[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15668

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00356-CEH-TBS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

SHELDON JOEL RAMNARAINE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 6, 2018)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-15668 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Sheldon Joel Ramnaraine appeals from his 87-month sentence, imposed 

after he pled guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography. He argues 

the district court erred in applying 5-level enhancements under United States 

Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) and (b)(7)(D). After careful consideration, 

we affirm. 

I.

Ramnaraine was charged with one count of possession of child pornography, 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), and one count of 

distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and 

(b)(1). He pled guilty to both counts without a plea agreement. The presentence 

investigation report (“PSR”) calculated Ramnaraine’s base offense level as 22. It 

then applied a number of enhancements, including a 5-level enhancement under 

Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) and a 5-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). 

Ramnaraine made a general objection to these enhancements at his sentencing, but 

admitted that “if the United States Attorney called the FBI witness to testify,” the 

district court would have no “legal basis” to reject the enhancements. He also did 

not dispute the facts in the PSR. Based on the government’s factual proffer at 

sentencing and the facts in the PSR, the district court overruled Ramnaraine’s 

objection. The court granted a downward variance, however, and imposed an 87-

month sentence. This appeal followed. 

Case: 15-15668 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 2 of 5 
3

II.

We generally review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and 

review de novo its application of the guidelines. United States v. Gupta, 463 F.3d 

1182, 1199 (11th Cir. 2006). “[A]bsent a stipulation or agreement between the 

parties, an attorney’s factual assertions at a sentencing hearing do not constitute 

evidence that a district court can rely on.” United States v. Washington, 714 F.3d 

1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 2013). 

When a defendant raises a sentencing claim on appeal that he did not raise to 

the district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 

1319, 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). “For this Court to correct plain error: 

(1) there must be error; (2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect 

substantial rights.” Id. (quotation omitted). “If these conditions are met, we may 

exercise our discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United 

States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244, 1257 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). 

Under Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B), a 5-level enhancement applies if the 

defendant distributed child pornography “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, 

of a thing of value, but not for pecuniary gain.” USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (2011).1

 

 1 “In reviewing the district court’s application of the Guidelines, this Court applies the 

version of the guidelines in effect on the date of the sentencing hearing,” as well as any 

clarifying amendments issued later. United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1184 (11th Cir. 

Case: 15-15668 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 3 of 5 
4

In the context of file-sharing programs, “the mere use of [such] a program . . . does 

not, by itself, establish a transaction” that will support the enhancement. United 

States v. Spriggs, 666 F.3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 2012). Instead, the evidence

must show that the defendant’s sharing of child pornography with other users was 

conditioned on something in return, such as a return promise to share. Id. 

Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) imposes a 5-level enhancement if the offense 

involved at least 600 images of child pornography. USSG § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) 

(2011); id. § 2G2.2 cmt. n.4(A). A video that contains child pornography is 

equivalent to 75 images. Id. § 2G2.2 cmt. n.4(B)(ii). 

III.

Although Ramnaraine objected to the enhancements under Guideline 

§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) and (b)(7)(D) at sentencing, he did not make any legal argument 

to the district court about why these enhancements should not apply. We thus 

review for plain error only. See Aguillard, 217 F.3d at 1320. Also, because 

Ramnaraine stipulated to the government’s factual proffer, we can rely on the 

proffer to determine whether the district court plainly erred in applying these 

enhancements. See Washington, 714 F.3d at 1361. 

 

2011) (quotation omitted and alteration adopted). Although Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) was 

amended in 2016, Ramnaraine does not argue the amended Guideline should apply in his case 

and indeed says it has “no application.” See USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) (2016). We thus apply the 

2011 Guideline without deciding anything more. 

Case: 15-15668 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 4 of 5 
5

We conclude the district court correctly applied both 5-level enhancements. 

As to Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B), the PSR stated that Ramnaraine used Gigatribe, 

a file-sharing program. At sentencing, the government proffered that Ramnaraine 

admitted in his interviews with law enforcement that he used Gigatribe in order to 

trade child pornography. The government also described a chat recovered from 

Ramnaraine’s computer in which Ramnaraine told another user, “[E]ither you 

share or I will ban you.” Together, this was sufficient evidence that Ramnaraine 

conditioned his sharing of child pornography on a return promise to share. See

Spriggs, 666 F.3d at 1288. Thus, the district court did not err in applying the 

5-level enhancement under Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B). 

As to Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D), the PSR stated that an undercover lawenforcement officer downloaded “390 pictures and 3 videos of child pornography” 

from Ramnaraine and that a forensic computer examiner later found “210 images 

and 4 videos” on Ramnaraine’s electronic storage device. As each video is 

considered to have 75 images, USSG § 2G2.2 cmt. n.4(B)(ii), Ramnaraine’s 

offense involved 1,125 images, well over the 600-image minimum needed to apply 

the 5-level enhancement. See id. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). Thus, there was no error by 

the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-15668 Date Filed: 04/06/2018 Page: 5 of 5