# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 38 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ted H. Graue r

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 21 , 20 12
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 10 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and JACKS ON, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. *

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a fo ur -d ay tri al

, a jury co nv ic te d Ted H. Grau er of at te m pt ed en ti cem en t

of a m in or to en ga ge in il li ci t se xu al act iv it y in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ), an d

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B). He was

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern *

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.acq ui tt ed on two co un ts of di st rib ut in g ch il d p o r n o g r a p hy. The di st ric t co ur t 1

se nt en ced hi m to 1 5 1 mo n t h s i n pr is on on th e at te m pt ed en ti cem en t co un t an d a

co nc ur ren t 12 0 m on th s on th e ch il d po rn og rap hy po ss es si on co un t. Grau er ap pe al s,

arg ui ng : (1 ) pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t in c r o s s e x am in in g a de fen se ex pe rt an d in

reb ut ta l cl os in g arg um en t th at de pr iv ed hi m of a fai r tri al ; (2 ) in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to co nv ic t hi m of po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy; an d (3 ) pr oc ed ur al se nt en ci ng erro r

in cal cu la ti ng t h e a d v i s or y gu id el in es ran ge fo r th e at te m pt ed en ti cem en t co un t,

na m el y , im

po si ng th e two -le ve l e n h a n c em en t fo r m is rep res en ti ng hi s id en ti ty

au th or iz ed in U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (B)( 2) . W e aff irm.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On Ja nu ary 21

, 20 10

, Dep ut y Sh eri ff Je ss up Sch ro ed er, a m em be r of th e Io wa

I nt ern et Cri m es Aga in st Ch il dr en Task Fo rce, lo gg ed on to th e Yah oo ! M e s s e n g e r
ch at syste m po si ng as Jen ny Joh ns to n, a 1 4- y ear- ol d g irl fro m Cl in to n, Io wa, us in g

th e sc reen na m e li l_

jenn y _g ur l1 3. Grau er, us in g th e sc reen na m e ho rs eran ch er2

,

en te red th e Io wa Ro m an ce ch at ro om an d be ga n ch at ti ng wit h “ Je nn y .” The ir le ng th y
ch at s co nt in ue d un ti l Apr il 9, 20 10

. In th e fir st ch at

, Je nn y to ld Grau er sh e was a 14

-

y ear- ol d fro m Cl in to n. Abo ut an ho ur la te r, in reco un ti ng a rece nt se xu al rel at io ns hi p
wit h a co ll eg e gi rl, Grau er br ag ge d, “ W el l sh e li ke d m e. And I am li ke 49

. Sh e wan ts

m e to co m e ba ck an d se e he r on e of th es e da y s.” Grau er was in fact 58 y ears ol d. He

al so t o l d J e n n y th at hi s la st na m e was Gray

. W he n as ke d ab ou t hi s job

, he in it ia ll y

to l d J e n ny he was a co ns ul ta nt

. He la te r cl ai m ed to be an en gi ne er who de si gn s

“ en erg y st uf

f” to “ sa ve th e eart h.” He al so to ld Je nn y he was m arri ed an d ha d a so n

an d s en t h er s ev eral pi ct ur es of h im se lf.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt W

. Prat t, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e So ut he rn 1

Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-As th e ch at s pr og res se d, th ey be cam e se xu al ly ex pl ic it

. Grau er cl ai m ed to ha ve

se ve ral y ou ng gi rlf

rie nd s: on e who he can on ly se e on ce ever y two week s and “ 2 or

3” ot he rs , in cl ud in g an 18 -y ear- ol d st ud en t at th e Uni ve rs it y of Io wa. On Mar ch 8 an d

Mar ch 25

, Grau er se nt li nk s to im ag es of y ou ng -lo ok in g m al es an d fem al es en ga ge d

in va rio us se xu al act s, in cl ud in g se xu al in te rco ur se

. He freq ue nt ly ch at te d ab ou t

be in g “ in si de ” of Je nn y an d en ga gi ng in or al

, va gi na l, an d an al se x. He al so cl ai m ed

to ha ve sp ok en wit h wom en who ha d se x at Je nn y ’s ag e who to ld hi m th at “ it was a

won de rfu l th in g.” On Apr il 7, two da y s be fo re he tra ve le d to Cl in to n to m eet Je nn y , he cl ai m ed to ha ve sp ok en to a gi rl Je n n y’s a ge in a di ffer en t ch at ro om who was

ha vi ng sex wit h a n o ld er m an th at was “ a won de rfu l t hi ng for he r.”

Dur in g a fiv e-h ou r ch at on Apr il 1, Grau er tra ns m it t e d a web pa ge of “ cu te gi r l s ” he fo un d at jail ba it ga ll ery. co m

. He as ke d Je nn y if th ey co ul d en ga ge in an al

se x aft e r t e l l i n g he r to br in g up im ag es de pi ct in g th at act

. The y ex ch an ge d ph on e

nu m be rs an d agr eed to m eet in Cl in to n on Apr il 9, 20 10

, ne ar th e Mi ss is si pp i Riv er
flo od ga te s. He to ld he r th ey wou ld bi ke al on g t he riv er “ an d fin d so m ep la ce where

we can be al on e,” de sc rib in g a pr og res si on of se xu al act iv it y an d m eet in gs tw o or

th ree ti m es a m on th

. On Apr il 9, Gra u e r d ro ve fro m hi s ho m e in Van Met er to

Cl in to n, sen di ng m es sa ge s alo ng th e way th at were i nt erce pt ed by la w en fo rcem en t

o f fic ers

. W he n he reac he d th e arra ng ed m eet in g pl ace, he se nt a m es sa ge te ll in g

Je nn y to co m e m eet hi m

. The po li ce th en ap pr oa ch ed an d arre st ed hi m , fin di ng in hi s

ve hi cl e a fle ece bl an ke t he ha d pu rch as ed th at m or ni ng

. A warra nt se arch of hi s ho m e

y ie ld ed a la pt op co m

pu te r co nt ai ni ng im ag es an d vi de os th e jury ul ti m at el y fo un d to

be ch il d p or no gr ap hy. Thi s p ro se cu ti on fol lo wed

.

II . The Pro se cuto ri al Mis co nduc t Is su es

A. Cro ss Exa m in at io n of Dr. Ja m es Herri ot

. Grau er’s fir st de fen se wit ne ss at

tri al was Dr. Ja m es Herri ot

, who ho ld s a Ph .D. in hu m an se xu al it y fro m th e In st it ut e

fo r th e Adv an ced St ud y of Hum an Sex ua li ty in San Fran ci sc o. Dr. Herri ot te st ifi ed

-3

-th at in te rn et ch at ro om s th riv e on an on y m it y a n d a r e pr im ari ly an en te rta in m en t

m ed iu m whe re ad ul t s en ga ge in fan ta sy “ ag e-p la y ,” whi ch he de sc rib ed as ro le

pl ay in g in whi ch on e ad ul t pl ay s an ol de r pe rs on an d th e ot he r a y ou ng pe rs on , “ of te n

th e na ug ht y sc ho ol gi rl.” Dr. Herri ot te st ifi ed th at he ha d rev ie wed tra ns cri pt s of th e
ch at s b et ween Grau er an d J en ny an d op in ed th at th ey ha d m an y

of t he “ si gn at ur es ”

of ad ul t ag e-p la y . Duri ng cro ss ex am in at io n, Dr. Herr io t was ask ed :

Q. You ha ve ne ve r te st ifi ed in a cas e f o r t h e de fen se or fo r th e
go ve rn m en t whe re a pe rs on was ch arg ed wi t h ch at ti ng wit h an act ua l

m in or on th e In te rn et ?

A.

. . . [N]o act ua l m in or s. It is al l a d u l t s. Adu lt s ta lk in g to ad ul ts

. . . .

* * * * *

Q.

. . . You ha ve n e v e r in te rv ie wed so m eo ne who was ch arg ed
wit h m eet in g

. . . an act ua l m in or on th e In te rn et an d en ga ge d in in te rn et ch at in a ch at roo m

an d t he n t rav el ed to m eet wit h t ha t m in or ?

A. No . . . I hav e n ot , no

.

Q. So y ou real ly don ’t kn ow wh at th e cu lt ur e o f In te rn et ch at is
fo r pe op le who act ua ll y

are l oo ki ng for m in or s an d m eet th em ?

A. W el l

. . . it ’s ei th er rare or no ne xi st en t. It is ex tre m el y rare as far a s we k no w fro m

ou r res earc h. It is ad ul ts ta lk in g t o a du lt s i s t he
-- th e m ai n t hi ng go in g o n h ere.

To im pe ach Dr. Herri ot ’s op in io n th at ad ul ts lo ok in g to fin d an d m eet act ua l m in or s

on li ne is “ rare or no ne xi st en t,” th e pr os ecu to r th en as ke d whe th er Dr. Herri ot was

aware of a sp eci fic cas e fro m th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa :

-4

-So y ou ’re no t aware of a cas e th at aro se he re in Dav en po r t whe re a

su bje c t na m ed Fro nc zak m et a 13 -y ear- ol d gi rl he re in Dav en po rt an d

t r a v e le d he re fro m Cal ifo rn ia

, pi ck ed he r up , to ok he r to a m ot e l

, a n d
ha d s ex wit h h er, y ou do n’t k no w abo ut th at cas e?

Defen se co un se l di d no t ob ject. Dr. Herri ot an swe red , “ if it was in th e ne wsp ap ers

I m ay ha ve read ab ou t it .” W he n th e pr os ecu to r be ga n hi s ne xt qu es ti on , “ So y ou
do n’t k n o w a b o u t t he cas e of th e 13 y ear ol d in Bu rli ng to n, Io wa, th at m et a m an

on li ne

. . .,” de fen se co un se l ob jecte d t ha t t he qu es ti on was beyon d th e sc op e of hi s
di rect ex am in at io n, arg um en ta ti ve , an d irr el ev an t. The di s t r i c t co ur t ov erru le d th e
ob jecti on

. Dr. Herri ot an swe red

, “ it so un ds li ke it is si m il ar to so m e cas e th at I sa w

in th e ne wsp ap ers .” W he n th e pr os ecu to r th en as ke d if Dr. Herri ot was fam il ia r wit h

a th ird lo cal cas e, th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Grau er’s Ru le 40 3 ob jecti on

. The co ur t

su st ai ne d h is ob

jecti on to a qu es ti on ab ou t a f ou rth cas e as cu m

ul at iv e.

Grau er arg ue s th at th is li ne of qu es ti on in g was im pr op er be cau se it arg ue d fact s

no t in ev id en ce an d “ was c l e a r l y cal cu la te d to in fla m e th e jury.” Rev ie win g th e
di st ric t co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, we di sa gr ee

. S e e , e.g ., Un i t e d S t a te s v. Hul l, 41 9 F.3 d 76 2, 77 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), cert

. de ni ed

, 54 7 U.S. 11 40 (2 00 6)

. Th e cro ss ex am in at io n was hi gh ly pr ob at iv e. Dr.

Herri ot ’s te st im on y on di rect ex am in at io n te nd ed to su pp or t a pr im ary de fen se to th e

en ti cem en t ch arg e -- th at Grau er be li ev ed hi s Int ern et ch at s with “ Je nn y ” were wit h

an ad ul t. It was rel ev an t to es ta bl is h on cro ss ex am in at io n th at Dr. He r r i o t’s

ex pe ri e n c e was li m it ed to cas es in whi ch de fen da nt s ch at te d wit h un de rco ve r la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er s p o s i n g as m in or s. Rat he r th an si m pl y ad m it th is fact

, Dr.

Herri ot em

be ll is he d hi s credi bil ity w ith the re m arkab le as se rti on th at a hi gh ly rel ev an t

si tu at io n th at was be y on d hi s pe rs on al ex pe rie nc e -- ad ul ts us in g in te rn et ch at ro om s

to en ti ce act ua l m in or s to en ga ge in se xu al act iv it y -- was “ ra r e o r n o n e x i s te nt .” It

was no t im

pr op er fo r th e pr os ecu to r to im pe ach Dr. Herri ot by as ki ng if he was aware

of act ua l cas es kn own to th e pr os ecu to r (an d to th e di st ric t co ur t) th at di sp ro ve d th is

-5

-as se rti on . See Un it ed Sta te s v . Pie rs on , 54 4 F.3d 93 3, 9 40 -4 1 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ), cert

.

de ni ed

, 12 9 S. Ct

. 24 31 (2 00 9)

. Nor di d th e di st ric t co ur t ab us e it s d i s cret io n by

ov erru li ng Grau er’s ob

jecti on s to th is li ne of qu es ti on in g un ti l it be cam e cu m ul at iv e.
Thu s, Grau er’s co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pl ai n erro r by no t gr an ti ng

a m is tri al su a s

po nt e is wit ho ut m eri t.

B. Cl os in g Arg um en t. The pr os ecu to r st at ed du rin g in it ia l cl os in g arg um en t:

I to ld y ou , m ak e no m is ta ke ab ou t it

, th is is a da ng ero us m an , an d
he pr ov ed it

. He p r o v e d i t th e da y he go t in th at car an d he pa ck ed al l
hi s s tu ff an d h e d ro ve to Cli nt on , Iowa

.

In Grau er’s cl os in g a rg um en t, d efen se co un se l re sp on de d:

[Y]ou kn ow fro m lo ok in g at th es e ch at s th at th at week it was rai ni ng in
Cl in to n, Io wa. . . . So th e g ro un d i s s at ur at ed . And I am go in g t o t ak e th is fle ece bl an ke t th at is go in g to so ak up wate r li ke a sp on ge an d dr op it on t h e g r o un d an d go do m y th in g wit h a 14 -y ear- ol d gi rl in pu bl ic

. It is pa te nt ly rid ic ul ou s. It is a fan ta sy.

. . . [I]f I a m g oi ng to do th at

, do es n’t it m ak e a he ck of a lo t m or e se ns e to do it in a ho te l, a m ot el

, y ou kn ow, rid e y ou r bi ke ov er to th e Mo te l 6

. . . y ou do n’t ev en ha ve to

go in th ro ug h t he ha ll way , no bo dy will see y ou

.

The pro se cu to r ret ur ne d t o t hi s i ss ue in reb ut ta l:

[Defe ns e co un se l] sa y s th at th e sm art er ap pr oa ch he re is to go to

a m ot el

. . . . It is a te rri bl e id ea. He’s -- y ou he ard Dr. He rri ot

. The se
st or ie s are on th e ne ws. You do n’t go pi ck up a 13 y ear ol d an d ta ke he r
to a m ot el . Tho se are t he gu y s g et ti ng arre st ed

.

Dan ie l Fro n[ c z ]a ck fle w fro m Pen ns y lv an ia

, pi ck ed up a gi rl in

Mu sc at in e

. . . ha d se x wit h he r go t cau gh t, go t arre st ed

, go t se nt away.

-6

-. . . J us ti n Cart er m et a gi rl on th e In te rn et

. [Ob jecti on by Grau er

ov erru le d.]

Ju st in Cart er, y ou he ard ab ou t hi m

. You ge t th e po in t. W hy is he
bu y in g a ch eap fle ece bl an ke t if he ’s m eet in g an ad ul t fem al e. Bec au se he ’s go in g t o t hr ow i t awa y when he ’s do ne

.

The reb ut ta l ar gu m en t co nc lu de d:

You ’re t he co n s c i en ce of th is co m m un it y as th e Ju dg e to ld y ou

. You ’ve ha d t o se e te rri bl e th in gs , di sg us ti ng th in gs

. It is ti m e fo r jus ti ce. Tha nk y ou

.

Grau er arg ue s th is reb ut ta l im pr op erl y a r g ue d fact s reg ard in g Fro nc zak an d

Cart er t ha t wer e n ot in ev id en ce. He as se rts th at th e p ro se cu to r’s cl os in g a rg um en t

was “ so eg reg io us , su gg es ti ve , an d in fla m m at or y [th at it ] in fect ed th e en ti re tri al .”

W e di sa gr ee. “ The tri al co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n in co nt ro ll in g cl os in g arg um en ts

an d wit ho ut a cl ear sh owi ng of ab us e, th at di sc ret io n wil l no t be ov ert ur ne d.” Uni te d

St at es v. Fran kl in

, 25 0 F.3 d 65 3, 66 0 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 53 4

U.S

. 1 0 0 9 ( 2 00 1)

. In cl os in g arg um en t, “ a pr os ecu to r is en ti tl ed to m ak e a fai r

res po ns e an d reb ut ta l whe n th e de fen se at ta ck s th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e.” Uni te d St at es

v. Zies m an , 40 9 F.3d 94 1, 95 4 (8t h Cir.) (qu ot at io n om it te d)

, cert

. de ni ed

, 54 6 U.S.

99 0 (2 00 5)

.

He r e , i t w a s no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to al lo w th e

go ve rn m en t in reb ut ta l to res po nd to de fen se co un se l’s arg um en t th at Grau er wou ld

h av e go ne to a m ot el

, rat he r th an a pu bl ic bi ke tra il

, if he ha d in te nd ed to ha v e s e x
wit h a m in or

. The reb ut ta l in cl ud ed on ly a br i e f r e f e r e n ce to pr io r cas es th at Dr.

Herri ot ha d a ck no wled ge d on cro ss ex am in at io n. Nor was it im pr op er fo r th e

pr os ecu to r to co nc lu de hi s cl os i n g arg um en t by st at in g th at th e jury act s as th e

“ co ns ci en ce of th e co m

m un it y ,” as th e di st ric t c o u r t h a d st at ed du rin g vo ir di re.

-7

-“ Unl es s cal cu la te d to in fla m e, an ap pe al to th e ju r y t o a c t as th e co ns ci en ce of th e

co m m un it y is no t im

pe rm is si bl e.” Uni te d St at es v. San ch ez-Ga rci a, 68 5 F.3 d 74 5,

75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. The co nc lu di ng st at em en t th at th e tri al ha d

co m pe ll ed th e jury “ to se e te rri bl e th in gs , di sg us ti ng th in gs ,” was fai r co m m en t on th e

tri al ev id en ce. The re was no erro r, pl ai n or ot he rwis e, in th e di st ric t cou rt’s con tro l

of th e cl os in g a rg um en ts in th is ha rd -fo ug ht tri al

.

II I. Su ffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence

Fo ll owi ng Grau er’s arre st

, po li ce co nd uc te d a warra nt se arch of hi s ho m e an d

se iz ed a Hewle tt Pack ard la pt op co m pu te r fro m an of

fic e a r e a i n t h e ho m e. A

fo ren si c co m

pu te r ex am in er fo un d nu m ero us im ag es an d vi de os de pi ct in g su sp ect ed

ch il d po rn og rap hy in us er-c reat ed el ect ro n i c f o l d ers

. Co un t 4 of th e su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t char ge d hi m wit h kn owi ng po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S

. C

. § 2 2 52 (a)( 4) (B). At tri al

, Grau er st ip ul at ed th at on e vi de o de pi ct ed a

m in or , an d th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d te st im on y th at ot he r im ag es an d vi de os de pi ct ed

m in or s. Eig ht im ag es an d se ve n vi de os were s u b m it te d to th e jury on Co un t 4,

id en ti fie d by th e el ect ro ni c fil e na m es fo un d on Grau er’s co mp ut er. The jury

un an im ou sl y fo un d th at th ree im ag es an d fiv e vi de os were ch il d po rn og rap hy th at

Grau er k no win gl y

po ss es se d o n Ap ril 9, 2 01 0, t he da y of h is arre st

.

On ap p e a l

, Grau er arg ue s th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of

“ kn owi ng ” po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy be cau se th e go ve rn m en t pr e s e n t ed no

e v i d en ce as to ho w th e im ag es cam e to be on hi s co m pu te r or whe n t h e y w e r e

acce ss ed

. “ W e rev ie w a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g

ev id en ce i n t h e l ig ht m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e

go ve rn m en t’s fav or , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.”

Uni te d S ta te s v . Koch , 62 5 F .3d 47 0, 4 78 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot at io ns om it te d)

.

-8

-Grau er’s wif e te st ifi ed th at he op erat ed a bu si ne ss fro m hi s h om e o ffi ce, t ha t

he ke pt a Hewle tt Pack ard la pt op whe re he wor ke d th at lo ok ed li ke th e la pt op se iz ed
by po li ce, an d th at no on e el se us ed hi s la pt op reg ul arl y

. Thi s was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

t h a t h e co ns tru ct iv el y po ss es se d th e ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d on hi s co m pu te r

fo ll owi ng hi s arre st

. See U n i t e d S t a t es v. Aco st a, 61 9 F.3 d 95 6, 96 0- 61 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed 13 1 S. Ct

. 16 1 8 ; U n i t ed St at es v. Kain

, 58 9 F.3 d 94 5, 95 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). Evi de nc e th at m ul ti pl e im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy were fo un d in

el ect ro ni c fo ld ers m an ua ll y crea te d by th e co m pu te r’s us er , a s in th is cas e, is

su ffi ci en t evi de nc e of kn owi ng po ss es si on to su pp or t a § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) con vi ct io n.

Koc h, 62 5 F.3 d at 47 8. In ad di ti on , th e go ve rn m e n t p r e s e n t ed ev id en ce th at so m e

im ag es fo un d on Grau er’s co m pu te r were id en ti cal to im ag es h e h a d t ran sm it te d to

“ Je nn y ,” an d th at he to ld Je nn y d u r i n g t he ir nu m ero us ch at s th at he hi d im ag es of

to pl es s g irl s o n h is ha rd dri ve so hi s wi fe wo ul d n ot fin d t he m

. Viewe d in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, th e ev id en ce was m or e th an su ffi ci en t fo r a reas on ab le
jury to fin d, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, th at Grau er kn owi ng ly po ss es s e d vi su al

de pi ct io ns of m in or s en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t in vi ol at io n of
§ 2 25 2( a)(4 )(B)

.

IV. Th e § 2G 1.3 (b)( 2) (A) Enh an cement

T o de te rm ine G ra

ue r’ s ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , the Pr es en te nc e In ve sti ga tio n Rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d th e to ta l of fe n s e l e v el se pa rat el y fo r each co un t of

co nv ic ti on . For th e at te m pt ed en ti cem en t co un t, t he PSR ad de d t o t he ba se off en se
le ve l of 28 a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 2 G 1.3 (b )(2 )(A) be cau se “ th e of fen se

in vo lv ed th e kn owi ng m is rep res en ta ti on of a pa rti ci pa nt ’s id en ti ty to pe rs ua de

, in du ce, en ti ce, co erce , or faci li ta te th e t r a v e l o f

, a m in or to en ga ge in pr oh ib it ed

se xu al co nd uc t.” Fo r th e ch il d po rn og rap hy po ss es si on co un t, th e PSR ad de d to th e
ba se of fen se le ve l of 18 en ha nc em en ts to ta li ng 19 le ve ls

, in cl ud in g a 7- le ve l in crea se

un de r § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(E) f o r di st rib ut io n of m at eri al in te nd ed to en ti ce a m in or to

en ga ge in pr oh ib it ed se xu al c on du ct

. Thi s m ad e th e po ss es si on co un t “ th e Gro up

-9

-wit h th e hi gh es t of fen se le ve l,” res ul ti ng in a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 38 un de r § 3D1 .4

an d an ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 23 5 to 29 3 m on th s in pr is on

. Grau er ob jecte d to

th e § 2G1 .3(b )(2 ) an d § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(E) en ha nc em en ts

.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d Grau er’s ob jecti on t o th e § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(E) en ha nc em en t, w hi ch m ean t th at th e at te m pt ed en ti cem en t co un t,

whi ch al so en ta il ed a m an da to ry m in im um te n- y ear se nt en ce, be cam e th e Gro up wit h

th e hi gh es t of

fen se le ve l fo r ad vi so ry gu id el in es pu rp os es

. As to th is co un t, th e co ur t

ov erru le d Gra ue r’s ob

jecti on to th e § 2G1 .3(b )(2 ) en ha nc em en t, ex pl ai ni ng :

W he th er th os e m is rep res en ta ti on s were m ad e wit h th e in te nt to

en ti ce i s t he m or e d iff

ic ul t q ue st io n.

* * * * *

The de fen da nt

. . . arg ue s th at hi s m in or m is rep res en ta ti on ab ou t hi s ag e, in th is cas e m or e or le ss th an 10 y ears , was no t in st ru m en ta l [a

wor d us ed in Uni te d St at es v. St arr, 53 3 F.3 d 98 5, 10 02 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed , 5 55 U.S. 10 79 (20 08 )]. Howev er, th e Co ur t fin ds th e an al y si s in St ar[r ] do es no t se em ap pl ic ab le he re be cau se it fo cu se s on th e effe ct th e m is rep res en ta ti on ha d on th e vi ct im

. Here, of cou rs e, th ere was no real vi ct im

. In You ng th e [Eig ht h Ci rcu it ] ap pl ie d th is en ha nc em en t

reas on in g th at th e de fen da nt ha d li ed ab ou t hi s oc cu pa ti on

. He sa id he

was an en gi ne er, no t a ba nd te ach er, aft er th e “ gi rl” ha d to l d hi m sh e ha te d b an d. He al so li ed an d to ld he r he was n’t m arri ed whe n he was. The Co ur t fo un d th at th e m is rep res en ta ti on s were m ad e wit h th e
req ui si te in te nt an d th us ap pl ie d th e en ha nc em en t. The Co ur t ap pl ie s th e

en ha nc em en t.

Th is fin di ng res ul te d in a co m bi ne d to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 34 an d an a d v i s o r y

gu id el in es ran ge of 15 1- 18 8 m on th s in pr is on

. Grau er ur ge d th e co ur t to im po se th e

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce of 12 0 m on th s. The go ve rn m en t ur ge d a se nt en ce “ in

th e m id dl e of th e ran ge .” Afte r care fu ll y weig hi ng th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)

-1 0-s e n t en ci ng fact or s, th e co ur t se nt en ced Grau er to 15 1 m on th s in pr is on , t he bo tt o m

of th e ad vi so ry

ran ge

.

On ap pe al

, Grau er rai se s on ly on e se nt en ci ng is su e, a r g u i n g th at th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in ap pl y in g t h e two -le ve l m is rep res en ta ti on en ha nc em en t un de r § 2 G1.3 (b )(2 )(A). The ap pl ic at io n n ot e to th is gu id el in e p ro vi de s:

T he m isr epres en ta ti on to whi ch th e en ha nc em en t in su bs ection (b )( 2) (A )

m ay ap pl y in cl ud es m is rep res en ta ti on of a pa rti ci pa nt ’s na m e, ag e,

oc cu pa ti on , ge nd er, or st at us , as lo ng as th e m is rep res en ta ti on was m ad e wit h th e in te nt to pe rs ua de

, in du ce, en ti ce, co erce , or faci li ta te th e tra ve l
of , a m in or to en ga ge in pro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nd uc t.

§ 2G1 .3(b )(2 )(A), co m

m en t. (n .3(A) ). G r a u er co nc ed es th at he m is rep res en te d hi s

na m e a n d a g e in hi s ch at s wit h “ Je nn y ” bu t arg ue s th e m is rep res en ta ti on s were no t

m ad e wit h th e req ui si te in te nt

. As wit h ot he r Gui de li ne s en ha nc em en ts th at req ui re
si m il arl y fact -in te ns iv e fin di ng s, we rev ie w fo r cl ear erro r th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng

th at Grau er kn owi ng ly m is rep res en te d his id en ti ty wit h th e in te nt to pe rs ua de

, in du ce,

or en ti ce a m in or to en ga ge in pr oh ib it ed se xu al co nd uc t. See Uni te d St at es v. Bak er,

20 0 F.3 d 55 8, 5 6 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (o bs tru ct io n of jus ti ce); Uni te d St at es v.
Tele m aq ue , 93 4 F.2 d 16 9, 17 0- 71 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (ta rg et in g of fic ia l vi ct im s) ; acco rd

Uni te d S ta te s v . Sim on so n, 2 44 F. App ’x 82 3, 8 26 (9t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

Po in ti ng ou t th a t we qu ot ed St arr’s us e of th e wor d “ in st ru m en ta l” in Uni te d

St at es v. You ng , 61 3 F.3 d 73 5, 74 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 9 62
(2 01 1)

, Grau er arg ue s th at hi s on e-t i me mi sr ep res en ta ti on s of hi s ag e (“ li ke 49 ,”

2

W e a gr ee wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Grau er’s fo cu s on th e wor d 2

“ in st ru m en ta l” is m is pl aced

. The en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s if th e m is rep res en ta ti on was in te nd ed to en ti ce a m in or vi ct im

, reg ard le ss of it s effe ct on th e vi ct im

. Thu s, whi le
th e en ha nc em en t is warra nt ed whe n th e m is rep res en ta ti on was in fact “ in st ru m en ta l”
in pe rs ua di ng a m in or to en ga ge in p r o h i b i t ed se x, as in St arr, 53 3 F.3 d at 10 02

, it

-1 1-in st ead of 58 ) an d hi s n am e (“ Gray ,” in st ead of Gra ue r) “ were no t dram at ic en ou gh

to ha v e mad e a su bs ta nt ia l di ffer en ce” in hi s effo rt to pe rs ua de a m in or vi ct im to

en ga ge in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t. He no te s, qu it e co rrec tl y , th at he to ld Je nn y he

was ol d en ou gh to be he r fat he r an d se nt he r pi ct ur es of hi m se lf th at co nf irmed th ei r

ag e di ffer en ti al

, un li ke de fen da nt s in th e cas es on whi ch th e go ve rn m en t rel ie s, who

m ad e ag e m is rep res en ta ti on s cl ea r l y a im ed at ov erco m in g a m in or ’s rel uc ta nc e to

en ga ge in se x wit h an ol de r m an

. See Uni te d St at es v. W at ki ns , 66 7 F .3d 25 4, 26 4
( 2 d C i r

. 2 0 1 2 ) (aft er te ll in g m in or fem al e he was 38 whe n he was in fact 48

, de fen da nt sa id

, th e da y be fo re th ey ha d va gi na l in te rco ur se , “ it ’s on ly [a] twen ty y ears [ag e di ffer en ce], it ’s co m m on fo r co up le s” ); Uni te d St at es v. Hol t, 51 0 F.3 d 10 07

, 10 09 -1 1 (9 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (4 5- y ear- ol d m al e ch at ti ng on li ne wit h a 13 -y ear- ol d fem al e
cl ai m ed to be a 19 -y ear- ol d c ol le ge st ud en t).

If t he so le foc us of ou r in qu iry was o n Gra ue r’s si ng le ag e m is rep res en ta ti on

in hi s in it ia l ch at wit h Je nn y -- “ li ke 49 ”
-- we wou ld ha ve si gn ifi can t do ub t whe th er

th at rep res en ta ti on was m ad e wit h t h e i nt en t to en ti ce th at th e § 2G1 .3(b )(2 )(A)

en ha nc em en t requ ire s, giv en ot he r di sc lo su res th at rev eal ed he was in de ed an ol de r

m an

. Bu t th e en ha nc em en t is in cl us iv e, ap pl y in g to al l id en ti ty m i s r ep res en ta ti on s

m ad e wit h th e req ui si te in te nt , in cl ud in g b ut no t li m it ed to th os e rel at in g to “ na m e,

ag e, oc cu pa ti on , ge nd er , or st at us .” App

. Not e 3( A). The di st ric t co ur t cl earl y

reco gn iz ed th e br ead th of th is in qu iry whe n it rel ie d fo r it s ru li ng on ou r de ci si on in

You ng , whe re we up he ld th e en ha nc em en t ba se d up on de fen da nt ’s m is rep res en ta ti on

of hi s oc cu pa ti on an d hi s m ari ta l s t a t u s

. 6 1 3 F.3 d at 74 9. Here, Grau er

m is rep res en te d hi s ag e in reco un ti ng a rece nt se xu al rel at io ns hi p with a co ll eg e gi rl

who “ li ke d m e.” He in it ia ll y to ld Je nn y he was a co ns ul ta nt bu t l at er cl ai m ed to be

an en gi ne er who de si gn s “ en erg y st uf f” to “ sa ve th e eart h.” Ove r th e co ur se of th ei r

In te rn et rel at io ns hi p, Grau er cl ai m ed to ha ve se ve ral y ou ng gi rlf rie nd s who en

joy ed

m ay al so ap pl y in cas es whe re it ha d no s u c h effe ct

, su ch as You ng , whe re th e

“ vi ct im ” was an un de rco ve r po li ce o ffi cer, as in th is cas e.

-1 2-se xu al act iv it y wit h hi m

. Two da y s be fo re he trav el ed to m eet Je nn y , he cl ai m ed to

ha ve ch at te d wit h a gi rl Je nn y ’s ag e who sa id th at ha vi ng se x wit h an ol de r m an was

“ a won de rfu l th in g.” The reco rd refl ect s a le ng th y , care fu ll y or ch es tra te d at te m pt by

a m uc h ol de r m an to pe rs ua de a n d en ti ce a m in or fem al e to en ga ge in pr oh ib it ed

se xu al co nd uc t. The di st ric t co ur t, ha vi ng he ard le ng th y tri al te st im on y reg ard in g th e

na tu re an d pu rp os e of Grau er’s ch at s, was in th e be st po si t i o n t o fin d whe th er he

m ad e on e or m or e id en ti ty m is rep res en ta ti on s w i t h th e in te nt th at warra nt ed th e § 2G1 .3(b )(2 )(A) en ha nc em en t. Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd

, we can no t sa y th e

co ur t’s fi nd in g i n t hi s re ga rd was c le arl y erro ne ou s.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-