FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 25, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 13 79 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 03 1 C R-1 -SPM -AK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us SETH JERCHOWER, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J anua ry 25 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, MAR TIN andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s. BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Seth J erch owe r ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, im po se d fo ll owi ng hi s g ui lty pl ea t o on e co un t o f us in g i nt ers ta te co m m erce to att em

ptto in du ce a m in orto en ga ge in se xu al act iv ity , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . Jerc ho wer as se rts th atth e di st ric t co urt i nc orrect ly inc lu de d i n h is off en se lev el cal cu la ti on a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) , whi chap pl ie s wh ena pa rti ci pa nt ha s “ un du ly infl ue nc eda m in orto en ga ge inpro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t,” b ecau se th e o nl y “ m in or ” in vo lv edinhi s ca se was an u nd erco ve r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer po si ng as a n u nd erag e ch il d. Al th ou gh th is Cir cu itha d p rev io us ly hel d tha t the en ha nc em en t co ul d app ly in s uc h c as es , aft er the da te of J erch owe r’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng th e co m

m en tary to th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es was a m en de d b y Am en dm en t 7 32 to st at e th atth e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t d oe s n otap pl y whe n the on ly “m in or ” in vo lv edis anun de rco ve r of fic er. Je rch owe r cl ai m s, an d we ag ree, tha t Am en dm en t 7 32 is a cl ari fy in g a m en dm en t tha t s ho ul d b e ap pl ie d retro act iv el y

on th is ap pe al of h is sen te nc e.

I. BACKGROUND Je rch owe r was in di ct edontwo co un ts of u si ng in te rs ta te co m m erce to at te m ptto en ti ce a c hi ldto en ga ge insex ua l ac ti vi ty, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . Accor di ng to th e Pre se nt en ce In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (P SI), J erch owe r ha d o nl in e ch atses si on s wi th a pe rs onhe be li ev edto be th e m othe r of a 9- y ear- ol d 2gi rl a ndan11 -y ear- ol d b oy for the pu rp os e o f arra ng in g t o e ng ag e in sex ua l ac ts

with t he ch il dr en . The m othe r of th e ch il dr enwas a ctua ll y anun de rco ve r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer. J erch owe r al so sp ok e o n t he ph on e wit h u nd erco ve r of fic ers po rtr ay in g t he m ot he r an d t he 9-year-o ldgi rl. He cl ai m edth athe was driv in g t o Tall ah as se e, Fl or id a, to en ga ge insex ua l ac ts with t he ch il dr en , bu t h e n ev er arri ve d. Purs uantto a pl ea ag reem en t, J erch owe r pl ead ed gu il ty to the fir stco un t o f th e in di ctm en t. The PSI re co m m en de d ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 9 wi th an ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e o f 26 2 t o 3 27 m on th s. Th e o ffen se lev el in cl ud eda two -le ve l en hanc em en t p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2G1 .3(b )(2 )(B) , whi chpro vi de s fo r a two -le ve l i nc reas e if

th e d efen da ntun du ly infl ue nc eda m in orto en ga ge in pr oh ib it edsex ua l co nduc t. The co m m en ta ry to th e Gui de li ne ex pl ai ne d t ha t i n cas es inwhi chth e d efen da ntis at l eas t 1 0 years o ld er tha n t he m in or , th ere i s a reb ut tabl e p res um

pt io n o f un du e in flu en ce b as edon th e subs ta nt ia l ag e d iff eren ce. U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) , comm en t. (n . 3(B )). The PSI d et erm in edth e en ha nc em en t was warran te d b ecau se at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se , th e d efen dantwas 44 y ears ol d a ndon e o f th e ch il dr enwas re pr es en te d t o b e 9 y ears ol d b y th e un de rco ve r of

fic ers . At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Jer ch owe r’s at to rn ey sai d t ha t the

3reb ut tabl e p res um pt io n o f in flu en ce s ho ul d n otbe ap pl ie d “ in th is cas e si nc e th es e m in or s ar e fi gm en ts , real ly.” The di stric t co urt ju dg e ad op te d t he reco m m en da ti on s o f th e PSI. He in cl ud edth e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t i n t he off en se lev el cal cu la ti on an d im po se d asen te nc e o f 32 7 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, atth e to p o f th e Gui de li ne s’ im pr is on m en t ra ng e. Je rch owe r fi le d ano ti ce o f ap pe al sev eral da y s l at er, o n J ul y 10 , 20 09 . On Nov em

be r 1, 2 00 9, wh il e Je rch owe r’s ap pe al was p en di ng , Am en dm en t 7 32 to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es wentin to effe ct . Am en dm en t 7 32 am en de d t he co m m en ta ry to § 2 G1.3 to pro vi de th atth e un du e in flu en ce en ha nc em en t “ do es no t ap pl y ina cas e in whi chth e o nl y ‘ m in or ’ (as de fin edinApp li cat io n No te 1) i nv ol ve d i n t he off en se is anun de rco ve r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer.” Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on , Gui de li nes Ma nu al , Supp . to . App . C (Nov . 20 09 ). Thi s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e Gui de li ne is co nt rary to th is Cir cu it ’s pre ced en t, wh ic h h as he ldth atU.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) co ul d ap pl y incas es inwhi chth e o nl y “ m in or ” in vo lv edwas fi ct it io us . Uni te d Sta tes v. Van ce , 49 4 F .3d98 5, 9 96 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa ris , 58 3 F .3d75 6, 76 0 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 9) . Je rch owe r ob

jects to th e two -le ve l i nc reas e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt pu rs ua ntto § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) . Jerc ho wer co nt en ds on ap pe al th atAm en dm en t 7 32 4is a cl ari fy in g a m en dm en t tha t s ho ul d b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y to di sa ll ow the in cl us io n o f th e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t i n c al cu la ti ng hi s o ffen se lev el . Je rch owe r ex pl ai ns th atwitho utth e two -le ve l u ndue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t, h is Gui de li ne s ra ng e wou ldha ve be en21 0- 26 2 m on th s ra th er tha n t he 26 2- 32 7 m on th s re co m

m en de d b y

th e PSI. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws d e n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. Far is , 58 3 F .3dat 7 59 . Whi le a di st ric t co urt i s n otbo un d t o app ly th e Gui de li ne s, i t “ m

us t co ns ul t [t he m ] an d t ak e th em in to acco un t wh en se nt en ci ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ra wf ord , 40 7 F .3d11 74 , 11 78 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ Thi s co ns ul ta ti on requi rem en t, ata m in im um , ob li ge s the di st ric t co urt t o c al cu la te co rrec tl y th e se nt en ci ng ran ge pre sc rib edby the Gui de li ne s . . . .” Id. Inrev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s, thi s C ou rt

“ ap pl [ie s] th e v ers io n o f th e g ui de li ne s i n e ffec t o n t he da te of t he sen te nc in g he ari ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Des cen t , 29 2 F .3d70 3, 7 07 (11 thCir . 20 02 ).

“ Subs eque ntam en dm en ts th atcla rif y th e g ui de li ne s, h owe ve r, sh ou ldbe co ns id eredon ap pe al reg ard le ss of t he da te of s en te nc in g.” Id ; se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Arms tr on g , 34 7 F .3d90 5, 9 08 (11 thCir . 20 03 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atcla rif y in g 5am en dm en ts to th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es are “ to be gi ve n re tro act iv e eff ect ”); Uni te d Sta tes v. Sti ns on , 30 F.3d12 1, 1 22 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (co nc lu di ng th at Am en dm en t 4 33 was c larif y in g andm

us t the refo re b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y on ap pe al ). Thi s i s b ecau se cla rif y in g a m en dm en ts do no t re pr es en t a s ub st an ti ve ch an ge inth e Gui de li ne s, b utin st ead“pr ov id e p ers ua si ve ev id en ce o f ho w th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ori gi na ll y en vi si on edap pl ic at io n o f th e rel ev an t gu id el in e.” Des cen t , 29 2 F .3dat 7 07 -0 8. Subs ta nt iv e am en dm en ts to th e Gui de li ne s, o n t he ot he r ha nd , are n otap pl ie d re tro act iv el y ondi rectap pe al . Se e id . at 7 09 . III. DISC USSION Bec au se Am en dm en t 7 32 be cam e eff ect iv e aft er the da te of J erch owe r’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , we m us t d eci de whet he r itcla rif ie s § 2G1 .3(b )(2 )(B) or subs tant iv el y

ch an ge s i t. Se e id. at 7 08 . For t he reas on s ex pl ai ne d b el ow, we h ol d th atAm en dm en t 7 32 was acla rif ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) an d s ho ul d th eref or e b e ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y on Jer ch owe r’s di rectap pe al . 1 Although this is an issue of f irst impression in thi s Circuit, we note that the two othe r 1 circ uit courts that have a ddresse d this iss ue have conclude d Amendment 732 should be a pplied retroa ctively . United States v. Christensen , 598 F.3d 1201, 1205- 06 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ross , 352 F. App’ x 771, 773 (4th Cir. 2009). In Christ ensen , the Ninth Circuit conclude d that Amendment 732 should be a pplied retroa ctively

based on that court’s pre cede nt holding amendments made f or the purpose of re solving a circ uit spli t should be applied retroa ctively . See Christensen , 598 F.3d at 1205 (citing United States v. Morgan , 376 F.3d 1002, 1011 (9th Cir. 2004) and United States v. Van Alstyne , 584 F.3d 803, 818 ( 9th Cir. 2009)). The 6Inass es si ng whet he r anam en dm en t t o t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es is

subs tant iv e o r cl ari fy in g, thi s C ou rt c on si de rs sev eral fact or s. Fi rs t, we l oo k t o whe th er the am en dm en t al te rs th e te xtof t he Gui de li ne or a lt ers on ly the co m m en tary . An am en dm en t tha t al te rs th e te xtof t he Gui de li ne it se lf s ug ge st s a subs tant iv e ch an ge , Uni te d Sta tes v. S ummer s , 17 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 31 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ [A]lter at io n o f actua l Gu id el in e la ng ua ge stro ng ly sug ge st s tha t a subs tant iv e ch an ge was b ei ng m ad e.”), wh il e anam en dm en t tha t al te rs on ly the co m m en tary su gg es ts a cl ari fic at io n, se e Arms tr on g , 34 7 F .3dat 9 08 n.6 (“ Am en dm en ts to th e co m m en tary are cl ari fy in g a m en dm en ts .”). An am en dm en t to th e co m

m en tary m ay be subs ta nt iv e, ho wev er, i f itco nt rad ic ts or a lt ers pr eex is ti ng co m

m en tary in st eadof m erel y

supp le m en ti ng co m

m en ta ry carr ie d o ve r fro m anearl ie r ve rs io n o f th e Gui de li ne s. Su mmers , 17 6 F .3dat 1 33 1; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Dedeker , 96 1 F .2d16 4, 1 66 n.4 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ). Seco nd , th is Co urt l oo ks to whet he r th e Co m m is si onha s d es cri be d an a m en dm en t as clarif y in g orwhet he r it s s ta te m en ts inth e am en dm en t co m m en ta ry refl ecta subs ta nt iv e ch an ge inth e p un is hm en t fo r anoff en se . Des cen t , 29 2 F .3dat 7 08 -0 9. Th ird , we Four th Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, also concluded, base d on its circuit prec edent, that Amendment 732 should be a pplied retroa ctively

on appea l. Ross , 352 F. App’ x at 773 (c iting United States v. Goine

s , 357 F.3d 469, 474 ( 4th Cir. 2004)). In both of those ca ses, the Gover nment conce ded that Amendme nt 732 was re troac tive. See Christensen , 598 F.3d at 1204; Ross , 352 Fe d. App’x at 773. The Gover nment argues her e, howe ver, tha t its concessions in those ca ses wer e base d on circ uit-specific prec edent that doe s not bind thi s Court. 7ex am in e whe th er the Co m m is si on ha s i nc lu de d t he am en dm en t i n t he li stof retro act iv e am en dm en ts in§ 1 B1 .10 (c). Id. at70 9. Fi na ll y , we hav e n ot edth atan am en dm en t o ve rtu rn in g c irc ui t p rece de ntsu gg es ts a subs tant iv e ch an ge , bu t tha t su chanam en dm en t co ul d b e co ns id eredcla rif y in g i f it“ cl ari fie s a m ean in g t ha t was in he ren t i n the ori gi na l Gu id el in e.” Su mmers , 17 6 F .3dat 1 33 1. The ve rs io n o f § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) us edto co m pu te Jer ch owe r’s se nt en ce pr ov id edth ata de fen da nt ’s off en se lev el be in crea se d b y two whenth e d efen da nt

“un du ly infl ue nc eda m in orto en ga ge inpro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t.” Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , Gui de li nes Ma nu al , § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) (Nov . 20 08 ). The co m

m en tary est ab li sh edth ata reb ut tabl e p res um pt io n o f un du e in flu en ce ap pl ie d wh enth e d efen da ntis at l eas t 1 0 years o ld er tha n t he m in or . Id. co m m en t. (n . 3) . At the ti m e o f Je rch owe r’s se nt en ci ng , th e ci rcu itco urts ha d s pl it ov er wh ethe r th e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t co ul d app ly in ca se s i n wh ic h n o actua l m in orwas i nv ol ve d. Whil e th e co m m en ta ry to § 2 G1.3 de fin ed“ m in or ” to in cl ud e anun de rco ve r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer wh o re pr es en te d t o aparti ci pa nt th atth e o ffi cer was un de r ag e 1 8, id. co m m en t. (n . 1), an ap pl ic at io n n ot e sp eci fic to th e undue in flu en ce en hanc em en t ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ th e co urt s ho ul d c lo se ly co ns id er the fact s o f th e cas e to de te rm in e whe th er a p art ic ip an t’s i nf lu en ce o ve r th e m in or co mpr omise d the vo lu nt ar in es s o f the min or ’s be ha vi or ,” id. co m m en t. 8(n . 3) (e m

ph as is ad de d) . As th e Si xt h C irc ui t ex pl ai ne d i n i nt erp ret in g t he ne arl y id en ti cal un du e in flu en ce en ha nc em en t an d c omm en ta ry un de r § 2 A3.2 (b )(2 )(B) , 2

“ [e]ven a cu rs ory

rev ie w of the . . . la ng ua ge of t he Gui de li ne s an d t he co m m en tary rev eal s tha t the di rect iv es fou ndwithi n t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es co nf li ct .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C

hr is wel l , 40 1 F .3d45 9, 4 64 (6t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The de fin it io n s ug ge st edth atall pro vi si on s o f § 2 G1.3 ap pl ie d t o c as es in vo lv in g un de rco ve r ag en ts po si ng as c hi ldren , bu t the lan gu ag e o f App li cat io n No te 3

“ im pl ie [d ] th at[th e en ha nc em en t] sh ou ldno t ap pl y wher e th e ‘vic ti m ’ is an un de rco ve r ag en t, b ecau se th ere i s n o t ru e v ic ti m up on who m

th e eff ectof t he de fen da nt ’s con du ctcanbe m eas ur ed .” Id. Thi s C ou rt h el d t ha t the un du e in flu en ce en hanc em en t co ul d app ly in the ab se nc e o f a “ real ” v ic ti m , exp la in in g t ha t “ th e co m m en ta ry . . . ex pl ic it ly ins tru ct s th atforall enha nc em en ts un de r th is Gui de li ne , an u nd erco ve r of fic er p lay in g t he ro le of am in or

vi ct im qu al ifi es as avi ct im , th ereb y m ak in g a n a ctua l v ic ti m un ne ces sary .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro ot , 29 6 F .3d12 22 , 12 33 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) Section 2G1.3(b)( 2)(B ) and § 2A 3.2(b)( 2)(B ) apply to differ ent sex crimes ag ainst 2 minors, and the off

ense le vel incre ase unde r § 2A3.2(b) (2)( B) is more seve re, but the Guideline languag e and a

pplication notes for both e nhance ments are identical in all other r eleva nt aspec ts. This Court has previously held that our interpr etation of the undue influence enhanc ement under § 2A3.2(b)( 2)(B ) applied to § 2G1.3(b)(2) (B ), see U nited States v. Faris , 583 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 2009), and Ame ndment 732 applied to both Guidelines. Our disc ussion below thus includes dec isions int erpr etingboth these provisions. 9(h ol di ng th atth e § 2A3 .2(b )(2 )(B) en hanc em en t ap pl ie d wh enth e d efen da nt

co m m un ic at edwith a n u nd erco ve r la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer p ortray in g a13 -y earol d g irl ). W e al so no te d t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si onha d i nc lu de d u nd erco ve r of fic ers withi n t he de fin it io n o f a m in or vi ct im “ fo r th e v ery pu rp os e o f en su rin g th atoff en de rs who are ap pr eh en de d i n u nd erco ve r op erat io ns are ap pr op ria te ly pu ni sh ed .” Id

. at 1 23 4. Re qu iri ng th e p res en ce o f anactua l v ic ti m who se wil l was ov erb orne , th is Co urt re as on ed , wou ldun de rm in e th is pu rp os e. Id ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Va nc e , 49 4 F .3d98 5, 9 94 -9 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (ap pl y in g t hi s s am e reas on in g i n h ol di ng th atth e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t o f § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(B) ap pl ie d t o c as es in vo lv in g fi ct it io us m in orvi ct im s) . The Six th an d S ev en th Cir cu it s, h owe ve r, reac he d t he op po si te co nc lu si on , ho ld in g t ha t the un du e in flu en ce en ha nc em en t d idno t ap pl y when th e o nl y

“ m in or ” in vo lv edwas an u nd erco ve r of fic er. Ch risw el l , 40 1 F .3dat 4 69 (ho ld in g th at§ 2 A3.2 (b )(2 )(B) was i napp li cab le to cas es in vo lv in g u nd erco ve r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cers po si ng as u nd erag e ch il dr en ); Uni te d Sta tes v. Mi tc he ll , 35 3 F.3 d 5 52 , 55 9 (7 th Cir . 20 03 ) (s am e). The se co urts reas on edth atth e co m m en tary ’s m an da te th atth e co urt l oo k c lo se ly at th e fac ts of t he cas e “ to de te rm in e whe th er a p art ic ip an t’s i nf lu en ce o ve r th e v ic ti m

co m pr om is edth e vo lu nt ari ne ss of t he vi ct im ’s beh av io r” m ad e n o s en se inth e co nt ex t o f an 10un de rco ve r of fic er p os in g a s a m in or , si nc e th e v ol un ta rin es s o f th e o ffi cer’s be ha vi orwas n otco m

pr om is ed . Ch risw el l , 40 1 F .3dat 4 69 ; Mitch el l , 35 3 F .3dat 56 0- 61 . Inen act in g Am en dm en t 7 32 , th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si onex pl ai ne d t ha t i t ai m edto ad dr es s the co nf li ctbe twee n t hi s C ou rt a ndth e Si xt h a ndSev en th Ci rcu it s as to whet he r th e en ha nc em en t co ul d app ly whe n t he on ly “m in or ” in vo lv edis anun de rco ve r of fic er. Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on , Gui de li nes Ma nu al , Sup p. t o. Ap p. C ( Nov . 20 09 ). The C omm is si on res ol ve d t hi s co nf li ctby am en di ng th e co m m en ta ry to § 2 G1.3 an d § 2A3 .2– anid en ti cal pr ov is io n app lying to th e cri m e o f se xu al ab us e o f a m in orun de r ag e 1 6–to pr ov id e th atth e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en ts un de r th os e Gui de li ne s “ do [] not ap pl y ina cas e in whi chth e o nl y ‘ m in or ’ in vo lv edinth e o ffen se is anun de rco ve r law enf or cem en t o ffi cer.” Id

. Acco rd in g t o t he Co m

m is si on , “ th e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t s ho ul d n otap pl y ina cas e in vo lv in g o nl y

anun de rco ve r la w en fo rcem en t o ffi cer b ecau se , un li ke othe r en hanc em en ts inth e se x o ffen se gu id el in es , th e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t i s p ro pe rly focu se d o n t he effe ctof th e d efen da nt ’s act io ns on th e m in or ’s beh av io r.” Id. Exa m in in g Am en dm en t 7 32 inli gh t o f ou r cas e la w, we con cl ud e th atitis a cl ari fy in g a m en dm en t. The am en dm en t al te rs on ly the co m m en ta ry , rathe r th an 11th e te xtof t he Gui de li ne it se lf, s ug ge st in g t ha t i t cl ari fie s § 2G1 .3 ra th er tha n

subs tant iv el y

alt ers it . Mor eo ve r, th e am en dm en t i s b y way of asupp le m en t ra th er th ananalt erat io n t o t he ex is ti ng co m m en ta ry , furth er s ug ge st in g t ha t the Co m m is si on ’s in te ntwas t o c larif y . In ad di ti on , alt ho ug h t he am en dm en t was no t li st edas r etro act iv e in § 1 B1 .10 (c) anditis no t s pe ci fic al ly ide nt ifi edas

“ cl ari fy in g” inth e am en dm en t co m m en ta ry , th e Co m

m is si on ’s exp la na ti on of t he reas onforth e am en dm en t m ak es cle ar i ts cla rif y in g n atur e. The a m en dm en t ai m edto ad dr es s a c irc ui t s pl itth ataro se fro m di ffer in g re so lu ti on s o f co nf li ct in g lang ua ge inth e Gui de li ne s co m m en ta ry . The Co m

mis si on res ol ve d t he co nf li ctby ex pl ai ni ng th at“un li ke ot he r en ha nc em en ts inth e se x o ffen se gu id el in es , th e un du e in flu en ce en ha nc em en t i s p ro pe rly focu se d o n t he effe ctof t he de fen da nt ’s act io ns on th e m in or ’s beh av io r.” Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m mis si on , Gui de li nes Ma nu al , Sup p. t o. Ap p. C ( Nov . 20 09 ). Fin al ly, al th ou gh th e am en dm en t o ve rtu rn s o urcir cu it ’s pre ced en t, i t m ay be co ns id eredcla rif

y in g be cau se itcla rif

ie d am ean in g i nh eren t i n t he ori gi na l Gu id el in e: th atth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e en hanc em en t d ep en de d o n t he effe ctof t he de fen da nt ’s beh av io r on th e v ic ti m , as s ug ge st edby A pp li cat io n No te 3.

12IV. CONCLUSION

Bec au se Am en dm en t 7 32 is a cl ari fy in g a m en dm en t, i t ap pl ie s re tro act iv el y on Jer ch owe r’s di rectap pe al of h is sen te nc e. App lying th e am en de d Gu id el in e, we ho ldth atitwas e rro r to ad d t wo l ev el s t o J erch owe r’s of fen se lev el ba se d o n ap pl ic at io n o f th e undue in flu en ce en ha nc em en t. We the refo re v acat e Je rch owe r’s se nt en ce an d re m an d t hi s ca se to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r res en te nc in g. VACATED andREMANDED.

13