## 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. 11

- 2054 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E R I K D. Z AHU R S KY, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 2:06 CR109

—RudyL ozano, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 17, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 2, 2012

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Thi s i s Er i kZa hur sky ’ s se co nd appeal to thi s co urt. In 20 07, a j ury convi cted Zahursky ofat tem pti ng to co er ce o r enti ce a m i norto enga ge i n se x u al a cti vi ty i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 422(b)

— an off ense f orwh i ch Zahurskyrec ei ved a 262- m onth p ris on te rm . Za h u rs ky ap p ea led , ch alle n gin g b ot h h is convi cti on an d a se ntenci ng enhancem ent b ase d on § 2 G1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B) o fthe sente nci ng gui del i nes. W e a ffi rm ed2 N o. 11

- 2054 the c onvi cti on, but w e v acat ed Z ahursky’ s s entence a nd r e man de d, r ul i ngtha t§ 2 G1
. 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B) wa s i na pp li cab le. On rem an d , the d istri ct cou rt, rel ying in pa rt on § 2G1. 3( d) o fthe gui del i nes, se n te nced Zahurskyto 21 0 m o nths i n pr i so n. Za hur sky a ppea l s ag ain, a r g ui ng th at o u r ear l i err uling pre cl ud es not onl y the se cti on (b) enh ancem ent, but al so the s ecti on ( d) e nhancem ent. A l though § 2G1. 3(d ) m ay not apply, we fi nd that Z ah urs ky ha s forfeited this argum en t and therefore affi rm hi s s entence
.
I In20 06 , Za hu rs ky, us in gth e p s e u d o n y m “ g r a c e p a c e1 01 ,” bega n a c hat r oo m co rr espondence with “S ad_Shel ly20 0” (Shell y), a fict it io us 14-year-ol d gi rl create d by the U
. S. Se cre t S er vi ce. ( The re cor d d oe s no t r eve alwh y that age ncy had be com e invol ved, but no o ne has m ade anythi ng of it. ) S hor tl y there after, Zahursky b ega n cor re sponding w i th “hol l y19 89cuti e” ( H ol l y) , wh o re prese nted h er s e l ft o be 14 ye ar s o ld , bu t w h os e a c tu al id en tit y is unkno wn. W e ne ed no t de sc r ibe the se c o nv er sa ti o ns i n depth here apar t fro m noting that they were gr aphic; so m e o f th e det ai l s ca n b e f o und in o urpr ev i o us op in ion , U ni t e d S ta tes v
. Zahurs ky, 58 0 F
. 3d 515, 51 7- 20 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 9)
. I t s uffi ces to saythatZahursky e xpresse d a s tr on g d es ire to h av e s ex sim u lta n eo u sly w ith Sh elly an d H oll y, an d he p ro m p ted them to conta ct eac h oth er. T h ey n ev er d id , an d h is cor re sp on d en c e w ith H o l ly ended. U nd ete rred , Zahursky m ade pl ans t o have a th r e e s o m e w ith th e fic tit iou s Sh elly an d h er (als o fic titi ous) fri end Lindsey.N o. 11

- 2054 3 W h ile en rou te to m eetS hell y a nd Li nd sey, Zahursky w as ar re ste d. A s we note d, he was eve ntual l y c onvict ed ofat tem pti ng to per suade, i nd uce, enti ce o r coe rce a mi no r t o e ng a g e i n s e xu a l a c t i v i t y i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2422 (b) a nd was s en te nc ed to 2 62 months o fi m pr i so nm en t. T h is s en te n c e w as ba se d , in p a r t, on tw o p ro visi ons ofthe sente nci ng g uidel i nes: fi rs t, an enhancem en t u n d er U .S.S.G . § 2G 1.3 (b )(2) (B ) for “ u n d u ly i nfl uenc[ i ng] a m i nor, ” ba sed o n hi s corre spondence wi thHol l y ; a nd s ec o nd, a ps eu do

- co unte nhance m en t unde r § 2 G1. 3( d) , w hi chw as al so b as ed o n h i s co r r es po nden ce wi thHol l y . ( A “ps eu do

- co unt ” appe ar s to b e th e ter m u sed bythe Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on s taffto describe a n uncharge d offense. See Thom as W
. H utchi son et al., Fe deralS entenci ng La w a n d P ra cti ce § 3D1. 2 ( 2012 ed .).) I n 2 0 0 9 , Z a h u r s k y a p p e a l e d h i s s e n t e n c e , a s s e r ti ng that the undue i nfl uence e nhancem en t sh oul d not hav e been applied w hen hi s a dvis or y guidel i nes o ffense l eve l was cal cul ate d. W e f ound m er i t in thi s arg um ent, wri ting that“ § 2G1
. 3(b) ( 2) ( B) c an no t appl y wher e th e d efe nd ant and the m i nor have not engaged in proh ibite d sexual co nd uct. ” Zahurs ky, 58 0 F
. 3d at 526. Fi nd i ng tha t the r eco rd fa il ed to co ntai n any evi dence th at Z ah ursky a nd H ol l y had e verm et

— orev en that H ol l y was a m i nor

— w e r em anded f orr ese ntencing
. Id. at5 27-28. On r emand, Za hur sky r ec ei ve d a l o wer s en te nc e o f2 10 months
. The r ec al cul at ed g ui del i ne s se ntence no l onge r i ncl ud ed the subsect i on (b) ( 2) ( B) e nhancem ent, but i t s ti l l co nt ain ed the sect i on ( d) e nhancem ent. Zahurskynow app eal s the use of§ 2G1. 3( d) t o enhance hi s a dvis ory guidel i ne o ffense sco re .4 N o. 11

- 2054 II W here a convi cti on und er 18 U
. S. C. § 2422 ( b ) i nvol ves m ul ti pl e m i no r s, U. S
. S
. G. § 2G1. 3( d) di r ec ts a s en tenci ng co urt to tr eatthe re l evantc on du ct with each perso n as i fi t were a s epara te count. U n like the sta tute, how eve r, the gui del i ne ( that is, § 2G1. 3( d)) does not co nt ain a n “ at te m pt” pr o vi si o n. Th is m ea ns tha t th e gov er nm ent m ust pro ve that each r el evantper son w as a m i nor . S ee U nite d State s v. C oté, 5 0 4 F
. 3 d 6 8 2 , 6 8 7

- 88 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ) (ex p lain in g relev an c e of th e att em p t p ro visi on)
. The gui del i ne defi nes the te rm “m i nor ” e xpansive l y: f orpurposes o f§ 2G1. 3( d), a m i nori s e i ther( 1) a perso n who ha s no t at ta i ne d the a g e o f1 8 year s, ( 2) a pe r so n, w hetherfi cti ti ous o r not, wh o i s r epres ented bya l aw en f o r ce m en t o ffi ce r t o b e unde r th e ag e o f1 8 an d available f or sexu all y exp li cit con d u c t, or (3) an un d erc ov er law en for c em en t o ffice r w h o re p re se n te d h er se lf to be l ess than 18 yea rs o l d. U
. S. S. G. § 2 G1. 3 a pp . n. 1. The enhancem ent und er § 2G1. 3( d) c annot be b ase d on the fi rs t o fthes e defi ni ti ons, f orr eas ons si m i l arto th o se w e di s c u s s e d i n o u r e a r l i e r o p i n i o n . T h e r e we we r e c o ns i de r i nga n e nh a nc e men tu nd e r U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G1. 3(b) ( 2) ( B). The r el evantdefi ni ti on o f“m i nor ” f or sect i on (b) i s nar ro w erthan i t i s f orse cti on ( d). S ecti on (b) “d oe s n otap p ly in a c as e in w h ich th e o n ly ‘m in o r’ . .
. i nv o l ve d i n the off en se i s a n under co ve r l aw e nf o r ce m en t offic er .” U .S.S.G . § 2 G 1 .3 ( b ) ap p . n.3 (B ), ¶ 2. T h u s, a p er s o n i s a m in or for s u b se c tio n (b) p u rp os es on ly if she i s l ess than 18 yea rs o l d. The re cor d here co ntained n o e vid en c e t o t h at effe c t. Zahurs ky, 58 0 F
. 3d at 527.N o. 11

- 2054 5 The go ver nm ent was there f or e r equi re d to prove th atHol l y was e i th era l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r o r the fi cti onalcr ea tio n of such an o ffi cer . I nd eed, we sugg es te d tha t th i s was a po ss ibi l i ty in o ure ar l i ero pi ni o n. Id. B u t Z a h u r s k y c o r r e c t l y n o t e s th a t j u s t a s we ha ve no w ay ofve ri fyi ng tha t Hol l y was a 14

- yea r- ol d fe m al e, w e a lso cannotkno w wh ethershe w as a l aw enf or cem ent a gent, o r i fshe w as anyo ne el se. Cri ti cal l y, how ev er, w e lack this clari ty largel y beca us e Za hu rsky’s fi rs t appeal m ade no m enti on of § 2G1. 3( d). Zahursky chose i n hi s fi rs t a pp eal to f ocus on the undu e infl uence enhancem ent desc ribed i n § 2 G1. 3( b) ( 2) ( B ). Ifhe ha d c o mpl ai ned o n tha ta pp e a l ab o utthe s e c t i o n ( d) pseudo-co unt enhancem ent, then w e m i gh t hav e o rder ed ane vi den ti ar y he ar i ngo n Hol ly’ s ident i tyo r a g e an d re m an d ed for re se n te n c in g on th es e g ro u n d s a s w ell. Bu t he did not, and so he has f or fei ted thi s l i ne o fat tack
. Ou r re m and i n Zahursky ’ s firs t a pp ealdi d not g i ve hi m an u nfe tte re d ri ght t o i ntro du ce a ny and al l new sen te nci ng ar gum ents that occur re d to hi m . J ust be cause som e o fthe f acts underl yi ng the se ntenci ng enhancem ents ove rl ap does not m ean that a narr ow chal l enge on o ne gr ound (her e, the und ue i nfl uence e nhancem ent) al so s wee ps i n o th erg r o und s (h er e, the ps eu do

- co unt enhanc e men tt r e a t i nge a c h mi no r a s i fthe r e h a d b e en a s eparate c ou nt o fco nvi cti on)
. Thi s i s e speci al l y s o because the re l evantdefi ni tion o f m i nori s di ffer ent for the t wo e nh a nc e men t s . Co mpa r e U. S
. S
. G. § 2G1
. 3 a pp . n. 1 w ith U
. S. S. G. § 2 G1. 3 a pp . n. 3( B), ¶ 2
. The di str i ct cour t acco rdi ngl y w as enti tl ed to re fuse to h ear Zah ursky ’ s ne w cha l l en g e. As we r ec en tl y s ai d, “ when a6 N o. 11

- 2054

ca se i s g en er al l y r emande d to the di st r i ctc o ur t f o r r e- se ntencing, the dist ri ct c ourt m ay e nt e r t a i n ne w a r g um ents as ne ce ss ar y . . . b utit is no t o bl i g at ed to c o ns i dera ny ne w ev i den ce o r a r g um en ts b ey o nd tha t r el evantt o the i ssues r ai sed o n appeal
. ” U nited Sta tes v. B a rnes , 66 0 F.3d 100 0, 1007 ( 7th Cir. 2011) (em p ha sis add ed ). By f ai l i ng to ra i se the i ssue i n hi s fi rs t a pp eal, Zahursky f o r f ei te d hi s r i g htt o c ha l l en g e th e appl i ca ti o n o f th e p seudo

- co unte nha nc ementunde r § 2 G1. 3( d) , a nd the di str i ct c ourtwas not obl i ged to co nsi der thi s new ar gum ent o n re m and. W e there f or e A F F I R M Z ah urs ky’s sente nce.

2- 2- 12