s id er ed the i mag es to be s adi s ti c within the mea ning of section 2G2.2(b)(4). We therefore see no basis to quest ion the deci sion of the Di s tr ict Cou r t t o i mp os e the f

ou r -l evel enh ance men t f

or th e po s s es s io n o f i mag es dep ict in g s adi s ti c, masochistic, or otherwise violent conduct.
Fr eem an ar

gue s th at, if

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t’ s s ent enc e is all owe d t o s tan d, it wouldmea n that “the e nh ance men t w ouldapp ly t o any act th at as ent enc in g co ur t b eli eves couldbe p ain ful.” Appella nt’s B r. 14. Ins ofar as Fr eema n refers to images of sexual ac ts involving minors , we ha ve no qu ar r el wi thhi s as s es s men t o f the i mp lic ati on s of ou r af fi r man ce o f the D is tr

ict Cou r t’ s ju dgm ent

in this case. In our view, that principle w as established in Delmar le . While we be lieve that Delma rle did not leav e any ambiguity i n the scope of this enhancement, w e recogniz e that its ters eness might invite chal lenges s uchas th at b r ought by F r eem an i n thi s cas e. I n o r der to r eme dy thi s per ceiv ed am bigui ty , we n ow h ol d ex pl

ici tly that , wh er e a s ent enc in g co ur t f in ds , b y a pr epo nd er ance of th e evi den ce, that (1 ) anim age d epi ct s s exu al act ivi ty invo lvi ng ami no r

and(2) the d epi ct ed ac ti

vit y wo ul d h ave c aus ed th e mi no r pai n, it nee d m ake n o f

ur th er fi ndin gs inor der

to im po s e a f

ou r -l evel enh ance men t u nd er § 2G2.2(b)(4). Nothing more is r equired to support the imposition of this enhance ment. Because the Distr ict Court made those findings in this case, and the record supports fully the dec ision of the Di s tr ict Cou r t t o i mp os e a s ect

io n 2 G2 .2(

b) (4 ) e nh ance men t, we r ejec t F r eem an’ s challenge t o his conviction.8 CONCLUSI ON T he D is tr ict Cou r t’ s im po s it

io n o f afo ur -l evel

enh ance men t u nd er

U.S .S. G. § 2G 2.2 (b)(

4) was based on its objective de termination that (1) Fr eema n poss essed materials depicting sexual activity in vo lv in g m in ors a nd (2 ) th e d ep ic te d a ctiv ity w ou ld have ca use d th e m in ors p ain . W e h ol d th a t th ose fi ndin gs ar e ade qu ate to s up po r t the i mp os it io n o f the e nh ance men t. T he j ud gm ent of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s th er ef

or e AF F IRME D

.