## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1279 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES O WEN S, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cr-164

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judge
.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 7, 2009

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 6, 2009

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . J am es Ow en s ple d gui l ty to tr anspor tat i on o fchi l d pornog ra phy i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U .S.C

. § 22 52 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1) an d p os se ss i o n o fc h ild po r no g r aphy i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 2 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( B) and (b ) ( 2)

. Ow ens’ s pl ea agr eem ent incl ud ed a s ti pu l ati o n o fthe s en te nc i nggui del i ne s o ffen se l ev elc al cul at i o n, i nc l udi nga l l agg r av at i nga nd mi ti g at i ngs en te nc i ng fac to rs , ex c ep t fo r on e e n h an c e m en t. T h e p ar tie s c ou ld2 N o. 09

- 1279

For pur pos es ofc ont i nui t y a nd rea dabi l i t y, thr ougho ut 1 thi s opi ni on we wil l r efert o “ Eri c a” as i fs he wer e a r ea l pe rs on. not agree on th e ap p lic abili ty of U
. S. S. G

. § 2G 2.2( b)(3)( B ), w hi ch co m es i nto p l ay w hen a defe nd ant e xpects t o re cei ve a thi ng o f v alu e in exchange f orhi s di str ibuti on of ch ild p or n og ra p h y. O w en s m ain ta in s th at h e s h ou ld re cei ve onl y a tw o- l eve l enhancem ent because he did n ot ex p ec t t o re c e i v e an yt h in g of v alu e, an d ev en if h e d id have an expecta ti on, that exp ecta ti on was of“r ol e pl ay” an d no t o fa s ex ua l e nc o unt er . The g o ve r nm en t m ainta i ns tha t Owens di d e xpe ctt o r ec ei ve a se xua l e nco unt er, an d ac co r di ng l y, th e fi ve - l ev el enhanc ement w as appropri ate
. The di str i ct c ourtag re ed w i th the go ver nm ent a nd se ntenced Ow ens t o a t er m of 360 m onths’ i m p risonm ent. Ow ens a pp eal ed the enhancem ent t o h i s s e n t e n c e , a n d w e n o w a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und Ow ens fre quented an i nter net c hat s i te known as “Incest Taboo Fo rum . com . ” In Ju ly 20 08, Ow ens b ega n a di scu ssion w ith “E rica, ” a d ivorced m oth er of an eight-yearol d gi rland a tw el ve- yea r- ol d b oy. U nbeknownst to Ow ens, Eric a w as actual l y Dete cti ve Dan C l aase n of th e F ish er s, In d ian a P olic e D ep ar tm en t, w h o w as inv es tig at i ngo nl i ne o ffen se s ag ains t ch i l dr en . 1 Aft e r O we n s s e n t E r i c a a n i n t r o d u c t o r y me s s a g e, he di d not con ta cthe r a g ain un ti l Augus t 20 08
. Dur i ng thi s chatse ssi on, Eri ca di scl ose d that s he h ad bee n m o-N o. 09

- 1279 3 l est ed by her ste pfather as a chi l d. Ow ens a dm i tte d to h av in g a se x u al re lat ion sh ip w ith a c los e fe m ale r el at i ve , b eg i nning w he n the g i r l was t wel ve a nd c o nti nuing unti l she w as seve nteen. The two al so discussed wh etherEri ca was “a cti ve ” w i th herchi l dren and Ow ens’ s pre fer ence f orchi l dren be tw een the ag es of e igh t a n d th irt ee n . Sav in g t h e g ra p h ic d et ails , th is disc ussi on cul m i nated i n O w en s e xpressing hi s g oalo f est abl i shi ng a sexual re l ati onshi p w i th Eri ca an d her ch i l dr en . I n a thi r d c ha ts e s s i o n a fe w da y s l a t e r, Owe ns o f f er ed to send Eri ca a c h i l d pornog ra phy vi deo ca l l ed “l i ttl egi rl sm i x” i n an e ff or t t o sti m ula te ro l e pl ay between hi m and Eri ca. Eri ca a cce p te d the offerand Ow ens then tr ansfer re d the vi d eo, al ong w i th hi s g ra phic descri pti on o fi ts cont en ts
. Af te r a b r i efr o l e pl aydi sc us si o n, Owens an d Er i ca a g r ee d t o meeti n pe r so n the f o l l o wi ng daya t a c offee s ho p i n F i sh er s, I ndi an a. I n pl an ni ngthe m eet i ng, Ow ens a ske d Eri ca ho w herki ds w oul d rea ct t o h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o th e f a mi l y . He e xpl ain e d , “ we yo u an d I h av e li ve d it th e kid s ha ve n ’t y et .” (A p p . at 1 2.) Eri ca r epl i ed, “that’ s why Ise e i t a s m or e o fa j ourne y, how a f am i l y l i ves i nstea d ofl i ttl e ind ividual ti m es w hen som ethi ng m ay happ en. ” ( Id. ) Owens the n s ai d, “ the questi on i s ho w ar e we g on n a li ve do w e s tar t a s nu di s ta th o me to g e tthe m us e d t o the i de a o r h o w do w e intro du ce them to i t. ” ( Id. ) E ric a r esponded, “o h yes , I am very op en abou t m y sex ua li ty an d am no t em barra sse d with nud i ty. ” ( Id. ) T he tw o then m ad e fina l arra ngem ents to m eetthe f ol l owing day.4 N o. 09

- 1279 Pol i ce a rr est ed Ow ens when he a rri ved the next day atthe coffee s ho p. He made a M i r an di ze d s ta te m en t adm i tting to h is ill ega l tr ansfero fthe vi deo t o Eri ca. H e a l so adm i tte d to havi ng m ol es ted hi s fem al e r el ati ve w h en s h e w as a chi l d, a f act l ate r confi rm ed by i nvesti gat i ng o ffi cer s. W he n Ow ens c onse nted to a sea rch of his veh icl e, tw o m ore child p ornog rap hy videos w ere disc ove re d. A subse quent sea rch ofOw ens’ s ho m e l ed to the r eco ver y of ad dit i onalchi l d pornog ra phy vi deos. The vi deos recove re d i n Ow ens’ s ca r and hom e f or m ed the basi s f orthe seco nd co unt i n the i nd i ctm ent, poss ess i on ofchi l d pornog ra phy. The s ole que st i o n i n thi s ca se i s whethe r Owens ex p ec te d to rec eiv e a th in g o fva lu e in ex c h an ge for h is tr an sm iss ion of ch ild p o rn og ra p h y. T h e a n sw er to th is questi on dete rm i nes whether Ow ens r ecei ves a fi vel e v e l o r a t wo - l e v e l s e nt e nc i nge nh a nc e men t, a nd c o ns equentl y, wh etherthe appli cabl e guidel i nes r ange i s r educed f r o m b etwee n 3 60 months , a nd l i fe i m pr i so nm en t to be tw ee n 26 2 a n d 32 7 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t.

II . A n alysis T he starting p oint of ou r analysis i s the statu te itself, U
. S. S. G. § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 3) , wh i ch pro vi des: (b ) Sp ec ific O ffen se C h ar ac te ris tic s . . . ( 3) ( Applythe g r ea te st ) I f th e o ffen se i nvo lve d : . . . ( B) Di str ibuti on f orthe recei pt, o r expectat i on o fr ecei pt, o fa thi ng o fN o. 09

- 1279 5

va l ue , b utno t f o r p ecuni ar y g ain, in c re as e b y 5 lev els

. . . . (F) D is t rib u tio n ot h er th an d ist ribut i o n de sc r ibe d i n s ubdi vi si o ns ( A ) thr ough ( E), i ncre ase by 2 l evels

. C as e la w h as re so lve d m an y of t h e q u es tio n s ra ise d by th is st atut o r y l an g ua g e. F o r e xa m pl e, i n U nited S ta tes v . W hit ed, the S eve nth Cir cui t hel d th at sexualco ntact can be c onsi dered a t h i ng o fval ue under the st atute
. 53 9 F. 3d 693, 69 8- 99 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The Whit ed co u rt al so hel d that “ expectat i on o fr ecei pt” d oe s not re quir e a n ex p licitag re em en t o r p re c i s e ba rg ain
. Id. at 699. Rat he r, re aso nabl e a nti ci pati on o r re aso nabl e be l i efi s e nough to trig ge r th e e n h an c em en t. Id. I n li gh t of Whit ed , t he so l e quest i on i n thi s ca se can be a n sw er ed by re sol vi ng wh etherOw ens had a re asonab l e e xpectati on o fr ecei pt ofa thi ng o fval ue, and, if so, wh etherthatr eas onabl e e xpectati on was ofr ol e play oro fa sexualenco unter. The di str i ct c ourtf ound that O w en s reason ably exp ecte d receipt of a sexu al encou nt er, a n d we r e v i e w th a ts e n t e n c i n gd e c i si o n de novo as to que s t i o ns o fl a w a nd f o r c l e a r e r r o r a s t o f a c t ua l fi nd i ngs an d th e a p p lica tio n of th e g u id eli n es . U nited Sta tes v. St i t m an , 472 F.3d 983 , 986 (7th C ir. 2007). In t hi s ca se, Ow ens a rgues that he did notactually expect a sexual encounte r; rather, he m er el y “ hoped” that h is conve rs ati ons w i th Eri ca would l ead to a sexual rela ti o ns hi p. But, a s we no te d i n Whit ed, “ ‘ expectat i on6 N o. 09

- 1279 ofr ecei pt’ und er§ 2G2. 2( b) ( 3) ( B) doe s no t r equi re an expli ci t a gr eem ent o r preci se b ar gain.
. . . Dis tr ibuti on o f chi l d pornog ra phy i n the re aso nabl e a nti ci pati on o r re aso nabl e be l i efo fr ecei vi ng a t h i ng o fval ue i s e nough f or the enhancem ent to apply. ” 539 F. 3d at 699. A l though Ow ens di d not hav e a n expli ci t a gr eem ent o r preci se bar gai n w i th Eri ca, the conte nt o fhi s co nver sat i ons l ead us to the conclusi on that Ow ens r eas onabl y a nti ci pated o r b el i ev ed th athi s ex ch an g e o fc hi l d po r no g r aph y w oul d res ulti n a s exual enco unter w i th Eri ca a nd her c h i l d r e n . T h i s c o n cl us i o n r e s u l t s fr o m O we n s ’ s o wn sta tem ent about enj oying “m om s with ki ds, dads w i th ki ds and both tog ether ”; hi s co nfe ssion o f a past r el atio n sh ip w ith a m in or ; his d es ir e t o m e et E ric a; an d h is p ro p os als to int ro d u c e E r i c a ’ s c h ild re n to se x u al e x p er iences. Ow ens c l ear l y a nti ci pated re cei pt ofa sexual en c ou n te r, an d h is t ra n sm itt al of t h e p or n og ra p h y on ly se rv ed to fu rt h er h is go al. Bu t Ow ens a rgues that ev en i fwe fi nd thathe e xpected to r ec ei ve s o m ethi ngi n e xc ha ng e f o r hi s di st r ibut i o n, that expectat i on was f orr ol e pl ay onl y a nd , therefor e, was not i n e xp e c t a t i o n o fa thingo fv a l ue . T o l e nd c re dence to hi s a rgum ent, Ow ens a rgues that hi s t ra nsm i ssi on o f pornog ra phy occur re d du ri ng a conv ersat i on i n w hi ch th e co nt ex t was r o l e pl ay, a nd no t ana ctu als ex ua l e ncounter
. Thi s a rgum ent i s unavai l i ng f ortwo r eas ons. Fir st, alt h ou gh O w en s arg u es th at h e e x p ec te d on ly ro le pla y, hi s o w n co nver sat i ons dem onst ra te othe rwis e. D u rin g h is d is c u ss ion s w ith E ric a, O w en s re p ea te d ly st at ed th athe was uni nt er es te d i n r o l e pl ayb ec au se heN o. 09

- 1279 7 “suck[ ed] at i t. ” ( See A pp . at7, 9. ) A nd ev en tho ugh Owens e ng ag ed i n s o m e r o l e pl aya fte r Er i ca ’ s num er o us prom pts, hi s invol vem ent in the r ol e pl ay w as bri ef and fl ee tin g. Ow ens’ s pos t ho c ar gum ent that he w as expecti ng to r ecei ve ro l e pla y i n exchange f orhi s t ra nsm i ssi on o fpor nogr aphy i s unpers uasi ve. Se c on d , Ow en s a rg u es th at it w as im p o s s ible for h im to e xpe ctr ec ei pt o fa s ex ua l e nc o unt er whenhe s en t th e vi deo duri ng a conve rs ati on about ro l e p lay and not ab o uts ex . As we m ad e cl ea r i n Whit ed, ho wev er, the tr ansfero fi m age s nee d not be co ntem pora ne ou s with the s exual enco unte r f orthe defe nd ant t o harbo r an ex pec ta ti o n o fsex. In Whit ed, the defe nd ant t ra nsm i tte d “c hi l d po r no g r aph y i m ag es t o a n e - m ai l co r r es po nde nt w ith w h om h e w as tr yin g to a rra n ge a se x u al e n c ou n te r.” 539 F
. 3d at6 95
. I m po r ta nt l y, the pr o po se d s ex ua l e ncounterwas not conte m p oraneo us w i th the tr ansm i ssi on o fthe po r no g r aph y . I ns te ad, the d ef en dan t se ntthe im ag es to h is c or re sp on d en t t o s at isfy th e l at te r u n til th e s ex u a l en c ou n te r c ou ld ta ke p lac e. Id. at69 6. T h is case i s no di ffer ent. H er e, Ow ens s ent Erica i m age s with th e end goalo fo btaini ng a sexualr el ati onshi p w i th her and h er chi l dren. A l though he did notse nd the i m age s co nc ur r en t wi tha n a ctua l s ex ua l e nc o unt er, Owens did se nd the i m age s with the expectat i on that thi s t ra nsm iss ion w ou ld le ad to a fu tu re se x u al e n c ou n te r. T h is is all th at is re q u ire d

. F ur th ers uppo r tingo urde cisio n i s th e f ac t th atthe st atut e i ts el fc o nt ains no te m po r al co m po ne nt
. The r e i s no r equi r ementi n § 2 G2. 2(b) tha t th e defen dan t se nd the8 N o. 09

- 1279 i m age s co ntem pora neously w i th r ecei pt ofthe thi ng o f val ue. There f or e, the m er e f act that Ow ens e xp ecte d to re cei ve a thi ng of val ue i n the future as opposed to i m m ediat el y upon tr ansm i ssi on i s o fno conse quence.

I I I . Concl usio n Ow ens t ra nsm i tte d chil d pornog ra phy w i th the end go al of rec ei vi ng a thi ng o fval ue, nam el y s ex, fro m the re cip ien t. Be ca us e Owens ’ s ul ti m at e g o al w as a se xua l e ncou n te r w i th Eri ca a nd herchi l dren, and beca use nei ther the s tatute no r our prece dent cont ai n a te m pora l co m ponent i n conj uncti on with the tr ansfer, we A FFIRM the s entence
.

11- 6- 09