-1-

06- 4899
- cr

( L) , 0 6- 4951
- cr

( co n) Unite d State s v . Jas s UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT er m , 2007 ( A r gued: A pr i l 8, 2008 D eci ded: J une 16, 2009)

D ocketN os . 06- 4899- cr( L ) , 06- 4951- cr( con)
U NI TED S T A T E S OF A MERI CA , Appel l ee ,

— v . — M AR I AN J ASS , K ENN ETH L EI GH T , D e fen da n ts-Ap

p e lla n ts .
B e f o re: W AL KER , C AB RAN ES , and R AG GI , C i r cui tJudges
.

__________________ A ppeal fro m jud gm ent s of convi ct i on forcons pi r acyt o t r ans por tand ac tual t r ans por t at i on of m i nor s i n i nt er s t at e com m er ce for t he purpos e of engagi ng i n and pr oduci ng visua l i m ages of s exual act i vi t y , and forpos s es s i on of chi l d por nogr aphy
. M os tof d e f end ants ’ chall eng es are dis cussed and r ej ect ed i n a sum m ary order i ssued t od ay . T h is
o p in io n a d d re ss e s d e f

e n d a n t Ja ss ’s a rg u m e n ts th a t (1 ) h e r S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to confr ont at i on w as vi ol at ed byt he i n t r oduct i on att r i al of def endantL ei ght ’ s r edac t ed-2-

con fessi on , and (2) her below -G uidel i nes s entence w as i nfec t ed b yproced ural err or becau se t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he S out hern D i s t r i ct of N ew Y or k ( St ephen C. R obi ns on, Judge ) appl i ed an unw arr ant ed t w o- l evel enhanc ement for us i ng a comput er t o s ol i ci ts exual
a c t i v i t ywi t h a mi n o ri n c a l c u l a t i n g h e rS e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , s e e U. S
. S
. G. § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i )
. W e r ej ectt he fi r s tar gum entas w i t houtm er i t , concl udi ng fur t hert hat anyerr orw oul d have be en harm les s . A s t o t he s econd a r gum ent , w e agr ee thatt he § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) enhanc ement w as unw arr ant ed i n t hi s cas e. N evert hel es s , t he err orw as h a r ml e s s b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc l e a r l ys t a t e d th a t i two u l d h a v e i mp o s e d t h e s a me b e l o wG u id e lin e s s e n te n c e in a n ye v e n t. A F F I R MED .

M AR C I A S. C OH EN , A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y(J o h n P . C o llin s , J r., D ia n e G u

ja ra ti, A s s is ta n t U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y s , on the br i ef ), f orM i chae l J
. G ar ci a, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney for t he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, N ew Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f

orAppel l ee . C OL L EEN P. C AS SI DY , Feder al D efe nder s of N ew Y or k, I nc. , A ppeal s B ur eau, N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or D ef end an t -Ap

pellan tMari an Jass
. L ARRY S HEE HAN , L a w O f f ic e o f L a rr yS h e e h a n , E s q ., B ro n x , N e w Y o rk , f or D ef endant

-Appel l antKenneth Leight
.
R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : D efe ndant s M ar i an J as s an d K en n eth L ei ghtappea l fr om j udgm ent s of convi ct i on
en tered af

ter a joint t ri al be fo re a juryin the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r t h e S o u thern-3-

D is tr ic t o f

N e w Y o rk (S te p h e n C . R o b in s o n , Judge ) , atw hi ch theyw er e found gui l t yof one countof cons pi r acyt o t r ans por t m i nor s i n i nt er s t at e com m er ce w i t h t he i nt entof ( 1) havi ng t he mi nor s engage i n i l l egal s exual act i vi t y , and ( 2) pr oduci ng a vi s ual depi ct i on of a mi nor engage d i n s uch i l l egal act i vi t y , s ee 18 U
. S. C
. § 371; t w o count s of actual t r ans por t at i on of a mi nori n i nt er s t at e comm er ce w i t h t he i nt entt o engage i n cr i m i nal s exual act i vi t y , s ee i d. § 2423( a) ; and one count of s exual expl oi t at i on of a chi l d, s ee i d. § 2251( a)
. T he vi ct i m s of t hes e cr i m es w er e Lei ght ’ s adol es centdaught er( “V i ct im 1” or“daught er ”) and hers i xt hgr ade c l as s m at e ( “V i ct i m 2”)
. I n addi t i on, L ei ght w as convi ct ed of tw o count s of pos s es s i on
o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . S e e id . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )(4 )(B ). Ja ss a n d L e ig h t w e re se n ten c e d p rin c ip a lly t o 6 5 y ears ’ and 11 5 y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent, res pecti vely , and are curr entlyser ving t hese sent ences. W e discu ss and reject the m ajorit y o f de fe n d an ts’ ap p ell ate ch all en g es i n a su m m ary
or deri s s ued t oday
. See U ni t ed S t at es v. J as s , - - - F. A pp’ x - - - ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. I n t hi s opi ni on
we a d d r e s s t wo a d d i t i o n a l a r g u me n t s r a i s e d b yJ a s s t h a tme r i tmor e e x t e n s i v e d i s c u s s i on. Fi r s t , J as s ar gues t hatherSi xt h A m endment r i ghtt o con fro n tat i on, as di s cus s ed i n B rut on
v. U ni t ed S t at es , 391 U
. S. 123 ( 1968) , and i t s pr ogeny , w as vi ol at ed byt he admi s s i on att r i al of an i ncul pat or y s t at ement by L ei ght i n w hi ch r efe r ence s t o J as s w er e r edac t ed and r epl ace d b yn e u tra l p ro n o u n s o r re f e re n c e s to “ a n o th e r p e rso n .” W e re jec t th is a rg u m e n t o n its m e rits and, m or eover , concl ude that , even i f w e w er e t o i dent i fyerr or , it w as h arm le s s bey ond a
reas on able dou bt i n li gh tof the other ov erw helm i ng evidence of Jass ’s gu i l t . S econ d, Jass-4-

cont ends t hat t he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orats ent enci ng byappl y i ng a tw ol evel enhanc ement pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U
. S. S. G
. ”) § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) t o t he ca l cul at i on of h er S en t enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. W e agr ee that § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) w a s n o t p ro p e rly a p p lied to Ja ss ’s G u id e lin e s c a lcu latio n , b u t h e re a g a in
w e c o n c lu d e th a t an ye rro r w a s h a rm les s b e c a u se th e d istric t c o u rt c lea rly sta ted th a t it w o u ld have i m pos ed the s ame bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence even a bs entt he di s put ed tw o-l evel
e n h a n c e m e n t. T h u s, fo r t h e re aso n s stated in this op inion an d the c o n tem p o ran eo u s su m m aryo rde r,
w e af fi r m defe ndant s ’ j udgm ent s of convi ct i on. I . Backg r ound M i ndful t hatt w o chi l dr en ar e the vi ct i m s of t he cr i m es of c o n v ict ion , w e do not
re c o u n t in d e tail th e so rd id c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is ca se . R a th e r, w e d e sc rib e o n lyth o se f a c ts
r el evantt o t he tw o i s s ues addr es s ed i n t hi s opi ni on, vi ew i ng t he evi dence , as w e must , i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he governm ent . See, e. g. , J acks on v. V i r gi ni a, 443 U
. S. 307, 318- 19 (19 7 9 ); U n it ed S tat es v . Q u ino n es, 51 1 F
. 3 d 2 8 9 , 2 9 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A
. T he A dm i s s i on of Lei ght ’ s R edac t ed St at ement J as s and Lei ghtw er e convi ct ed on m ul t i pl e cons pi r at or i al and s ubs t ant i ve count s of
s exual abu se inv ol vi ng L ei ght ’ s 12- y earol d daught er , V i ct i m 1, and hers i m i l ar l yaged frien d , V ict im 2
. B ec au se Ja ss’s C o n fro n tat ion C laus e c h all en g e to th e a d m i s s i o n o f L eigh t’ s
r edac t ed s t at ement r el at es pr i m ar i l yt o evi denc e i nvol vi ng V i ct i m 2, w e foc us ourA s t o V i ct i m 1 , w e not e s i m pl yt hatt he tr i al evi dence s how ed thatL ei ghtbegan 1 sexuall y m oles t i ng his dau gh t er w hen she w as fou r y ears old and t hat he con t i nu ed to do so for ei ght y ear s , up unt i l t he t i m e of hi s arr es t . J as s beca m e r om ant i cal l yi nvol ved w i t h L ei ght and enter ed his ho useho l d w hen V i ct i m 1 w as ap proxim at el y ei gh t or n i ne y ears old, and Jass i m m edi at el yj oi ned Lei ghti n s ubj ect i ng t he chi l d t o fr equents exual abus e. O vert he y ear s , L ei ghthad al s o s how n s uch pornogr aphyt o hi s daught ert o convi nce 2 hert hats exual act i vi t ybetw een c hi l dr en and a dul t s w as “nor m al ” and, t hus , t o gr oom herfor t he s exual abus e s he expe r i ence d. -5- backgr ound di s cus s i on on t hatevi dence
. 1

1
. De f

e n d a n t s ’ Ab u s e o f

Vi c t i m 2
a. T h e P reli m inaryA b u se in N ew Y o rk ( 1) T he C arI nci dent J as s and L ei ght fi r s t m et V i ct i m 2 w hen t he gi r l w as vi s i t i ng L ei ght ’ s daught er att he fami l y hom e i n R ockl and C ounty , N ew Y or k. A ft erone s uch vi s i t , w hen Lei ghtw as dr i vi ng V i ct i m 2 back t o herow n hom e, L ei ghtengage d t he chi l d i n a s exual l yexpl i ci tconver s at i on and t h e n o f

f e r e d h e r mon e y t o p e r f

o r m a s e x u a l a c t o n h i m. To war d t h i s e n d , Le i ght had V i ct i m 2 j oi n hi m i n t he car ’ s r ear s eat w her e he pr ocee ded t o i ns t ructheri n how t o s t r oke hi s peni s . W hen t he chi l d i ndi cat ed t hat s he w ant ed t o s t op, L ei ght w arned her t hatif she
e v e r to ld h e r m o th e r w h a t h a d h a p p e n e d , sh e w o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d to v isit f u rth e r w ith L e ig h t’ s d a u g h te r. ( 2 ) Ab u s e i n t h e Le i g h tHo me T h e n e x t ti m e V ictim 2 w a s a t th e L e ig h t h o m e , L e ig h t sh o w e d th e g irl p o rn o g ra p h ic comput eri m ages of chi l dr en enga gi ng i n s exual ac ts w it h adul t s . A s t hi s act i vi t yw as 2-6-

occurr i ng, J as s ent er ed the room, w her eupon t he tw o adul t s t ook V i ct i m 2 i nt o t hei rbedr oom and s ugges t ed thatt he chi l d j oi n t hem i n var i ous s exual act i vi t i es . J as s pr ocee ded t o i ns t ruct V i ct i m 2 i n m eans of s exual l ys t i m ul at i ng L ei ght , and J as s her s el f per for m ed s exual act s on V i ct i m 2. J as s al s o s how ed V i ct i m 2 cert ai n s exual devi ces and urge d t he chi l d t o us e them t o “pr act i ce” s exual i nt er cour s e. Fol l ow i ng t hes e act i vi t i es , L ei ghtpl ace d s om e ca s h i n an
e n v e lo p e , w h ich h e id e n tifie d f o r V ictim 2 a s h e r re m u n e ra tio n . L e ig h t sa id th a t h e w o u ld
s afe guar d t he money for t he chi l d beca us e sudden poss es s i on of t he ca s h m i ghtar ous e her
m other ’s suspi ci on s. ( 3) J as s Sol i ci t s V i ct i m 2 T o T r avel t o N ew J er s ey O n anothervi s i tbyV i ct i m 2 t o t he L ei ght hom e, J as s and t he chi l d s pentt i m e al one
w a tch in g a p o rn o g ra p h ic m o v ie. L a ter th a t s a m e d a y , V ictim 2 a c c o m p a n ied Ja ss , L e ig h t, L ei ght ’ s daught er , and Lei ght ’ s s on on a t r i p t o a nearby s hoppi ng m al l
. T her e, L ei ghtgave V ictim 2 so m e o f

th e m o n e yh e h a d p u rp o rte d lyse t as id e f o r h e r, w h ich th e c h ild sp e n t. L at ers t i l l , w hen J as s dr ove V i ct i m 2 hom e, J as s pr opos ed t o t ake t he chi l d on an overni ght t r i p t o anothers hoppi ng m al l i n R ockaw ay , N ew J er s ey . A l t hough V i ct i m 2 under s t ood t hat L ei ght ’ s daught erw oul d notbe i ncl uded i n t hi s t r i p, t he gi r l r epr es ent ed o therw i s e t o her
m ot heri n or dert o s ecur e appr oval fort he out i ng.

b. J as s and Lei ghtA bus e V i ct i m 2 i n N ew J er s ey On Oc t o b e r2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , J a s s d r o v e Vi c t i m 2 t o t h e Ro c k a wa yM a l l
. Af t e rs o me
s hoppi ng, J as s and the chi l d chec ked into a n earbyH i l t on H ot el w her e Lei ghts oon j oi ned-7-

th e m . H e b ro u g h t w ith h im a b len d e r, v a rio u s b o ttl e s, a n d a c a m e ra . T h e a d u lts to o k V ictim 2 back t o t he m al l w her e t hey pr opos ed fur t her pai d s exual act i vi t y t o t he ch il d an d the n p ro c e e d e d to g iv e h e r m o n e y a n d to e n c o u ra g e h e r to b u y su g g e stiv e u n d e rw e a r a t a lin g e rie
s t or e. U pon t he tr i o’ s r etur n t o t hei r hot el r oom , L ei ght us ed t he bl ender t o m ake dr i nks for
a ll o f th e m . Ja ss a n d L e ig h t th e n e n g a g e d in v a g in a l an d a n a l in ter c o u rse , ins tru c tin g V ictim 2 to w a tch a n d lea rn f

ro m w h a t th e y d id . L e ig h t o f f e re d V ictim 2 e x tra m o n e yif sh e w o u ld agr ee t o be phot ogr aphed e ngagi ng i n s exual act i vi t i es . T her eaf ter, L ei ghtand J as s eac h t ook pi ctur es w hi l e the otherper for m ed s exual act s w i t h t he chi l d. A l t hough L ei ghtoffe r ed t o payV i ct i m 2 s t i l l m or e m oney i f she w oul d have i nt er cour s e w i t h hi m , t he chi l d r efus ed. T h e a d u lts a n d th e c h ild sh o w e re d to g e th e r a n d sle p t in th e sa m e b e d th a t n ig h t. U pon V i ct i m 2’ s r etur n hom e the fol l ow i ng day , herm ot herdi s cover ed s om e of the
s ugges t i ve underw eart hathad bee n pur chase d in N ew J er s ey . A ft ers peaki ng w i t h her d a u g h te r a b o u t th e tr ip , th e m o th e r r e p o rt e d J a s s a n d L e ig h t to N e w Y o rk p o lic e .

2. T he Sear ch of the Lei ghtH om e and D efe ndant s ’ I ncri m i nat i ng S tate m e n ts O n N ovember 3, 2004, FB I agent s exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr ant at t he L ei ghthom e and found var i ous i t ems des cr i bed byV i ct i m 2. T h ese inclu ded s om e of the underw ear pur chas ed i n N ew J er s eyas w el l as t he bl enderand dri n k m ixes br oughtt o t he hot el by L ei ght
. A l s o s ei zed w er e the s exual d ev ices t hatdefe ndant s had s how n V i ct i m 2 and a-8-

num berof por nogr aphi c vi deot apes . A s a cons equenc e of the s ear ch, agent s pl ace d J as s and L e ig h t u n d e r a rre st.
a. J as s ’ s St at ement I n t he cour s e of the FB I ’ s s ear ch, J as s acknow l edged thats he and Lei ghthad t aken V i ct i m 2 t o t he R ockaw ay M al l , and s he i dent i fi ed a thong under gar m entas an i t em bought by V i ct i m 2 on t hat t r i p. J as s fur t her i dent i fi ed cert ai n s ei zed t oi l etr i es as havi ng come fr om t he hot el t hatt he thr ee ha d s t ay ed i n dur i ng t he tr i p. J as s ’ s s t at ement s w er e admi t t ed att r i al i n r edac t ed form , w i t h t he phr as e “otherper s on” su b sti tut ed forL ei ght ’ s name. N ei t her d e f e n d a n t ch a llen g e s th e a d m iss io n o f th e se sta tem e n ts o n a p p e a l. b. L ei ght ’ s St at ement ( 1) T he U nr edac t ed A dm i s s i on A ft erL ei ght ’ s r ece i pt of M i r anda w arni ngs , he w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o r emai n s i l entand agr eed t o ans w eragent s ’ ques t i ons . D es cr i bi ng t he R ockaw ayM al l t r i p, L ei ghts t at ed t hat h e a n d Ja ss to o k V ictim 2 to th a t m a ll in O c to b e r 20 0 4 , a n d th a t h e g a v e th e c h ild m o n e yto
s pend ther e. A ft eri ni t i al l ydeny i ng anys exual i nvol vement w i t h V i ct i m 2, L ei ghtadmi t t ed perform i ng sexual acts w i t h her d uri ng t he t ri p. S pecifi cal l y , he descri bed ho w he and Jass
uns ucce s s ful l yat t empt ed t o have i nt er cour s e w hi l e t he chi l d w at ched. H e fur t hers t at ed that he and J as s had eac h t aken phot ogr aphs of V i ct i m 2 i n var i ous s exual pos es w hi l e al l t hr ee of t hem w er e nude. L ei ght expl ai ned t hat t he pi ctur es w er e s om ehow i nadvert ent l yer as ed fr om hi s di gi t al camer a. Fi nal l y , L ei ghts t at ed thathe as ked V i ct i m 2 not t o t el l any one w hatW e s u b s titu te “ V ic tim 2 ” f o r t h e c h ild ’s f

ir s t n a m e , te s tif

ie d to a t tr ia l. 3 -9- h a d h a p p e n e d i n N e w J e r s e y. ( 2) T he R edac t ed St at ement B e f o re trial, Ja ss m o v e d f

o r a se v e ra n c e , a rg u in g th a t th e a d m iss io n o f L e ig h t’s p o starr es tconfe s s i on ata j oi ntt r i al w oul d vi ol at e herC onfr ont at i on C l aus e r i ght s as r ecogni zed in B ru to n v . U n ited S tate s, 3 9 1 U .S . 1 2 3 . O p p o sin g se v e ra n c e , the g o v e rn m e n t p ro p o se d to
r edac t L ei ght ’ s s t at ement , s ubs t i tut i ng neutr al pr onouns ort he phr as e “a not herper s on” for
a n yre f e re n c e s to Ja ss . T h e d istric t co u rt f o u n d th a t su c h re d a c tio n a n d su b stitu tio n w o u ld adequa t el yavoi d B rut on err or , and i t deni ed s ever ance . T hus , att r i al , an FB I agentt es t i fi ed t o the foll ow i ng redact ed acc ou nt of L ei gh t ’s po st -arres tadm i ssi on s:

• “M r . L ei ghtt ol d m e that he and another per s on had t aken [V i ct i m 2] 3 t o t he R ockaw ayM al l i n N ew J er s ey . ” Tri al T r . at223.

• “M r . L ei ght t ol d m e thatt heyw ent , aft ers hoppi ng att he mal l , he and t he otherper s on and [V i ct i m 2] r etur ned bac k t o t he hot el
. ” I d.

• “M r . L ei g h t st at ed t o m e that[V i ct i m 2] ki s s ed hi m and the other per s on. ” I d.

• “M r. L ei gh tt old m e t hat t he three of them w ere nud e. M r. L ei gh tal so t ol d m e thathe and the otherper s on at t empt ed t o have se xual i nt er cour s e w hi l e [V i ct i m 2] w as w at chi ng and aga i n t heyw er e nude a t t h e t i m e. H ow ever, t heyw ere unab l e t o h ave sex ual i nter cou rs e beca us e he di d notm ai nt ai n an er ect i on. ” I d. at224.

• “M r . L ei ght t ol d m e t hat he t ook pi ctur es of [V i ct i m 2] an d the o t her person i n vari ou s sexual po ses w i t h the di git al cam era. M r. L ei gh tal so to ld m e th a t th e o th e r p e rso n to o k p ictu re s o f h e a n d [ V ictim 2 ] in var i ous s exual pos es w i t h t he di gi t al camer a. ” I d. at225.-10-

• “M r. L eigh t told m e that h e an d the o ther p erso n an d [V ict im 2 ] w ere abl e t o vi ew t he phot ogr aphs on t he di gi t al camer a. ” I d. I n t he cour s e of t hi s t es t i m ony , t he di s t r i ctcour tgave the j ur yt he fol l ow i ng l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on: L adi es and gent l emen, l etm e j us ti nt errupt. . . t o t el l y ou about t hi s t es t i m ony y o u ’ve just he ard
. T h is t esti m o n yis t o b e re ce ived b yy o u o n ly aga inst M r. L ei ght
. T o t he ext ent t hat y ou fi nd t he t es t i m onycr edi bl e and w or t hyof y our w ei ght , i tcan onl ybe us ed i n y ourdet er m i nat i on of w hetherornotM r . L ei ght is g u iltyo f

a n yo f th e c rim e s c h a rg e d a n d c a n n o t in a n yw a yb e u se d b yy o u in y ou r consi derat i on of the charges againstM s[. ] J ass. I d. at224. I n it s final char ge t o t he j ur y , t he di s t r i ctcour tr ei t er at ed thi s i ns t ruct i on as foll ow s: T h e re h a s b e e n e v id e n c e th a t ea c h o f th e d e f e n d a n ts m a d e c e rta in sta tem e n ts t o law en for cement. . . . Y ou ar e ca ut i oned thatt he evi dence of one defe nda n t ’ s s t a t e me n t s t o l a w en f o r c e me n ta u t h o r i t i e s . . . ma yn o tbe cons i der ed ordi s cus s ed byy ou i n anyw ayw i t h r es pectt o t he ot herdefe ndant o n trial. K e n n e th L e ig h t’s sta tem e n ts m a y o n ly b e c o n sid e re d b y yo u w ith re sp e c t to K e n n e th L e ig h t’s g u ilto r n o n g u ilt
. I d. at775- 76. T he j ur yfound bot h defe ndant s gui l t yof al l cr i m es char ged. B
. T he U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) E nhance m ent I n i t s Prese nt ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( “PSR ”) on J as s , t he Pr obat i on D epart m ent
r ecomm ended thata tw o- l evel enhanc ement be appl i ed t o t he ca l cul at i on of heroffe ns e l evel pur s uantt o § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) (B )( i i ) beca us e def endant s had “us ed a c om put ert o s ol i ci tt he
v ictim to e n g a g e in se x u a l a c tiv ity .” P S R ¶ 5 6
. Ja ss c o n tes ted th e a p p lic a b il it y o f th is-11-

enhanc ement , ar gui ng t hatt he pl ai n l anguage of t he gui del i ne – “us e of a comput er . . . [t o]
so licit p a rticip a tio n w ith a m in o r in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t,” U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) – di d notencompas s s ol i ci t at i on of a m i nor but , r ather , w as i nt ended t o appl yt o s ol i ci t at i on
o f a thir d p arty ’s pa rt ici p ati o n in se x u all yex p li citco n d u ct w ith a m ino r. T he d i stri ctcou rt i den t i fi ed t he qu est i on of § 2G 2. 1(b)( 3)( B )( i i )’ s ap pli cabil i t yas a d if f icu lt o n e , b u t ap p lied th e e n h a n c e m e n t, ex p lain in g a s f o llo w s: I t h ink w e’re g o ing to g ive th e S ec o n d C ir cu it their ch an ce to ru le on this. I’m g o in g to f

in d th a t th e se c tio n d o e s a p p ly , alth o u g h a s in m a n ysta tu tes it co u ld h a v e b e e n m o re c lea rlyw ritten . B u t I re a d th is, I re a d 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) to r efe rt o a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the comput eri s us ed i n or dert o garnert he par t i ci pat i on of s ex – i n s exual l y expl i ci t conduct w i t h a m i nor or ot her s . I do t hi n k i t i s mor e b r o a d , i t t e n d s t o b e mor e b r o a d t h an s ect i on [2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ] ( i )
. T hey coul d have been m or e cl ear about exac t l yw hatt hey i nt ended by ei t her addi ng t he w or ds of a t hi r d par t yort heycoul d have w r i t t en t he w o rds byorw i t h a mi nors o w e w oul d have know n cl ear l yw hatt hey in ten d e d . B u t I’m g o in g to f in d th a t in lo o k in g a t th e se c tio n a s a w h o le, it does m ake s ens e thatw hatt heyw er e tr y i ng t o do h ere w as carve out so m e th in g m o re b ro a d th a n w a s c a rv e d o u t in [ su b ]se c tio n [ (i)]. S o th e yw ro te i ti n t hi s i nel egantfas hi on. Sent enci ng T r . at44. W i t h a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 44 and a C r i m i nal H i s t or y cat egory of I , J as s ’ s G ui del i nes
r ange pr ovi ded forl i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T he s t atut or ym axi m um s forhercr i m es of convi ct i on,
ru n n in g c o n se c u tiv e ly , p ro v id e d f o r 9 5 y e a rs’ in c a rc e ra tio n . T h e c o u rt e x e rc is e d its d isc re tio n to se n ten c e Ja ss to a n o n -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e to talin g 6 5 y e a rs’ im p r is o n m e n t. T he di s t r i ct courtexpl ai ned thati t s deci s i on w as i nt ended t o r efl ectt hatJ as s ’ s r ol e i n t he
cr i m i n al s ch em e w as l es s t han thatof Lei ght , “the pl anner. . . t he r i ngm as t er. . . [w ho]-12-

clea rl yd ir ec ted th e a cti v ity . ” Id
. at 5 3
. N e v e rt h eless, th e c o u rtco n clud ed that a se v ere
s ent ence w as cal l ed forbeca us e J as s ’ s par t i ci pat i on i n t he char ged cr i m es w as w i l l i ng and
e x ten siv e : “s h e p a rticip a ted in a ll w a y s im a g in a b le, f ro m e n g a g in g in se x u a l ac tiv ityw ith t hes e mi norchil d ren , to gr oom i ng t hem, get t i ng t hem t o t he eve ntand w or s e. ” I d. T he d i s t r i c tc o u r te x p r e s s l ys t a t e d t h a ti t s d e c i s i o n t o i mp o s e a 6 5
- y e a rt e r m wo u l d b e t h e s a me
ev en if t h e § 2 G 2
. 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i i) en h an ce m en t w ere n o t ap p li ca b le to the c alcu lat ion o f Ja ss’s G u id e lin e s ra n g e : I ’ l l a l s o j u s t n o t e f

o r t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t I h a v e g i v e n woul d not h a v e c h a n g e d e i t h e ri n t e r ms o f t h e g u i d e l i n e r e c o mme n d e d s e n t e n c e o ri n t e r ms of t he ac tual s ent ence thatI gave r egar dl es s of how t he issue of t he tw o- poi nt e n h an ce m en t un d er 2 G 2
. 1 u lt im atelyw o rks o u t. . . . [U ]nd er e ith er a 4 4 , 4 3 [ ,] o r4 2 [ b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l ] , j u s ts o t h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r , I wo u l d g i v e t h e s a me s ent ence . I d. at56- 57. I I . D i s cus s i on A
. J as s ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e C hal l enge J as s as s er t s thatt he admi s s i on of Lei ght ’ s confe s s i on at t hei r j oi nt t r i al vi ol at ed her Si xth A mend ment r i gh t t o co nf r on t a t i on a s r e c og ni z e d i n B rut on v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 39 1 U. S. 123. J as s ar gues t hatt he s ubs t i tut i on of neutr al pr onouns orw or ds s uch as “anotherper s on” for her ow n name i n L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on – a pr act i ce pr evi ous l yappr oved byourcour t , s ee,
e .g ., U n ited S tate s v . W ill iam s, 9 3 6 F .2 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 0 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) – w a s ina d e q u a te to a v o id t hi s vi ol at i on i n l i ghtof t he Supr eme Court ’ s appl i cat i on of B rut on i n G r ayv. M ary l and, 523-13-

U
. S. 185 ( 1998)
. W e re vi ew “[a ] l l eged vi ol at i ons of t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e . . . de novo,
su b ject t o h arm less erro r an aly sis. ” U n it ed S tat es v . V it ale, 45 9 F
. 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). 1. T he R el evantL aw

a. B r ut on and i t s Pr ogeny T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e of the Si xt h A m endment st at es t hat“[i ] n al l cr i m i nal prosecuti on s, t he acc used sha l l enjoy t he ri gh t . . . t o be con front ed w i t h the w i t nesses agai nst hi m . ” U
. S. C ons t . amend. V I
. “The crux of t hi s r i ghti s t hatt he governm entcannot i nt r oduce a tt r i al s t at ement s cont ai ni ng acc us at i ons agai ns tt he def endantunl es s t he ac cus er take s the stan d ag ains t th e de fe n d an t an d is av ail ab le fo r cro ss exa m ination
. ” R y an v . M il ler, 303 F. 3d 231, 247 ( 2d C i r . 2002)
. W her e such acc us at or y s t at ement s ar e admi s s i bl e ata t r i al
a g a in st s o m e d e f

e n d a n ts b u t n o t o th e rs, th e law re c o g n ize s th a t a tria l co u rt’s in stru c tio n to a j ur yt o cons i dert he s t at ement s onl yi n eval uat i ng t he gui l t of t he defe ndant s agai ns tw hom they are ad m issi b le i s g en era ll y s u f f ic ie n t t o eli m inate a n yC o n fro n tat ion C laus e c o n ce rn
w i t h r es pectt o ot her defe ndant s . A s t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. 200 ( 198 7 ), “[o] r di nar i l y , a w i t nes s w hos e t es t i m onyi s i nt r oduced a ta j oi ntt r i al i s not cons i der ed t o be a w i t nes s ‘ agai ns t ’ a def endanti f t he j ur yi s i ns t ruct ed t o cons i dert hat test im o n yo n lyag ains t a co d ef en d an t. ” Id. at 2 0 6
. T h e l aw “a lm o st i n v ariab l[y ] assu m [e s]”A s t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n R i char ds on v. M ar s h, t he gene r al “rul e thatj ur i es 4 a re p re su m e d to f

o llo w th e ir in stru c tio n s is a p ra g m a tic o n e , ro o ted les s in th e a b so lu te cert i tude thatt he pr es um pt i on i s t rue than i n t he bel i ef t hati tr epr es ent s a r eas onabl e pr act i cal a c c o m m o d a tio n o f

th e in te re s ts o f

th e s ta te a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t in th e c ri m in a l ju s tic e p ro c e s s .” 4 8 1 U .S . a t 2 1 1
. -14- that juro rs fo ll o w su ch li m it ing instruction s. Id. (co ll ec ti n g ca ses). 4 N evert hel es s , i n B rut on v. U ni t ed St at es , 391 U
. S. 123, t he Supr eme C our ti dent i fi ed
an except i on t o t hi s as s um pt i on. I tdet er m i ned thati n j oi ntt r i al s , w her e a non- t es t i fy i ng d e f e n d a n t’s c o n f

e ss io n sp e c if

ica lly in c u lp a tes a c o -d e f e n d a n t, “th e risk th a t th e ju ryw ill n o t,
orcannot , fol l ow i ns t ruct i ons ” t o l i m i ti t s cons i der at i on of t he evi dence onl yas agai ns tt he decl ar ant“i s s o gr eat , and the cons equenc es of fa i l ur e s o vi tal to the d efe ndant , t hatt he p rac ti ca l and h u m an li m it ati o n s o f the jury sy stem ca n n o t b e ign o red
. ” Id. a t 1 3 5
. T h e C o u rt hel d t hat , “w her e the pow er ful l yi ncr i m i nat i ng extr a j u d i c i a l s t a t e me n t s o f

a c odefe ndant , w ho
s t ands acc us ed s i de- by
- s i de w i t h t he def endant , ” ar e adm i t t ed at a j oi ntt r i al , cour t s “ca nnot
acc eptl i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons as an ade q u a t e s u b s t i tu t e f or[t he def

endant ’ s ] cons t i tut i onal r i ght
o f c ro s s -e x a m in a tio n .” Id . a t 1 3 5 -3 7
. In B ru to n , the S u p re m e C o u r t a c k n o w led g e d th a t so m e lo w e r c o u rts h a d so u g h t to
m inim ize the iden ti fied co n ce rn b y“re q u ir [in g ] de let ion o f re fe ren ce s to c o d ef en d an ts w h ere p ra c ti cab le” w h e n a d m itt in g a c o n f e ss io n so lelya g a in st a n o n -te stif y in g d e f e n d a n t d e c lar a n t. I d. at134 n. 10 ( col l ect i ng cas es )
. I t di d not , how ever , expr es s any vi ew as t o t he ade quacy
o f th is p ro c e d u re to a v o id a C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e v io la tio n . A l m os tt w o deca des pas s ed befor e t he Supr eme C our taddr es s ed the r edac t i on i s s ue-15-

i n 1987 i n R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. 200. T her e, t he C our thel d t hat“the C onfr ont at i on C l aus e i s notvi ol at ed byt he admi s s i on of a nont es t i fy i ng codef endant ’ s confe s s i on w i t h a pr operl i m i t i ng i ns t ru cti o n w h en . . . t he conf es s i on i s r edac t ed t o el i m i nat e notonl yt he defe ndant ’ s name, butanyr efe r ence t o hi s orher exi s t ence . ” Id. at211. I tr eas oned thatt he “narr ow exce pt i on” B rut on had cr eat ed di d notext end t o cas es w her e, t hr ough r edac t i on, t he
c o n f e ss io n w a s n o lo n g e r “ in c rim in a tin g o n its f a c e , [ b u t] b e c a m e so o n ly w h e n lin k e d w ith evi dence i nt r oduced l at eratt r i al
. ” I d. at208. T he C our texpl ai ned: W her e the nec es s i t yof s uch l i nkage i s i nvol ved, i ti s a l es s val i d gener al i zat i on t hatt he j ur yw i l l notl i kel yobeyt he i ns t ruct i on t o di s r egar d t he evi dence
. S p ec ifi c testi m o n ythat “the d ef en d an t h elpe d m e c o m m itthe c ri m e” is m o re vi vi d t han i nfer ent i al i ncr i m i nat i on, and hence m or e di ffi cul tt o t hrus toutof m i nd.
. . . [W ] i t h r egar d t o i nfer ent i al i ncr i m i nat i on the j udge’ s i ns t ruct i on m ay w el l be s ucce s s ful i n di s s uadi ng t he j ur yfr om ent er i ng ont o t he path of in f e re n c e in th e f

irst p lac e , so th a t th e re is n o in c rim in a tio n to f o rg e t. In sh o rt, w hi l e i t m ay n otal w ay s be s i m pl e fort he mem ber s of a j ur yt o obeyt he i nst ruct i on t hat theydis regar d an i ncri m i nati ng i nference, there do es not exi st t he overw hel m i ng pr obabi l i t yof t hei r i nabi l i t y t o do s o t hati s t he founda t i on of B rut on’ s exce pt i on t o t he gene r al rul e. I d. T he C our t , how ever , w as car eful t o expr es s “no opi ni on on t he admi s s ibi l i t yof a confe s s i on i n w hi ch the de fenda nt ’ s name has been r epl ace d w i t h a s y m bol orneut r al p ro n o u n .” Id . a t 2 1 1 n .5
. O ur cour t nevert hel es s s oon der i ved fr om R i char ds on’ s r eas oni ng t he conc l us i on t hat “a r edacted st at em ent i n w hich t he nam es of co -defend ants are r eplaced byneu t ral prono un s,
w ith n o ind icati o n to the jurythat the o ri g inal stat em en t con tai n ed ac tual n am es, an d w h ere t he s t at ement s t andi ng al one does not o therw i s e conne ctco- defe ndant s t o t he cr i m es , m ayO urT ut i no l i ne of pr ece dent s s houl d notbe under s t ood t o hol d t hatB rut on conce r ns 5 c a n i n v a r i a b l yb e r e s o l v e d b yt h e s u b s t i tu t i o n o f n e u t r a l p r o n o u n s f

o rr e d a c t e d n a me s . As w e have obs er ved, “the l i ne betw een t es t i m onyt hat fa ll s w i t hi n B rut on’ s s cope a nd t hat w hi ch doe s n o ti s o f

t e n d i f f i c u l tt o d i s c e r n . ” Uni t e d St a t e s v . Lu n g Fo n g Che n , 3 9 3 F. 3d 139, 149 ( 2d C i r . 2004)
. T he cr i t i cal i nqui r y i s al w ay s w hetheri nt r oduct i on of a c onfes s i on ata j oi ntt r i al pr es ent s an “ove r w hel m i ng pr obabi l i t y ” thatt he j ur yw i l l notbe abl e t o fol l ow a n in stru c tio n lim iti n g c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e c o n f

e ss io n to th e d e c lar a n t d e f e n d a n t. R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208. I n ci r cumst ance s w her e a c our tconcl udes t h atno r edac t i on can ove r come t hi s pr obabi l i t y , onl yt w o opt i ons ar e av ai l abl e: s ever ance or e x c lu s io n o f

th e c o n f e s s io n a t a jo in t tr ia l. W her e r edac t i on i s em p l oy ed t o avoi d B rut on conce r ns , how ever , w e ur ge di s t r i ct cour t s , w her everpos s i bl e, t o el i m i nat e compl et el yfr om a conf es s i on anym ent i on of a nondecl ar antdefe ndant ’ s exi s t ence , as i n R i char ds on v. M ar s h. See i d. at211; U ni t ed St at es v. C a stro , 8 1 3 F .2 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 6 -7 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (o b se rv in g th a t w h ile re d a c tio n s th a t co m p lete ly e lim in a te a n ym e n tio n o f co- d e f e n d a n t u n d o u b ted lyc h a n g e m e a n in g o f sta tem e n t so m e w h a t, t heyare perm i ssi ble a s lo ng as “[t ]he gi stof [ the d ecl arantdefe nd ant’ s] st at em ent [i s] pr es ent ed w i t houtundul ypr ej udi ci ng ei t hert he r i ghtof [the co- defe ndant ] t o avoi d bei ng i m pl i cat ed bya [de cl ar ant ] defe ndant ’ s out - of- cour ts t at ement , ort he r i ght of [t he dec l ar ant defe ndant ] t o have hi s conductand s t at ement pr es ent ed i n cont ext ”). N eu tr al pr onoun s ubs t i tut i on s houl d be empl oy ed onl yw hen compl et e r edac t i on w oul d di s t or tt he conf es s i on, forexampl e, by“exc l ud[i ng] s ubs t ant i al l yexcul pat or yi nfor m at i on, orchang[ i ng] t he t enor -16- be admi t t ed w i t houtvi ol at i ng a co- defe ndant ’ s B rut on r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 3 5 ( 2d C i r . 1989) ( appr ovi ng s ubs t i tut i on of neutr al w or ds “other s , ” “other peopl e, ” and “ anotherper s on” fornames of c o- defe ndant s i n confe s s i on of non- t es t i fy i ng defe ndant )
. Si nce Tut i no, w e have r ei t er at ed thi s hol di ng m anyt i m es . See U ni t ed St at es v. Yo u s e f , 3 2 7 F
. 3 d 5 6 , 1 4 9 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( u p h o l d i n g r e d a c t i o n o f c o - d e f e n d a n t ’ s n a me t o “ my nei ghbor ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K y l es , 40 F. 3d 519, 526 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( uphol di ng r edac t i on of
co- defe ndant ’ s name t o “he” ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 936 F. 2d 698, 701 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( uphol di n g red ac t i on of co- defe ndant ’ s name t o “thi s guy ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B eni t ez, 920 F
. 2 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 7 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ) (up h o lding red ac ti o n o f c o -de fe n d an t’ s n am e to “ frien d ”). 5of t he ut t e r a n c e a s a who l e . ” Uni t e d St a t e s v . You s e f , 3 2 7 F. 3 d a t1 5 0 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. A l var ado, 882 F. 2d 645, 651 ( 2d C i r . 1989) ( not i ng t hat l i mi t s o n r e d a c t i o n t h a t p o t e n t i a l l y c h a n g e s t a t e me n t ’ s me a n i n g s t e m f r o m “ r ul e of c o m p le te n e s s ” ). In th is case , co m p lete re d ac ti o n w o u ld h av e c h an g ed the s u b stan ce o f L eigh t’ s co n fe ssion b ec au se ac k n o w ledg m en t o f a c o n fe d era te w as c ri ti ca l t o p rov ing that L eigh t’ s adm i ssi on w as t o co nspir at ori al , as w el l as subst anti ve, sexual abuse – bo t h ch arged cri m es. In such cir cum st ances, w here com plet e redact i on rai ses com plet eness or fai rness con cerns, w e expe ctt hatdi s t r i ctcour t s w i l l empl oyneutr al w or d s ubs t i tut i on car eful l yand onl yt o t he ext entnece s s aryt o addr es s t hes e conce r ns . M or eover , w e expe ctcour t s t o ens ur e that , i n t he end, there is n o overw hel m i ng pr obabi l i t yt hatt he j ur yw i l l be unabl e t o fol l ow a l i m i t i ng in stru c tio n to c o n sid e r th e c o n f e ss io n o n ly a s a g a in st th e d e c lar a n t d e f e n d a n t a n d n o t at a ll a g a in s t c o -d e f

e n d a n ts . -17- b. G r ay v. Mar

yland I n 1998, t he Supr eme C our tdeci ded G r ayv. M ary l and, i n w hi ch i tcons i der ed w hether B ru to n ’s p ro tec tiv e ru le a p p lied to th e a d m iss io n a t a jo in t tria l o f a re d a c ted c o n f e ss io n in
w h ich th e n o n -de claran t def en d an t’ s n am e w as re p lace d w ith “a b la n k s p a c e o r t h e w o rd ‘d e lete d .’” 5 2 3 U .S . at 1 8 8 . C o n c lu d in g th a t s u c h a c lu m syre d a c tio n w a s in a d e q u a te to
a v o id B ru to n ’s C o n f

ro n tatio n C lau se c o n c e rn , the C o u rt e x p lain e d : “ R e d a c tio n s tha t sim p ly
re p lac e a n a m e w ith
. . . o b v io u s in d ica tio n s o f a lte r a ti o n . . . lea v e sta tem e n ts th a t,
c o n s i d e r e d a s a c l a s s , s o c l o s e l yr e s e mb l e Bru t o n ’ s u n r e d a c t e d s t a t e me n t s t h a t , i n o u rv i e w, the law m u st r eq u ir e the sam e re su lt
. ” Id
. at 19 2
. In d ist ing u ishing su ch u n sati sfa ctory
r edac t i ons fr om t he t ype appr oved i n R i char ds on, t he Supr eme Court di d notdr aw a br i ght lin e b e tw e e n re d a c tio n s th a t e lim in a ted a n yre f e re n c e to a c o -d e f

e n d a n t’s e x iste n c e , as in R ich a rd so n , an d th o se th a t d id n o t. R a th e r, itf o c u se d o n th e in f

e re n c e (o r “ lin k ” ) th a t w o u ld be nec es s aryfort he j ur yt o connec tt he r edac t ed s t at ement t o t he co- defe ndan t. See i d. at-18-

1 9 5 -9 6 . T h e C o u rt o b se rv e d th a t R i char ds on’ s i nfer ence s i nvol ved st at ement s t hat di d notr efe rdi r ect l yt o t he d e f e n d a n t h im se lf

a n d w h ich b e c a m e in c rim in a tin g o n lyw h e n lin k e d w ith e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d l a t e ra tt r i a l
. T h e i n f e r e n c e s a ti s s u e h e r e [ i n G r a y] i nvol ve s t at ement s t hat , des pi t e r edac t i on, obvi ous l y r efe r di r ect l yt o s om eone, o fte n o b v io u slythe d ef en d an t, an d w h ich in v o lve in fe ren ce s tha t a j u ry ordi nari l ycou l d m ake im m ed iate ly , even w ere the co nfessi on the v eryfi rs t item in tro d u c e d a t trial. Id . a t 1 9 6 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). W hi l e thus concl udi ng t hatr epl aci ng a def endant ’ s name w i t h an obvi ous bl ank or “del et ed” r efe r ence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o avoi d B rut on err or , t he Supr eme C our ti ndi cat ed t hat
s ubs t i tut i ng neutr al w or ds m ightw el l pas s cons t i tut i onal m us t er . D i s cus s i ng t he
uns at i s fac t or y r edac t i on of a s t at ement t hat named na m es t o “M e, del et ed, del et ed, and a f ew ot herguy s , ” t he C our tas ked, “W hycoul d t he w i t nes s not , i ns t ead, have s ai d:
. . . . ‘ M e and
a f e w o th e r g u y s .’” Id
.

2
. L e ig h t’s R e d a c ted C o n f e ss io n D id N o t V io late Ja ss ’s R ig h t to C onfr ont at i on R ely ing on G r ay , J as s cont ends t hats ubs t i tut i on of neutr al pr onouns ort he t erm “anotherper s on” forherow n n am e at v ari ous poi nt s i n L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on “w as onl yt he
m os tt echni cal r edac t i on and w as ut t er l yi ns uffi ci ent. . . t o el i m i nat e t he s t at ement ’ s obvi ous incrim ination o f [ Jass ], ” or t o av o id a C o n fro n tat ion C laus e v iolati o n . A p p ell an t Jass’s B r. at45. J as s ar gues t hatourpr e- G r aycas e l aw uphol di ng t he subs t i tut i on of neutr al w or ds for a def endant ’ s name i n s uch conf es s i ons cannots ave the red act i on ati s s ue bec aus e G r ay-19-

e f f e c tiv e lyo v e rru led th a t p re c e d e n t a n d e sta b lish e d th a t “ a n y re d a c tio n th a t r e f e rs d ire c tly t o t he i nvol vement of one otherper s on, w her e ther e i s one other defe ndanton t r i al , vi ol at es B ru to n .” Id . a t 4 6 -4 7 . W e a re n o t p e rs u a d e d
.

a. G r ay D i d N otO verrul e Thi s C ir cu it ’ s C as el aw R egar di ng N eutr al W or d Subst i tut i on as a M ea n s T o A voi d B r ut on C oncerns (1) G r ay D i d N ot G ener a l l yO ve r rul e t hi s Ci r c ui t ’ s Ca se L aw I n U ni t ed St at es v. Sani n, 252 F. 3d 79 ( 2d C ir
. 2001) , t hi s cour tcons i der ed and
r ej ect ed the ar gum entt hatG r aygener al l yoverrul ed our T ut i no l i ne of pr ece dent s . See i d. at 84 ( obs er vi ng t hat G r ay “di d not overrul e pri or deci s i ons or al t er doctr i nes empl oy ed by t his C i rcui t ”). A s Jass recog nizes , t his pan el i s b ou nd by pri or d eci si on s of t his cou rtun l ess
a n d u n til th e p re c e d e n ts e sta b lish e d th e re in a re re v e rse d e n b a n c o r b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt. See U n it ed S t at es v. Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 232 n. 3 ( 2d C i r . 2008)
. T her e has been no s uch
ac ti o n to pro m p t rec o n side rati o n o f ou r h o lding in Sa n in th at “[ i] n G ray , the S u p rem e C o u rt appl i ed the rul es announce d i n B rut on and R i char ds on” but “di d not . . . br eak ne w gr ound
ori m pos e a ne w obl i gat i on on t he S tat es or Fede r al G overnm ent . ” I d. at84 ( i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). I ndeed, Sani n not ed thatour p re-G r aypr ece dent s t r acke d t he s ame l i ne betw een
s uffi ci entand i ns uffi ci entr edac t i ons t hatt he Supr eme Court ul t i m at el y dr ew i n G r ay . See id. at8 4 -85
. S p ec ifi ca ll y , in U n it ed S tat es v . D an ze y , 5 9 4 F
. 2 d 9 0 5 (2d C ir
. 1 9 7 9 ), this co u rt-20-

hel d t hatt he su b sti tuti o n of t he w or d “B l ank” f ora def endant ’ s name i n a dec l ar antcod e f e n d a n t’s c o n f

e ss io n p re se n ted B ru to n c o n c e rn s b e c a u se th e ter m “ B lan k ” “ m a d e it
cert ai n” thatt he j ur yknew t hatt he r edac t ed name w as t hatof t h e d ef endant
. I d. at918 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h u s, D an ze yan ti cipa ted b yalm o st tw o d ec ad es G ray ’s hol di ng t hatr edac t ed conf es s i ons “that s i m pl y r epl ace a nam e w i t h .
. . obvi ous i ndi cat i ons
o f alt erat i on” fa l l w i t hi n B rut on beca us e they“r efe r [] di r ect l yt o t he ‘ exi s t ence ’ of t he
no nco nf e s s i ng de fe nd a nt . ” G r a yv. M a r y l a nd , 52 3 U. S. a t19 2 ( e mpha s i s a dd e d) ; s e e a l so U n ited S tate s v . A lv a ra d o , 8 8 2 F .2 d 6 4 5 , 6 5 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ) (n o tin g th a t D a n z e y“ is c lea rly d istin g u ish a b le” f

ro m R ich a rd so n b e c a u se re d a c tio n in D a n z e y “ a llo w e d th e ju ryto ‘f ill in th e b la n k ’ w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s n a m e ” ). T hen, i n 1989, w e i ndi cat ed i n T ut i no t hat a B rut on chal l enge t o a r edac t ed conf es s i on
w as pr oper l yanal y zed byr efe r ence t o t w o ques t i ons : ( 1) di d t he r edac t ed s t at ement gi ve any “i ndi cat i on t o t he j ur y t hat t he ori gi nal s t at ement cont ai ned actual names, ” and ( 2) di d “t he
s t at ement s t andi ng al one . . . ot herw i s e conne ctco- defe ndant s t o t he cr i m es . ” U ni t ed St at es
v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d at1135. Si m i l ari nqui r i es – w hethera r edac t i on “not i f[i es ] t he j ur yt hat a name has been d elet ed” a nd t he type of i nfer ence a j ur yw oul d have t o m ake t o l i nk a defe ndant t o t he r edac t i on – ani m at e G r ay ’ s anal y s i s of w hatr edac t i ons ar e s uffi ci entt o t ake
a co n f e s s i o n o u t s i d e Br u t o n ’ s p r o t e c t i v e ru l e . Gr a y v . M a r y l a n d , 5 2 3 U. S. a t195- 96. M o re o v e r, G ra ysu g g e ste d th a t a c a re f u llyc ra f ted n e u tra l w o rd su b stitu tio n c o u ld y ield
answ ers t o these i nq uir i es t hat dem on strat ed a sat i sfact oryavo i dan ce of B rut on con cerns.-21-

S e e id . a t 1 9 6 (s u g g e s tin g s u b s titu tio n o f “ a f e w o th e r g u y s ” f

o r d e f e n d a n ts ’ n a m e s ). A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectanys ugges t i on t hatG r ay g en era ll yo v erru led th is co u rt’s T u tin o lin e o f

p re c e d e n ts . ( 2) G r ay D i d N otO verrul e thi s C i r cui t ’ s C as el aw

Speci fi cal l yi n C as es I nvol vi ng C onfes s i ons I m pl i cat i ng a Si ngl e A ccompl i ce J as s nevert hel es s i ns i s t s t hatG r ayv. M ary l an d p recl udes cont i nued r el i ance on our T ut i no l i ne of pr ecedent s i n cas es s uch as t hi s one w her e a c onfes s i on, even a s r edac t ed, i m pl i cat es o n lyone per s on ot hert han the dec l ar ant , and onl yt he dec l ar antand one other per s on ar e on tr i al
. T hi s , s he s ubm i t s , i s a ci r cumst ance nots peci fi cal l ycons i der ed i n Sani n. W e are not per suaded t o read G rayas Jas s urges. F ir st, as w e h av e a lr ea d yn o ted, G ray d id no t inv o lve t h e sub sti tuti o n o f a n eu tr al w o rd f o r a d e f e n d a n t’s n a m e in a w a yth a t re se m b led a sta tem e n t th a t a d e c lar a n t m ig h t ac tu a lly have made i f he ha d been tr y i ng t o avoi d s peci fi cal l y i dent i fy i ng a confe der at e. R ather , G r ay in v o lv e d su b stitu tio n o f th e w o rd “ d e lete d ” f o r ac tu a l n a m e s, a d e v ice th a t w a s m o re lik e ly t o emphasi ze than t o conce al t he fa ctt hatt he decl ar ant had spec i fi cal l y i ncul pat ed s om eone. S e e id . a t 1 9 3 -9 4 (c itin g M a lin s k i v . N e w Y o r k , 3 2 4 U .S . 4 0 1 , 4 3 0 (1 9 4 5 ) ( R u tle d g e , J ., di s s ent i ng) forpr opos i t i on t hats ubs t i tut i on of “X ” or“Y ” fornames i n confe s s i on and si m i l ar r edacti on s ar e “dev i ces . . . so ob vious a s p erhaps t o em ph asi ze t he ident i t yof those t heypurpor t ed t o conce al ”)
. Second, t o t he ext entR i char ds on v. M ar s h “pl ace d out s i de the
s c o p e o f B ru t o n ’ s ru l e t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s t h a ti n c r i m i n a t e i n f e r e n t i a l l y” r a t h e rt h a n d i r e c t l y,T hes e ci r cumst ance s al s o di s t i ngui s h t hi s cas e fr om U ni t ed St at es v. Pet er s on, 140 6 F. 3d 819 ( 9t h C i r . 1998) , ci t ed by J as s t o s uppor therar gum entthatG r ayeff ect i vel yr ever s es ourT ut i no l i ne of pr ece dent s. In Pet er s on, t he N i nt h C i r cui tobs er ved that“G r aycl ar i fi es t hatt he s ubs t i tut i on of a ne ut r al pr onoun . . . i n pl ace of t he def en d an t’ s nam e i s not p e rm iss ib le if

it i s o b v io u s tha t a n a ltera tio n h a s o c c u rre d to p ro tec t th e id e n tityo f a sp e c if ic -22- G ra y c lar if

ied th a t it w a s “ th e k in d o f , n o t th e sim p le f

a c t o f , inf e re n c e ,” th a t w a s s ig n if

ica n t. I d. at195- 96 ( emphasi s om i t t ed)
. I tw as beca us e the conf es s i on i n G r ay , even a ft er
re d a c tio n , “o b v io u slyre f e r[ re d ] d ire c tlyto so m e o n e , o f ten o b v io u sly th e d e f

e n d a n t,” th a t a j ur ycoul d “i m m edi at el y ” i nfert hat t he decl ar ant defe ndant had, i n fac t , i ncul pat ed t he codefe ndant , “even w er e the conf es s i on t he veryfi r s ti t em i nt r oduced a tt r i al
. ” I d. at196 (o b se rv in g th a t “r e d a c ted c o n f e s sio n w ith th e b lan k p ro m in e n t o n its f a c e . . . ‘f

a c ially in c rim in a t[ e s]’ th e c o d e f e n d a n t” ( q u o tin g R ich a rd so n v . M a rsh , 4 8 1 U .S
. a t 2 0 9 ) (e m p h a sis
a n d a lte ra tio n in G ra y ))
. A l t hough J as s ar gues t hat a j ur y w oul d “i m m edi at el y ” i nfer her gui l tfr om t he fa ctt hat L ei ght ’ s r edac t ed conf

es s i on al l uded t o onl y a s i ngl e, pr es um abl y femal e, confe der at e i n t he abu se of V i c t i m 2, a nd t ha ton l ys he a nd Lei gh tw e r e on t r i a l fo rt hi s a bu s e , t hese ci r cumst ance s ar e not anal ogous t o G r ay and do nots uppor tt he ar gum entt hatG r aypr ecl udes appl i cat i on of ourT ut i no l i ne of pr ece dent s t o J as s ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cha l l enge. T he
r edac t i on of J as s ’ s name f r om L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on and the s ubs t i tut i on of neutr al w or ds s uch
as “another per s on” effec t i vel y conce al ed fr om t he j ur y t he fact t hat L ei ght had “r efe r [r ed] di r ect l yt o s om eone” and thatt he i dent i fi ed per s on w as “obvi ous l y t he def endant
. ” G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U
. S. at196. 6p e rso n .” Id . at 8 2 2 . A s th e q u a lify in g c lau se in d ic a te s, P e ter so n d id n o t co n stru e G ra yto

h o ld – c o n tra ryto o u r p re c e d e n ts – th a t n e u tra l-w o rd su b stitu tio n w a s n e c e ss a rilyin a d e q u a te to e lim in a te B ru to n c o n c e rn s. R a th e r, P e ter so n c o n stru e d G ra yto h o ld th a t a s u b stitu tio n is i nadequa t e i f i tw oul d be appar ent t o t he j ur y t hat al t er at i ons had been m ade t o conce al t he i d e n t i t yo f

a n a me d p e r s o n . At i s s u e i n P e t e r s o n wa s t h e r e p l a c e me n to f a d e f e n d a n t ’ s n a me w ith th e ter m “ p e rso n X ,” a su b stitu tio n th a t, lik e th e w o rd “ d e lete d ” in G ra y , o r “ b lan k ” in D anze y , onl yemphasi zed t o t he j ur yt hatt he or i gi nal confe s s i on had cont ai ned an ac tual name. B eca us e s uch a r edac t i on coul d nots ur vi ve the first ste p of ana l y s i s underU ni t ed St at es v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d at1135, Pet er s on does no t su p p o rt Jas s ’ s ar gum entt hatG r ay e f f e c tiv e ly re v e rs e s th a t p re c e d e n t. -23- F rom B rut on t o Ri c ha r ds on t o Gr a y , t he Sup r e me Cour t ’ s Conf r on t a t i on Clause
conce r n has been w i t h j ur i es l earni ng t hat a decl ar ant defe ndant s peci fi cal l y i dent i fi ed a codefe ndantas an ac compl i ce i n t he cha r ged cri m e. U nder l y i ng t hi s conce r n i s t he pr act i cal
rec o g n it ion that “[ s]pe cific t esti m o n y ” ide n ti fy ing the n o n -de claran t co-d ef en d an t i s “m o re vi vi d t han i nfer ent i al i ncr i m i nat i on, ” and, as s uch, nece s s ar i l y “more di ffi cul tt o t hrus tout of m ind
. ” R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208; s ee G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U
. S. at196. O nce a j ur yl earns of a defe ndant ’ s s peci fi c i dent i fi cat i on – w hether t hr ough i nt r oduct i on of
an u nredacted con fessi on , see B rut on v. U nit ed Stat es, 39 1 U
. S
. at 12 4, or t hroug h a cl um sy
r edac t i on t hateff

ect i vel yr evea l s t he fa ct , s ee G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U
. S. at 193 – t he l aw
can no l onger j us t i fi abl y r el y on t he pr es um pt i on t hat j ur i es w i l l fol l ow a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on barr i ng us e of the conf

es s i on agai ns tt he i dent i fi ed non- decl ar ant co- defe ndant
. See B rut on
v. U ni t ed St at es , 391 U
. S. at135 ( not i ng gr eatr i sk thatj ur y“w i l l not , orcannot ” fol l ow lim itin g in s tr u c tio n in s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s ). B utas t he Supr eme C our temphasi zed i n R ic har ds on, B rut on’ s exce pt i on t o t he-24-

gener al rul e thatj ur i es w i l l fol l ow i ns t ruct i ons , i ncl udi ng i n s tru c t i o n s t o cons i derconfe s s i ons onl yas agai ns tt he dec l ar antdefe ndant , i s “narr ow . ” R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at207. “[T] he f o u n d a t i o n o f

Br u t o n ’ s e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l ru l e ” t h a tj u r i e s f o l l o w l i mi t i ng i ns t ruct i ons i s “the overw hel m i ng pr obabi l i t y of t hei r i nabi l i t y t o do s o” once t heyl earn t hat t he def end ant decl ar ant ’ s confe s s i on “‘ expr es s l yi m pl i cat [ed] ’ ” a c o- defe ndantas an
acc om pl i ce. I d. at208 ( emphasi s added a nd al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng B rut on v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 3 9 1 U. S
. a t1 2 4 n . 1 )
. W h e r e a r e d a c t i o n a n d s u b s t i tu t i o n a d e q u a t e l yc o n c e a l f r o m a j u r y a d e c l a r a n t d e f

e n d a n t ’ s s p e c i f

i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f

a c o n f e d e r a t e , h o we v e r , t h e S u p r e me C our t has concl uded t hat “i t i s a l es s val i d gener al i zat i on t hatt he j ur yw i l l notl i kel yobeyt he i ns t ruc ti o n to di s r egar d” the conf es s i on i n i t s cons i der at i on of t he gui l tof a non- decl ar ant d e f e n d a n t. I d
. T h u s, w h a t B ru to n a n d its p ro g e n y d e m a n d is a re d a c tio n a n d su b stitu tio n a d e q u a te t o r emove t he “ove r w hel m i ng pr obabi l i t y ” thata j ur y w i l l notfol l ow a l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on t hatpr ecl udes i t s cons i der at i on of a r edac t ed conf es s i on agai ns ta def

endantot hert han the d e c lar a n t. T h e se c a s e s d o n o t c o n stru e th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se to d e m a n d f u rth e r th a t a confe s s i on be r edac t ed s o as t o per m i t no i ncr i m i nat i ng i nfer ence agai ns tt he non- decl ar ant defe ndant
. T o t he contr ary , the la w as s um es t hateven a r edac t ed s t at ement w i l l pr ej udi ce a def endanti f i t i s cons i der ed agai ns t hi m . A s t he S upr eme C our tobs er ved i n R i char ds on,

“ th e v e ryp re m ise o f

o u r d isc u ss io n [ o f th e C o n f ro n tatio n C lau se ] is th a t re sp o n d e n t w o u ld have be en harm ed by[t he dec l ar antdefe ndant ’ s r edac t ed] conf ess i on i f t he j ur yhad-25-

di s obey ed [the co u rt ’ s l i m i t i ng] i ns t ruct i on[]
. ” I d. at207 n. 3 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. T he
cr i t i cal i nqui r yi s , thu s, n o t w h ethera j ur ym i ghti nferfr om ot herfac t s ( w hetherevi dence ad m itted a t tri al or c ir cu m stan ce s su ch as th e n u m b er o f d ef en d an ts o n tr ial ) t h at a d ec laran t’ s neutr al al l us i on t o a conf eder at e mi ghthave r efe r enced t he def endant
. I ti s w hethert he neutr al al l us i on s uffi ci ent l yconce al s t he fa ctof expl i ci ti dent i fi cat i on t o eli m inat e t he
o v e rw h e lm in g p ro b a b ili tyth a t a ju ryh e a rin g th e c o n f e ss io n a t a jo in t trial w ill n o t b e a b le t o f o l l o w a n a p p r o p r i a t e l i m i t i n g i n s t ru c t i o n . S e e R i c h a r d s o n v . Ma r s h , 4 8 1 U
. S
. a t2 0 8
. We
c o n c lu d e th a t o u r T u tin o lin e o f p re c e d e n ts re m a in s u s e f u l to m a k in g th is d e te rm in a tio n . b
. L e ig h t’s C o n f

e ss io n W a s R e d a c ted in S u c h a W a y a s T o P e rm it a Ju ryt o F oll ow a L i m i t i ng Instruct i on N ot To C on si der th is E vidence A gainstJass H av in g rejec ted J ass’s a rgu m en t th at G rayef fe cti v elyo v erru led th is ci rcu it ’s p rec ed ent s, w e c o n side r w h ethe r t h e p arti cu lar reda cti o n s an d su b sti tuti o n s h ere at i ssu e w ere
s uffi ci entt o avoi d t he cons t i tut i onal err ori dent i fi ed i n B rut on, i
. e. , t hatt he admi s s i on cr eat ed an i nt ol er abl e r i s k t hatt he j ur yw oul d not , orcoul d not, fol l ow an i ns t ruct i on t o cons i der L ei ght ’ s r edac t ed conf

es s i on onl yagai ns t hi m , and notagai ns tJ as s . See B rut on v. U ni t ed St at es , 391 U
. S
. at 135. C ons i s t entw i t h T ut i no’ s tw o- s t ep fr amew or k, now i nfor m ed by G r ay , w e exa m i ne fi r s tw hether L ei ght ’ s r edac t ed conf es s i on “i ndi cat [ed] t o t he j ur yt hatt he
or i gi nal s t at ement cont ai ned actual names, ” U ni t ed St at es v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d at1135, and, second , w hethert he redacted con fessi on , even i f “t he v eryfi rs ti t em i ntr od uced att ri al”
w ou l d “ i mm e di a t e l y ” i ncu l pa t e J a s s i n the c ha r ge d c r i me, s e e G r a yv. M a r y l a nd , 52 3 U. S.-26-

a t 1 9 6 ; U n ited S tate s v . W ill iam s, 9 3 6 F .2 d a t 7 0 0 -0 1 (c o n sid e rin g re d a c ted c o n f e ss io n “ in i s ol at i on fr om t he otherevi dence i nt r oduced a tt r i al ” t o as s es s w hetheri ti ncr i m i nat es defe ndant ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d at1135. O n t he ques t i on of w hethert he redac t ed conf es s i on s i gnal ed t o t he j ur yt hatL ei ght h a d a c tu a llyn a m e d Ja ss in h is s tate m e n t, w e e a silyc o n c lu d e – a n d Ja ss d o e s n o t se rio u sly cont es t– t hat i t di d not . A gent M i l l er ’ s t es t i m ony t hat L ei ght m ent i oned “a not herper s on” pl aus i bl yputt hos e neutr al w or ds i n L ei ght ’ s m out h – e. g. , “M r . L ei ghtt ol d m e t hat he and anotherper s on had t aken [ V i ct i m 2] t o t he R ockaw aym al l i n N ew J er s ey , ” Tri al T r . at223 – and i n no w ays ugges t ed t o t he j ur yt hatL ei ghthad pr ovi ded A gentM i l l erw i t h t he ac tual name of hi s acc om pl i ce. C om par e U ni t ed St at es v. Y ous ef, 327 F. 3d at150 ( obs er vi ng t hat “fa ctof r edac t i on” w as not“obv ious” w her e w or d “nei ghbor ” w as s ubs t i tut ed for defe ndant ’ s name i n r edac t ed s t at ement ) , w i t h G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U
. S. at193 ( not i ng t hat “[t ] o r epl ace t he w or ds ‘ Sam J ones ’ w i t h an obvi ous bl ank w i l l not l i kel y fool any one”) , and U n ited S tate s v . P e ter so n , 1 4 0 F .3 d a t 8 2 2 (f in d in g su b stitu tio n o f

d e f e n d a n t’s n a m e w ith “per s on X ” w as i nadequa t e bec aus e i tw as “obvi ous t hatan al t er at i on has occurr ed t o pr ot ect th e id e n tityo f

a sp e c if ic p e rso n ” ). W h ile w e d o n o t f o re c lo se th e p o ss ib ili tyo f a n e u tra lw o rd su b stitu tio n b e in g so c o n sp icu o u sly a w k w a rd a s to f a il th e f irst ste p o f

T u tin o a n a ly sis
– as , forexampl e, w her e an a dm i s s i on i s m odi fi ed t o s t at e, “W hen I r eal i zed the guar d had pul l ed the al ar m , I tur ned and s ai d t o another per s on, ‘ L ook, ot herper s on, w e have t o getoutW e r el yon the good s ens e of tr i al j udges i n t hi s circu it to r ecogni ze thats uch a 7 s t at ement coul d be r edac t ed t o s t at e more p l aus i bl y , “.
. . I tur ned t o t he guyw i t h m e and s ai d, ‘ L ook, w e have t o getoutof her e. ’ ” -27- o f h e re ,’” – th a t is n o t th is c a se . T h e re d a c tio n s a n d su b stitu tio n s h e re a ttribu ted sta tem e n ts

7 t o L ei ghtt hatm i ghtactual l yhave been sa i d by a per s on admi t t i ng hi s ow n cul pabi l i t yi n t he char ged cons pi r acyw hi l e s hi el di ng t he s peci fi c i dent i t yof hi s confe der at e. See, e. g. , T r i al T r. a t 2 2 5 (“ M r. L e ig h t to ld m e th a t h e to o k p ictu re s o f [ V ictim 2 ] a n d th e o th e r p e rso n in
var i ous s exual pos es . ”) ; i d. ( “M r . L ei ght t ol d m e t hat he and t he ot herper s on and [V i ct i m 2]
w e re a b le to v ie w th e p h o to g ra p h s o n th e d ig ita l c a m e ra .” ). B eca u s e t h e r e d a c t e d s t a t e me n t s n e i t h e r ma n i f e s t e d “ o b v i o u s i n d i c a t i o n s of al t er at i on, ” G r ayv. M ary l and , 523 U
. S. at192, norot herw i s e s i gnal ed t o t he j ur yt hatt he
s t at ement s had or i gi nal l y“cont ai ned a ctual names, ” U ni t ed St at es v. T ut i no, 883 F. 2d at 1135, w e pr ocee d t o t he s econd s t ep of anal y s i s , as ki ng w hether , i n l i ghtof t hes e r edac t i ons and s ubs t i tut i ons , t he i nfer ence t he j ur yw oul d have ha d t o m ake t o co n nectJ as s t o t he
r edac t ed s t at ement w as s uffi ci ent l yat t enuat ed t o pl ace t he s t at ement out s i de B rut on’ s s cope. See G r ayv. M ary l and, 5 2 3 U
. S
. at 1 9 5- 96. I n ur gi ng us t o ans w ert hi s ques t i on i n t he negat i ve, even unde roures t abl i s hed pr ece dent s , J as s r el i es on t he s ame t w o fac t s t hat in f o rm e d h e r a rg u m e n t th a t G ra yo v e rru led th e se p re c e d e n ts. B e c a u se (1 ) o n lytw o a d u lts
w er e i nvol ved i n t he cha r ged cr i m e and onl ytw o adul t s ( J as s and L ei ght ) w er e on tr i al , and ( 2) L ei ght ’ s r efe r ence t o at t empt ed s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h “anotherper s on” cl ear l ys i gnal ed to th e ju ryth a t h is c o n f e d e ra te w a s a w o m a n , Ja ss a ss e rts th a t th e ju ryw o u ld im m e d iate ly-28-

i nfert hats he w as t he otherper s on r efe r ence d i n L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on. W e ar e notper s uaded. W e conc l ude thata j ur yw oul d have ha d to ref er to o the rt r i al evi dence t o l i nk J as s t o t he
r edac t ed s t at ement . See R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208 ( pl aci ng out s i de s cope of B rut o n rul e s t at ement s t hati ncr i m i nat e i nfer ent i al l yonl ybyr efe r ence t o “evi dence in tr o d u c e d la te r a t tr ia l” ); a c c o rd G ra yv . M a ryla n d , 5 2 3 U .S . a t 1 9 6
. In m a k in g th is de ter m in a tio n , w e v iew th e re d a c ted sta tem e n t in iso latio n to e v a lu a te i t s l i kel yi m pacton a j ur y . See R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208- 09; U ni t ed St at es v. Y ous ef, 327 F. 3d at150 ( not i ng t hatB rut on t es tas ks w hether“r edac t ed s t at ement , s t andi ng byi t s el f” i m pl i cat ed def end a n t( e mpha s i s added) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 936 F. 2d at700 ( i ns t ruct i ng t hat “appr opr i at e anal y s i s t o be us ed w hen appl y i ng t he B rut on rul e” i s t o “vi ew t h e r e d a c t e d c o n f

e s s i o n i n i s o l a t i o n f

r o m t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l ” )
. Wh e n we do t hather e, w e conc l ude thati tw oul d nothave be en im m ed iat elyappar entt o a j ur yt hat h e a rd o n lyL e ig h t’s re d a c ted re f e re n c e s t o “ a n o th e r p e rso n ” th a t h e w a s s p e c if ica lly i ncul pat i ng J as s i n t he abus e of V i ct i m 2. T he “otherper s on” coul d have be en any one. T h e f a c t th a t L e ig h t’s c o n f e ss io n re f

e rre d to a ttem p ted in ter c o u r s e w ith h is
c o nfed erat e m i gh t be und ers t oo d t o i den t i fy t he “ot her person” as a w om an. B u t a des cr i pt i on t hatar guabl ynarr ow s t he pos s i bi l i t i es t o half the popul at i on har dl ypoi nt s an
acc us at or yfi ngerdi r ect l y at J as s s o as t o r ai s e B rut on conce r ns . See G r ayv. M ary l and, 523 U
. S. at194 ( obs er vi ng t hat C onfr ont at i on C l aus e conc ern ar i s es w hen r edac t ed s t at ement

“ p o in ts d ire c tlyto th e d e f e n d a n t”) . N o t su rp risin g ly , the n , in U n ited S tate s v . K y les , w e h e ld-29-

t hats ubs t i tut i ng t he mal e pr onoun “he” fora d ef en dant ’ s name di d not“run[] afoul of B rut on. ” 40 F. 3d at526. I n G r ayi t s el f, t he Supr eme C our ts ugges t ed thatt he i dent i fi ed C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e v io la tio n c o u ld h a v e b e e n a v o id e d b ys u b s titu tin g “ a f e w o th e r g u y s ,” a phr as e s ugges t i ng m al e conf eder at es , for t he names of t he def endant s . G r ayv. M ary l and, 52 3 U
. S
. at 19 6. B y con t ras t , G ray exp l ai ned t hat redact i on s “that use short ened fi rs tnam es, ni cknames , [or ] des cr i pt i ons as uni que as t he ‘ r ed- hai r ed, bea rde d , o ne- ey ed man- w i t h- al i m p’ ” w oul d fal l w i t hi n B rut on’ s pr ot ect i on. I d. at195. So t oo w oul d a des cr i pt i on of a d e f e n d a n t a s “ th is w h ite g u y ” w h e n c o u p le d w ith p a rt ic u la rs a s to “ a g e , h e ig h t, an d w e ig h t.” H ar r i n g t o n v . Ca l i f

o r n i a , 3 9 5 U. S. 2 5 0 , 2 5 3 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ; s e e a l s o Uni t e d St a t e s v . Hoo v e r , 246 F
. 3 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 5 9 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tr e p l a c e me n to f d e f e n d a n t s ’ n a me s wi t h t e r ms

“ in c a rc e ra ted lea d e r” a n d “ u n in c a rc e ra ted lea d e r” p ro v id e d ju ry w ith “ a lias e s b a se d o n th e ir
o cc u p ati o n s” t h at “n o m o re co n ce aled their iden ti ti es” than w o u ld “th e su b sti tuti o n o f ‘M ark T w a in ’ f o r ‘S a m u e l C lem e n s’” ). A sim p le g e n d e r re f e re n c e , h o w e v e r, lac k s th e sp e c if icity
nece s s aryt o per m i ta j ur yt o dr aw an i m m edi at e i nfer ence t hatt he def en d an ti s t he per s on id e n tif ie d in th e c o n f

e s s io n . J as s s ubm i t s t hatt he pr es um ed genderr efe r ence i n L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on m us tbe
cons i der ed i n l i ghtof t he f ac t thats he w as t he onl yw om an – i ndeed, t he onl yper s on – on t ri al w i t h L ei gh t . W e rej ectt his argum ent. A s d i scussed abo ve, w e con cl ud e atT uti no ’s fi rs t ste p th a t L e ig h t’s c o n f

e ss io n w a s n o t o b v io u slya lt e re d to o m it th e sp e c if ic id e n tityo f

h is
c o n f e d e ra te. S e e su p ra a t [ 26- 27]
. A tm os t , t her efor e, a juro r m ighthave i nferr ed fr omIn G ray v . M ary land , the C o u rtd iscu ssed a d iffe ren t i n fe ren ce as to the p rose cu ti o n ’s 8 vi ew t hatar i s es w her e a confe s s i on i s r edac t ed us i ng “obvi ous i ndi cat i ons of al t er at i on. ” 523 U
. S. at 1 9 2
. W her e a “ bl ank” i n a r edac t ed conf es s i on i ndi cat ed thatt he dec l ar ant sp ec ifi ca ll yiden ti fied a c o n fe d era te, G rayo b s e rv e d that “a m o re so p h ist icated juro r, wo n d e r i n g i f

t h e b l a n k r e f

e r s t o s o me o n e [ o t h e r t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t ] , mi g h ta l s o wo n d e rh o w, i f i tdi d, t he pr os ecut or coul d ar gue the conf es s i on i s r el i abl e, fort he pr os ecut or , aft eral l , has been a r gui ng t hat[t he def endant ] , nots om eone e l s e, hel ped [the dec l ar ant ] comm i tt he c ri m e .” Id . a t 1 9 3
. Ju rors in Ja ss’s ca se, h o w ev er, c o u ld n o t h av e d raw n a sim il ar inf ere n ce fro m L eigh t’ s re d a c ted c o n f

e ss io n b e c a u se p ro se c u to rs e m p lo y e d n e u tra l su b stitu tio n s th a t p lau sib ly i ndi cat ed onl yt hatL ei ghtacknow l edged ha vi ng a conf eder at e, butt hatdi d nots ugges tt hat h e h a d m a d e a s p e c i f

i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . W h e n a c o n f

e s s i o n i s p r o p e r l y r e d a c t e d i n t h i s w a y, a pr os ecut orm ayar gue t hat t he confe s s i on i s r el i abl e w i t hout t empt i ng a “mor e s ophi s t i cat ed j ur or ” t o m ake a furtheri nfer ence as t o t he r el i abi l i t yof a s peci fi c i dent i fi cat i on m ade i n t he c o n f e s s io n . -30- L ei ght ’ s confe s s i on t hatt he pr os ecut orbel i eved J as s t o be the “other p ers on” thatL ei ght
a c k n o w led g e d in h is c o n f e ss io n , b u t – a s f

a r a s th e ju ryw a s a w a re – d id n o t sp e c if ica lly i dent i fy
. U ndert hes e circu m sta nces , t he ava i l abi l i t yof t hi s i nfer ence di d notj eopar di ze J as s ’ s r i ghtt o confr ont at i on. 8 In su m , b e c a u se th e re d a c tio n in th is c a se c lea re d b o th h u rd les o f o u r T u tin o a n a ly sis
as i nfor m ed byG r ay , w e r ej ectJ as s ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e chal l enge t o t he admi s s i on of L e i g h t ’ s c o n f

e s s i o n a t t h e i r j o i n t t r i a l
. I n r e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , we e mp h a s i z e wh a twe expec ti s obvi ous : a j ur y m ay no m or e us e a defe ndant ’ s confe s s i on agai ns ta non- decl ar ant defe ndanti n conj unct i on w i t h ot herevi dence t han al one. B utt he S upr eme C our thas i dent i fi ed onl yt he l at t ers cena r i o as pr es ent i ng a C onfr ont at i on C l aus e pr obl em t hatcannot be cur ed w i t h an appr opr i at e l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on. See R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208;
see also G rayv . M ary land , 5 2 3 U
. S
. at 1 9 6 ; B ruto n v . U n it ed S tat es, 39 1 U
. S
. at 13 5
. W h ere-31-

a j ur ym us tl ook t o othert r i al evi dence t o l i nk a def endantt o a r edact ed co n fess i on, t he C o n fro n tat ion C laus e “ ca lculu s ch an g es” su ff ici en tl yto rem o v e the stat em en t from B ruto n ’s p ro tec tiv e ru le. R ich a rd so n v . M a rsh , 4 8 1 U .S . at 2 1 1 . T h is is n o t to su g g e st th a t itw ill “al w ay s be s i m pl e” i n s uch ci r cumst ance s “fort he mem ber s of a j ur yt o obey t he i ns t ruct i on t hatt heydi s r egar d an i ncr i m i nat i ng i nfer ence , ” onl yt hati n s uch ci r cumst ance s “ther e does notexi s tt he overw hel m i ng pr obabil it y of t hei ri nabi l i t yt o do s o t hati s t he founda t i on of B rut on’ s exce pt i on t o t he gener al rul e” t hat j ur i es ar e pr es um ed t o fol l ow i ns t ruct i ons . I d. at208. 3. A nyE rr or i n the A dm i ssi on of L ei gh t ’s C on fessi on W as H arm l ess O u r c o n clusi on t hatt he s ubs t i tut i on of neutr al w or ds forJ as s ’ s name i n L ei ght ’s
con fessi on w as adeq uate t o av oid a C on front at i on C l ause viol at i on i s r ei nfo rced i n thi s case byt he otherext ens i ve and pow er ful evi dence of J as s ’ s gui l t . I ndeed, w e det er m i ne thatt he
o th e r e v id e n c e o f Ja ss ’s g u ilt w a s so o v e rw h e lm in g th a t, ev e n if w e h a d id e n tifie d e rro r in t he admi s s i on of Lei ght ’ s r edac t ed conf es s i on , that err orw oul d be harm l es s bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubt
. See Schnebl e v. Fl or i da, 405 U
. S. 427, 428 ( 1972) ( r evi ew i ng B rut on
err orforhar m l es s nes s bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. V i t al e, 459 F. 3d at195; U ni t ed St at es v. K i r s h, 54 F. 3d 1062, 1068 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hat B rut on err or “i s not gr ound forr ever s al
. . . w her e the pr oper l yadmi t t ed evi dence of gui l ti s s o overw hel m i ng, and the pr ej udi ci al eff

ectof t he def

endant ’ s admi s s i on i s s o i ns i gni fi cant by compar i s on, t hat i ti s cl ear bey on d a reasonab l e do ub tt hat the im proper u se o f t he ad m i ssi on w as harm l ess-32-

e rr o r” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))
. T he evi dence agai ns tJ as s i ncl uded th e d etail ed, di r ectt es t i m onyof V i ct i m 2, w ho
r ecount ed how J as s as w el l as L ei ght had sexua l l y abus ed her bot h i n N ew Y or k and on t he O ctob er 2 0 0 4 tr ip to N ew Jerse y . A lth o u g h d ef en d an ts pred ict ab lych all en g ed V ict im 2 ’s
cr edi bi l i t y , J as s her s el f pr ovi ded pow er ful corr obor at i on for t he chi l d’ s acc ountbyadmi t t i ng that sh e a n d L eigh t had take n the y o u n g ster t o the N ew Jerse y h o te l atissue
. M o reo v er,
a ttribu tin g th e o v e r n ig h t h o tel s tay t o a sh o p p in g trip w a s s o p a ten tlyim p lau sib le a s to
s ugges tt hatJ as s ’ s r eal purpo se w as t he cr i m i nal one cha r ged. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R e y e s, 3 0 2 F .3 d 4 8 , 5 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (n o tin g th a t “it is re a so n a b le [ f o r a ju ry ] to in f

e r g u ilty know l edge f

r om [def endant ’ s ] fa l s e exc ul pat or ys t at ement ”)
. I ndeed, t hatconcl us i on w as
r ei nfor ced byJ as s ’ s admi s s i on t hatt he s ei zed thong underw earhad bee n pur chas ed by V i ct i m 2 on t he N ew J er s eyt r i p, byt he pre s ence of t hat underw eari n defe ndant s ’ hom e, and b y the s ei zure t herefrom of sexual dev i ces and videos t hat V i ct i m 2 t est i fi ed w ere u se d to t each h er how t o en gag e i n sexu al act i vit i es w i t h d efen dan t s. F urt her, and by no m eans l east im p o rta n t, V ictim 2 ’s te stim o n yo f se x u a l ab u se b yJa ss a s w e ll as L e ig h t w a s p o w e rf u lly
corr obor at ed byt he t es t i m onyof V i ct i m 1, L ei ght ’ s daught er , w ho r ecount ed y ear s of s exual
a b u se b yb o th d e f

e n d a n ts, d istin c t an d f

a r m o re f

re q u e n t in o c c u r r e n c e , b u t d istu rb in g ly
s i m i l ari n ki nd, t o t hatexper i ence d byV i ct i m 2. I n s um , beca us e ( 1) t he r edac t i on and s ubs t i tut i on i n t hi s cas e ade quat el yconce al ed L e ig h t’ s s p e c if

ic in c u lp a tio n o f

Ja ss f ro m th e ju ry ; an d (2 ) th e ju ryc o u ld n o t im m e d iate ly-33-

have i nferr ed fr om t he r edac t ed conf es s i on al one thatJ as s w as t he “otherper s on” r efe r r ed to b u t, rath e r, n e e d e d to c o n sid e r o th e r tria l ev id e n c e to m a k e th a t li n k , w e d e ter m in e th a t it
w as n o t “ov erw h elm ing [ly ] pro b ab [le]” th at t h e jury w as u n ab le t o fo ll o w the d istri ct co u rt ’s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i on barr i ng cons i der at i on of t he conf essio n agai ns tJ as s . R i char ds on v. M ar s h, 481 U
. S. at208. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ej ectJ as s ’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cha l l enge a s
w i t houtm er i t . I n any event , beca us e t he ot her evi dence of Jas s ’ s gui l tw as overw hel m i ng,
w e con cl ud e t hat an y err or in t he ad m i ssi on of L ei gh t ’s redact ed co nfessi on atdefe nd ants ’ jo in t trial w a s h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. B
. J as s ’ s Sent enci ng C hal l enge Ja ss c h a llen g e s h e r 6 5 -y e a r se n ten c e a s u n re a so n a b le o n v a rio u s g ro u n d s, th e m a jo rity
o f w h ich w e a d d ress in the su m m ary d ispo sit ion issue d tod ay . S ee U n it ed S tat es v . Jass , --- F. A pp’ x - - - . H er e, w e focus onl y on J as s ’ s cl ai m of pr ocedur al err ori n t he appl i cat i on of
a t wo - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tt o h e rGu i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) (2 0 0 3 ). W h ile w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o n d u c t h e re a t issu e d o e s n o t f a ll
w i t hi n t he pl ai n m eani ng of § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) , anyG ui del i nes cal cul at i on err orw as h a rm les s b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t b e c a u se th e d istric t c o u rt e x p re ss lysta ted th a t itw o u ld h av e i m p o sed the sam e be low -G u idelines sen tenc e reg ard less o f t h e e n h a n c e m en t’ s
a p p lic a b ility.-34- 1. St andar d of R evi ew I n t he af

t er m ath of U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , w e rev iew s ent ence s for “r eas onabl enes s , ” 543 U
. S. 220, 262 ( 2005) , “a defe r ent i al s t andar d l i m i t ed t o i dent i fy i ng abus e of di s cr et i on r egar dl es s of w hethera cha l l enged s ent ence i s ‘ i ns i d e, j us tout s i de, or
s i gni fi cant l y out s i de t he G ui del i nes r ange, ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 531 F. 3d 163, 170 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 591 ( 2007) ) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C avera, 55 0 F
. 3d 18 0, 18 9-90 (2d C i r. 20 08 ) (en ban c). O ur review proceed s i n tw o st eps: first , w e m u st be “sa ti sfied that the d istri ct co u rtco m p li ed w ith the S en tenc ing R ef o rm A ct’s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s , ” U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ; and
s econd, i f t he s ent ence i s “procedur al l ys ound, ” w e must“cons i der[i t s ] s ubs t ant i ve
re a so n a b len e ss ” b ye v a lu a tin g “ w h e th e r th e D is tr ic t J u d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in det er m i ni ng t hatt he [18 U
. S. C
. ] § 3553( a) fac t or s s uppor t ed” t he sent ence i m pos ed, G al l v. U n ite d S ta te s , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7 , 6 0 0 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 8 9
. J as s ar gues t hath er sen te nce w as i nfec t ed bypr ocedur al err orbeca us e the di s t r i ct
cour ti ncorr ect l y ca lculat ed herG ui del i nes r ange t o i ncl ude the tw o- l evel enhanc ement pr ovi ded i n § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i ) for “the us e of a comput er . . . t o . . . s o li cit p ar t i ci pat i on
w i t h a mi nori n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct
. ” See G al l v. U ni t ed S tat es, 128 S. C t . at597 ( r ecogni zi ng “fa i l i ng t o cal cul ate ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) t he G ui del i nes r ange” as pr ocedur al err ort hatcan r ender s ent ence unr eas onabl e) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at190. W hen confr ont ed w i t h a chal l enge t o a sent enci ng court ’ s appl i cat i on of a par t i cul arW e h a v e lo c a ted n o p u b lish e d o p in io n b yo u r sis ter c irc u its in ter p re tin g th is 9 p ro v isio n . W h ile th e T e n th a n d S ix th C ir c u it C o u rts o f A p p e a ls h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto co n stru e p ri o r ve rsi o n s o f th is secti o n in U n it ed S tat es v . R ea v es, 25 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 0 1 (10 th C ir
. 2001) , and U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 237 F. 3d 625 ( 6t h C i r . 2 0 0 1) , i tappea r s no cour tof appea l s has cons i der ed the scope of § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) s i nce i t w as amended i n N ovember 2000. I n 200 4 , § 2 G 2. 1 w as amended t o m ove s ubs ect i on ( b) ( 3) t o t he new l ycr eat ed 10 su b se c tio n (b )(6 ). T h e w o rd in g o f § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 ) w a s c h a n g e d slig h tlyto su b stitu te “i nter act i ve co m pu t er s ervi ce” fo r “I nternet- access device, ” so t hat i tno w reads: I f, fort he purpos e of pr oduci ng s exual l y expl i ci t m at er i al , t he offe ns e i nvol ved

. . . (B ) th e u se o f

a c o m p u ter o r a n in ter a c tiv e c o m p u ter se rv ice to (i) per s uade, i nduce, ent i ce, coer ce, orfac i l i t at e the tr avel of, a mi nort o engage in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t, or to o th e rw ise so licit p a rticip a tio n b ya m in o r in -35- gui del i ne, we r e v i e w t h e c o u rt ’ s “ i nt erpr et at i on of t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes de novo, ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S ero, 52 0 F
. 3d 18 7, 18 9 (2d C i r. 20 08 ), and w e “accep t i t s fi nd i ng s of factun l ess t hey ar e cl ear l y err oneous , ” U ni t ed St at es v. G uang, 511 F. 3d 110, 122 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ; s ee U n ite d S ta te s v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 1 9 0
.

2
. T h e A p p lica b ili tyo f § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) T h e c o n s t ru c t i o n o f § 2 G2. 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B) ( i i ) i s a q u e s t i o n o f f i r s t i mpr e s s i o n f

or our
cour t . I n t he 2003 ver s i on of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes appl i cabl e t o J as s ’ s s ent ence , t hat

9
s ect i on s t at ed: I f, fort he purpos e of pr oduci ng s exual l yexpl i ci tm at er i al , t he off ens e i nvol ved

. . . ( B ) t he us e of a comput eroran I nt ernet -ac ce ss d evi ce t o ( i ) per s uade, in d u c e , en tice , co e rc e , o r f a c ili tate th e tra v e l o f

, a m in o r to e n g a g e in se x u a lly expl i ci t co n d uct , ort o ot herw i s e s ol i ci tpar t i ci pat i on bya mi nori n s uch c o n d u c t; o r (ii) so licit p a rticip a tio n w ith a m in o r in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t, in c re a s e b y2 le v e ls
. U
. S. S. G
. § 2 G2. 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( 2 0 0 3 )
. Be f o r e r e s o l v i n g J a s s ’ s p a r t i c u l a r l e g a l c h a l l e n g e t o t he 10su c h c o n d u c t; o r (ii) so licit p a rticip a tio n w ith a m in o r in se x u a ll y ex p licit

con du ct , i ncrease by2 level s. U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 6) ( 2008)
. N o cha n g e w as m ade t o t he s ubs ect i on ( i i ) s ol i ci t at i on pr ovi s i on. -36- appl i cat i on of t hi s gui del i ne t o her cas e, w e expl ai n w hy w e cons i dera r el at ed i s s ue w ai ved.

a. J as s W ai ved A nyFactual C hal l enge t o H erK now l edge of L ei ght ’ s U s e of Com put erI m ages T o G room V i ct i m 2 for S e x u a l A c tiv iti e s w ith D e f e n d a n ts T h e f ac tual b asis fo r t h e dist ri ct co u rt ’s ap p li ca ti o n o f § 2G 2
. 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i i) to Ja ss’s G ui del i nes cal cul at i on w as L ei ght ’ s us e of a comput er , w i t h J as s ’ s know l edge, t o s how V ictim 2 p o rn o g ra p h ic v id e o s o f a d u lts e n g a g in g in se x u a l ac ts w it h c h il d re n in o rd e r to
co n v ince h er th at su ch ac ti v ity w as no rm al. A lth o u g h Jass co n tend s o n ap p ea l th at t h e c o u rt clea rl yerred w h en it f o u n d , c o n sist en t w ith the P S R , that sh e w as a w are o f L eigh t’ s
c o m p u ter u se f

o r th is pu rp o se , sh e ra ise d n o su c h o b jec tio n b e lo w . W h e n a “ d e f e n d a n t f a ils t o chal l enge fac tual m at t er s cont ai ned i n t he pr es ent ence r epor tatt he t i m e of s ent enci ng, t he defe ndantw ai ves t he ri ght t o cont es t t hem on appea l
. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R i zzo, 349 F. 3d 94, 99 (2d C i r. 20 03 ); see U nit ed Stat es v. E berhard, 52 5 F. 3d 17 5, 17 9 ( 2d C i r. 20 08 ); see al so Fed. R
. C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 3) ( A ) ( “A ts ent enci ng, t he court . . . m ayacc eptanyundi s put ed p o rt ion o f th e p rese n tenc e re p o rt a s a f in d ing o f f

ac t. ”). T h u s, w e c o n clud e tha t Jass’s chall eng e t o the di stri ctcou rt ’s fact ual fi nd i ng abo ut herkn ow l edg e of L ei gh t ’s com pu t er use i s w ai ved, and w e pr ocee d t o cons i derw hethert he comput erus e fa l l s w i t hi n t he s cope of § 2 G 2
. 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i i)
.A t f irst g lan c e , itm ig h t ap p e a r th a t L e ig h t’s c o n d u c t f a lls w ith in 11 § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) , beca us e Lei ght u sed a co m put ert o “per s uade, i nduce, [and] ent i ce” V i ct i m 2 “t o engage i n s exual l y expl i ci tconduct
. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) ( 2003)
. T he app l i cat i on no t es t o thi s subsect i on , ho w ever, cl earl y i nd i cat e t hat i tapp l i es “onlyt o the use o f a c o m p u ter . . . to c o m m u n ica te d ire c tlyw ith a m in o r,” id . § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(i), a p p . n o te 5, w hi ch the governm entdoes not cont end occur r ed i n t hi s cas e. R el y i ng on t he r efe r ence d a p p lica tio n n o te, th e d istric t c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t L e ig h t’s c o n d u c t d id n o t f a ll w ith in s ubs ect i on ( i )
. See U ni t ed St at es v. Pedr agh, 225 F. 3d 240, 244 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( not i ng t hat appl i cat i on not es ar e “pa r tand par cel ” of the gui del i ne theyi nt erpr et ) ; S ti n so n v. U ni t ed St at es , 508 U
. S. 36, 38 ( 1993) ( not i ng t hat appl i cat i on not es contr ol j udi ci al appl i cat i on of g u id e lin e a t issu e u n les s c o m m e n tar y“ v io late s th e C o n stitu ti o n o r a f e d e ra l sta tu te, o r is i ncons i s t entw i t h, ora pl ai nl yerr oneous r eadi ng of, t hatgui del i ne”)
. A s no par t ychal l enges t hatconcl us i on, w e have no occa s i on t o cons i deri tfur t herand, t hus, fo cu s o n lyon t he d istri ct co u rt ’s reli an ce o n § 2 G 2
. 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i i)
. -37- b. T he C om pu t er U se atIs sue D oes N ot Fal l W ith in § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) Jass d id pr es er ve bef

or e the di s t r i ctcour tt he l egal ar gum entt hatus i ng comput er im a g e s to d e se n sitize a c h ild to se x u a l ac tiv ityw ith a d u lts in o rd e r to p e rsu a d e th a t ch ild to par t i ci pat e i n s uch ac t i vi t ydoes notfal l w i t hi n t he s cope of § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i i )
. Sect i on 11 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) p ro v id e s f o r a tw o -p o in t e n h a n c e m e n t w h e n a c o m p u ter is u se d to “ so licit par t i ci pa t i on w i t h a mi nori n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct
. ” The i m m edi at e i nt erpr et i ve ques t i on
r ai s ed byt hi s lang u ag e i s , “W hos e part i ci pat i on i s bei ng s ol i ci t ed?” To affi r m t he di s t r i ct
cour t , w e w oul d have t o concl ude t hat t he cor r ect ans w er i n t hi s cas e i s “V i ct i m 2. ” B uts uch
a r eadi ng of t he gui del i ne w oul d y i el d t he cur i ous concl us i on t hatdefe ndant s w arr ant ed a tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t in th e ir o f f e n se lev e l b e c a u se L e ig h t u se d a c o m p u ter to “ so licit [ V ictim 2 ’s] p a r ti c ip a tio n w ith [ V ictim 2 ] in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t.” N o t o n lyis th is i nt erpr et at i on i l l ogi cal , i t does not comport w i t h t he usual defi ni t i on of par t i ci pat i on, i
. e. , “[a ]“[A ] m ai n u se of b y ” i s t o “[i] ntr od uce the pri ncipal agen t . ” 2 O xfo rd E ng l i sh 12 D i ct i onary728 ( 2d ed. 1989) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. B ycontr as t , “w i th” i s us ed “[ a] ft er w or ds expr es s i ng t r ans act i on or deal i ng betw een pe r s ons ( w i t h t he per s on as obj [ec t ] )
. ” 20 O x f o rd E n g lis h D ic tio n a ry 4 4 3 (2 d e d . 1 9 8 9 ). -38- takin g p art, a s s o c ia tio n , o r sha ri n g (w ith o thers) in so m e a cti o n o r m att er.” 1 1 O x fo rd E n g lish D ictio n a ry2 6 8 (2 d e d . 1 9 8 9 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W h ile a n in d iv id u a l ca n c e rta in ly actal one, s uch a pe r s on w oul d notgener al l ybe s ai d t o be part i ci pat i ng w i t h hi m s el f i n t he
a c tiv ity a t is s u e . T he governm entdi s agr ees w i t h t hi s r eadi ng of t he gui del i ne and i m pl i ci t l yas ks t hat
w e re a d th e w o rd “ w ith ” a s u se d in th e g u id e lin e to m e a n “ b y ,” s o th a t itw o u ld e x ten d to L ei ght ’ s s ol i ci t at i on of par t i ci pat i on by V i ct i m 2 i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct
. I n cons i der i ng th is a rg u m e n t, “ w e e m p lo yb a sic ru les o f sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n a n d g iv e a ll t e rm s . . . th e ir
or di narym eani ngs unl es s t her e ar e p er s uas i ve r eas ons nott o do s o. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R ober t s , 442 F. 3d 128, 129 ( 2d C i r . 2006)
. W e conc l ude thatt he governm ent ’ s i nt erpr et at i on is no t sup p o rt ed b ythe p lai n lang u ag e o f § 2 G 2
. 1 (b)(3 )(B )(i i)
. W her e the C om m i s s i on w i s hed t o r efe r ence a mi nor ’ s ow n par t i ci pat i on i n par t i cul ar act i vi t y , i texp resslyus ed the w or d “by ” t o conveyt hatm eani ng. For exampl e, t he im m e d iate lyp re c e d in g su b se c tio n c o v e rs a ttem p ts to “ so licit p a rticip a tio n b ya m in o r” in sexuall y exp l i ci t con du ct . U
. S
. S
. G
. § 2 G 2. 1(b)( 3)( B )( i ) ( em ph asi s added ). T hu s, becau se C ongr es s i ndi cat ed tha t it co u l d us e the w or d “by ” w hen i ts o des i r ed, and bec aus e the
or di nary m eani ng of “by ” i s not t he s ame a s “w i t h, ” w e decl i ne t o equat e t hes e pr epos i t i ons 12W hi l e w e r efe rt o t he gui del i ne appl i cabl e att he t i m e of Ja s s ’ s s ent ence , our 13 anal y s i s appl i es w i t h equal for ce t o t he gui del i ne thatpr es ent ly cont ai ns t hi s par t i cul ar enhanc ement : U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 6) ( B ) ( i i ) ( 2008)
. See s upr a not e [ 10]
. W e al s o not e thatdi s t r i ctcour t s are n o t requi r ed t o t r eatt he G ui del i nes , r ender ed advi s or ybyt he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n U nit ed S ta t es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220, as e x h a u s t i v e i n i d e n t i f

y i n g a g gr avat i ng orm i t i gat i ng ci r cumst ance s r el evantt o s ent enci ng. See U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. J ones , 5 3 1 F. 3d at172 ( “The Supre m e C our thas cl ear l ys i gnal ed t hat di s t r i ct cour t s enj oycons i der abl e di s cr et i on i n i dent i fy i ng t he gr ounds t hat ca n j us t i fya non- G ui del i nes s ent ence . ”)
. W e thus do not for ecl os e the pos s i bi l i t yt hatL ei ght ’ s us e of a comput ert o fac i l i t ate defe ndant s ’ abus e of V i ct i m 2 coul d have been c ons i der ed byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s i ndepende ntas s es s m entof t he fa ct or s i dent i fi ed in 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a)
. See gene r al l yU ni t ed St at es v. R eave s , 253 F. 3d at 1205 ( “C ongr es s has found t hatchi l d por nogr aphyi s oft en us ed as par tof a met hod of s educi ng ot herchi l dr en i nt o s exual act i vi t y ; a chi l d w ho i s r el uct antt o engage i n s exual act i vi t yw i t h an adul t. . . can s om eti m es be convi nced byvi ew i ng depi ct i ons of ot her ch il d ren ‘ha v ing fu n ’ pa rt ici p ati n g in su ch ac ti v ity . ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). -39- as t heyappea ri n § 2G 2. 1( b) ( 3) ( B ) ( i ) and ( i i )
. See U ni ver s al C hur ch v. G elt ze r , 463 F. 3d 218, 223 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( not i ng t hatbeca use “C o n g res s knew how t o us e [c er t ai n] w or ds
w h e n [ it] s o d e s ir e d ,” f

a c t th a t th o s e w o rd s h a d n o t b e e n u s e d w a s m e a n in g f u l)
. I ti s m or e natur al t o r ead s ubs ect i on ( i i ) as addr es s i ng a si tuat i on i n w hi ch one pe r s on
so l i c i t s a no t he r pe r s on t o e ng a ge i n s e xu a l a c t i vi t i e s w i t h a mi no r . O t he r w i s e, t he p hrase

“ pa r t i c i pa t i on w i t h” i s r e nd e r e d e ff e c t i ve l ymea ni ng l e s s . Se e D un c a n v . W a l ke r , 53 3 U. S. 167, 174 ( 2001) ( “I ti s ourdut yt o gi ve ef fec t, if p o ssi bl e, t o everycl aus e and w or d of a
s t atut e. ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) ) ; acc or d T abl i e v. G onzal es , 471 F. 3d 60, 64 ( 2d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. Be c a u s e t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e d e mo n s t r a t e s n o s u c h t h i r d
- p a r t ys o l i c i t a t i o n , we
a re o b lig e d to id e n tify p ro c e d u ra l e rro r i n th e d istric t co u rt’s u se o f § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) to cal cul at e J as s ’ s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. 13-40- 3
. H arm less E rror W her e w e i dent i fypr ocedur al err ori n a sent ence , but t he re cor d i ndi cat es cl ear l yt hat “t he di s t r i c t c o u r t wou l d h a v e i mpo s e d t h e s a me s e n t e n c e ” i n a n y e v e n t , t h e e r r o r ma y be deeme d h arm les s , avoi di ng t he nee d t o vaca t e the s ent ence and t o r emand t he ca s e for
r es ent enci ng. U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at 197; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez , 517 F
. 3 d 6 5 1 , 6 6 5 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ); U n it ed S tat es v . V il lafu erte, 5 0 2 F
. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 0 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). T his i s such a case. R ecog nizi ng t hat the ap pli cabil i t yof § 2G 2. 1(b)( 3)(B )(ii) to th is cas e
w as byno m eans cl ear , and i nvi t i ng appel l at e r evi ew and ac t i on on an uns et t l ed ques t i on of l aw , t he di s t r i ct cour t unequi vocal l y s t at ed t hat i t w oul d i m pos e t he s ame 65- y ears ent ence
o n J a s s h o w e v e r “ th e is s u e o f [ t h e § 2 G 2 .1 (b )( 3 )( B )( ii) ] t w o -p o in t e n h a n c e m e n t . . .
u l t i ma t e l ywo r k s o u t[ o n a p p e a l ]
. ” S e n t e n c i n g T r . a t4 4 , 5 6
. Un d e rt h e s e c i r c u ms t a n c e s , we
c a n c o n f id e n tlyc o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s a p p lica tio n o f § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii)
c o n s titu te s h a rm le s s s e n te n c in g e rr o r. I I I . C oncl usi on T o su m m a riz e , w e c o n c lu d e a s f o llo w s: (1 ) G ra yv . M a ry lan d d id n o t o v e rru le – e ith e r g e n e ra llyo r sp e c if ica llya s a p p lied to
cas es i nvol vi ng onl y t w o defe ndant s – t hi s cour t ’ s T ut i no l i ne of pr ece dent s foreval uat i ng C onfr ont at i on C l aus e cha l l enge s t o r edac t ed conf es s i ons admi t t ed i nt o evi dence atj oi nt t ri al s. ( 2) T he admi s s i on i nt o evi dence atdefe ndan ts’ j oi ntt r i al of Lei ght ’ s r edac t ed-41-

c o n f e ss io n su b stitu tin g n e u tr a l w o rd s f o r a ll ref e re n c e s to Ja ss d id n o t v io late Ja ss ’s S ix th A m endment r i ght s underB rut on v. U ni t ed St at es and i t s pr ogeny ; i n anyevent , anyerr orw as h a rm le s s b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. (3 ) B e c a u se U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .1 (b )(3 )(B )(ii) a p p lies to th e u se o f a c o m p u ter to so licit
a th ird p a rty ’s p a rticip a tio n in se x u a l a c tiv iti e s w ith a m in o r, circ u m sta n c e s n o t p re se n t in th is
cas e, t he app l i cat i on of t hi s gui del i ne t o t he ca l cul at i on of J as s ’ s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange
c o n stitu ted p ro c e d u ra l er ro r, b u t th e e rro r w a s h a rm les s b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt c lea rly sta ted th a t itw o u ld h a v e im p o se d th e sa m e se n ten c e in a n ye v e n t. In l i gh tof these con cl usi on s, as w el l as t ho se st at ed in t he rel at ed sum m aryorder, al so i s s ued t oday , t he j udgm ent s of convi ct i on agai ns tdefe ndant s J as s and L eigh t are her eby A F F I R MED .