FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 79 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-2 06 72 -KMM -1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,
ve rs us ROBERT DANIELS, a.k .a. TwinT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt
.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ju ly 2, 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Fo ll owi ng a jury tria l, Ro be rt Dani el s, a/ k/ a “ Twin T” (“ Dan ie ls ”), ap pe al s

hi s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es for th e fo ll owi ng : 1 ) us in g afaci li ty andm ean s o f in te rs ta te co m

m erce to pe rs ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce an y in di vi du al who ha d
no t at ta in edth e ag e o f ei gh te en , to en ga ge in pro st itut io n a ndan y sex ua l ac ti vi ty fo r whi ch an y

pe rs on can be ch arg edwit h acri m in al off en se , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) (“ Co un t I” ); a nd2) kno win gl y tra ns po rti ng anin di vi du al in in te rs ta te co m

m erce wit h t he in te ntth atsh e en ga ge in pro st itut io n a ndan y sex ua l act iv ity forwhi ch an y

pe rs on can be ch arg edwit h acri m in al off en se , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 21 -2 2 (“ Co un t II I”). Dani el s was sen te nc edto co nc urren t 7 8- 1

m on th term s as to bo th Co un ts I an d II I, to be serve d c on se cu ti ve ly to a p rio r
se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e Eas te rnDis tri ctof M ic hi ga n. On ap pe al , Dani el s ra is es 2 si x i ss ue s. Th e p rimary

is su e is on e o f fi rs t i m

pr es si onforth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t: whe th er a co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) requi res th e g ov ern m en t t o p ro ve
Daniels wa s found not guilty of Count I Iof his three -count indictment and the ref ore that 1 count is not addresse d in this opi nion. On J uly 7, 2011, the Six th Circuit affirme d Daniels’s c onvictions and sentenc es on one 2 count of manuf

actur ing c hild pornog raphy , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), one c ount of distributing child pornography , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) (A), onecount of transportinga minor for

purposes of pr ostitut ion, in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 2423(a) , and one count of sex traff

ickingof childre n, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). United States v. Daniels, 653 F .3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2011). The c ourt vac ated his convic tion for eng ag ing in a child exploi tation enterpr ise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g) (2), f inding insuff

icient evidenc e that Da

niels acte d in conce rt with three or more other

persons in committing the predic ate f

elonies under lying the char g e. I d. Daniels wa s sentence d to multi ple conc urre nt terms, the long est of which w as 420 months. I d. 2th atth e d efen dantkn ew th atth e v ic ti m was am in or . W e d ecl in e to fin d kn owl ed ge a requi rem en t u nd er § 24 22 (b ). It i s o urco nc lu si on th atth is st atut e is writ te n fo r th e p ro te ct io n o f m in or s caug htinth e web of t he se il li ci t ac ti vi ti es , rat he r th anforoff

en de rs ch oo si ng to tu rna bl in d e y e to th e ag e o f th e v ic ti m s t he y tra ns po rt. M or eo ve r, we fin d n o m eri t i n t he ot he r fi ve is su es Dani el s ra is es an d affi rm hi s co nv ic ti on s. I. Ba ck gr ou nd a nd Pro cedu ra l H is to ry On J ul y 18 , 20 08 , a gr an d ju ry

in th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a returne d a th ree- co un t i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Dan ie ls , cha rg in g a s fo ll ows : Co un t I: Fro m in or ab ou t Sep te m be r 20 04 , . . . th ro ug h on o r ab ou t Octo be r 30 , 20 04 , in Mi am i-Da de an d Bro ward Co un ti es an d el se whe re, Dan ie l s , u s in g a faci li ty an d m ean s of in te rs ta te co m m erce , di d kn owi ng ly pers ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, an d c oe rce a n in di vi du al who ha d no t at ta in ed th e ag e of ei gh te en (“ A.W .”), to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on an d 3 an y s e x u a l act iv it y fo r whi ch a pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h a cri m in al of fen se , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b)
. Co un t II: On or ab ou t Octo be r 30 , 2 00 4, i n M i a mi-Dad e an d Bro ward Co un ti es in th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Fl or id a an d el se whe re, Dan ie ls di d kn owi ng ly, in an d affe ct in g in te rs ta te co m m erce , recrui t, tran sp ort an d pr ov id e by an y m ean s, A.W. , k n o w in g sh e ha d no t atta in ed th e ag e of ei gh te en an d wou ld be cau se d to en ga ge in a co mm e rci al se x act , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 1. Co un t III: On or abo ut Octo be r 30 , 20 04 , in Mi am i-Da de an d Bro ward

Ba sed upon her

birth cer tificate, A .W. was born on April 6, 1990, and thus would have 3 been 14 year s old in October 2004. 3Co un ti es , in th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Fl or id a an d el se whe re, Dan ie ls di d

kn owi ng ly tra ns po rt A
. W
. in in te rs ta te co m m erce wit h th e in te nt th at sh e en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on , an d in an y se xu al act iv it y fo r whi ch a pe rs on can be ch arg edwit h acri m in al of fen se , i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 24 21
- 22
. Afte r th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se in ch ie f, Dan ie ls m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , arg ui ng th atth ere was no ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t Dan ie ls kn ew or be li ev edth atA.W . was u nd er ei gh te en . The co urt d en ie d t ha t m ot io n, an d t he de fen se subs eque nt ly rest edwit ho utpre se nt in g a ny evi de nc e. The ju ry th en
co nv ic te d Dan ie ls on Co un ts I an d II I, an d a cqui tt edhi m onCo un t II . On Sep te m be r 30 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edDani el s t o 7 8 m on th s’

4 im pr is on m en t, t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly to an un di sc ha rg edterm of i m pr is on m en t fr om hi s co nv ic ti on s i n t he East ern Dis tri ctof M ic hi gan. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
. 5 A. Go ve rnment’s Ev id ence at T ri al As we m us t, we co ns id er t he factua l t es ti m on y ad du cedat t ria l i n t he li gh t
m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Glen -Arch il a, 67 7 F .2d

Daniels’s se ntencing

hearing took plac e on September 30, 2010. At the hea

ring , Daniels 4 objected to the statement in the PSIstating tha t Daniels and A .W. had a conve rsation during which Da niels learne d that A.W. was a minor. Da niels also objected to the two- level enhanc ement for

unduly influencinga minor to eng ag e in a c ommercia l sex act. F inally , he urg ed the district cour

t to impos e a se ntence concur rent to his sentenc e in the Ea stern District of Michig an, bec ause his conduc t with A.W. was list ed as r eleva nt offense conduct in that ca se. The district cour

t in the Southern District of Florida furthe r imposed conc urre nt 25-year 5 terms of super

vised rele ase on e ach c ount and orde red D aniels to pay a $200 spec ial assessment. 480 9, 8 12 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e rec or d re fle ct s t he fol lo win g fa ct s:

At al l t im es rel ev an t t o t hi s ca se , Dani el s was a pi m p. Be gi nn in g i n l at e 20 03 , Dani el s b eg an m an ag in g o ne pro st itut e, St ep ha ni e Head , a/k/a“ Ch oc ol at e” (“ Head ”). Dan ie ls m an ag edHead ’s pro st itut io n a ct iv it ie s fr om th e ti m e sh e was 18 y ears ol d. Atth atti m e, sh e was work in g a s a p ro st itut e in Detr oi t. Dan ie ls als o
m an ag edot he r pr os ti tu te s. In ex ch an ge forth e m on ey each pro st itut e g ai ne d fr om
se ll in g h er b od y , Dani el s wo ul d p ro vi de ho us in g, fo od , clo th es , andso m e m on ey . Eve ntua ll y , Headbe cam e Dan ie ls ’s “bo tt om gi rl,” m ean in g t ha t s he earn edth e
m os t m on ey

an d was res pe ct edan d t ru st edab ov e Dan ie ls ’s othe r pr os ti tu te s. InSep te m

be r 20 04 , Dani el s an d Hea d d ro ve fro m Detr oi t, Mi ch ig an to Mi am i, Fl or id a fo r pu rp os es of p ro st itut io n. Th ey were ac co m

pa ni edby ano th er pi m p, Den ni s Pa ig e, a/ k/ a “ Detr oi t Sl im ” (“ Pai ge ”), an d apro st itut e h e m an ag ed
na m ed“ W om

p.” Headan d Wom

p e ng ag edin pro st itut io n a lo ng th e way in su ch ci ti es as At la nt a, Orla nd o, an d M ia m i. The gro up reac he d M ia m i i n Oct ob er 2 00 4. When th ey arri ve d, t he y

st ay ed ata Day s In n o n M ia m i Be ach , wher e Pai ge an d Wom p s ta y edin on e ro om , whi le Dan ie ls an d Hea d s ta y edin an ot he r. On o ne pa rti cu la r da y in Mi am i, wh il e Dan ie ls was ri di ng in a whi te Cad il la c Esc al ad e b ei ng dri ve n b y Pai ge , th ey
en co un te redA.W . walk in g d ownBis cayne Bo ul ev ard . A.W . was t he n 1 4 years
5ol d. Dan ie ls , aft er s pe ak in g wi th A.W ., con vi nc edhe r to “ le av e wit h h im ” an d

be co m e a p ro st itut e u nd er h is m an ag em en t. Whe n Dan ie ls an d A.W. returne d t o t he Day s In n, Dan ie ls in tro du cedhe r to Head . Alth ou gh A.W . hadalr ead y be en work in g a s a p ro st itut e whe n Dan ie ls fo un d h er, Headex pl ai ne d t o A.W. th e d et ai ls of wo rk in g fo r Dan ie ls an d wh at
wou ldbe ex pe ct edof h er. Fo r ex am pl e, Headbri efedhe r on ne ces sa ry hygie ne , th e ap pr op ria te pri ces to ch arg e fo r cert ai n s erv ic es , and“ jus t h ow t o a ctwit h a tri ck .” W om

p was als o p res en t dur in g t he se co nv ers at io ns . At th atti m e, th ere was
no m en ti onof A.W.’ s ag e. So on aft erwar ds , th e g ro up of p im ps an d p ro st itut es lef

t t he Day s In n i n Mi am i Be ach an d t rav el edto Fo rt Lau de rd al e, whe re Headan d A.W. co nt in ue d t o
work a s p ro st itut es for

Dani el s. Itwas i n F ort Lau de rd al e th atHeadfir stlea rn ed of A.W .’ s ag e, aft er re cei vi ng a te xtm es sa ge onhe r cel lu la r ph on e fro m Head ’s bo y fri en d. Head , ho wev er, co ul d n otreca ll if s he co nv ey edth atin fo rm at io n t o

6 Dan ie ls
. Pro bl em s wer e b rewi ng be twee n Hea d a ndA.W . They di d n otli ke each

On multiple occasions, He ad had loa ned her cellular phone to A.W., so that she could 6 call her boy friend. It was af

ter one such conve rsation, which e nded in a f ight be tween A .W. and her boyfriend, that Head r ece ived a text messag e on her phone. The textmessag e wa s from A.W.’s boy friend, a

nd it informed Hea d that A.W. was in fac t undera g e. 6ot he r an d fr eque nt ly argu ed . To di ffu se th e si tu at io n, Dan ie ls arra ng edto sel l

A.W . to an ot he r pi m

p. He ca ll edRo be rt Li ps ey , a/k/a“ FatDadd y ” (“ Lip se y ”), o n Lip se y ’s cel lu la r te le ph on e to sel l h im A.W . Dani el s, wh o was st il l i n F lo rid a, to ldLip se y , th en in Tenn es se e, th athe was h av in g i ss ue s wi th A.W ., who was n ot ge tt in g a lo ng wit h Hea d, h is “bo tt om gi rl.” Dani el s d es cri be d A.W. to Lip se y as

“ y ou ng , th ic k, an d c ut e.” Lip se y ag reedto pa y

Dani el s $ 20 0 fo r A.W ., who wou ld th en be co m e h is pro st itut e. Lip se y di d n otha ve an y

ot he r pr os ti tu te s wo rk in g fo r hi m at t ha t t im e, as hi s l as t p ro st itut e “ gr ew up ” an d l efthi m . Dan ie ls an d P ai ge to okA.W . to th e b us st at io n i n M ia m i, Fl or id a, whe re s he bo ard eda bu s b ou ndforMem ph is , Tenn es se e. Whe n s he arri ve d a t the Mem ph is bu s s ta ti on , A.W . cal le d Li ps ey on hi s ce ll ul ar p ho ne . Lips ey , alo ng wit h a pa rtn er, cam e to pi ckhe r up . A.W . id en ti fie d h ers el f to Lip se y as “ Tiff an y Tho m as ,” th e n am e o n h er b us ti ck et . From th e b us st at io n, t he y dro ve to a ho te l
ro om in W es t M em

ph is , Arkans as . There , Lip se y tau gh t A.W. “ th e ru le s” of
worki ng at atru ckst op , whi ch in cl ud edwalk in g a ro un d u nt il a truc k d riv er pr ov id edhe r with a“ sa fe h ou se .” In a dd it io n, Li ps ey to ldA.W . ho w to tal k 7

“ real ly sex y ” o n aCB rad io , ho w to de sc rib e h ers el f, ho w to watc h o utfor th e

L ipsey testified that a “ safe house” w as a truc k that prostitutes can “ use all nig ht long, 7 talk on the CB to ca

tch dates, w atch out for

police and thing s of that nature .” 7po li ce, an d h ow m uc h t o c ha rg e h er cu st om ers . After r ecei vi ng pa ym en t, A.W
. ga ve Lip se y

th e en ti ret y

of t he m on ey

sh e earne d a ndin return, Li ps ey bo ug ht A.W . hygie ne pro du ct s, co nd om s, fo od , andclo th in g. Lip se y kn ew th atA.W . was u nd er ei gh te en be cau se sh e cam e acr os s as ch il di sh an d you ng ; s he no t o nl y ap pe aredy ou ng , bu t al so act edy ou ng . Whe n Lip se y ask edA.W . herag e, th ou gh , sh e to ldhi m sh e was ni ne te en y ears ol d. On ly la te r, whe n s he tu rn edfif te en , di d s he tel l Li ps ey

he r true ag e. B. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns Pri orto tri al , Dani el s s ub m it te d p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns ask in g t ha t t he jury be in st ru ct edwith re sp ectto Co un t I, “ th atth e Defen da ntbe li ev edth atA.W
. was les s t ha n e ig ht een (18 ) y ears of a ge .” The g ov ern m en t ar gu edth atth e jury sh ou ldin st eadbe in st ru ct edpu rs ua ntto th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t Pa tt ern Ju ry In st ru ct io ns , whi ch do no t re qu ire th e d efen dantto kn ow t ha t t he vi ct im was u nd er ei gh te en , bu t o nl y

th atth e v ic ti m

was a ctua ll y

un de r ei gh te en . Dani el s ackno wled ge d t ha t t he rel ev an t p at te rnjury in st ru ct io ns di d n otrequi re kno wled ge of th e v ic ti m ’s age , bu t ar gu edth atun de r ot he r ci rcu itde ci si on s, 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) co nt ai ne d am en s re a req ui rem en t as to th e ag e el em en t. After 8

See, e.g ., United States v. Cote, 504 F.3d 682, 684- 86 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. 8 Meek, 366 F .3d 705, 717-22 (9th Cir. 2004). 8an al y zi ng th e lang ua ge of § 24 22 (b ), th e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in edth atth e

kn owl ed ge ele m en t d idno t ap pl y to th e v ic ti m ’s age , andga ve th e jury the pa tt ern in st ru ct io n re qu es te d b y

th e g ov ern m en t. Dani el s o bjec te d t o t he in st ru ct io n 9

The c ourt’s instruction was a s follows: 9 In Count I the defe ndant is charg ed with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). It’s a fede ral crime for anyone [t o use] any fac ility of interstate or fore ign commerc e to persua de, induce, entice, or coerce anyone und er ei ghteen (18) y ear s old to eng ag e in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person could be char g ed with a criminal offe nse. The defe ndant can be found gu i l t y o f t h is crime only if all the followingfac ts are pr oved beyond a re asonable doubt. First, that the defe ndant knowing ly persua ded, induced, enticed or coer ced A.W. to eng ag e in prostitution or a sexual activity with himself or a third par ty as cha rg ed. Second, that the defe ndant used a fac ility of interstate commerc e, such as telephone, motel/hotel, or a bus cr ossing state lines to do so. Third, that A.W. was less than 18 year s old. Four th, that (1) or more of the individuals eng ag ing in the sexual activity could have been c harg ed with a c riminal offe nse under the law of

Florida
. As to the first element, in considering the terms “per suade,” “entice ,” or “coe rce ,” I instru ct y o u to use their plain and ordinary definition. As used in this instruction, induce mea

ns to stim ulate the oc curr ence of or to ca use . . . . As to the second eleme n t , a ce l l phone is a fac ility of interstate commerc e. A hotel/motel is a fac ility of interstate and fore ig n c o mm erc e beca

use it serve s interstate trave lers, even i f t h e greater share of its customers are from inside the s tate. A bus that crosse s state lines is also a fa cility of interstate commerc e. As to the third element, while it is nece ssary for the g overnme nt to prove that A.W. was, in fac t, less than ei gh t ee n (1 8 ) y ear s of ag e, it is not nece ssary for the g overnme nt to prove that the defe ndant knew that A.W. was less than eighteen y ear s of ag e . . . . 9reg ard in g C ou ntI. 1 0

W it h re sp ectto Co un t II I, Dan ie ls ask edforanin st ru ct io n s ta ti ng , The Defen da nt can b e f

o u n d gu il ty [o f] th e of

fen se on ly if al l of th e fo ll owi ng fact s are pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t: F i r s t: The Defen da nt kn owi ng ly tra ns po rte d A.W
. acro ss a st at e li ne ; an d Seco nd : The Defen da nt tra ns po rte d A.W
. wit h th e in te nt th at A.W
. en ga g e in pr os ti tu ti on or an y se xu al act iv it y fo r whi ch an y pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h acri m in al off

en se . Afte r so m e d is cu ss io n wi th th e p art ie s, th e co urt’s i ns tru ct io n was as f ol lo ws: 1 1
Daniels a lso objected to a suppleme ntary instruction, which re ad that, “a s to the third 1 0 element, while it nec essar y for the g overnme nt to prove that A.W. was, in fa ct, less than eighteen y ear s of ag e, it is not necessa ry for the g overnme nt to prove that the de fenda nt knew that A.W. was less than e ighte en year s of ag e.” The trial tra

nscript re flec ts that the district court re viewed the jury instructions with the 1 1 prosec utor and Da

niels’s counsel in a be nch conf ere nce immediate ly

befor e both par

ties prese nted their c losing a

rguments. Duringthis confer ence , the cour t went through the instructions and asked whether the prosec utor or Da

niels’s counsel ha d objections to the instructions. After the court noted D aniels’s c ounsel’s objec tion to the inst ructions as to Count I , the conf ere nce pr ocee ded as f

ollows: THE COURT: Count 2, any objection? [P ROSECUTOR] : No objection. THE COURT: Count 3, any objection? [DANI EL S’S COUNSEL ]: Your Honor, we just wanted to rene w our objections. We have an objection to the definition of interstate commerc e. I f you could g ive me one second just to revi ew i t
. We would like our objection noted for the rec ord that we believe that for the same rea sons that knowing applies to both elements of the crime in the previous count, simil arly here , under Flore s-Figueroa , knowing applies to whe t h er or not the defe ndant did things in interstate commerc e, whi ch wo uld be contra ry to the last sentenc e of the instruction in Count2.
10In Co un t 3, th e de fen da n t i s c h a rg ed wit h vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 24 21
.

It’s a fed eral cri m e fo r an y on e, to kn owi ng ly tra ns po rt an in di vi du al in in te rs ta te co m

m erce wit h th e in te nt t h a t su ch in di vi du al en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on or an y s e x ua l act iv it y fo r whi ch a pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h a cri m in a l of

fen se . The de fen da nt can be fo un d gu il ty of th at of fen se on ly if al l of th e fo ll owi ng fact s are pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Fi rs t, th at th e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly tra ns po rte d A.W
. acro ss a st at e li ne . Seco nd , t ha t t h e d e f

e nd an t tra ns po rte d A.W . wi th th e in te nt th at A.W
. en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on or an y se xu al act iv it y fo r whi ch an y pe rs on can be ch arg edwit h acri m in al off en se . As to th e fir st el em en t of th e of fen se , th e ph ras e “ tra ns po rt acro ss a st at e li ne ” m ean s to m ov e or carry , or cau se so m eo ne to be m ov ed or carr ie d, fro m on e st at e to an ot he r. It is no t ne ces sary to sh ow th at th e de fen da nt kn ew th at st at e li ne s were be in g cro ss ed
. Ho w e v e r , th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at st at e li ne s were cro ss ed
. .

. . II . Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w The re ar e v ari ou s s tand ard s t ha t ap pl y to th e is su es rai se d b y

Dani el s i n t hi s ap pe al . The i nt erp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te is a qu es ti on of l aw subjec t t o d e n ov o
rev ie w. Unit edSta te s v . Pis to ne , 17 7 F .3d95 7, 9 58 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Thi s co urt
rev ie ws d e n ov o wh ethe r th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in co nv ic ti on . Uni te d

THE COURT: Okay . Iwill note the objection to that. Count 3? [P ROSECUTOR] : No, no objection, Your H onor. [DANI EL S’S COUNSEL ]: No objection, Your Honor.
11St at es v. J im in ez, 5 64 F.3d12 80 , 12 84 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The i ss ue of wh ethe r a

jury ins tru ct io n m is st at edth e la w or m is le d t he jury to th e d efen dant ’s pre jud ic e is
rev ie wedde no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Delev eau x, 2 05 F.3d12 92 , 12 96 (11 th Cir
. 20 00 ). If a p art y

do es no t o bjec t t o t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io ns , we rev ie w for pl ai n
erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Prat he r, 20 5 F .3d12 65 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Whe re, ho wev er, a p art y

ex pr es sl y

ag rees wit h t he co urt’s i ns tru ct io n, t he cla im ederro r is waiv edan d we wi ll no t re vi ew it , eve n fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Ful fo rd , 26 7 F .3d12 41 , 12 46 -4 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Sim il arl y , wher e a d efen da ntin vi te s
erro r by exp res sl y

co ns en ti ng to th e ad m is si on of e vi de nc e, we wil l n otrev ie w hi s ap pe ll at e arg um en t co nt es ti ng th atadm is si on , eve n fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v. J ern ig an , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 89 -9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. Inrev ie win g acla im

un de r th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , th is Co urt re vi ews th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in gs of f actfor cle ar erro r an d i ts in te rp ret at io n o f th e Gui de li ne s d e n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Ren do n, 3 54 F.3d13 20 , 13 28 -2 9 (1 1t h C ir. 20 03 ). The s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e is rev ie wedforab us e o f di sc ret io n i n l ig htof t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 7 (2 00 7)
.

12II I. Ana ly si s

Dan ie ls adva nc es th e fo ll owi ng is su es on ap pe al in reg ardto hi s co nv ic ti on s
an d s en te nc es forCo un ts I an d II I:

1. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g Dan ie ls ’s m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al as t o C ou ntI be cau se th ere i s i ns uf

fic ie ntev id en ce t o s up po rt Dani el s’s co nv ic ti on forus in g afaci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te co m m erce to pe rs ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, o r co erce A.W . to en ga ge in pro st itut io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b)
. 2. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin no t i ns tru ct in g t he jury th atth e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th atDani el s kn ew th atA.W . hadno t at ta in edth e ag e o f 18 y ears in or de r to est ab li sh th atDani el s v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b)
. 3. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin no t i ns tru ct in g t he jury th atth e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th atDani el s kn ew th atA.W . wou ldbe tra ns po rte d i nt ers ta te in ord er to est ab li sh th atDani el s v io la te d 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 21
. 4. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin adm it ti ng in to ev id en ce Dan ie ls ’s jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on fro m th e East ernDis tri ctof M ic hi ga n. 5. Whe th er Dan ie ls ’s sen te nc e is un reas on ab le in th atitis to run co ns ecu ti ve ly to t he sen te nc e h e is servi ng in co nn ect io n wi th hi s co nv ic ti on s i n t he East ern Dis tri ctof Mi ch ig anor i n t ha t i t i nc lu de s a 2 5- y ear t erm of supe rv is edrel eas e. 6. Whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t b as edup on a fi nd in g tha t
13Dan ie ls ex ert ed“ un du e in flu en ce” o ve r A.W
.

W e ad dr es s t he se is su es in tu rn . A. As t o t he fir stis su e, Dan ie ls arg ue s t ha t t he re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o
supp ort h is co nv ic ti on forth e v io la ti onof § 24 22 (b ) ch arg edin Co un t I b ecau se
no reas on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t h e p ers ua de d, i nduc ed , ent ic ed , or
co erce d A.W. to en ga ge inpro st itut io n o r th athe us eda faci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te co m

m erce to do so . Dani el s co nt en ds th atth e m ere f actth atA.W
. ul ti m at el y

cam e to workforhi m

as apro st itut e is no t s uf

fic ie ntto co nc lu de th athe
us edan y form of p ers ua si on , in du cem en t, en ti cem en t, o r co erci on . Dani el s fu rth er
co nt en ds th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto off er an y ev id en ce t ha t h e u se d afaci li ty of in te rs ta te co m

m erce to in du ce A.W. to en ga ge in pro st itut io n. 1 2 Sect io n 2 42 2( b) st at es , inpe rti ne ntpa rt, Who ev er, us in g th e m ai l or an y faci li ty or m ean s of in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce , . . . kn owi ng ly pe rs ua de s, in du ces , en ti ces , or co erce s a n y in di vi du al who ha s no t at ta in ed th e ag e of 18 y ears , t o e n g a g e in pr os ti tu ti on or an y se xu al act iv it y fo r whi ch an y pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h a cri m in al of

fen se , . . . sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e an d im pr is on ed no t l es s t ha n 1 0 years o r fo r li fe. 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b)
.
Daniels doe s not challeng e the suff iciency of the e vidence prese nted as to A.W.’s minor 1 2 status or the fa ct that she e ng ag ed in prostitution. 14Dan ie ls ’s act io ns arra ng in g fo r A.W .’ s s al e to Lip se y an d p ut ti ng he r on a bu s s o s he co ul d re ach hi m cle arl y fal ls wit hi n t hi s ci rcu it ’s def in it io n o f “ in du ce.” See Un it edSta te s v . Mu rrel l, 3 68 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In M urrel l,
we ru le d t ha t an in di vi du al “ in du ces ” a m in orto en ga ge in sex ua l ac ti vi ty for pu rp os es of s ect io n 2 42 2( b) wher e th atin di vi du al “ st im ul at e[s ] orcau se [s ] th e
m in orto en ga ge in sex ua l ac ti vi ty.” O urreas on in g was as f ol lo ws: [T]he te rm

“ in du ce” i n § 24 22 is no t am bi gu ou s an d h as a pl ai n a nd or di nary m ean in g. “ In du ce” c an be de fin edin two way s. Itcan be de fin edas “ [t]o l eador m ov e b y in flu en ce o r pe rs ua si on ; t o p rev ai l up on ,” oralt ern at iv el y , “ [t]o s ti m ul at e th e o ccu rren ce o f; c au se .” W e m us t co ns tru e th e wor d t o a vo idm ak in g § 24 22 supe rfl uo us . To th at en d, we d is fav orth e fo rm er i nt erp ret at io n o f “ in du ce,” wh ic h i s es se nt ia ll y

synon ym ou s wi th th e wor d “ pe rs ua de .” Id . at 1 28 7 (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d) . Here, Dan ie ls ’s act io ns sat is fy th is ci rcu it ’s def

in it io n o f “ in du ce.” Noris th ere a ny qu es ti on th atDani el s’s ac ti on s wer e in te rs ta te in na tu re. Lip se y tes ti fie d t ha t Dan ie ls co nt act edhi m by pho ne to arra ng e fo r th e sa le of A.W . Furt he r ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l s ho wedth atDani el s u se d h is cel lu la r ph on e fo r th atne go ti at io n. Ou r cas e la w ho ld s t ha t t he us e o f a cel lu la r ph on e is in te rs ta te co m

m erce . See, e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Evan s, 4 76 F.3d11 76 , 11 80 –8 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (st at in g t ha t t he us e o f te le ph on es an d c el lu la r te le ph on es “ is
su ffi ci en t t o s at is fy

§ 2 42 2( b) ’s in te rs ta te -co m m erce ele m en t.”) . Lips ey fur th er
15te st ifi edth atat t he ti m e th e ag reem en t was m ad e, he was i n M em ph is , Tenn es se e, Dan ie ls was i n F lo rid a, an d Dan ie ls pu t A.W. on a bu s en rou te to hi m . The s al e of A.W . to Lip se y

th eref or e req ui redhe r to tra ve l fr om Flo rid a to Tenn es se e. Headals o t es ti fie d t o t he same. T hu s, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err in de nyin g Dan ie ls ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al onCo un t I. Alt ho ug h Dan ie ls m ay no t ha ve us eda faci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te co m m erce when he in it ia ll y

in du ced A.W . to workforhi m , he c ert ai nl y di d wh en he tel ep ho ne d Li ps ey in Tenn es se e,
arra ng edforhi m

to be co m e A.W .’ s p im

p, an d c oe rcedA.W . to be tra ns po rte d
acro ss st at e li ne s fr om

Flo rid a to Tenn es se e.

B. The sec on d i ss ue be fo re t hi s C ou rt i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t in st ru ct in g t he jury th atth e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th atDani el s kne w th atA.W . hadno t at ta in edth e ag e o f 18 y ears in ord er t o e st ab li sh th atDani el s vi ol at ed18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . This is anis su e o f fi rs t i m pr es si onin th e Ele ve nt h Ci rcu it
. Sect io n 2 42 2( b) st at es , inpe rti ne ntpa rt, Who ev er, . . . k n o win gl y pe rs ua de s, in du ces , en ti ces , or co erce s an y in di vi du al who ha s no t a t t a i n e d t he ag e of 18 y ears , to en ga ge in pr os ti tu ti on or an y se xu al act iv it y fo r whi ch an y pe rs on can be ch arg ed wit h a cri m in al of

fen se , . . . sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e an d im pr is on ed no t l es s t ha n 1 0 years o r fo r li fe.
1618 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . Dani el s p ut s fo rth two arg um en ts rel at in g t o t hi s i ss ue .

Fi rs t, h e arg ue s t ha t the Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Flo res -Fi gu ero a v . Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 6 46 , 12 9 S . Ct. 1 88 6 (2 00 9) , dem an ds pro of of s uc h kno wled ge whe re the Co urt i nt erp ret eda st atut e th atDani el s ch arac te riz es as “ gr amm at ic al ly si m il ar” t o § 24 22 (b ). Seco nd , Dani el s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin fai li ng to in st ru ctth e jury tha t i t was requi redto fin d t ha t Dan ie ls kn ew th atA.W
. ha d n oty etatt ai ne d t he ag e o f 18 y ears . InFlo res -Fi gu ero a, th e Co urt co ns id eredwhet he r an ag gr av at edid en ti ty th eftst atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ), requi redth e g ov ern m en t t o s ho w th atth e de fen da ntkn ew th atth e “ m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n” he or s he un la wfu ll y trans ferr ed , po ss es se d, o r us ed , in fact , bel on ge d t o “ an ot he r pe rs on .” 55 6 U.S. at64 7, 1 29 S. Ct . at 1 88 8. Ig na ci o F lo res -Fi gu ero a, a ci ti zen of M ex ic o, g av e h is em pl oyer a fal se na m e, bi rth da te , andSo ci al Secu rit y nu m be r, al on g wi th a co un te rfei t al ie n reg is tra ti on card , in ord er t o s ecu re em pl oym en t. In it ia ll y , th e So ci al Secu rit y
nu m be r an d t he nu m

be r on th e al ie n re gi strat io n c ard s wer e n otth os e o f rea l pe op le . Id. at64 9, 1 29 S. Ct. at18 89 . Howev er, i n 2 00 6 h e p res en te d h is
em pl oyer wit h n ew co un te rfei t So ci al Secu rit y an d a li en reg is tra ti on card s t ha t
co nt ai ne d h is real na m e, bu t al so co nt ai ne d n um be rs ass ig ne d t o o th er p eo pl e. Id
.

17Fl or es -Fi gu ero a’s em pl oyer subm it te d h is do cu m en ts to U.S. Im m ig rat io n a nd Cu st om s En fo rcem en t, wh o d is co ve redth e fraudul en t u se of t he nu m be rs . Id. Fl or es -Fi gu ero a arg ue d t ha t t he pe rti ne ntid en ti fy th eftst atut e req ui redth atth e go ve rn m en t p ro ve th athe ha d a ctua l kno wled ge th atth e “ m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n” he was u si ng be lo ng edto so m eo ne els e. Id . at 6 48 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 89 . The go ve rn m en t co un te redth atth e st atut e d idno t i m po se su cha kn owl ed ge requi rem en t. Sect io n 1 02 8A( a)(1 ) st at es , in rel ev an t p art , “ Who ev er . . . kn owi ng ly tra ns fers , po ss es se s, o r us es , witho utlawf ul au th or it y , a m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n o f
an ot he r pe rs on. . . sh al l b e p un is he d a s p ro vi de d i n s ub se ct io n (b ) of th is sec ti on .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ). The Fl or es -Fi gu ero a Co urt h el d t ha t § 10 28 A(a)(1 ) requi res pro of

th atth e d efen dantno t o nl y ha d kno wled ge th athe was u nl awfu ll y
us in g am ean s o f id en ti fic at io n, b utals o t ha t t he m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n was th at

“ of an ot he r pe rs on .” Id . at 6 47 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 88 . Reject in g t ha t “ kn owi ng ly” ap pl ie d o nl y

to th e tr an sf

er, p os se ss io n, o r us e o f an y m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n, t he Co urt re as on edth at“ [a]s a m at te r of ord in ary Eng li sh gra m

m ar, i t s eem s n atur al to readth e st atut e’s wor d ‘kn owi ng ly’ as app lying to all th e subs eque nt ly lis te d el em en ts of t he cri m e.” Id . at 6 50 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 90 . The Co urt fu rth er
ex pl ai ne d t ha t “ co urts ord in ari ly read aph ras e in a cri m in al st atut e th atin tro du ces
18th e el em en ts of acri m e with t he word‘ kn owi ng ly’ as app lying to each ele m en t.”

Id . at 6 52 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 91 (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . X-Cit em en t Vi de o In c., 51 3 U.S. 64 , 11 5 S . Ct. 4 64 (19 94 )). Inso ho ld in g, t he Co urt al so reject edth e go ve rn m en t’s ar gu m en t t ha t, i n m an y cir cu m st an ces , itis di ffi cu ltto pro ve be y on d
a rea so nabl e d oubtth ata de fen da ntha s the ne ces sa ry kn owl ed ge th atth e id en ti fic at io n, i n fa ct , bel on ge d t o a no th er p ers on . The Fl or es -Fi gu ero a Co urt
reas on edth atin th e cl as si c cas e o f id en ti ty the ft i nt en t an d kno wled ge are ge ne ral ly notdi ffi cu ltto pro ve . Id. at65 6, 1 29 S. Ct. at18 93
. Inhi s co nc urrin g o pi ni on in Flo res -Fi gu ero a, Ju st ic e Ali to ex pr es se d
co nc ernth atth e Co urt’s m ajor it y op in io n m ig htbe read“ as ad op ti ng anov erl y rig idrul e o f st atut ory

co ns tru ct io n.” Id. at65 9- 61 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 95 -9 6 (Al it o, J ., co nc urrin g) . Ins te ad , he p refe rreda co nt ex tu al ap pr oa ch . Ju st ic e Ali to ga ve
ex am pl es wher e co nt ex t m ay

reb utth e p res um

pt io n t ha t the sp eci fie d m en s re a ap pl ie s t o e ve ry

ele m en t o f th e o ffen se . For e xa m pl e, he po in te d t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 42 3( a), a s ta tu te whi ch “ m ak es itun la wfu l t o ‘kn owi ng ly tran sp or [t] an in di vi du al who ha s n otatt ai ne d the ag e o f 18 y ears inin te rs ta te or f or ei gn
co m m erce . . . wit h i nt en t t ha t t he in di vi du al en ga ge inpro st itut io n, o r inan y
se xu al act iv ity

forwhi chan y

pe rs on can be ch arg edwit h acri m in al off en se .’ ” Id
. at66 0, 1 29 S. Ct. at18 95 (Ali to , J., co nc urrin g) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d)
. 19Ju st ic e Ali to ex pl ai ne d t ha t fe de ral cir cu itco urts ha ve un ifo rm ly hel d t ha t i n t ho se

in st an ces , a de fen da nt ’s gu il t h as no t turne d o n h is or h er kno wled ge of t he vi ct im ’s age . Id. The m ajor it y

in Flo res -Fi gu ero a ap pr ov edof J us ti ce Al it o’s re as on in g. It ackno wled ge d t ha t t he re ar e in st an ces th atin vo lv e sp eci al co nt ex ts wher e “ a m or e de ta il edexpl an at io n o f ba ck gr ou ndcir cu m st an ces . . . cal l fo r su cha read in g. As Ju st ic e Ali to no te s, t he in qu iry int o asen te nc e’s m ean in g i s a c on te xtua l o ne .” Id
. at65 2, 1 29 S. Ct. at18 91 . Howev er, i n re ach in g i ts de ci si on , th e Fl or es -Fi gu ero a Co urt d et erm in edth atno sp eci al co nt ex t was pre se ntin th e ag gr av at edid en ti ty th eftst atut e atis su e b ecau se it s l eg is la ti ve hi st ory was i nc on cl us iv e o n t he subjec t. Id . at 6 54 -5 5, 1 29 S. Ct. 1 89 2. Th us , itne ed edno t ap pl y Ju st ic e Ali to ’s app ro ach
. Afte r car efu l co ns id erat io n o f Fl or es -Fi gu ero a, we de cl in e to fin d kn owl ed ge a requi rem en t h ere. In th is cas e, we are c al le d upo n t o i nt erp reta st atut e co nc ern edwit h t he pro te ct io n o f m in or s ag ai ns t s ex ua l ex pl oi ta ti on . Des pi te th e si m il ari ti es in th e g ramm at ic al stru ctur e o f § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ) an d § 2 42 2( b) , we fin d t ha t t he y are d is ti ng ui sh ab le
. The cir cu m st an ces at i ss ue he re are m or e ak in to th os e atis su e in th e in te rp ret at io n o f § 2 42 3( a), wh ic h J us ti ce Al it o a dd res se d i n h is co nc urrin g op in io n i n F lo res -Fi gu ero a. Id . at 6 60 , 12 9 S . Ct. at18 95 -9 6 (Al it o, J
. 20co nc urrin g) . Clea rly the re i s a “ sp eci al co nt ex t” pre se nthe re— on e n otpre se ntin

Fl or es -Fi gu ero a—t he pro te ct io n o f th e v ery y ou ng , th atcal ls fora co nt ex tu al ap pr oa chto st atut ory

in te rp ret at io n. Mo reo ve r, ou r de ci si on to rejecta kn owl ed ge requi rem en t t o c on vi ctun de r § 2 42 2( b) is co ns is te ntwit h c on gr es si on al in te ntto pr ot ectth e m os t v ul ne rab le am on g u s. 1 3 Alt ho ug h t he re i s n o aut ho rit y in ou r ci rcu itde ci di ng whet he r orno t a de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge of t he vi ct im ’s age is aness en ti al ele m en t, atlea stsi x o f
ou r si st er ci rcu it s h av e co ns id eredth is is su e wit hi n t he co nt ex t o f § 2 42 3( a)
co nv ic ti on s an d h el d i t i s n ot
. Tod ay we ad op t t ha t re as on in g andfin d t ha t 1 4

Both c ase la

w and leg islative history

is replete w ith cong ressional re cognition that 1 3 youngchildren ne ed spec ial protec tion ag ainst sexual ex ploitation. S ee, e .g ., United States v. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 997 ( 9th Cir. 2001)(citingH.R. Rep. No. 105-557, at 17 (1998)) ( justifying a 1998 ame ndment incre asingpenalties for offe nses committed under § 2423( a))
. See, e.g ., United States v. J ones, 471 F .3d 539 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. 1 4 Griff ith, 284 F.3d 338, 350-51 (2d Cir. 2002) ; Taylor, 239 F.3d a t 997; United States v. Hamilton, 456 F.2d 171, 173 (3d Cir. 1972). T wo of our sister circ uits specifica lly

reje cted that Flore s-Figueroa

compelled a

contra ry interpre tation. See Danie ls, 653 F.3d at 410; United States v. Cox , 577 F.3d 833, 837- 38 (7th Cir. 2009). Section 2423(a ) provides, A per son who knowing ly transports an individual who ha s not attained the a g e of 18 year s in interstate or fo re i gn co m m erc e, or in any commonwea lth, territory or possession of the United States, with intent that the individual eng ag e in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for whic h any person can bechar g ed with a c riminal offe nse, shall be f ined under

this ti tle and imprisoned not less than 10 year s or for life
. 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Give n the similarities betwee n § 2423(a) and § 2422(b) , we f ind these decisions per suasive and se e no re ason to treat the knowledg e re quirement a s to one diffe rent from the other . The c hang e in the jurisdictional eleme nt from the tra nsportation of a minor in interstate c ommerce addre ssed in § 2423(a) to using a fac ility or mea ns of interstate c ommerce to persua de, induce , entice, or coer ce a minor, as addr essed in § 2422(b) , is not significa nt and fa ils 21§ 2 42 2( b) li ke wis e d oe s n otrequi re t ha t t he go ve rn m en t p ro ve th ata de fen da nt

kn ew hi s v ic ti m

was u nd er t he ag e o f ei gh te en inord er t o c on vi ct
. A th or ou gh rev ie w of t he juri sp ru de nc e reject in g s ci en te r as anele m en ta l requi rem en t i n § 24 23 (a) c on vi ct io ns rev eal s s ev eral reas on s s up po rti ng su ch an
ou tc om e, whi ch are ap pl ic ab le to th e fac ts an d s ta tu te be fo re u s. Alt ho ug h t he re i s a g en eral pre su m

pt io n t ha t a kno win g m en s re a ap pl ie s t o e ve ry ele m en t i n a st atut e, cas es co nc ern edwith t he pro te ct io n o f m in or s ar e wit hi n asp eci al co nt ex t, whe re tha t p res um

pt io n i s re bu tt ed . X-Cit em en t Vi de o, 5 13 U.S. at 7 2 n .2, 1 15 S. Ct . at 4 69 n.2 (st at in g t ha t t he re i s a h is to ric al ex cep ti on to th e p res um pt io n t ha t a
sc ie nt er re qu ire m en t ap pl ie s t o e ve ry ele m en t o f cri m e fo r “ se x o ffen se s . . . in whi chth e v ic ti m ’s actua l ag e was de te rm in at iv e d es pi te de fen da nt ’s reas on ab le be li ef t ha t t he gi rl h adreac he d a ge of c on se nt ”) (quo ti ng Mo ris se tt e v . Uni te d St at es , 34 2 U.S. 2 46 , 25 1 n .8, 7 2 S . Ct. 2 40 , 24 4 n .8 (1 95 2) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) . The cri m in al it y of t he co nduc t d efi ne d i n § 24 22 (b ) is no t de pe nd en t upo n the vi ct im s’ m in orst atus as t he co nduc t i s co ve redby § 24 22 (a). Thi s i nd ic at es th atth e p ur po se of § 24 22 (b ) is to in crea se th e p en al ty for tha t
co nduc t wh ere am in orwas i nv ol ve d.

to show that Congr ess intended to add know ledg e of the victim’s ag e for one havingnot done so in the other. 22Inpa rti cu la r, we are p ers ua de d b y th e Sev en th Cir cu it ’s app ro ach in Co x, whi chrel ie d o n J us ti ce Al it o’s co nt ex tu al ap pr oa ch inreject in g aFlo res -Fi gu ero a ch al le ng e. The C ox co urt d is ti ng ui sh edit s ra ti on al e fro m th atof X-C it em en t Vid eo . Cox , 57 7 F .3dat 8 37 . In X-C it em en t Vi de o, t he Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t

“ th e ag e o f th e p erfo rm ers is th e cru ci al ele m en t s ep arat in g l eg al in no cen ce fr om
wro ng fu l co nduc t.” 5 13 U.S. at 7 3, 1 15 S. Ct. at46 9. In co ntras t, t he Co x c ou rt
ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he co nduc t p ro hi bi te d b y § 2 42 3( a) i s al ready

pro hi bi te d b y § 2 42 1, wh ic h p ut s t he de fen danton no ti ce t ha t h e is vi ol at in g t he law wh en he tra ns po rts anin di vi du al of a ny age i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce forth e p ur

po se of
en ga gi ng in pro st itut io n. Co x, 5 77 F.3dat 8 37 . Accor di ng ly, th e Co x c ou rt f ou nd th at§ 2 42 3( a) m erel y

im po se s a t ou gh er p en al ty on t ho se who are t ran sp orti ng
m in or s fo r th e p ur

po se of p ro st itut io n— itdo es no t ru n t he ris k, as th e st atut e at is su e in X-Ci te m en t Vi de o d id , of c riminal iz in g o th erwi se leg al be ha vi or . Lik e th e Co x c ou rt, we a gr ee t ha t Fl or es -Fi gu ero a d oe s n otm an da te a br ig ht -li ne rul e fo r al l o ccas io ns . As th e Sev en th Cir cu itob se rv ed , “ [t]he Flo res Fi gu ero a Co urt m ad e cl ear, p oi nt in g t o t he co nc urrin g o pi ni on by Jus ti ce Al it o, th at‘ th e in qu iry int o asen te nc e’s m ean in g i s a c on te xtua l o ne ,’ an d t ha t a ‘sp eci al
co nt ex t’ m ig htcal l fo r a d iff eren t s ta tu to ry

in te rp ret at io n.” Id. at83 8 (q uo ti ng Fl or es -Fi gu ero a, 55 6 U.S. at65 2)
. 23Dan ie ls m ak es ess en ti al ly the same argu m en ts as t he de fen da ntin Co x b y

ur gi ng th atth e Co urt’s d eci si on in Flo res -Fi gu ero a co nt ro ls
. He arg ue s t ha t t he 1 5 kn owi ng ly elem en t cl earl y ap pl ie s t o t he ve rb s— “pe rs ua de s, i nduc es , ent ic es , or
co erce s” —an d e qu al ly to t he ob ject o f th e v erb s— “ to en ga ge inpro st itut io n o r . . .
se xu al act iv ity .” Ther efo re, h e co nt en ds th atitm ak es no sen se th atth e in te rv en in g fa ct orth atth e in di vi du al ha s n otatt ai ne d t he ag e o f ei gh te en wou ld
no t b e en co m

pa ss edby the “ kn owi ng ly” adv erb as we ll . Like wis e, Dan ie ls
co nt en ds th atth e lang ua ge in§ 2 42 2( b) is gra m m at ic al ly sim il ar t o t ha t i n § 1 02 8A( a)(1 ) an d t ha t Fl or es -Fi gu ero a sh ou ldco nt ro l o ur in te rp ret at io n o f § 2 42 2( b) . Thu s, h e arg ue s i t wo ul d m ak e n o s en se th atth e fac to r in be twee n th es e two ele m en ts (th atth e in di vi du al ha s n otatt ai ne d t he ag e o f ei gh te en ) wou ld
no t b e equa ll y

en co m pa ss edby the “ kn owi ng ly” adv erb
. Infur th er s up po rt o f hi s ar gu m en t, Dan ie ls urg es th atfin di ng kn owi ng m en s
rea app li cab le to ev ery el em en t wo ul d b e in li ne wit h t hi s ci rcu it ’s app ro ach in reject in g a n “ im

po ss ib il it y ” d efen se un de r § 2 42 2( b) , in cas es wher e th e d efen da nt at te m pt s t o p ers ua de or i nduc e an un de rco ve r ag en t p os in g a s a m in or to en ga ge in
Daniels a lso relies on two ca ses from other circ uits rejectingFirst Amendme nt 1 5 challeng es to § 2422(b), a nd holding that the statute passes c onstitut ional muster bec ause it require s knowledg e of a g e. See Cote, 504 F .3d at 684-86; Mee k, 366 F.3d at 717-22. These decisions ar e not controllingas they wer e dec ided in the context of attempt rather than that of a completed of

fenc e. Also, they

wer e dec ided bef

ore the Supreme Court’s de cision in FloresFigueroa with J ustice Alito’s conc urringopinion. 24il le ga l s ex ua l ac ti vi ty. Dani el s ci te s Un it edSta te s v . Roo t, forth e p ro po si ti on 1 6 th ata de fen da nt ’s kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t i s wh atm at te rs . In Ro ot , we hel d t ha t

“ th e fac t tha t Ro ot ’s cri m e h adno t ri pe ne d i nt o aco m pl et edoff en se [was ] no ob st acl e to anatt em

ptco nv ic ti on ” u nd er § 24 22 (b ) an d “ be li ef t ha t a m in orwas in vo lv ed[was ] su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in ” su cha co nv ic ti on . Roo t, 2 96 F.3dat 1 22 7. Dan ie ls arg ue s t ha t t he same sho win g o f kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t i s re qu ire d h ere. Dan ie ls ’s arg um en t i s m is pl aced . In Ro ot , ou r ho ld in g was ba se d o n t he reject io n o f a d efen se to ch arg es bro ug htun de r § 2 42 2( b) : t he de fen da ntth ere h ad kn owl ed ge , hadth e in te nt , andto okst ep s i n a n a tt em ptto co m m itth e cri m e. By fin di ng th e ev id en ce s uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t, we h on or edth e
co ng res si on al go al of p ro te ct in g m in or s v ic ti m iz edby sex ua l cr im es . The fa ctth at th ere was no actua l m in orin vo lv edwas n ota ba rri er t o c on vi ct io n. Here , th e op po si te is tru e. W e h av e a m in orvi ct im , who was u se d fo r pr os ti tu ti on . Dan ie ls ’s all eg edlac k o f kn owl ed ge as t o h er ag e can no t s erv e as a sh ie ldfro m
co nv ic ti on . Ourrul in g t od ay

is de ci de d i n t he same spi ritas we de ci de d R oo t. We ho no r th e co ng res si on al go al in he ren t i n t he Ch il d P ro te ct io n a ndSex ua l Pr ed at or

296 F.3d 1222, 1227 ( 11th Cir. 2002), supersede d by statute on other grounds as 1 6 rec og nized in United St ates v. Jerchowe r, 631 F .3d 1181, 1186-87 (11th Cir. 2011). 25Pu ni sh m en t Actof 1 99 8, an d re ach a ho ld in g t ha t ai m s t o p ro te ctm in or s—no t 1 7

m ak e co nv ic ti on m or e d iff ic ul t fo r cri m es th ataffe ctth em . A defe nd an t s uc h a s Dan ie ls who lu res an d e nc ou rag es y ou ng ch il dr en in to th es e act iv it ie s d oe s s o a t hi s o wn p eri l, re ga rd le ss of wh atth e v ic ti m says o r ho w sh e ap pe ars . He run s t he ris k t ha t h e is de al in g wi th so m eo ne who fal ls withi n t he pu rv ie w of § 24 22 (b ), th us subjec ti ng hi m

to it s en ha nc edpe na lt ie s. The refo re, b as edon th e fo rg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s jury in st ru ct io n a s t o t he ch arg es un de r § 2 42 2( b) . Proo f th atth e d efen dantkn ew th e vi ct im was u nd er t he ag e o f ei gh te en is no t re qu ire d. C. The th irdis su e o n app eal is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin no t in st ru ct in g t he jury th atth e g ov ern m en t was requi redto pro ve th atDani el s kne w th atA.W . wou ldbe tra ns po rte d i nt ers ta te in ord er t o e st ab li sh th atDani el s was gu il ty of vi ol at in g § 24 21 , as a ll eg edin Co un t II I of th e in di ct m en t. Si m il ar t o t he

The Ac t was later

rena med the Protec tion of Children from Sexual P redators Act of 1 7 1998. H.R. Rep. No. 105-557, at 1 (1998), re printed in 1998 U.S.C.C.A.N. 678. See United States v. Searc y , 418 F.3d 1193, 1197- 98 (11th Cir. 2005) (“ Amongthe amendme nts to Titl e 18 was the a mendment of § 2422(b) to increa se the maximum prison sentenc e fr om ten to fifteen y ear s. Such amendments [are] nec essar y in light of the inc rea sing numbe r of c ases in which children e nticed via the inter net had be en kidnape d, photogr aphed f or child pornography , rape d, and beaten. Thus, [t] he g oal of [the Protection of Children fr om Sex ual Preda tors Act of 1998 was] to provide strong er pr otections for c hildren fr om those who would prey upon them.”) (interna l quotations and citations omitt ed). 26arg um en ts m ad e p ert ai ni ng to Co un t I, Dan ie ls arg ue s t ha t kno wled ge of t he

in te rs ta te na tu re o f th e tr an sp orta ti on in vo lv edhe re i s re qu ire d t o e st ab li sh a vi ol at io n o f § 2 42 1. In th e al te rn at iv e, Dan ie ls arg ue s tha t t he erro r in th e jury in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II I was pl ai n i n the li gh t o f Fl or es -Fi gu ero a. The go ve rn m en t co un te rs th atDani el s h as waiv edrev ie w of t hi s cl ai m on ap pe al . W e ag ree. Pri orto in st ru ct in g t he jury, th e d is tri ctco urt re vi ewedth e in st ru ct io ns wit h Dan ie ls ’s cou ns el . See s up ra n ot e 1 1. Dan ie ls co nt en ds th athe pre se rv edth is is su e o n app eal by stat in g: “ kn owi ng ap pl ie s t o wh ethe r orno t t he de fen da ntdi d th in gs in in te rs ta te co m

m erce ” imm ed ia te ly after t he di st ric t co urt as ke d fo r ob jecti on s t o t he jury in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II I. Aftercare fu l re vi ew of th e rec or d, we fi ndth atDani el s d idno t p res erv e h is ob jecti onto th e in st ru ct io n fo r Co un t II I. Alt ho ug h Dan ie ls ’s cou ns el ’s ob jecti on to th e d efi ni ti on of i nt ers ta te co m m erce fo ll owe d t he co urt’s re qu es t fo r ob jecti on s t o t he in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II I, bo th th e subs ta nc e o f th atob

jecti on—co un se l’s re fere nc e to th e in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II— an d t he co nt ex t o f th e d is cu ss io n— in di cat e th atDani el s’s co un se l i nt en de d he r ob jecti on to ap pl y

to th e in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II an d n otto th e in st ru ct io ns fo r Co un t II I. See s up ra n ot e 1 1. Fu rth erm or e, Dan ie ls ’s pro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns forCo un ts II an d II I,
27res pe ct iv el y , li ke wis e sh ow t ha t Dan ie ls ’s cou ns el in te nd edth e o bjec ti on rai se d t o

ap pl y to Co un t II be cau se Dani el s re qu es te d asp eci fic in st ru ct io n a s t o kno wled ge of th e in te rs ta te co m

m erce ele m en t i n h is pro po se d i ns tru ct io ns forCo un t II , bu t
no t fo r Co un t II I. Dani el s’s p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II in cl ud edth e sp eci fic ch arg e, “ The go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve th atth e d efen da ntkn ew th athi s
recrui ti ng , ent ic in g, h arb or in g, tran sp orti ng , pro vi di ng , or o bt ai ni ng of t he pe rs on
un de r th e ag e o f 18 wou ldaffe ctin te rs ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce .” Dani el s d idno t in cl ud e th is sp eci fic ch arg e in hi s p ro po se d ju ry in st ru ct io ns forCo un t II I, fu rth er le nd in g s up po rt t o t he co nc lu si on th atth e o bjec ti on rai se d was in te nd edforCo un t II an d n otCo un t II I. Dan ie ls ’s fin al arg um en t o n t hi s i ss ue is th atth e err orin th e jury ins tru ct io n fo r Co un t II I was pl ai n. Ho wev er, Dan ie ls fai le d t o o fferan y pre ced en t fr om

th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt t ha t re so lv es th e is su e o f whe th er § 24 21 requi res kn owl ed ge of t he in te rs ta te na tu re o f th e tr an sp orta ti on . Error c an no t b e p la in
un le ss itis ab so lu te ly clearun de r cu rren t l aw. See Un it edSta te s v . Hum ph rey, 16 4 F .3d58 5, 5 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (“ A pl ai n e rro r is anerro r th atis ‘ ob vi ou s’ and is ‘ cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.’”). T he refo re, b as edon th e afo rem en ti on ed , we fin d th atDani el s d idno t p res erv e th is is su e o n app eal
.

28D.

The fou rth is su e b efo re t he Co urt, i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin ad m it ti ng in to ev id en ce Dan ie ls ’s jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti onfro m th e Eas te rnDis tri ct of Mi ch ig an . Dani el s i ni ti al ly chal le ng edth e in cl us io n o f hi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s, arg ui ng th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto off er an y fact s re ga rd in g t he pri or

off en se . He arg ue d t ha t t he jury’ s re li an ce wi th ou t an y ev id en ce o f th e u nd erl y in g fa ct s
wou ldha ve co ns ti tu te d p la in erro r warra nt in g re ve rs al if h is co nv ic ti on s wer e
va cat ed . Howev er, aft er t he Six th Cir cu itaffi rm edth e m ajor it y of Da ni el s’s
co nv ic ti on s, h e co nc ed edin hi s R ep ly Brief t ha t t he adm is si onof t he co nv ic ti on s
co ul d n otris e to th e le ve l o f pl ai n e rro r an d wi th dr ew th is is su e fro m ap pe al
. The refo re, we n eedno t co ns id er t hi s i ss ue furth er. E. The fif th is su e Dan ie ls rai se s o n app eal is whet he r hi s s en te nc es forCo un ts I an d II I are un reas on ab le be cau se th ey are t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly to t he sen te nc e in
co nn ect io n wi th hi s co nv ic ti on s i n t he East ern Dis tri ctof M ic hi ga n. Dan ie ls als o rai se s the is su e o f whe th er h is 25 -y ear t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e is li ke wis e
un reas on ab le
. Dan ie ls arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc es are s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e fact s i n t hi s ca se were u se d a s re le va ntco nduc t i n t he cal cu la ti on of h is sen te nc e 29fo r hi s co nv ic ti on s i n t he East ernDis tri ctof M ic hi ga n a ndsh ou ldth eref or e ru n
co nc urren tl y , rathe r th anco ns ecu ti ve ly to h is un di sc ha rg edterm of i m pr is on m en t th ere. Dan ie ls ackno wled ge s t ha t t he Mi ch ig an co nduc t was no t “ rel ev an t
co nduc t” to th e o ffen se he rei n andurg es th at , altho ug h U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3(b ) te ch ni cal ly doe s n otrequi re t he sen te nc es to run co nc urren tl y , bas ic co nc ern s o f fai rn es s d o. As to th e 2 5- y ear t erm , Dani el s ar gu es th atitis to o e xt en si ve , in li gh t of th e co ns ecu ti ve term s o f im pr is on m en t h e fac es . W e co ns id er t he subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er an ab us eof -d is cret io n s ta nd ard , bas edon th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Uni te d S ta te s v . Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 99 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Dani el s’s ar gu m en ts as t o t he
un reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e d o n otest ab li sh th atth e tr ia l co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n a t s en te nc in g. We will va cat e a s en te nc e o nl y if we a re “ le ft wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Crawf or d, 4 07 F.3d11 74 , 11 77 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Here, i t was wit hi n t he di st ric t
co urt’s d is cret io n u nd er t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es to im po se co ns ecu ti ve
se nt en ces . The d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredDani el s’s ar gu m en ts fora co nc urren t
se nt en ce an d re

jecte d t he m

be cau se hi s co nduc t i n t he East ern Dis tri ctof M ic hi ga n
was no t p artof t he rel ev an t co nduc t h erei n. Th eref or e, th e d is tri ctco urt ac te d wit hi n i ts di sc ret io n i n i m po si ng a co ns ecu ti ve sen te nc e. W e fi ndno ab us e in it s

30de ci si on to do so .

It wa s al so withi n t he di stric t co urt’s d is cret io n t o i m po se th e 2 5- y ear t erm of supe rv is edrel eas e. The app li cab le st atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( k) , autho riz es a
se nt en ce o f an y

term or l ife forde fen da nt s co nv ic te d o f vi ol at io ns of § § 2 42 1 a nd 24 22 in cas es wher e th e v ic ti m was am in or . In ca se s wi th sex off en se s i nv ol vi ng
m in or s, t he st atut ory

m ax im um term is reco m m en de d. 1 8 U.S.C. § 5D1 .2(a ),(c). See P ug h, 5 15 F.3dat 1 19 9 (n ot in g the co ng res si on al pu rp os e b eh in d § 35 83 (k )
was to pu ni sh sex off

en de rs wit h l ife term s o f supe rv is edrel eas e due to hi gh rat es of reci di vi sm ). Ther efo re, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n wh en it im po se d Dan ie ls ’s 25 -y ear t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e. F. The si xt h a ndfin al is su e o n app eal is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t b as edup ona fi nd in g t ha t Dan ie ls
ex ert ed“ un du e in flu en ce” o ve r A.W . Dani el s ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt m is ap pl ie d the gu id el in es by ap pl y in g atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t t o h is ba se off en se lev el un de r § 2 G1.1 (b )(4 )(B) of t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . He arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt di d n otm ak e su ffi ci en t fa ctua l fi nd in gs to supp ort t he en hanc em en t. Dan ie ls fu rth er co nt en ds th atA.W . was al read y en ga ge d i n p ro st itut io n b efo re s he m ethi m
31an d t he refo re t he ev id en ce ad du cedat t ria l d oe s n otsupp ort a f in di ng th athe
un du ly infl ue nc edhe r. At t he ti m e o f Dan ie ls ’s off en se co nduc t, Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne § 2 G1.1 (b )(4 )(B) pro vi de d fo r a two- le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t i f th e de fen da nt“ un du ly infl ue nc eda m in orto en ga ge in a co m m erci al sex act .” U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.1 (b )(4 )(B) (20 03 ). The co m m en t t o t hi s s ect io n p ro vi de s as fo ll ows : In de te rm in in g whe th er subs ect io n (b )(4 )(B) ap pl ie s, th e

co urt sh ou ld cl os el y co n s i d e r th e fact s of th e cas e to de te rm in e whe th er a pa rti ci pa nt 's in flu en ce ov er th e m in or co m pr om is edth e v ol un ta rin es s o f th e m in or ’s beh av io r. In a cas e in whi ch a pa rti ci p a n t i s at le as t 10 y ears ol de r th an th e m in or , th ere sh al l be a reb ut tabl e pr es um pt io n, fo r pu rp o s es of subs ect io n (b )(4 )(B) , th at su ch pa rti ci pa nt un du ly in flu en ced th e m in or to en ga ge in a co m m erci al se x act
. In su ch a cas e, so m e de gr ee of un du e in flu en ce can be pr es u med be cau se of th e subs tant ia l di ffer en ce in ag e be twee n t he pa rti ci pa ntan d t he m in or . U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.1 cm

t. n .7 (2 00 3)
. Giv en th is pre su m

pt io n andth e ev id en ce attri al , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err i n app lying th e two -le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t. Here , th e d is tri ctco urt d id
no t d ep artfro m

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e insen te nc in g Dan ie ls . In s en te nc in g Dan ie ls , it“ co ns id ered
. . . th e p res en te nc e rep ort wh ic h c on ta in s the advi so ry

32gu id el in es an d t he st atut ory fact or s s etforth inTit le 18 , Uni te d S ta te s C od e § 3 55 3.” Spe ci fic al ly, th e PSI r ep ort i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g fi nd in gs : Dan ie ls was atlea st10 y ears ol de r th an A.W .; A.W . in it ia ll y de cl in edto pro st itut e fo r Dan ie ls bu t t he n a gr eedon ce Dan ie ls to ldhe r th atsh e wou ldon ly hav e to workfora on eweektri al pe rio d; Dani el s i ns tru ct edHeadto sp eakwith A.W. reg ard in g wh atwas
ex pe ct edof A.W. whi le sh e was work in g fo r Dan ie ls ; Dan ie ls arra ng edto sen d A.W . to Mem

ph is to workas apro st itut e fo r Lip se y ; an d Dan ie ls bro ug htA.W . to a b us st at io n a ndpro vi de d h er wi th a bu s t ic ke t t o M em ph is , wher e A.W . was t o
m eetLip se y

an d b eg inwork in g a s a p ro st itut e fo r hi m . The re i s ample e vi de nc e supp orti ng th e d is tri ctco urt’s re li an ce o n t he Gui de li ne ’s reb ut tabl e p res um pt io n o f Dan ie ls ’s un du e in flu en ce o ve r A.W . The di st ric t co urt h ere r es ol ve d a ny dis pu te d fa ctua l i ss ue s ab ou t wh ethe r Dan ie ls

“ un du ly infl ue nc ed ” A.W . in fav orof t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ). W e fi ndth atth es e fi nd in gs were s uf fic ie ntto supp ort t he co nc lu si on th atth e pr es um pt io n o f un du e in flu en ce p res cri be d b y sec ti on 2G1 .1(b )(4 )(B) ap pl ie d h ere
an d was no t re bu tt ed
. Mo reo ve r, Dan ie ls ’s con te nt io n t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t m ak e
su ffi ci en t fi nd in gs of f

actto supp ort t he en ha nc em en t i s wi th ou t m eri t b ecau se “ a
se nt en ci ng co urt’s fa il ur e to m ak e in di vi du al iz edfin di ng s re ga rd in g the sco pe of
33th e d efen da nt ’s act iv it y is no t g ro un ds forva cat in g asen te nc e if th e rec or d
supp ort[s ] th e co urt’s d et erm in at io n wi th res pe ctto th e o ffen se co nduc t.” Un it ed St at es v. Mo ria rty, 429 F.3d10 12 , 10 22 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Pet rie , 30 2 F .3d12 80 , 12 90 (11 th Cir . 20 02 )). W e h av e p rev io us ly rejected“ th e arg um en t t ha t the di st ric t co urt fa il edto m ak e ex pl ic itfin di ng s o f fac t an d
co nc lu si on s o f la w” whe re “ th e co urt d idno t d ep artfro m th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e an d cl earl y res ol ve d a ll di sp ut edfactua l i ss ue s i n fa vo r of th e [PSI ]. ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sau nd ers , 31 8 F .3d12 57 , 12 69 n.1 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Here, th e d is tri ctco urt’s fin di ng s wer e su ffi ci en t t o p ro vi de form ean in gf ul rev ie w of t hi s ca se . See Un it ed St at es v. Vi ll ari no , 93 0 F .2d15 27 , 15 29 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ); a cco rdCrawfo rd , 40 7 F.3 d a t 1 17 7 (we wil l n otfin d c le ar erro r un le ss we ha ve a “ firm co nv ic ti on th ata
m is ta ke ha s b een co m

m it te d” ). Ther efo re, we aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s u se of a two -le ve l en hanc em en t. IV. Con cl us io n Acco rd in gl y , bas edon th e st atut ory lan gu ag e an d u nd erl y in g p ub li c p ol ic y , ru li ng s o f ou r si st er ci rcu it s, an d t hi s C ou rt’s ru li ng s i n l ik e-m at te rs , we affi rm Dan ie ls ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

34