## 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. 08

- 2357 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B OKY OUNG, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 05 C R 50-3

—RudyL ozano, Judge
.
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 27, 2009

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 23, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Bo kYounghe l ped to r un a day spa in H i ghl and , I nd i ana, atwh i ch she and other w or ker s pro vi ded se xua l m ass age s t o spa cust om er s. S he was a r r es te d whenthe s pa was r ai ded byl o ca l a nd f ede r ala g en ts
. Y ounge ve ntua l l y pl ea ded g ui l tyt o c o nspi ri ng to use the f aci l i ti es ofinte rs tat e co m m er ce t o fac ilita te p ro st itu tio n, see18 U

. S. C

. §§ 371 an d 1952(a)(3), an d the d is t r ic t cou rt ordere d her to serve a p rison term2 N o. 08

- 2357

o fe i g ht ee n months , the m inim um t er m c al l ed f o r b y the Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. Young appeal s, co ntendin g that the di str i ct c ou rtm ade two er ro rs i n cal cul ati ng her Gui del i ne s r an g e: c ha r ac te r i zingYo ung ’ s r o l e i n the offe n se as th at of a m an ag er or s u p er vis or , seeU. S

. S

. G. § 3 B1. 1( b) and ( c) , and tr eat i ng Young’ s co - w or ker s a s vi cti m s whom she ha d e nti ced to enga ge i n prohibi ted sexualco nd uct , seeU
. S. S. G. § 2 G1. 1( d). Young al so a r g ue s tha tthe c o ur tf a i l e d t o g i v e me a ning fula t t e nti on to the m i ti gat i ng f acto rs she ci ted as a basi s f ora l ower sen ten ce, and tha t t h e se nt en ce im p osed by the cou rt i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . We a ffi r m.

I. The Ba r l eyS pa i n Hi g hl an d, I ndi an a was o ne o ff o ur d a y s p a s i n H i g h l a n d a nd D y e r, I n d i a n a th a tc a me und er i nvest i gat i on i n the autum n of 2005 by th e p olice de p a r t me n t s o f th o s e t wo t o wn s a l o n g wi th t he U. S

. I nt erna l Re ve nue S er vi ce , the F ede r alBur eau of I nvest i gat i on, and I m m i gr ati on a nd Custom s Enfo rce m ent. S un Ch a Tho m pso n o wned thr ee o fthe f o urs pas , i ncl ud i ng the Barl ey Spa. On F ebr uary22 , 20 06, ag ents ex ec ut ed se ar ch war r an ts a t al l f o urs pas . Pr es en t atthe Bar l eyS pa when ag ents se ar ch ed i t wer e Yo unga nd t wo o th e r e mpl o y e e s : P o k S u n P a l me r, wh o c l e a n e d t he s p a a n d c o o k e d me a l s f o r i t s c u s t o me r s , a n d S o o n J a K i m, w ho pro vi ded m ass age s. Pal m erand Kim had bee n w or ki ng atthe spa f or a m att er of w eek s. Young had bee n w or ki ng the re f orapproxi m ate l y s i x m onths. T he Ba rley Sp a offe r e d i ts cu stom ers stan d ard m ass age s, b u t for custo m er s wil l i ng to pay a bi t m or e, i tsN o. 08

- 2357 3

m as se us es wer e wi l l i ngto pr o vi de m as tu rba ti o n. Yo ung w ou l d l a t e r s t a t e a t he r c ha ng e - o f

- pl e a he a r i ngthat custo m er s were char ged an entry fe e of$5 0 f or30 m i nutes or $70 for an hou r ofnon sex ua l m assa ge. C us tom ers i nt e r e s t e d i n a s e xu a l ma s s a g e ty pi c a l l y p a i d a n e xt r a “ t i p” ofbe tw een $20 to $60; the am ount o fthe ti p, i fany, was up t o the c us t o mer. T he ma s s e us e s k e ptwh a t e v e r t i ps thei r cl i ents pai d them f or thei r m ass age s and were n ot o t he r wi s e p a i d wa g e s b y th e s p a . T h e s p a i n t u r n mad e i ts m oneyfro m the fees thatcusto m er s p aid to e nter the s pa. Young e sti m ate d that a t l eas t seve nty- fi ve perce nto fthe s pa ’ s c us t o mer s we r e i nt e r e s t e d in s e xual m ass age s. Thom ps on had hi re d Young i n A ugust o f20 05 to hand l e the spa’ s day- to- day o perat i ons, i ncl ud i ng i ts boo kke epi ng . Y ou ng was to pay Thom pson $1 , 000 per m o nth o uto fthe s pa’ s re cei pts ; fr o m the r emai nde r, s he w as to pay her sel fa sal ar y o f$3 , 000 per m onth ( al though Y oung would l ate r saythatthe proce eds were never s uffici en t to pa y herse lfthat m uc h). Foll ow ing Y ou ng ’s en gag ement, the s pa’ s ac co unt an t wro te a mem o r an dum i nd i cating tha t Young w ould be re pla ci ng Thom pson as the in d ivid ual “r un[ni ng] thi ngs” at the s pa. R. 24 4 a t 3 3. W i thi n a c ouple of m onths, Thom pson was no l onge r di r e c t l y i nv o l v e d wi th the da i l y o pe r a t i o n o fthe s pa and vis i ted the pre m i ses no m or e than once a week. Young col l ecte d the dai l y pr oc ee ds, pai d the s pa’s bi l l s, m ad e sure that the l edger of the spa’ s busi ness w as in ord er forTh om p son ’s occasiona l review , took out ad verti sem ents, pai d the co okherdai l y wages, h ire d new empl o y e e s , b o u g h tg r o c e r i e s f o r th e e mpl o y e e s ( who4 N o. 08

- 2357 l i ve d a t th e spa ) , a nd kep t Thompso n a ppr i se d o fa ny perso nnel i ssues . Young l oo ked i nto Pal m er ’ s i m m i gr ati on s tatus befor e hirin g her as the s pa’s co ok and housekee per shor tl y b ef or e the r ai d, and w he n Pal m erbeg an wo r k, i twa s Y o un gwh o s ho we d he r a r o un d the s pa an d ins tru cted her on h er resp ons ibi li ties. Like th e sp a’s ot h er e m p loy ee s (ex cepti ng Pal m er ) , Young d id pr o v i d e s e x u a l ma s s a g e s t o th e s p a ’ s c l i e n t s . B u tY o ung w as th e sole em p loyee ch arged w ith m an aging the s p a ’s day- to- day o p er ati ons. There was al so evi dence that when cus to m er s ar r ived , Yo ungde ci ded whi cho fthe othe r m ass euses would prov i de them w i th se rv i ces. Ki m , a mass eu se who was pr esen t a t the t i m e o fthe ra i d, w oul d l ate r sta te that Young w as “i n contr olo f eve ry thi ng” a t the spa. R. 24 4 a t 7 2. I n view of Y ou ng ’s respon sibil iti e s , t h e d istri ct cou rt f o und tha t sh e qua l i fi ed as a m an ag ero r s upe r vi so r o fthe cr i m i na l a ct i vi tytha t t o o kpl ac e a t the spa , thus t r i g g er i ng a two
- l e v e l i nc r e a s e i n he r s e nt e nc i ngl e v e l p ur s ua ntto se ct i o n 3 B1. 1( c) o fthe Gui del i ne s. The co ur t no te d, a m o ng o th erf ac to r s, tha t Tho m pso n’ s deg r ee o fi nv o l ve m en t wi ththe s pa dec r ea se d afte r Yo ungwas hi r ed, tha t Yo ung r ec ei ve d a s al ar y i n c o nt r as t to the o th erwomen who pr o vi ded se xua l mass ag es an d wer e co m pen sa te d b y the “ti ps” theyr ecei ved f ortho se ser vi ces, that she w ro te checks o n behal fo fthe spa ( i ncl ud in g h er ow n paycheck) , and that Young d escribed hero w n ro l e a s that o f m anage r i n paperw or k s he co m ple ted f oran a dvert i sem ent in a t el ephone di re cto ry a nd duri ng an i nter vi ew th ata g en ts c o nduc te d i n th e im m edi at e afte r m ath o fthe ra i d on the spa. R. 29 3 a t 1 2- 18. The co urt add ed that eve nN o. 08

- 2357 5 i fYo ungdi d notqual i fy as a mana g ero r s upe r vi so r o fthe ot h er p a r t i c i p an ts in t h e s p a’s cr im in al a c tiv ity , sh e d id

“ e xe r c i s e [ ] ma na g e men tr e s po ns ib i l i t y o v e r the p r o per ty [,] a ss et s[,] an d ac tiv itie s o f th e c rim in al or ga n iza tio n,” w hi ch the Se ntenci ng Com m i ssi on’s a dvis or y no tes re cog n ize a s a bas i s f ora l onge r sente nce. R. 29 3 a t 1 8; see§ 3B1. 1, co m m ent. ( n. 2) The cour t c on cl ud ed that a s eco nd , “pseudo co unt” en h an c em en t w as w ar ra n te d ba se d on Y ou n g’s role in enti ci ng the o th erwom en atthe spa to enga ge i n i l l ega l sexualco nd uct. See § 2G1. 1( d). W hen a defe nd ant has been convi cted of an offense i nvol vi ng th e p ro m oti on ofco m m er ci alse x act s or o therpro hibi ted se xual conduct and m ult i ple vi cti m s, secti on 2 G1. 1( d) instr ucts th e c ou rtto cal cul ate the defe nd ant’ s o ffense l eve l as if the defendant had been convi cted o fa separ ate co unt f or each v i ctim . B ecause o ffenses o fthi s nature ar e no t gr ou p e d t og et h er for s en te n c in g p u rp os es , see U. S

. S

. G. §§ 2G1. 1, co m m ent. ( n. 5) & 3D 1. 2, addit i onalco unts o f con viction trigger an increas e in the d efen d a n t ’s c om b in ed offe n se lev el, seeU
. S. S. G

. § 3D 1 .4 . T he re w ere m ult i pl e ma s s e us e s wh o wo r k e d a tthe Ba r l e y S pa du ri ng You n g’s t enure, and beca use thei r sol e s ourc e o f paywas the “ ti ps” the y r ec ei ve d f o r s ex ua l massag es, the cour t tr eated them as vi cti m s o fthe offense i n the sense that they w er e “ enti ced” i nto engag i ng i n com m er ci alse x acts
. Based o n thos e v i cti m s, th e cour t deem ed Young to have been convict ed ofo ne addit i onal“pseudo” count, w hi ch r esul ted in a tw o- l eve l i ncre as e in her offense l eve l

. R. 29 3 a t 2 0- 22.6 N o. 08

- 2357 Young’s adj usted o ffense level, to gether w i th herl ack of a pri or cri m i nal re cor d, cal l ed f or a sente nc e in th e r an g e o f1 8 to 2 4 m o nths

. I n a wri tt ens en te nc i ng m em or andu m , Young’ s co unsel hi ghl i ghted a var iet y o f m i tig at in g fa c to rs an d as ke d for a “m in im al s en te n c e.” R

. 221 at 6. A t the final senten cing h earing, You ng ’s counselurg ed the c ou rtto i m pose a be l ow-Guidel i nes sente nce o fpro bati on, not i ng tha t Thom pson, the own er o fthe s pa, ha d r ec ei ve d a t er m of t wenty - se ve n months and Th om pson’ s s i l ent par tnerand i nvest orhad re cei ved pro bati on, thatYoung had bee n on workr el eas e, whi chhe c ha r ac te r i ze d a s “b as i ca l l y ho m e ar r es t” f o r the pr ec edingt wo yea r s, R. 2 93 a t 31 , a nd tha t Yo ung woul d notbe a i ded byg o i ngt o pr i so n. R. 2 93 a t 26

- 32
. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d not sp ec i fi ca l l y a ddr es s th e va r i o us mi t i g a t i n gf a c t o r s th a tY o u n g ’ s c o u n s e l had c i t e d

. Ho weve r, the cour t di d acknowle dge i ts obl i ga tion to c o ns i der the s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s s e tf o r th i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3553 ( a) i n a ddi ti o n t o the Gui del i ne s i n de ci di ng “w hat a r eas onabl e s entence would be. ” R. 29 3 a t 3 7. T h e c ou rtthen expla i ned w hy i t had co ncl ud ed that a sente nce atthe l ow end o fthe G uidel i nes r ange w as appropri ate f orYoung: [I ]n this cas e Ithink, i f an yth ing, th e [G]u idelines are l i g ht, b ut I think the y ’ r e l i g ht, M s . Yo un g, i n l ar ge part because yo u’r e g ive n the benefi t o fthe doubt w i th r ega rds t o seve ra l por ti ons ofthe [ G]ui del i nes. Bu t when there was any questi on that Ifel t t o be cl o se en o ug h, I woul d g i ve y o u th e be ne fi t of the do ubt

. W he n the r e was a que st i o n r eg ar di nga n e n-N o. 08

- 2357 7 ha nc ement, a l th o ug h i n s o m e ca ses Ifel t th ati t m i g ht be j usti fi ed, ag ai n, Iga ve you the benefi t of the doubt. W h en I firs t s at d o w n t o c o n sid er a se n te n c e in th is case , Itho ught a sente nce at24 m on th s w ou l d be a re aso nabl e s entence
. I n l i ste ni ng to yo ur a tto rney, Ithi nk tha t Isho uld rel oo k a t that num ber

. Ihave l o o k e d a tth e p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r ’ s r e c o mme n d a t i o ns and the co m m ents f ro m the Go vernm ent. Ihave re thought that sente nce, and then Il oo ked at th e Gui del i ne s ag ain, a nd Iha ve de ci ded upo n the follo w in g s en te n c e . . . . R. 29 3 a t 3 7. The co urt proce ede d to se ntence Young to a t er m o fei ghtee n m onths.

II. A

. En hancem ent forLeaders hi p Rol e in the Offense For off enses i nvol vi ng m ult i ple part i ci pants, se cti on 3B1. 1 o f t h e Sentenci ng Guidel i nes pr ovi des f or agg ra vating- ro l e e nhancem ents base d on the nu m bero f par ti ci pan ts i nv o l ve d in the c r i m i na l a ct i vi tya nd the defen dan t’ s r el at i ve r es po ns ibi l i tyfo r c o m m it tingthe off ense. The gui del i ne speci fi es ( a) a f our- l ev elenhancem ent fora defe nd ant who qual i fies a s a n “o rg ani zero r lea d er ” o f c rim in al ac tiv ity in vo lvin g five or m or e p ar tic ipants o r that w as o th er w i se extensi ve, ( b) a thre e- l eve l en h an c em en t for a d efe n d an t w h o q u alifie s as a “s u p er visoro r m anage r” o fcr i m i nal act i vi ty i nvol vi ng fi ve or m or e par ti ci pants o r that w as othe rwis e e xtensi ve, and ( c) a t w o- l eve l en h an c em ent fora defe nd ant who qual i fi es8 N o. 08

- 2357

as an o rg ani zer, l eader, m anag er, o r supervi soro f cri m i nal act i vi ty i nvol vi ng few erpart i ci pants and that was no t o th er wi se e xt en si ve . The di st r i ctc o ur t f o und th atYo ungc o ns ti tu te d a s upe r vi so r o r m an ag ero fthe cri m i nal act i vi ty that tr anspi re d at the Barl ey S pa, but, because i t a ssum ed that the c ri m e invol ved les s than five p ar tic ip an ts an d w as n otot h er w ise ex te n siv e, it i ncre ase d Young’s offense l eve l by two r atherthan th r ee l ev el s. The c o ur t’ s fi ndi ngtha t a defen dan t quali fied a s a m anage r orsuperv i soro fcr i m i nal act i vi ty is a factu al dete rm ination th at w e review f or clear err or. E.g
. , U nited S ta te s v. Watts , 535 F.3d 650 , 660 (7th C ir. ), cert. denied , 129 S. Ct

. 475 (2008). Yo ungc o nc ede s th ato ne c ant ak e “s ni p p ets” f r o m the re cor d that s up port t h e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng but i nsi sts th at “t h e e v i d en c e, as a w h ole , d oe s n otes ta b lish a b as is f or th i s enha nc ement [ , ] f o r the c o nt ex t do es no t demonstr ate exer ti on[ ] o fco ntro l o vero th er s, as co ntem pla ted b y t h e [g u id elin e].” Y ou n g B r. 19 . Sh e p oin ts ou t t h at in o r dert o qua l i fy a s a m an ag ero r s upe r vi so r, a de fen dan t m us t, a t a m i ni m um ha ve “ so m e r ea l a nd di r ec t i nfl uen c e” u p on at le as t o n e o th er p ar tic ip an t in th e c rim e in a w ay th at fu rt h er s th e crim in al a c tiv ity
. See U nited Sta tes v. M ank ie w icz , 1 22 F
. 3d 39 9, 4 05 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. M us t r e ad, 42 F
. 3d 10 97, 11 03 ( 7th C ir. 1994 ) )

. S he em ph as ize s that thi s i s no t a cas e o f“white sl aver y” i n w hi ch the spa’ s work er s were coe rc ed i nto pr o vidi ngs ex ua l s er vi ce s to c us to m er s. Al th o ug h Yo ung ha d ad m inistrative resp on s ibi li ties that other w orkers at th e sp a d id n ot, sh e ch aract e r izes her role as th at of a b oo kk ee p er w h o c olle c te d th e s p a’s p ro c ee d s a n d p aidN o. 08

- 2357 9 its bi ll s un d er the d irection of th e sp a’s ow ne r, Thom pson , a nd wh o had no m eani ngful i nfl uence o ver th e a c tiv itie s o fa n y ot h er em p loy ee . Th is w as a sm all oper ati on i n w hi ch eac h em plo yee had hero w n d u tie s, Yo unga r g ue s, a nd he r dut i es di d no t i nv o l ve the dir ecti on o r contr olo fthe othe r w or ker s. H av i ngr e v i e we d th e r e c o r d , we a r e s a t i s fi e d th a tthe ev i den ce s uppo r ts , a l th o ug h i t m ayno t co m pel, the fi ndi ngtha t Yo ungwas a mana g ero r s upe r vi sor ofthe spa ’ s cr i m i na l a ct i vi ty
. One can rea di l y i nferfr o m the re c or d th at Y ou n g a c te d as th e o w n er ’s p ro x y in o ve r se eingthe sp a’s da y - to
- daya ff ai r s: s he c o l l ec te d the proce eds, pai d the co ok/housek eeperherdai l y wage, was r es po ns ibl e f o r the ledg er, a nd pa i d the b i l l s. S he re port ed to Thom pson wh en the re wer e p robl em s with oth er em p loye e s, includ ing, for ex am p le, an em p loyee’s f ai l ure to re portf orwork ( w hi ch r es ult ed i n Thom pson fi r i ngthe abs en t wor k er )

. The r e was e vi den ce tha t Yo ung hired em p loyees, includ ing Pa lm er, the cook /hou sekee p er. The r e was a l so e vi den ce ( whi cha lthou gh di spu te d, the di strict c o ur t cr edi te d) tha t Yo ungde ci ded, upo n the ar riv al of a cu st om er , w h i c h o f h er co -w or ke rs w ou ld pr ov id e a m ass age to the custo m er . R. 24 4 a t 1 7; R. 29 3 at 13 . Yo u n g m ay n o t h a v e co n tr olle d h er co -w or ke rs in th e sense thatshe had the power t o dict ate th eir action s, bu t suc h con trol is not the sine qu a non of a l eader shi p ro l e; o ne m ay stil l qual i fy a s a m anage r or supervi sori fshe or chestr ate s orco or dinat es the a cti vi ti es of ot h er p ar tic ip an ts in t h e c rim e. U nited S ta tes v. M a rtinez , 52 0 F.3d 74 9, 75 2 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 1 29 S. Ct

. 300 (2008); s e e al s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Gonzal ez-M e ndoz a , 584 F. 3d 726, 72 8-10 N o. 08

- 2357 29 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. The ev i dence thatYoung hi re d w orkers, assign ed them to cus tom ers, ha nd led t h e sp a’s fi nances, and act ed as the o w ner’ s r epres entat i ve s up po r t s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s f i nd i ng tha ts he p l a y e d a mor e r e s po ns ib l e r o l e i n the c r i me tha n di d the othe r s pa em plo yee s. T here was no cl earer ro r i n the dist ri ct cour t’ s dete rm i nati on tha t she qual i fi ed as a m anage r or su p ervisor.

B. Pseudo- Count En hancem ent forCom m er ci alS ex A cts I n v o l v i n gMu l t i p l e V i c t i ms Y o u n gc o n s p i r e d t o u s e th e f a c i l i t i e s o fi n t e r s t a t e c o mm er ce t o f acili ta te pr o st i tu ti o n. Hero ffen se was thus o ne i nvol vi ng co m m er ci alse x acts , i
. e. , tho se f or w h i ch paym en t is ren d er ed

. See U. S

. S

. G. § 2 G1. 1, c o m m en t. ( n. 1) , a nd 18 U
. S.C

. § 1591 ( e) ( 3)

. W here such a n offense i nvol ves m o r e th ano ne v i ct i m , s ec ti o n 2 G1. 1( d) ( 1) o fthe Gu i del i ne s in str ucts the co urt to cal cul ate the offense le v e l “a s if th e p ro m ot in g of a co m m er c ial se x ac t . . . in re spect to each vi cti m had b een conta i ned i n a separa te count o fcon vic tion. ” Purs uant to A pp l i cati on N ote 5 of t he g ui de l i ne , a ny p e r s o n wh o i s “ t r a ns po r t e d, p er su ad ed , in d u c ed , e n tic ed , or c oe rc ed to en ga ge in . . . a c om m er c ial se x a c t . . . is t o b e t re at ed as a se p ar at e v ict im .” Id. , c o m m en t ( n. 5)

. The di st r i ctc o urt fou nd tha t dur i ng Yo u n g ’ s t e n u r e a tth e s p a , th e r e we r e “ a tl e a s tf o u r a nd l i k el y s ev ent o e ight” wo m eno th ertha n Yo ungwho pr o vi ded se xua l s er vi ce s to c us tom er s, R. 2 93 a t 19 , a nd each of thos e w om en const i tuted a vi cti m f or pu rp os es o f the G uidel i ne, R. 29 3 a t 1 9- 20. The co urt al so f ound thatN o. 08

- 2357 11 Y ou n g, inh er role as th e s p a’s m an ag er , ha d effe c tiv ely “enti ced” the se w om en i nto perf or m i ng co m m er ci al s ex acts by co nfini ng the i r i ncom e t o the “ ti ps” theyr ecei ved for p roviding sexu al m assa ges. R . 2 9 3 at 21-22. Th e cou rt ther ef or e ca l cul ate d Young’s offense l eve l as if s he had been con victed ofo ne “pseudo c ount” ofpro m oting a com m er ci alse x act in addit i on t o the o ne actual co unt of convi cti on. The fi cti ti ous sec on d count r esul ted i n a tw ol eve l i ncre ase i n Young’ s o ffense l eve l p u rs uant to sect ion 3D 1.4. Th e d istri ct cou rt’s find ings t h at th e sp a’s m as se u se s w er e vic tim s an d th at Y ou n g w as res p on sib le f orenti ci n g them i nto perf or m i ng co m m er ci alse x acts are factu al in n atu re, and w e review them f or clear err or. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jul i an , 42 7 F
. 3d 471, 48 8- 89 ( 7th C ir. 2005). Y ou n g p ro te st s t h e e n h an c em en t, co n te n d in g t h at in the absence o fev i dence thatshe coe rc ed the m ass euses in to en ga gin g in se x u al a c tiv ity o r c on tr olle d th eir m eth od o fpaym ent, i t was i m properto i ncre ase her off ense l eve l si m plybec ause the m ass euses were gi ven a fi na nc i ali nc en ti ve t o g i ve s ex ua l mass ag es . Yo ung p oin ts ou t t h at K im te st ified t h a t s h e (K im ) ke p t n oton ly the t i ps theyr ecei ved f or sexual m ass age s, but al so onehal fo f the entr ance fees char ged to hercusto m er s. Consequentl y, the t ips f orse xual gr ati fi cati on were not necessa r i l y the mass eu se s’ s o l e so ur ce o fpa y m en t. Yo ung hers el fal so tes ti fi ed that it w as com m on f orspas not to pay m ass euses a w age and in st ead co m pensate them f ro m the fees theyco l l ecte d f ro m custom er s. She adds that i t was Tho m pso n a nd no t sh e who es tabl ished the m anner and am ount o fpaym ent form ass age s.12 N o. 08

- 2357 The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d no t cl ear l y e rrin fi nd i ng tha t Young w as re sponsibl e f orenti ci ng the spa’ s m as se uses i nto perf or m i ng se xual m ass age s. That Young did not c o e r c e the m a s s e us e s i s , as Yo un gal l b utc o nc e de s , b e s i de the point, as the gui del i ne expre ssl y r eaches tho se w ho “ enti ce” others i nto perf or m i ng co m m er ci alse x acts as w el l as tho se w ho per suade, i nd uce or coer c e others into d oing so. A nd th e evid en ce sup p orts th e c o u r t’s fin d in g t h at th e w om e n w e re en tic ed to en ga ge in se xual m ass age s. Even i fthe “ti ps” thatthe m ass euses kept w er e no t the so l e sou rce o fthei r com pensati on, they nonethel ess am ou n ted to a substa nti alpor ti on o fthat com pensati on. A n d gi ven that s eve nty- fi ve perce nt o r m or e o f the spa’ s custo m er s w er e see ki ng sexualgr ati fi cati on, i t i s do ub t ful tha t a mas s e us e who r e fus e d to pr o vi de th at g r at i fi ca ti o n wo ul d ha ve l as te d l o nga t th e spa. Thi s w as enough t o est abl i sh thatthe m ass euses wer e en ti ce d i nt o e ng ag i ngi n s ex ua l a ct i vi tyf o r pa y, a nd th us to sup p ort the find ing tha t the m asseu ses w ere vi cti m s f orpurposes o ft he Guidel i ne. Young’ s r ol e a s a m an ag er or s u p er vis or of t h e s p a’s cr im in al a c tiv ity in turn s up port s th e c ou rt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t s he was re sp onsibl e f orthe enti cem ent. Grante d, Young did not s e tu p th e s p a ’ s f e e s t r u c t u r e a n d me th o d o fc o mpensati ng the m ass euses . But, as the i nd i vi du al w ho f or si x m onths ass i gn ed m ass euses to custo m er s, co l l ecte d the s pa’s pro ceeds, m ade sur e that the spa’s busi ness was ac cur at el y do cument ed i n a l edg er f o r Thompso n, an d k eptthe s pa r unningo n a da y-to-day b as i s, Yo ung p lay ed a sig n ifica n t ro le i n p e rp et u at in g b ot h th e illicit acti v i t y t a k i ngp l a c e a tthe s pa a nd the me a ns b y wh i chN o. 08

- 2357 13 th e m as se us es wer e co m p en sated f o r tha t ac ti vi ty
. The d ist ric t c ou rtco u ld rea so n ab ly in fer th at Y ou n g h er s elf enti ced the m ass euses to enga ge i n com m er ci alse xual acti vi ty.

C. Reaso nabl eness o fYoung’ s S entence I n the w ake o fthe Suprem e Cour t’ s water shed d ec isi on i n U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 5 43 U
. S. 22 0, 12 5 S

. Ct. 73 8 ( 2005 ) , a dist ri ct c ou rthas an o bl i gat i on t o i m pose a se nt en ce th at i s r ea so nabl e i n l i g ht o f the s en te nc i ng c r i te ria se t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a). See U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , 414 F.3d 72 5, 73 0-3 1 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); see also Gall v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S

. 38 , 49

- 50, 12 8 S

. Ct. 58 6, 59 6- 97 ( 20 07 )

. Al th o ug h i t i s n o l o ng erb o und b y the S en te nc i ng Gu i del i nes, th e co urt sti l l m ust co nsul t the Guidel i nes in arr ivin g a t a rea so n ab le s en te n c e, s e eKi m b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85, 108, 128 S. Ct. 558, 57 4 (2 007) ( “di st r i ctc o ur ts mustt r ea t th e G uide l i ne s as ‘ th e sta rt i ng poi nt a n d the i ni ti albenchm ar k’ ”) ( quoti ng G all , 55 2 U. S

. a t 49 , 1 28 S. Ct

. a t 59 6) , a nd whe n the cour t s el ects a sente nce that f al l s w ithi n the proper l yca l cul at ed Gui del i ne s r an g e, we sh al l pr es um e th ats en te n c e is rea so n ab le. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 41 5 F
. 3d 606, 60 8 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); see Ri ta v. U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U.S

. 338, 127 S. Ct. 2456 ( 2007 ) “But the defe nd ant m ust b e g i ven an oppor tu ni tyt o dr aw the j udg e’ s at te nt i o n t o a ny f ac to r l i st ed i n s ec ti o n 3 55 3( a) tha t m i g htwar r an t a se nte n c e d iffer en t fro m th e g u id elin es se n te n c e, for it is po ss ibl e f o r s ucha v ar i an t se nt en ce t o b e r ea so nabl e an d th us wi th i n the s en te nc i ngj udg e’ s d i sc r et i o n un derthe14 N o. 08

- 2357

new r egi m e in w hi ch the gui de lines, being advi sor y, can be t rum ped by se cti on 3 553( a) , wh i ch as w e hav e str ess ed i s m andator y. ” D e an , 41 4 F

. 3d at 730- 31. At o r ala r g um en t, Yo ung ’ s co uns ela ss er te d tha t Yo ung re cei ved “a pre- B o o k erse ntence i n a pos t- Boo k erw or ld .” Y ou n g’s p re m ise is n otth at th e d ist ric t c ou rtm ist ak en ly tr ea te d the Gui del i ne s as b i ndi ng, b utr athe r tha t th e co ur t, i n n eg l ec tingt o e xpl i ci tly a ddr es s th e m i ti g at i ng f a c t o r s th a t h e r c o u n s e l h a d c i t e d i n s u p p o r to fa b e l o wGu i del i nes s entence , d i d not full y com plyw i th it s o bl i gati on t o deter m i ne a re aso nabl e s entence i n vi ew o f se c tio n 35 53 (a)’ s b r o a d se n te n c in g c rit er ia. See U nited St at e s v. Vi l l egas -M i r anda , 579 F.3d 7 98, 801-02 (7th C ir. 2009 ). This w oul d be t rue as to any p rin c i pal ar gum ents that w er e “not so w eakas to notm er i t di scussi on, ” i d. ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 4 29 F.3d 67 3, 679 (7th Cir. 2005 ) ) , o r i n other w or ds, ar gum ents that w ere “ substa nti al, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M a rtinez , sup ra , 52 0 F
. 3d at 753. B u t in ad d i tio n to arg u m en ts th at cle ar ly lac k m er it, see, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i r anda , 505 F.3d 785 , 792 (7th C ir. 2007 ) ( quoti ng Cu n n i n gham , 4 29 F
. 3d at6 78 ) , a s en te nc i ng j ud ge m ay rej ec t w i thout disc ussi on “ sto ck ar gum ents” th at are m ad e a s a m at te r of ro u tin e. M a rtin ez , 52 0 F
. 3d at 75 3. A n u m b er o fY o u n g’s arg u m en ts ap p ea r to fall i nto the l att ercat ego ry : f orexam ple , thatshe i s a divo rce d m othe r of tw o, had no pri or cri m i nal his to ry, an d w as res tr i c t e d t o h om e a n d w or k p rior to tria l. Se ei d. M or e t o t h e p oin t, Y ou n g h as n otat te m p te d to ex p l ain w h ich of h er arg u m e n ts , i f an y, h ad su b st an tia l m er itN o. 08

- 2357 15 and w hy, o r eve n to i dent ify w hi ch ofthem were her p rin c ip al a rg u m en ts
. See Villeg a s-M a rtinez , 579 F. 3d at 801 (sente nc ing cou rt need only respon d to defen d an t’s pr i nc ipala r g um en ts , no t ev er y “ pi th y ” ar g um en t sh e m igh t ra ise ). In fac t, Y ou n g h as n otind ivid u ally a d d r e ss ed a n y o fth e mi t i g a t i n gf a c t o r s s h e r a i s e d b e l o w; she s i m plyas ser ts that none o fthem was fri vol ous, l ea vingi t to us t o s o r t th r o ug h the m a l l t o de te r m i ne whi chmightha ve s uffi ci en t m er i t to de m an d the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e x p licitat te n tio n . T h a t is n otou r ro le. See M ykyt i uk, 4 1 5 F
. 3 d a t6 0 8 ( de fe nd a ntc a n r e b utp r e s umpti o n o fr ea so nabl en es s attendi ngwi th i n- Gui del i ne s se nte nc e o nl y b y s ho wi ngs e nt e nc e i s u nr e a s o nab l e when m eas ured ag ai nst s ecti on 3 553( a) fact or s)

. W e a dd that non e of th e fac t o rs she argu ed to the d istri ct cou rt str i kes us a s s uffi ci en tly m er i tor i ous o n i ts f ace to have dem anded expl i ci t co m m ent b y the co urt. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtco m p lied w i t h i ts ob liga tio n s in sente nc ing Young. The co urt re fer enced the sect i on 35 53 (a) fa c to rs , s e eU n i t e d S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 25 F. 3d 478, 480 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) (j ud ge n eed notm ake fi nd i ngs a s t o ea c h o fs ta tu to ry fac to rs so lon g a s re c or d ind ica te s it gave them m eani ngful consid erati on) , and i nd i cate d both that i t had co nsi dered the ar gum ents advanced by Young ’s co unsel and that i t, had, i n f act, bee n pers uaded to r edu ce the s en te nc e f r o m the t o p t o the b o tt o m o fthe Gu i del i nes r ange. The co urt ar ticul ate d a r ati onal e f or not i m posi ng a s en tence bel ow the r ange, as Young had ask ed, explain i ng tha t i t v i ew ed the Gu i del i nes a s “ l i ght” w i th r espectto Young’ s o ffen se and thatYoung had r ec ei ve d a n um ber o fb r ea k s i n the manne r i n whi chthe16 N o. 08

- 2357

Thos e bre aks i nc l uded the di s t ri c t c our t ’ s dec i s i on t o t re atthe 1 c ri m i nalac t i vi t y thatYoung s uper vi s ed o r m anage d as i nvol vi ng f ewer thanfi ve par t i c i pant s an d t hus t o i m pos e a twol eve l r athe r thana thr ee - l eve l e nha nc em en tf or he r agg ra v a tin g ro le in th e o ffen se , seeU. S. S. G. § 3B1. 1(b) an d ( c ) , an d the court’ s d ec ision to deem Y oung as having been conv ic ted o f o n l y o n e p s e u d o c o u n t d e s p i t e th e mu l t i p l e v i c t i ms in v o lv ed , seeU .S.S .G . § 2 G 1 .1(d )(1) & co m m en t. (n .5). Gu i de l i ne s h a d b e e n a pp l i e d. See U nite d State s v. Laufle, 1 433 F. 3d 98 1, 98 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “A co nci se sta tem ent o f the f acto rs thatcause d the j u d ge t o arri ve at a par ti cul ar se n te n c e, co n sis te n t w ith se c tio n 3 55 3(a ), w ill no rm ally su ffice .”); se e also Rita , 55 1 U.S

. at35 6, 12 7 S

. Ct. at24 68 ( “The se ntenci ng j ud ge shoul d set f or th eno ugh to sa ti sfy the a ppel l at e co ur t th athe ha s co ns i der ed th e parti es’ ar gum ents an d h as a r eas oned bas i s f or ex er ci singhi s o wn l eg alde ci si o nm ak i nga utho r i ty
. ”)

. The Gu idel i ne s r an g e was pr o per l y c al cul at ed, a nd the s en tence i m posed fel l withi n th at r an ge. A s s uch, i t i s pre sum pti vel y re aso nabl e, and Young has no t rebutt ed th atpr es um pti o n.

III. The dis tri ct c ourtpro perl y dete rm i ned Young’s o ffense l eve l, and a l though the cour t did not express l y a d d re ss the f a c t o r s s he c i t e d in s up po r to fa b e l o w- Gu i de l i nes se n te n c e, Y ou n g h as n otsh ow n w h ich of th os e fa c to rs , i f any, was suffi ci entl y m er i tor i ous t o re quir e e xp lici t di scussi on bythe cour t o r to rebut the pre sum pti on o fr ea-N o. 08

- 2357 17 sonab l eness thatwe atta c h to the w i thi n-Gui del i nes se ntence that the c ourti m posed. W e there f or e A FFIRM the s entence
.

12- 23- 09