T he Hon or abl e Dann y C. Re e ves , Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s tr i c tJ ud ge f orth e Ea s t e rn Di s tr i c tof

K e nt uc ky, * sittingby des ig nation. -1- NOT R ECO MMENDED F ORFUL L- TEXT P UB LI CA TI ON

Fil e Name: 06a0813n. 06 Fil ed: November 6, 2006 No. 05-3732 UNIT ED STATES COU RT OF APP EALS F O R TH E S IXTH C IR C U IT UNI TED S TATES OF A MERI CA , Plai nti f f -Appell ee,
v. DAVI D L. BR OWN, D efendan t-A pp ellant.

_________________________________ ON AP PEAL FR OM THE UN I TED STATES D I STR I CT C OUR T FO R TH E NO RT HE RN DIS T RICT OF OH IO

Bef ore: M AR T IN and D AU GH T RE Y, Cir cui t Judges ; a nd RE E VE S, Dis tr ic t Judge. * PE R CU RIAM
. Def

endant -Appell antDavid Brown pled gui lty to two counts of
rec ei ving an d o n e count of pos s es s ing c hil d pornography
. On appeal , Brown clai ms thatthe district court erred in d enying h is motion to dismiss and b y impo sing va riou s enhan cem ents to his sentence. F or th e reason s setforth belo w , we A F F IR M the denial of the motion to dismiss, VA CA T E Brown’s s ent ence , and REM AN D the ca s e f or re -s ent enci ng. BA CKGROUND On M ay21, 2003, authori ti es dis cover ed thatima ges of chi ld pornographywere bei ng po sted on the In ternet from an acc ou nt un der th e nam e o f D avid L . Bro w n. Ba sed on thisT he “u nal loc at ed sp ace ” con ta ins fil es that have bee n nominal ly “era sed ” usi ng DOS and Wi ndows 1 c omman ds bu tac tua l l y re mai n f orpo t e nt i a l fu tur e re c ove ry. “Joint Pho tographic Exp erts Group” or “j pg ” is wide ly use d o n the Internet for t he display of 2 photo g raphs. “Mov ingPicture E xperts Grou p” o r “m pg ” is the standard

for com pression and storag e of m otion 3 v id eo , p arti cu larl y

f or v id eo s av ai la

bl e thro ugh th e Int er

ne t. -2- informa tion, U nited S tates C ustom s ag ents execu ted a search w arran t at the residen ce of D avid L. Br o w n i n C l e v e l a n d , O h i o , o n O c t o b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 3
. A f t e r b e i n g a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t s , Br o wn agre ed to sp ea k with the cus toms agent s and admi tt ed t o downloadi ng ima ges of minor s ages f ive - t o s even- y ear s -ol d f rom the Int erne t. On thats ame da te , the cus toms agent s s ei zed f rom Br ow n’s resi den ce var ious co mp uters, CD s, fl op py d is k s, digital came ras, VH S tapes, child erotica b oo ks, and o ther m iscell aneo us do cum ents and pictures. T he cus toms agent s revi ewed the hard dr ive f rom Brown’s comput er a nd f ound1 95 s aved ima ges of

chi ld pornographyinvol ving the l as ci vious exhi bit ion of the geni ta ls of

toddl ers and inf ant s . T h e cu sto m s agent s al s o dis cover ed 945 i mages of chi ld pornographys tor ed i n the dr i v e ’ s u n a l l o c a t e d s p a c e wh i c h i n c l u d e d i ma g e s o f t o d d l e r s i n v o l v e d i n a c tu a l o rs i mu l a te d 1 sexual interco urse. A review of th e tw elve CD s seized from Br ow n’s residen ce reve aled ch ild po rno grap hy con sis ting o f 1,323 jp g fi les and 111 mp g mo vie f iles
. T hese fil es containe d ch ild 2 3 pornography invol ving or al -geni ta l, geni ta l- geni ta l a nd geni ta l- anal s exual int erc ours e,
mas tur b ati on, the la s ci vious exhi bit ion of the geni ta l- pubic are a and be s ti al ity invol ving pr epubes centminor s . In addi ti on, s ome of the jpg fi le s invol ved mi nors who appeare d to be oney ear -ol d or y ounger. T he CDs al s o cont ai ned 144 ima ges tha t had been downloaded f rom t he-3-

Int erne t i nvolvi ng minor s bathing orsh o w eri ng, and twenty -ni ne i mages invol ving mi nors on the toi le t oruri nat ing. T he cus toms agent s al s o dis cover ed im ag es of Brown’s ide nti cal twin s te pgranddaughte rs . Brown was the twins ’ le gal guardi an f rom November 29, 2001, to November 24 , 200 2. O ne o f Brow n’s CD s con tained images of the tw ins nak ed in th e bath tub, on the toilet, and on his bed. In addi ti on, a f loppy dis k s ei zed f

rom his res ide nce contain ed six addit iona l ima ges of the twins which f

ocus ed on thei r pubic are as . One of the s e i mages , which was cre at ed November 24, 2002, was e nti tl ed “ DS C07049.j pg” and de pic te d one of the g ir ls l y ing on he r back, us ing he r hands to s prea d open hervagi na. On Janua ry7, 2004, cus toms agent s conduct ed a se cond i nte rvi ew w ith Brown. At t hat tim e, h e ad mit te d downloadi ng f il es f rom t he Int erne t ont o the twel ve CDs. Agents s howed Br ow n seven teen ima ges w hich h e adm itt ed w ere o f his tw in step-gr an d d a u g h ters. H e also admi tt ed cr eat ing thes e i mages with adig ita l came ra when the gi rl s were appr oxima te lytwoy ear s -ol d. Furthe r, Brown admit te d maki ng thr ee mpg movi e f il es of the gir ls while the y were in the bathtub. On J anuary 27, 2004, cus toms agent s int ervi ewed Brown a thi rd t ime , inqui ri ng
s peci f ic al lyabout the “ DS C07049.j pg” ima ge. Brown admit te d to pr oduci ng thi s ima ge us ing a digital cam era, w hich later an alys is revealed w as a So ny Cybe rshot. Cust oms a gent s al s o dis cover ed that one of Brow n’ s CD s cont ai ned a s eri es of captured
s h o t s o f Br o wn ’ s c o mp u t e r mo n i t o r wh i c h d i s p l a y e d a r e a l

- t i me v i d e o / t e x t I n t e r n e tc h a tk n o wn
as “ IC Ui i
. ” Th e s e i ma g e s we r e t a k e n o n Oc t o b e r4 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d d e p i c t e d a v i d e o c h a tbet ween two indi vidua ls ide nti f

ie d as “ Kool Dude” and “ T wo for Fun. ” Forens ic anal y s is reve al ed that-4-

the s e i mages were t aken with Brown’s Sony Cybers hot c amer a. Brown b ea rs the ta tt oo “ M r. K o o l.” On F ebrua ry18, 2004, Brown w as indi ct ed on one c ount of produci ng chi ld pornography in vi ola ti on of

18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), two count s of rec ei ving c hil d pornography in vi ola ti on of 1 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a n d o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 18 U .S.C. § 2 25 2(a) (4) (B ). Su bsequ ently, Br ow n fil ed a m otion to dismiss the p rod uction of child pornography char ge, al le ging that 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) was uncons ti tut iona l on i ts f ace and as appl ie d. T he di s tr ic t c ourtdeni ed the mot ion. On A pri l 7, 2 0 0 5 , Brown enter ed i nto aple a agre ement w h ereby the Unite d Stat es agre ed t o dis mis s the pos s es s ion c harge
. In exc hange, Brown agreed t o ple ad gui lty to the re mai ning c harge s but r es erve d the ri ght t o appea l the deni al
o f hi s m o tio n to d ism iss a n d h is se n ten ce . STANDA RD O F REVIEW T his Court r evi ews c hal le nges to the cons ti tut iona li tyof a s ta tut e de novo
. Unite d Stat es
v . S a w yers , 4 0 9 F. 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 5 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. I n a d d i t i o n , wh e n r e v i e wi n g s e n t e nci ng deci s ions, thi s courtrevi ews adis tr ic t c ourt ’ s f actual f indi ngs f or cl earerr or, but r evi ews the
c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w de novo
. Unite d Stat es v. Hazelwood , 398 F.3d 792, 7 9 5 (6 th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( cit ati o n o m itte d ). DI S CU S S I ON I. M otio n to D ismis sThe languag e of § 2251(b ) was m odified slig htly in 2003
. Inasm

uch as B rown

pled guilty to Count 4 One of the in dictm ent which charg ed h im w ith pro duction

of child porno g raphy

betw een Nov em

ber 2 9, 2001 , an d N ov em

be r 24 , 2 00 2, th e co urt a

pp li ed th e earl ie r v er si on

o f § 22 51 (b ). -5- In ap p e a l i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d e n y i n g t h e mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e p r o d u ct ion of child p orn og raph y charg e, Bro w n raises a faci al and as-app lied challeng e to the co nstituti on ality of 18 U .S.C. § 2 25 1(b ). T his st atutory section p rov ides that: Any par ent , le gal guardi an, or pers on havi ng cus todyor control of a mi nor who kn ow ingly perm its such m inor to eng age in , or to assi st any othe r per son to engage in, s exual lyexpl ic itconductf or the purpos e of

produci ng any vi s ual depi ct ion of

s uch conduc t s hal l be punis hed as provi ded unders ubs ect ion ( d) of thi s s ect ion, if

s uch pare nt, le gal guardi an, or pers on knows or has rea s on to know tha t s uch vi s ual depi ct ion wil l be tr ans port ed i n int ers ta te o r f orei gn commerc e or mai le d, if

tha t vi s ual depi ct ion was produce d us ing ma te ri al s tha t ha ve bee n mailed, shipp ed, or transpo rted in interstate or foreign com mer ce by any m eans, inc ludi ng by comput er, or i f s uch vis ual depi ct ion has actual ly been trans port ed in i nte rs ta te or f

orei gn commerc e or ma il ed. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b). 4 T he s ta tut e w as ori gina ll y enac te d as partof the Prote ct ion of

Chil dren Agai ns t Sexua l E xploi ta ti on Act of 1977, codi f ie d at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 et s eq . T he Act i s a broa d regul at ory sch em e th at p ro h ib its th e p ro duct ion, re ce ip t, tr an sm issio n , an d p o sses sio n o f ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y. T he Act i nit ia ll y ta rget ed produc ti on of chi ld pornography but onl y if the pornographic depi ct ion it s el f was trans port ed i n int ers ta te commerc e, or i f the def endantknew, or s hould have known, that the de piction w ou ld be tran sported in interstate com mer ce. H ow ever , in 199 8, Co ng ress
ame nd ed § 22 51 by add ing a n ew jurisdictional basis w hich a llow ed pro secution if the materials
us ed t o produce the depi ct ion “ have be en mai le d, s hippe d, or trans port ed i n int ers ta te or f orei gn
commerc e byany means , inc ludi ng by comput er. ” Pub. L
. No. 105-314, 201(a) , 112 Stat
. 2974,-6-

2977 (1998) (codi f

ie d at 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b))
. In Unite d Stat es v. Hols ton , 343 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 20 03 ), the S econ d C ircuit discussed the p urp ose of the am end men t, noting tha t: [ t] he l egi s la ti ve hi s tory indi cat es two rea s ons f or the amendment
. T he f ir s t was to c orre ctan anoma lybetween the anal ogous pos s es s io n statute s , 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a) (4)( B), 2252A(a)(4)( B) and 2252A(a)( 5)(B), which cont ai ned equi val ent jurisdictional l ang uag e, and th e pro du ction statute, § 22 51 , wh ich, as originally enac te d, did not
. T he s econd was to e xte nd the s ta tut e to cas es where proof of the in ter sta te t ra n sp o rt ati o n o f th e d ep ict io n s, o r p ro o f of th e p o rn o g ra p h e r’s kn ow ledge as to the interstate transpor tation w as absent. Hols ton , 243 F.3d a t 86 ( int erna l c it at ions omit te d).

A. F aci al Chall enge Rel y ing on the Supreme Court’ s deci s ions in Unite d Stat es v. Lopez , 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and Unite d Stat es v. M

o rris on , 529 U.S. 598 ( 2000), Brown contends tha t § 2251( b) exc eeds Co ng ress’ autho rityun der th e C om mer ce C la u se becau se private p rod uction of a sexually expl ic itpic tur e does not s ubs ta nti al lyaf f ectint ers ta te commerc e. In Lopez , the Supreme Court ide nti f ie d the f oll owing thr ee cat egori es of act ivi ty tha t Congres s is permi tt ed to re gula te under it s commerc e power: (1) c hannel s of int ers ta te commerc e; (2) ins trument al it ie s of int ers ta te commerc e, orpe rs on s ort hi ng s i n i nt e rs t a t e c omm e rce, e ve n tho ug h the t hr e a tma y c ome on ly f rom intrastate acti vities; and (3) activities that substantiallyaff ect interstate co m m er ce . See Lopez , 514 U.S. a t 558- 59. T he Court an alyz ed the Gun Free School Z ones Act of 1990 (“G F S Z A ”) , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (q )( 1 )( A ), u n d er th e th ir d ca teg o ry ( i. e. , activities that substantially aff ect interstate comm erce) an d d etermin ed tha t the statute w as unco nstituti on al. In M or r is on , t h e Co u r t e s t a b l i s h e d wh a t i s n o w t h e c o n t r o l l i n g f o u r - f a c t o r t e s t f

or determ ining w hethe r a reg ulated activity “su bstantiallyaff ects” interst ate com mer ce. T hese-7-

cons ide rat ions are : ( 1) whethe r Congres s made f ind i n g s r e g ardi ng the regul at ed ac ti vity ’ s impa ct
on int ers ta te commerc e; (2) w hether the s ta tut e cont ai ns an “ expre s s jur is dic ti onal el ement ” that li mit s itrea ch; (3) w h eth er the regul at ed ac ti vity is commerc ia l/ economi c i n nature; and (4) whetherli nk between the prohi bit ed act ivi ty and the ef f ecton int ers ta te commerc e i s at te nuat ed. M or r is on , 5 2 9 U .S . at 6 1 0 -1 2
. In Gonzal es v. R aic h , 54 5 U.S. 1 ( 2005), the mostrec entcas e di s cus s ing “ s ubs ta nti al ef f ecton int ers ta te commerc e, ” the Supreme Court di d not e xpli citly ref er t o or us e the f

our
cons ide rat ions outl ine d in M orrison to a nal y ze the cons ti tut iona li tyof the s ta tut e atis s ue. How ever , in R aic h, the res pondent s were only chal le nging the cons ti tut iona li tyof the Control le d Subst ance s Act (“ CSA ”) “ as appl ie d” to the f act s of the cas e. As note d by the maj ori tyin R aic h , a fa cia l ch all en g e is d istin ct fr o m an as- ap p lie d ch all en g e a n d th e d istin cti o n is p iv o tal
. R aic h , 545 U.S. a t 23. 1. Con gres s ional F indings When Congres s ori gina ll y pas s ed the Prot ect ion of Chil dren Agai ns t Sexua l Exploi ta ti on A ct o f 19 7 7 , c o d i fi e d a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 , et s eq. , its upport ed the l egi s la ti on with f indi ngs in d ica tin g th at c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y h ad b ec o m e a “hig h ly o rg anize d, mult im illio n d o lla r i n d u str [y] that op erate[s ] on a na tionw ide scale” and that “ the sale and distribution o f s uch po rno grap hic mat eri al s are carri ed on to a s ubs ta nti al ext ent thr ough the mai ls and other i ns trument al it ie s of in ter sta te a n d for eig n co m m er ce .” S . R ep . N o . 9 5 -4 3 8 , a t 5 (1 9 7 7 ), as reprinted in 1978 U .S.C.C .A.N . 40, 42 -43 . T he leg isl ative fi nd ings also pr ov ided th at, “ becau se of t h e vast-8-

pote nti al prof

it s in c hil d pornography ”( i. e. , it s low product ion a nd repr oduct ion c os ts and hi gh ret ai l pr ic es ), the indus try was “ growing ata very rapi d rat e. ” Id
. at 7, 1978 U.S.C. C.A. N. at44. Althou g h th e Co n g r e s s i o n a l f i n d i n g s d o not s peci f

ic al lydis cus s how intr as ta te product ion of child p o rn o graphyaf

f ect s the la rgerint ers ta te pornography marke t, the Supreme Courthas hel d tha t Congres s is not requi red to make expl ic itf indi ngs bef

ore i t r egul at es . Aft er e xami ning the le gis la ti ve his tory of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b), we a gree with a number of othe r courts tha t ha ve held th at “ Co ng ress’ exp licitfi nd ings reg ardin g the ‘exten sive nation al mark et in child po r n o g r a p h y a n d t h e n e e d t o d i mi n i s h t h a t n a t i o n a l ma r k e t ’ s u p p o r t t h e c o n t e n t i o n tha t prohi bit ing the produc ti on of ch ild pornographyatthe loc al le vel hel ps to f urther the Congres s iona l goal
. ” See U nited S tates v. Jer on im o-B au tis ta , 425 F.3d 1266, 1271 (10th Cir. 2005) (c it ing Unite d Stat es v. M or ales -de J

es us , 372 F.3d 6, 12 (1s t Ci r. 2004)). 2. Expr e s s Jur i s di c ti ona l El e me nt T he n ext fa c to r , w hethe r the statute con tains a jurisdicti on al elemen t that li mits it s app licati on , is met h ere. T he statute pro vides, in relevan t part, that: Any par ent , le gal guardi an, or per s on havi ng cus tody or control of a mi nor who kn ow ingly perm its such m inor to en g a g e in, or to assistany othe r per son to engage in, sexuall y expl ic itconductf or the purpos e of

produci ng anyvis ual d e p i c t i o n o f suc h co n d u ct s h all b e p u n ish ed
. . . i f th a t v is u a l de

p i c t i o n was prod uced

using m aterial th at ha ve bee n m ailed, shippe d, or transpo rted in int er s tat e or for ei gn comm er ce byany means , inc ludi ng by compute r . 18 U .S.C. § 2 25 1(b ) (e m p h a si s ad ded ). Co urts hav e referred to this as the “materials in
co m m er ce ” ju ri sd ict io n al e lem en t. In U nited States v. Ho gg ard , 254 F.3d 744 ( 8th Ci r. 2001), the E ighth Circ uitcons ide red a f aci al chal le nge t o § 2251(b) a nd concl uded thatthe s ta tut e w as cons ti tut iona l. Dis ti nguis hing-9-

§ 2251(b) f

rom t he s ta tut es atis s ue i n L op ez and M or r is on , that court n oted th at the statute

“ con tains an exp licitjurisdictional nex us” w hich r equ ires the go vern men t to pro ve “a con crete
connec ti on with i nte rs ta te commerc e, ” i. e. , to pr ove thatthe depi ct ion was p ro d uced us ing
m ate ri als th at h ad b ee n tr an sp o rt ed in in ter sta te c o m m er ce . Id . at 7 4 6
. T his ci rcui t, however, has previ ous lycal le d int o ques ti on the rat iona le adopt ed bythe E ighth Circ uit , f

indi ng tha t the j uri s dic ti onal “ hook” i n a st atute , s ta nding al one, will not e ns ure it s cons ti tut iona li ty . In U nited S tates v. Corp , 236 F.3d 325 ( 6th Ci r. 2001), thi s Court a ddres s ed a facial con sti tutional ch allenge to 1 8 U .S .C
. § 2 25 2(a) (4) (B ), w hich m akes it unlaw ful t o pos s es s chi ld pornog r ap h y . Although Co rp invol ved a c hal le nge t o a di f f ere nt c hil d pornography
s ta tut e, both s ta tut es cont ai n the s ame j uri s dic ti onal nexus and, the ref ore, the Court’ s rea s oning is i nstructive. T he C ou rt no ted that: [a] hard and fas t rule that the presence of a jurisdictional elem ent au tom aticall y ens ures the cons ti tut iona li tyof a statue i gnores the f

acttha t the conne ct ion between the act ivi tyreg u lat ed and the j uri s dic ti onal hook maybe s o at te nuat ed as to f ai l t o guara nte e thatthe act ivi tyregul at ed has a s ubs ta ntia l e f f ecton int ers ta te commerc e. Id
. at330-31 (c it ing U

nited S tates v. Ro dia , 1 9 4 F .3 d 4 6 5 , 4 7 2 -7 3 (3 rd C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), cer t. deni ed , 529 U.S. 1131 ( 2000)). Ins te ad, in cons ide ri ng a fa ci al chal le nge to a part ic ula r s ta tut e, the court
s hould f ocus on “ whetherCongres s had a rat iona l ba s is f or bel ie ving that[ regul at ed ac ti vity ] has
a s ubs ta nti al ef

f ecton int ers ta te commerc e. ” 3. Regulati on of

an Economic Acti vit y In addi ti on to the congre s s iona l f indi ngs dis cus s ed above which i ndic at e thatproduct ion of chi ld pornogra p hy is an ec onomic act ivi ty , a numberof deci s ions f

rom t his Court ha ve-10-

acknowle dged the int ers ta te marke t f or chi ld pornography , noti ng tha t chi ld pornography is an in d u str y o p er ati n g o n a n ati o n w id e sc ale
. See, e.g., U nited S tates v. Cha m bers , 441 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 20 06 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Andr e ws , 383 F .3d 3 74 (6th Cir. 20 04 ). T hu s, it is clear that § 22 51 (b) , wh ich m akes it unlaw ful t o p rod uce ch ild po rno grap hy, is direct e d a t a n econ om ic
ac tiv ity. 4. The Li nkBe tw e e n Pro duc tion o f Chi l d Por nog r aphy and I nters tate Commerc e In R aic h , t he Sup re me Cou rtre -a f f i rm e d the pr i nc i pl e t ha tt he Com me rc e Clause empowers Congres s to r egul at e pure lyloc al intras ta te act ivi ti es s o long a s the y are partof an

“ economi c ‘ cl as s of act ivi ti es ’ tha t have a s ubs ta nti al ef f ect on int ers ta te commerc e. ” R aic h , 545 U.S. a t 17 ( ci ti ng P er ezv. Unite d Stat es , 402 U .S. 14 6 (1 97 1); W ickard v. F ilburn , 317 U.S. 111, 128-29 ( 1 9 4 2 ) )
. Th e Co u r th e l d t h a tCo n g r e s s n e e d o n l y h a v e a r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o rc o n cl uding th at l o ca l ac tiv itie s su b sta n t i a l l y affec t in ter sta te c o m m er ce . Id
. at22. T he Courtdet ermi ned that, because the C S A regu lated an ec on om ic class of activiti es and b ecause C on gress cou ld
ra tionall y concl ude thathome-c ons umed mari jua na coul d be dra wn into ( and thus af f ect ) t he int ers ta te m ar ket , Congres s coul d cons ti tut iona ll y prohi bitthe loc al pos s es s ion a nd us e of
m ar iju an a, e v en in in sta n ce s th at h ad o n ly a d e m in im is im p ac t o n in ter sta te c o m m er ce . Id
. at 17-19. In U

nited S tates v. Cha m bers , 441 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2006), and Unite d Stat es v. Gann , 16 0 Fe d. Appx
. 46 6 ( 6th Ci r. 20 05 ), t hi s Cou rt a c kn owl e dg e d th e s i mi l a ri t i e s be t wee n th e CSA and the chi ld pornographys ta tut es , noti ng tha t Congre s s has a nee d to regul at e both the p ro d u ct ion a nd pos s es s ion of drugs and the produc ti on and pos s es s ion of chi ld pornography.-11-

Ch am bers , 441 F.3d at 454-55. In each i ns ta nce, Congres s is s eeki ng to e xerc is e i ts Commerce C lau se a u th o ri ty to re g u lat e “q u in tes s e n tia lly e co n o m ic” ac tiv itie s, i.e., thos e i nvolvi ng the

“ product ion, dis tr ibut ion, and cons umpti on of commodit ie s . ” R aic h , 545 U.S. a t 25. Whil e the
re g u lat ed co m m o d itie s d iffer , th e d istin cti o n is im m ate ri al. We f ind, as we did i n Ch am bers , tha t “ Congres s ha[ s ] a ra ti onal bas is f or conc ludi ng tha t homegrown chi ld pornographycan f eed the nati onal marke t and s ti mula te demand. ” We re je ct Brown’s argume nt thatthe pornography in this cas e was “ homegrown ,” an d was, the ref ore,
o u tsid e th e r e ac h o f C o n g re ss. Ch am bers , 441 F.3d a t 455. In s hort , “ the f acttha t the pornography s ta tut es encompa s s s ome purel y intras ta te act ivi tyis of ‘ no moment. ’ ” Id
. (ci ti ng R aic h , 545 U.S. at22). Having cons ide red the f act ors outl ine d in M

or r is on and the ef

f ect s of p u r e l y l o c a l p r o d u c t i o n o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y o n the nat ion a l ma r k e tf o rs u c h ma t e r i a l s , we
co n clu d e th at C o n g re ss d id n o t ex ce ed its C o m m er ce C lau se p o w er in e n a cti n g 1 8 U .S .C . § 22 51 (b) . T here fore, Bro w n’s f acial challeng e to the co nstituti on alityof § 22 51 (b) fai ls. B. As-App li ed Ch all enge Br ow n h as als o ch allenged the co nstituti on ality of § 22 51 (b) as-app lied to the facts of this
cas e. In Uni t e d St at e s v . Andr e ws , 383 F .3d 3 74 (6th Cir. 20 04 ), th is C o urt co nsidered an asapp lied challeng e to the co nsti tu ti o n a lity of § 225 1(b ). In that case, A nd rew s prod uced child pornography by f

orci ng his twel ve-y ear -ol d nie ce a nd s even- y ear -ol d s te p-daught er to t ake nude pic tur es of

the irown genit al are as with a “ pen came ra. ” Andrew s loa ded thes e pi ctures f rom t he
came ra ont o his comput er, but there was no e vide nce thatthe pic tur es were upl oaded to the Int erne t. In consi deri ng the cons ti tut iona li ty of § 2251(b), thi s Court not ed thatAndrew s was-12-

invol ved i n prec is el y the type of chi ld- expl oit ive behavi or that Congres s s ought t o prohi bitwhen it passed § 22 51 (b) . Sp ecif ically , the cou rt stat ed tha t: A nd rew s f

irst f orce d tw o ch ildren ag ed 1 2 an d u nd er t o w atch sexu allyexp licit photogr aphs tha t pr es umabl y had been trans mit te d over int ers ta te li nes . He then compel le d the m to e ngage i n and t o photogr aph s imi la r s exual lyexpl ic itbehavi or, un do ub t e dl y f

ort he pu rp os e of

t ra ns mi t t i ng tho s e ph ot og raph s i n the s a me mann e r. The c hi l dr e n wer e vu l ne rabl e no t on l y be c a us e of t he i r a ge b ut also becaus e th ey w er e under hi s car e and c ontr ol a t the t ime , and thei r coope rat ion was c le arl y the res ult of coer ci on and outr ight thr eat s to the ir s af ety . In addi ti on, Andrew s was i n pos s es s ion of s ever al hundre d pornographic photogr aphs dep icting un identifi ed ch ildren w ho app eared to be u nd er the ag e of 12
. A s early as two years b efore his a rrest on th ese charg es, his w if e had seen the p orn og raph ic imag e of a child o n h is c o mp uter [w hich h ad b een ship ped in interstate co m m er ce ]. Id . at 3 7 8
. Here, the f

act s are al most indi s ti nguis habl e f rom thos e i n Andr e ws and ce rt ai nlyinvol ve th e typ e o f ac tiv ity th at C o n g re ss so u g h t to p ro h ib it th ro u g h § 2 2 5 1 (b ). See Gann , 160 Fed. Appx. at466 (al s o invol ving f act s s imi la r to t hos e i n Andr e ws ). As out li ned above , Brown took phot o g r a p h s a n d v i d e o s o f h i s a p p r o x i ma t e l y t wo - y e a r - o l d s t e p - g r a n d d a u g h t e r s i n v a r i ous locations ( i. e. , on his bed, on the toi le t and in the bathtub)
. Some of the photogr aphs invol ved la s ci vious exhi bit ion of

the geni ta ls
. Sim ila r to the vic ti ms i n Andr e ws , the s e chi ldr en were vulne rabl e notonlybecaus e of the iry oung age but al s o becaus e theywere underBrown’s car e and control atthe ti me t he images were produced. Simi la r to Andrews, Brown w as in pos s es s ion of hundreds of

pornograp h ic photogr aphs depi ct ing uni dent if ie d chi ldr en on hi s comput er. M oreo ver, al thou gh it w as no t alleged that Br ow n had actu allyup loade d ch ild po rno grap hy to th e I n ter n et, h e a d m itte d to d o in g so at t h e ti m e h e e n ter ed in to h is p lea ag re em en t.-13-

Given the evi dence cont ai ned i n the rec ord and the Supreme Court’ s holdi ng in R aic h , we concl ude that the re is a s uf f ic ie nt ne xus between the act ivi ti es des cri bed i n Count One of the indictm ent an d interstate com mer ce. T here fore, Bro w n’s as -app lied challeng e also fai ls. I I . Sentenci ng En hancements Brown has a ls o appea le d his s ent ence . Speci f ic al ly , he al le ges tha t the di s tr ic t c ourterr ed in apply ing e nhance ment s f or the f oll owing s peci f

ic of f ens e cha rac te ri s ti cs : ( 1) expl oit ing mor e th an one mi nor (U.S. S.G. § 2G2. 1(c) (1)) ; ( 2) enga ging i n a patte rn of act ivi tyinvol ving the
e x p loitati on of a mino r (U .S.S.G . § 2G 2.2(b )(4 )); and (3) eng aging in a pa ttern of activity invol ving pr ohibi te d s exual conduct(U.S. S.G. § 4B1. 5(b)( 1)). Sente nci ng enhanc ement s under th e U n ite d S tat es S en ten cin g G u id eli n es m u st be p ro v en b y a pr ep o n d er an ce o f ev id en ce . Unite d Stat es v. M

ic kens , 453 F .3d 6 68 , 673 (6th Cir. 20 06 ). T h e r e fo r e , on ap peal, this Cou rt mu st det ermi ne whethe r th e d istri ctcourt ’ s f actual f indi ngs as the y rel at e t o the s ent enci ng enhanc ement s were s upport ed bya pre pondera nce of the evi dence
. A. M ore t han O ne M inor Brown pled gui lty to pr oduci ng chi ld pornographyin vi ola ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b). W h en ca lcu lat in g th e se n ten ce for a d efe n d an t co n v ict ed u n d er th is sta tu te, U
. S
. S
. G . § 2 G 2 .1 pro vides that: If the of f ens e i nvolve d the expl oit at ion of more than one mi nor, Chapt er Three , PartD (M ult ipl e Count s ) shal l be appli ed as if the expl oit at ion of eac h minorhad been c onta ine d in as epar at e countof convi ct ion. U.S.S. G. § 2G2.1(c )(1)
. T hus , § 2G2.1(c )(1) requi res the s ent enci ng courtto trea t e ach e xploi te d minoras though the expl oit at ion of tha t minor w as cont ai ned i n a s epar at e countof convi ct ion.-14-

Whil e Brown does not obj ecttha t U.S.S. G. § 2G2.1 is the proper Guidel ine to cons ide r as to the pro du ction of ch ild po rno grap hy char ged in Co un t O ne, he argu es th at th e district court erre d in appl y ing the enha nceme nt be caus e there was i ns uf f ic ie nt e vide nce dem o n strat ing thathe expl oit ed more tha n one mi nor re la ti ve t o Count One. Ini ti al ly , thi s Court not es tha t the governme nt’ s comment s atthe s ent enci ng hear ing do not s upportBrown’s cont ent ion that the re w as ins uf f ic ie nt evi dence to s upportappl ic at ion of the enhanc ement . In prope r cont ext , the governme nt s ta te d atthe hear ing: J udge, as f

ar a s how m anytwins were i nvolve d in the photos , as I’ ve s ai d to Mr. F leming from the beg innin g, there w ere a variety o f pictur es in this case of bo th gir ls and i ndeed Mr. Brown admit te d to the cus toms agen t in terviewing hi m he took pictures o f his step-gra nd dau gh ters. T he re’s some imag es that I w ill charac te ri ze a s border li ne, dependi ng as f ar a s whetherthe y dis pla y la s ci vious exh ibition of gen itals
. T here was one photo thatwas c le arl y in our mind thatdid di s pla y expedi ti on [ s ic ] of genitals that w as w hich C ou nt 1 w as based. S o as to that p ho to , I also indicated to M r. Flem ing it is true , w e can’t show that tw o g irls were invo lved in the cl earla s ci vious exhi bit ion of geni ta ls
. T here are a vari ety of photos , and the cus tom a gent is here and she has the m, i f y ou want, as a f

actf indi ng to r evi ew the othe r phot os and make a det ermi nat ion on y our own, butas I in d ica ted t o M r. Flemi ng, I coul dn ’t co nf ide ntl y prove be y ond a re as onabl e doubttha t he had taken lascivious exh ibition of gen ital photo grap hs of both gran dd aug hters. [J.A . 1 0 2 -1 0 3 ] A lth o u g h th e g o v er n m en t co n ce d ed th at o n ly o n e p h o to w as “c lea rl y las civ io u s,” itacknowle dged thatothe r depi ct ions were “ border li ne. ” In a ddit ion, the governme nt not ed that the re were s eve r al

ph otos “f

ocu sing on the ge nitals.” W h il e the go vern men t indicated tha t it coul d not “ conf

ide ntl y prove be y ond a reas onabl e doubt” thatBrown had take n la s ci vious photos
o f bo th gran ddau gh ters , at sen ten cin g , th e g o v er n m en t n ee d o n ly p ro v e a fac t su ch as t h is b y a preponde ranc e of

the evi dence
.-15-

It is apparen t that the d is tr ic t ju dg e did n ot rev iew any of the ph otog raph s prior to appl y ing the enha nceme nt unde r § 2G2.1(c )(1)
. Ins te ad, he re li ed s ole lyon the f indi ngs cont ai ned i n the pre- s ent ence report a nd made i nf ere nces bas ed on thos e f indi ngs . T he parti es hav e con ceded that there w as one p ho to w hich w as clearlylascivious. Ho w ever , that pho to depi ct ed onl y one mi nor. Itis uncl earbas ed on the re cord be f ore us whetherthe re was evi dence
s ubmit te d by the governme nt by w hic h the court coul d have concl uded that the re was more than
on e min or v ictim. T here fore, B row n is en tit led to a rem and to allow the go vern men t to subm it (and the co u r tt o f

u l l y c o n s i d e r ) a l l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e n u mb e ro f v i c t i ms i n v o l v e d i n the
o ffen se c h ar g ed in C o u n t O n e.

B . E n g a g ed in a P a tt er n o f A ct iv it y In v o lv i n g t h e E x p lo it a ti o n o f a M inor Brown als o argue s tha t the di s tr ic t c ourterr ed i n enhanc ing hi s of f ens e l evel under U .S.S.G . § 2G 2.2(b )(4 ), w hich p rov ides f or a f ive-leve l increase “ [i ]f the de fendan t enga ged in a p att er n o f ac tiv ity in v o lv in g th e s e x u a l a b u se o r e x p lo ita tio n o f a m in o r.” U .S .S .G . § 2G 2.2(b )(4 ). A “ pattern o f act ivityinvo lving the sexu al abu se or ex ploitatio n o f a m in or” is defined as: anycombi nat ion of

two or m ore se para te ins ta nces of the s exual abus e or s exual expl oit at ion of a minor by the def endant , whetheror notthe abus e or e xploi ta ti on (A) occurred dur ing the cours e of the of f ens e; (B) i nvolve d the s ame ordif f ere nt victims; or (C ) resulted in a con viction for such con du ct. U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .2 , c m t. n .1 . R elyi n g o n th e p ri o r d ete rm in ati o n re g ar d in g ap p lic ati o n o f § 2G2.1(c )(1) ( i. e. , th a t mo re than on e min or w as explo ited), the district court foun d that § 2G2.2(b)( 4) appli ed becaus e ther e w as evi dence indi cat ing thatboth s te p-gra nddaught ers were-16-

abus ed. Brown, however, cont ends tha t the f ive le vel enhanc ementf

or a pa tt ern of

act ivi tywas not s upport ed bya pre pondera nce of the evi dence
. On appeal , the governme nt a rgues tha t the di s tr ic t c ourtdid noter r in ap p lyi ng the § 2G2.2(b)( 4) enha nceme nt f or a pa tt ern of

act ivi ty . Firs t, the governme nt s ta te s tha t the court proper lydet ermi ned thatBrown vict imi zed both twins , which i s s uf f ic ie nt t o demons tr at e a pat te rn of act ivi ty . In the al te rnat ive , the governme nt a rgues tha t, even i f Brown only abus ed one tw in, the abu se occu rred ov er a p eriod of ti me. S pecificall y, the go vern men t n otes that, in h is plea ag reem ent, Bro w n ag reed that, Bet ween November 29, 2001 and November 24, 2002, at his home, in Cl evel and, O hio, D efendan t perm itt ed o ne o r bo th of said twin girls to eng age in sexually exp licit con du ct for the purp ose of pro du cing v isual depi ct ions of such co nd uct. [J .A. 67 ] Finally, the go vern men t conten ds that, regard les s o f w hethe r B row n ex ploited b oth twins , the dis tr ic t c ourtproper lyf ound by a pre pondera nce of the evi dence tha t Brown expl oit ed or abus ed mi nors on atle as t two occas ions
. T h e g o v er nmentnote s tha t i n addi ti on to the evide nce d emo nstrating that B row n sexu allyexp loited at least one of his st ep-g rand dau gh ters, th er e is ev id en ce th at B ro w n w as i n v o lv ed in th e I n ter n et s ex u al a b u se o f an o th er m in o r. In parti cul ar, the governme nt not es tha t Brown’ s CD s cont ai ned a se ri es of comput er monit or s hots
. T hes e ima ges were ta ken on Octobe r 4, 2003, and depi ct ed a vi deo cha t be tween two indi vidua ls us ing the name s “ Kool Dude” and “ T wo for Fun. ” During the communi cat ion, Kool Dude typed i n the chatwind o w , “[s ] he l ooks s weet. ” Addit iona ll y , duri ng the communic at ion, the f

emal e toddl er grabbed an adult peni s and “Tw o f or F un” typed, “ [ s ] he l ike s-17-

to see your c ( no t reada b le) .” Fo rensic ana lys is revealed tha t these images w ere taken w ith B ro w n ’s S o n y C yb er sh o t ca m er a a n d th at B ro w n b ea rs t h e ta tto o “M r. K o o l.” H aving review ed the reco rd, there is suff icient eviden ce by w hich th e district j ud ge co uld hav e fo u n d b y a prep on dera nce o f the ev idenc e that B row n en gag ed in tw o o r m ore sep arate ins ta nces of

s exual abus e. T he evi dence sh o ws t hatBrown exploi te d atle as t one of his s te pgranddaughte rs . In addi ti on, the rec ord cont ai ns evi dence indi cat ing tha t Brown was a n act ive participan t in a realtime chat w ith some on e w ho w as abusing a min or at the tim e. V iew ing all
o f th is e v id en ce in its e n tir ety, t h e d istr ict co u rt d id n o t er r i n ap p lyin g § 2 G 2 .2 (b )( 4 ).

C . E n g a g ed in a P a tt er n o f A ct iv it y In v o lv in g P ro h ib it ed S exual Condu ct Brown also obj ect s to the enha nceme nt ba s ed on § 4B1. 5(b)( 1) f or the s ame r eas ons
ar tic u lat ed in h is o b

jec tio n to th e ap p lic ati o n o f § § 2 G 2 .1 (c )( 1 ) an d 2 G 2 .2 (b )( 4 ). S p ec ifica lly, he ar gues tha t di s tr ic t j udge erred i n appl y ing § 4B1. 5(b)( 1), ina sm u ch as the e vide nce was ins uf f ic ie nt t o prove thathe (1) engage d in a p att er n o f expl oit at ion with ei the r of his s te pgranddaughte rs or (2) was i nvolve d in the cr eat ion of the IC U ii captures invol ving a nothe r minor
. U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.5(b )(1 ) pr ov ides that: In anycas e i n which the def endant ’ s ins ta nt of

f ens e of convi ct ion is a cove red s ex cri me . . . and the def

endant engage d in apat te rn of act ivi tyinvol ving pr ohibi te d s exual conduct : ( 1) T he off ens e leve l sha ll be 5 plus the of f ens e l evel det ermi ned u n d er C h ap ter s T w o an d T h re e . . . .” U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.5(b )(1 ). Bro w n d oes no t dispute that his con viction for p rod u c ti o n of child pornography in vi ola ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(b) c ons ti tut es a “ cover ed s ex cr ime , ” s ee U. S. S. G. § 4 B 1 .5 , cm t. n . 2 (A )( ii) , o r th at p ro d u cti o n o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y is “p ro h ib ite d sex u al c o n d u ct,”-18-

s ee U.S.S. G. § 4B1. 5, cmt . n. 4(A)(i i). H o w ev er , h e obj ect s to the enha nceme nt be caus e he
con tends ther e w as in suff icient e viden ce to pro ve he eng aged in a pattern of explo itati on w ith eit h er o f hi s ste p -g ra n d d au g h ter s o r w ith th e m in o r d ep ict ed o n th e m o n ito r sh o ts. A “pa tt ern of

act ivi ty ” f

or the purpos es of

§ 4B1.5(b )( 1) occ urs when: (1) a def endant engage s in the prohi bit ed s exual conductw ith a m inoron atle as t two sepa rat e occ as ions , and (2) ther e w er e at lea s t two m inorvic ti ms. U.S.S. G. § 4B1. 5, cmt . n. 4(B)(i ). For the rea s ons discussed w ith respect t o application of § 2G 2.2(b )(4 ), this Co urt f inds that the district cour t did not e rr i n appl y ing a n enhanc ementunder § 4B1. 5(b), ina s much as the re was s uf f ic ie nt e vide nce in the re cord de monstrat ing thatBrown sexua ll y expl oit ed atle as t one of his s te p-gra nddaught ers and was an ac ti ve parti ci pantin the ICUii inc ide nt i n w h ic h another mi nor was abus ed. T h er efo re , w e fin d th at a p p lic ati o n o f th e e n h an ce m en t w as w ar ra n ted
. CO NC L US I ON F or th e reason s discussed herein , we A F F IR M the de nial of the mo tion to d ismiss
. Howev e r , we VAC ATE B r o wn ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d r e ma n df o rr e - s e n t e n c i n g t o a l l o w t h e d i s tr ic t courtto r evi ew and cons ide r the evi dence rel evant to the enhanc ementunder U. S.S. G. § 2G2.1. O n rem and , the d istrict co urt shou ld full y co nsider all eviden ce reg ardin g w hethe r the o ff ense ch ar g ed in C o u n t O n e in v o lv ed th e e x p lo ita tio n o f m o re th an o n e m in o r.