The Ho norabl e Av er n C ohn, Uni ted S tates D is tr ict J udg e for the E ast er n D is tr ict of * Mi chi g an, s itti ng by

des ig nati on. NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION

Fi le Name: 08a 0124n.0 6 Fi led : Febr uar

y 28, 2008 No. 07- 1190 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. DANIEL CHARLE S DUNN, Defendant -A ppel lan t. / On ap p e a l from the Uni ted S tates District C ourt for the W este rn Di str ict of M ic hig an

BEF OR E: RY

AN and DA UG HTR EY , C ircui t J udg es; C OH N, D is tr ict J udg e. * RY AN , Ci rc uit Judg e. The defendant, Dan iel Cha rl es Dun n, ple aded g uil ty to poss ess ion of chi ld por nog ra phy i n v iol ati on of 18 U. S.C . § 2252A, and w as sent enced to 168 mont hs’ i mpri sonment

. The defendant no w appeal s t he di str ict co u rt’s dec is ion to appl y a fiv e- lev el enhanc ement un der the Uni ted S tates Sent enci ng Guide lines for eng ag ing i n a p atter n of act iv ity i nv olv ing se x ual abu se o r e xpl oit ati on of a mi nor under U. S

. S

. G

. § 2 G 2

. 2 (b )( 5 ). W e f in d t h a tt h e d is t ri ctco u rt ’s se n t e n c e is re a s o n a b le a n d we aff ir m. I. The defendant was charg ed w it h three s eparate c ounts rela ti ng to poss ess ion of chi ld por nog ra phy

. He a d m itted o w nin g approx imat ely 3779 imag es and 40 DV Ds , and(N o. 07 -1 190) - 2 -

w ri ti ng a number

of por nog ra phi c s tor ies aboutch il dren. In ex chang e for his g uil ty pl ea to th e f irst count, the pro s e cuto r agreed to mo v e for dismissa l of the seco nd a nd th ird
coun ts. Dunn p lead ed g uilty to transportin g ima ges of mino rs engaging in sex ually explicit condu ct, prohi bit ed by

18 U .S.C . § 2252A, and the dis tr ict cour t dis mis sed the remaini ng co u n ts

. Apro b a ti o n of

f ice r pr e p a re d a p re se n te n ce in ves ti gat io n rep o rtrec o m m e n d in g a fiv e- lev el enhanc eme n t u nder the Gui del ine s b ased on U .S.S .G. § 2G 2.2( b) (5 ). The resulting tota l of

fense level w as 35 w hich produce d an advi sory range of 168 -210 mon ths’ impr is onment. The di str ict c our t ado pted the re commendat ion s in the repor t, inc lud ing the fiv e- lev el enhanc ement, and s entenc ed th e defendant to 16 8 months ’ impr is onment. The onl y aspect of t he sent ence cal cul ati on per ti nent to thi s appeal is the fiv e- lev el enhanc ement for

eng ag ing in a patte rn of acti v ity inv olv ing sex ual abuse or ex plo it ati on of a min or und er U

. S

. S

. G. § 2G2 .2(b)(5). Th e district court ba sed its de cision to grant this enhanc ement on ev ide nce present ed dur in g t h e s entenc ing hear ing thatthe defendant
com mitt ed ince st w ith his son on tw o occasio ns w hen his son w as un der eightee n y ears of ag e. The di str ict c our t ac know led g ed th at the g ov er nment present ed ev ide nce of other inc ide nts that could hav e qual ified for the enhanc ement, but t he c our t s tated thati t reli ed onl y on t hese two inci dents in making its deter minat ion

. The defendant now appeal s t he dis tr ict c our

t’ s s entenc ing ca lc ula ti on. II. T his court reviews a dis t rict court’s choice of sente nce to dete rmine w het her it is
unreason abl e. Uni ted States v. Booker , 543 U .S. 220, 261 ( 2005)

. In t he recentca se of Gal l v . Uni ted States , 128 S. Ct . 586 ( 2007) , t he Sup re me C our t i nst ru cte d appel lat e c our ts(N o. 07 -1 190) - 3 -

to “ firs t ens ure tha t t he di str ict c our t co m m itted n o s ig nific ant p ro cedural er ro r, ” and
sec ond, to “c onsi der the subs tanti v e re asona ble ness of the s entenc e i mposed under an abuse -o f-di sc re ti on s tandard.” I d. at597. W hile the reason able n e s s stand ard of rev iew app lies to the actua l sente nce imp osed b y

t he district co urt, for in divi dua l guide line det ermin ation s, w e de fer to the district
cour t’ s fact ual f ind ing s, unl ess theyare c lea rl y er ro neous . Uni ted S tates v . D av ids on, 4 09 F.3d 304 , 310 (6th Ci r. 200 5); see Gall, 128 S. C t. at 597. Mix ed q uest ions of law and fact are rev iewed de nov o. Dav ids on, 4 09 F .3d a t 310

. III . Dun n c lai ms t he di str ict c our t i mprop er ly

ca lc ula ted a fiv e- lev el enhanc ement ba sed
on a patt ern o f

a c t ivi t y in v olvi ng sex ual ab use u nde r U.S.S.G. § 2G2. 2(b)(5). Since this all eg es pro cedural, rather than substan ti v e, er ro r, w e address i t first. Se e Gal l, 128 S. C t. at 59 7. A. Dun n arg ues that the gover nment present ed i nsuffici ent e v ide nce to s uppor t t he fi v e - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tb e c a u s e t h e i n c i d e n t s re l i e d u p o n b y t h e d i s t r i ct c o u rtd o n o tq u a l i fy for th e enhan cement

. The rele v ant secti on of the Uni ted S tates Sent enci ng Gui del ine s p ro v ide s: “ If the d e fe n d a n te n g a g e d i n a p a tt e r n o f a ct i v i ty i n v o l v i n g th e se x u a l ab u s e or ex p l o i t a t i o n of a m in o r, in c re a s e b y 5 l ev els .” U .S.S .G. § 2G 2 .2 (b )( 5) ( 2006)

. The appl ic ati on not es ind ic ate t he te rm “mi nor” means an i ndi v idu al w ho h a s n o t a ttained the a g e of ei g hteen y ears. U.S.S .G. § 2G2.2 (b)(5), com me nt. (n.1). Furthe r, the note s ex plain th at a “pa ttern(N o. 07 -1 190) - 4 -

of acti v ity ” is presentw hen a defendant c ommits at lea st two s eparate i nst ances of “s ex ual abuse or ex plo it ati on.” I d. These ot her i nci dents need not h av e oc cu rred dur ing the
course of the c harg ed offense, i nv olv ed th e s ame min or , or ev en res ult ed i n a c onv icti on. Id. The appl ic ati on not es als o ex pla in t h a t the phrase “s ex ual abus e or ex plo it ati on”
means condu ct desc ri bed i n 18 U. S.C . §§ 2241, 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2260( b) , 242 1, 242 2, or 24 23, or an of

fense und er state law

thatwould have bee n an of fense und er such
secti ons if the offense w oul d hav e oc cur re d i n the ter ri tor ial j ur is dicti on of the Uni ted Stat es. U .S.S .G. § 2 G2 .2 (b )( 5) , c omment. ( n.1)

. Among the re ferenc ed s ect ion s, § 2422( b) prohi bit s know ing ly persu adi ng , i nduci ng , ent ic ing , or co erci ng any

i ndi v idu al w ho has not attai ned the ag e of ei g hteen y ears t o eng ag e i n any se x ual acti v ity

for w hic h any person coul d be charg ed w it h a c ri minal offense. 18 U. S.C . § 2422( b) ( 2006)

. Inc esti s a cr imi nal offense in Mi chi g an unde r Mi ch. C omp. Laws A nn. § 750. 520d. Ap e rs o n i s g u i l ty

o f c r i mi n a l s e x u a l c o n d u cti f h e e n g ag es in s e x u a l p e n e t ra t i o n o f a p e rs o n wh o is re la t e d t o t h e a ct o r b y b lo o d o r a f f in it y t o t h e t h ird d e gre e , M ic h

. Co m p . L a ws Ann. § 750. 520d( 1) (d ) (2 003) , or i f forc e or coerci on is us ed to ac compl is h the penet ra ti on, Mi ch. C omp. Laws A nn. § 750. 520d( 1) (b ) (2 003)

. Dunn ’s insuf

f iciency of

the evidence claim fails in lig ht of the am ple evidence present ed by

the g ov er nment atthe sent enci ng hear ing demons trati n g tha t D unn commi tted inc est w it h his son on two di fferent o cc asi ons. The de fendant’s ex-w ife tes ti fied that she eng ag ed in sex ual acti v ity w it h the defendant and his biol og ic al son w hen t he s on w as onl y si xteen or sev enteen y ears o ld. Sh e al so tes ti fied th at on anot her oc cas ion w hen(N o. 07 -1 190) - 5 -

th e so n w a s a b o u t t h e sa m e a g e , s h e sa w th e de fe n d a n t a n d hi s so n w a tc h in g a por nog ra phi c v ide o tog ether i n the so n’s room, w hil e w ear ing only their robes . This w as follo w ed byan audi ble creaki ng of the s tai rs l eadi ng to the s on’ s room and the s on, “ Rat her lou dly hol ler ing , ‘I t’ s too big .’ ” The ex -w ife tes ti fied that the defendant’ s son was e it her si xteen or

se v enteen y ears o ld w hen bot h i nci dents occur re d. Base d on thi s e v ide nce, the dis tr ict c our

t did not cl ear ly

er r in conc lud ing , bas ed on a preponderance of the ev ide nce, that thes e i nci dents oc cur re d. Dun n’s arg ument t hat t hese act s a re not lega llysu ff ic ien t t o tr ig g er the fiv e- lev el enhanc ement un der

U .S.S .G. § 2G 2.2( b) (5 ) fails bec ause thes e w ere coerci v e acts and they v iol ated Mi chi g an l aw . Parents are i n a p osi ti on of autho ri ty and ex erci se pow er

ov er thei r chi ldren. As the s entenc ing co urt obs er v ed, mo stc h ild re n, i ncl udi ng si xteen y ear olds, h ave a desire to ple ase th eir paren ts. Th e fath er-son rela t io n s h ip i s inheren tly
coerci v e i n c ases of abuse and the d is tr ict c our t was enti tl ed to i n fer

thatthe defendant used his auth or ity

to coerce his so n to eng ag e i n the se inc est uous act s. Con trar y to the d efendant’ s c ontent ion , c onse n t is not a defense to t he c ri me of inc esti n M ic hig an. As the M ic hig an C our t of Appea ls has st ated, M ic h. C omp. Laws A nn. § 750. 520d( 1) (d ) puni shes “ w it hout re g ard to the p arti es’ co nsentto the s ex ual activi ty .” People v. Gool d, 61 5 N .W .2d 7 94, 7 95 n. 1 ( Mi ch. C t. App. 2000)

. Therefore, t he
arg uments thatthe defendant’ s s on was old enoug h to cons ent under Mi chi g an law or that he di d i n fact cons ent a re of no l eg al cons eq uence . B.(N o. 07 -1 190) - 6 -

F in d in g n o si gn if ic a n tp ro c e d u ra l e rro r i n t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s se n t e n c in g, we n e xt c o n s i d e r t h e s u b s t a n t i v e re a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e d e fe re n t i a l a b u s e - o fdis creti o n s tandard. Ap pel lat e c our ts mayappl y

a presumpt ion of re asona ble ness to sent ences thatfall w it hin the adv is or y Gui del ine ra ng e. See R it a v . U nit ed St ates , 127 S. Ct. 245 6, 24 65 (20 07). Since Dunn’s sen ten ce falls w ithin th e Guid eline ran ge, it is presumpt iv ely

reason abl e. Fur

ther more, the dis tr ict cou rtco nsi dered th e 18 U. S.C . § 355 3(a) facto rs a nd ma de a n i nd i v i dua liz ed a ssessm entof the ap prop riate sen ten ce be fore imposi n g D u n n ’s sentenc e. W e are s ati sfied that the d is tr ict c our t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n s entenc ing D unn t o 168 months ’ impr is onment a nd w e c oncl ude t hat t he sent ence is reason abl e. IV. For the re asons st ated, w e A FFIRM the dis tr ict c our t’ s j udg ment.