## 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

- 2240 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J AM ES L. P A T T E R S ON, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06- CR-624

—Ronal d A . G uzman, Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 17, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 5, 2009

B efore F LA UM, E VANS, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . J am es Patte rs on appeal s s ev eral i s s ue s r e l a t e d t o h i s s e nt e nc e for vio l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2423 (a), w hich proh ibi ts tran sp orting a m ino r in inte rst at e c om m er c e w ith int en t t h at th e m i n o r en ga ge in pros ti tuti on. A m on g the i ssues pre sente d i s o ne o ffi rs t im p re ss ion in t h is c irc u it: w h et h er 18 U .S .C . § 24 23 (a) is a “ c r i me o f v i o l e nc e ” s uc h tha t a pp l i c a t i o n o f the car eer offender gui del i ne i s a pp ro pri ate i n thi s ca se.2 N o. 08

- 2240 Forthe re aso ns expl ai ned bel ow, w e a ffi rm the j ud gm en t o f th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e x c e p t wi th r e g a r d t o t he dist ri ct c ourt’ s e nhancem ent o fPatt er son’ s s entence f or “u se o fa c o m put er . ” On tha t i ss ue we r ev er se a nd r emand f o r fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

I . B a c kg r o und A. F a c t ua l B a c kg r o und I n 2 00 5, J ames Pa tt er so n, a f o r ty- tw o ye aro l d m an, m et a fourt een y ea r old gi rl( the “ vi cti m ”) i n M em phis, Te nne ss ee . The v i ct i m ha d r un a way fr o m a g r o up ho me a nd ha d no mon e y . Pa t t e r s o n e nc o ur a g e d he r to engag e in pros ti tuti on. T h e vi cti m beg an working as a pros ti tute i n a M em phis cra c k h ouse f ora pim p nam ed Larr y Nels on. A bout tw o w eek s l ate r, Patt er son ask ed th e v ict im if sh e w ou ld like t o t ra ve l to C h i c a g o . H e t old he r tha t i n Chi ca g o , pr o st i tu ti o n was i nt erne t-ba se d a nd that she would noth ave to enga ge i n “st re et- w al ki ng” t o so l i ci t cus to m er s. De fen dan t’ s co uns ela dm i tt ed to the distri ctc o ur t th atde fen dan t “h el d o ut ” i nt erne t pr o st i tu
ti o n a s “s o m ethi ngmore at tr ac ti ve ” th anwhatthe vi cti m had bee n doi ng at t h e t i m e. The vi cti m ag re ed to tr avelwith Pat ter son to Ch i cago . O n O c to b er 31 , 200 5, P at te r s o n d ro ve th e v ict im fro m M em phis to Schaum burg, I l l i noi s. Fo r tw o w eek s, th e vi ct i m wor k ed as a pr o st i tu te f o rPatte r so n. Dur i ng th i s t i me , th e v i c t i m g a v e P a t t e r s o n a l lo fth e mo n e y s he ea rn ed an d s t a ye d in h is h ot el. A n ot h er m in or fem ale w or ki ng as a pros ti tute f or defe nd ant’s h al f

-bro therN o. 08

- 2240 3 poste d prost i tuti on a dv er ti sem ents f orthe vi cti m o n i nter net s i tes such a s Cra i gsl i st. These advert ise m ents conta i ned naked photo s o fthe vic ti m . The o ther pros ti tute ar ra nged the vi cti m ’ s ca l l s t o j ohns thro ugh th e in te rn etan d d ro ve h er to ca lls as w ell. P at te rs on u se d p h ys ica l viole n c e a ga in st th e v ict im se ve r alt i m es . O n one o cc as i o n, Pa tt er so n s ho ve d the vi cti m ag ai nst a walland sl apped her

. On anothe r occa sion, Pa tterson pu nc he d the victim , knoc king he r off a ch air, and stom p e d on he r w hile she w as on the floor. A fterthi s inci dent, Patt er son to l d the vi cti m to ta ke a shower a nd pre pare to w or k the st re et . O n a cal ll ate r th a tn i g h t, a j o h n, w h o s a w br ui s e s o n th e v i c t i m, o ffere d t o “ r es cue he r . ” The v i ct i m wentt o l i ve wi ththe m an’ s son. Fr om the son’ s house, she cal l ed h er m other i n M em phis. The vi ctim ’ s f am i l y had appare ntl y b een l oo ki ng f or her and had sprea d the w or d in M em p h is th at sh e w as a m iss in g a n d en d an ge re d ch ild

.
B . P r o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und Patte rs on was char ged with knowingl y t ra nsport i ng a m i no r i n int er st at e co m m er e wi ththe i nt en t th atthe mi no r e ng a g e i n pr o s t i t ut i o n i n v i o l a t i on of18 U. S
. C. § 2 423(a ). Defendant ple d gui l ty pu rs uant to a w ri tte n ple a agr eem ent. T he agre em ent explained that the Gui deli nes “ i n e ffec t atthe t i m e o fs en te nc i ng ” wer e to de term i ne Patte rs on’ s sente nce. The agr eem ent an tici pated tha tP a t t e r s o n wo ul d h a v e a n o ffe ns e le vel o f2 8 a nd a cri m i nalhi sto rycat ego ryo fI V, wh i ch r esul ted i n an “anti ci pated advi sory S entencing Guidel i nes r ange [ of ] 11 04 N o. 08

- 2240 to 137 m ont hs ’ i m p rison m e n t.” The se calcu lations w ere “b as ed on th e fa c t s n ow kn ow n to th e g ov er n m en t.” Addi t i o na l l y, the a g r e e men ts t a t e d: Defen dan t an d hi s at tor ne y a nd the g o ve r nm en t ac k no wl edg e th atthe abo ve Gui del ine ca l cul at i o ns ar e pr el i m i nary i n nature , and a re non-bi nd i ng pre dicti o ns u po n whi c h ne i the r p a r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o r el y. Defen dan t under st an ds th atfur th err ev i ew o fthe fa ct s o r the a ppl i cabl e l eg alpr i nc i pl es may l ea d the gov er nm ent t o concl ud e that d i ffer ent o r add i ti onal Gui del i ne pr o vi si o ns a ppl y i n thi s cas e. De fen dan t und er sta nd s that th e Pr obat i on Offi ce wil lco nd uct its ow n in ve st iga tio n an d th at th e C ou rtu ltim at ely de t e r mi ne s the f a c t s a nd l a w r e l e v a ntt o s e nt enci ng, and that the Court ’s d et er m i nati ons gov er n the fi nal Gu i del i ne cal cul ati on. A ccor dingl y, t he va l i dity o f thi s Agree m en t i s no t co nti ngent up on the probati on offi cer ’ s o r the Cour t’ s co ncurr ence w ith the abo ve cal cul ati ons an d defendant shal lnothave a ri ght t o w i thdraw his ple a o n the basi s o fthe Co u rt’ s r ej ectio n of th es e c alc u lat ion s. The agr eem ent a l so sta ted, i n a n other sect i on, that “[ d]efe n d an t furtheracknow l edges that i fthe Court does no t ac ce pt th e se nt en cingr ec o m m en dat i o n o fthe p ar tie s, d efe n d an t w ill ha ve n o rig h t t o w i th d ra w h is gu ilty p lea .” Du ring the ple a col l oquy, Patte rs on w as plac ed under oath and stated that he w as fully satisfi ed w ith his attorney’ s rep re senta ti on, had re vi ew ed the ple a a gr eem ent, und er sto od al lo f the agr eem ent’ s t er m s, and und er sto odN o. 08

- 2240 5 th e c on se q u en c es of p lea d in g g u i l t y. T h e d efe n d an t t old the di s t r i c tj ud g e tha th e u nd e r s t o o d tha tthe j ud ge wa s n o tb o un d b y the p l e a a g r e e men t
. T he c o ur ta s k e d: Do y o u under st an d tha t Iw i l lno t be abl e to de te r m i ne the actual gui del i ne sente nci ng ra nge f or your ca se unti lafteryo u have ple d gui l ty and a prese n te n ce r epo r t ha s be enc o m pl et ed; bec au se o ftha t, the s en tence cal cul ati on that I m ake m ay be di ffer ent fro m w hat y o u a nd y o ura t t o r ne y o r e v e n wha tthe pl ea agr eem ent c ontains. Do y ou underst and that? A : Yes. Th e ori gi nalPre sente nce Invest i gat i on Repor t ( “PSR”) had n ot t re ate d Patter son as a ca re ero ffender und er U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1
. 1 b e c a us e the g o v e r nme nta nd p r o bati on o ffi ce di d no t k no w tha t Pa tt er so n’ s term o fi m pr i so nm ent fora 1983 co nvi cti on ha d end ed w i thi n the l ast fi ftee n yea rs , a re quir em ent forco unti ng an offense f or th e p u rp os e o f th e c a re er offe n d er gu id elin e. See U. S
. S
. G. §§ 4 B1. 1, c m t. n. 1; 4 B1. 2, c m t. n. 3; 4 A1. 2( e) (1 )
. Af te r fi l i ng th e o r i g i na l PS R, th e pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce l ea r ne d fr om the Ten n es see Departm ent o fCor re cti ons that Patte rs on had been re l eas ed w i thi n the l astfi ftee n yea rs f orthe 1983 co nv i ct i o n. Thu s, a fte r Pa tt er so n’ s pl ea c o l loquy, the proba ti on o ffi ce s up ple m ente d it s o ri gi nalPSR t o re fl ect i ts vi ew thatPatt er son shoul d be t re at ed as a car eer o ffe n d e r o nth e b a s i s o fh i s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r 1 8 U
. S
. C. § 2 42 3(a ) an d h is 1 98 3 a n d 19 99 co n vic tio n s. See U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B 1.1 (a). U sin g t h e 20 07G u id elin es , w h ich w er e in effect at the ti m e of Patte rs on’ s sente nci ng, th e Su p ple

m entalPSR r eco m m ended a Guidel i nes r ange of 2 10 to6 N o. 08

- 2240 262 m onths. The S up ple m entalPSR a lso r eco m m ended applying, am ong othe rs , o ffense chara cter i sti c enhancem en ts for “ u n d u ly in f lu en c [in g] a m in or to en ga ge in prohibi ted se xual conduct” and “us e of a co m pu ter
. ” See U
. S. S. G
. §§ 2G 1.3(b)(2)( B ); 2G 1.3(b)(3). A fterthe proba ti on o ffi ce s ubm i tte d the S up ple

m entalPSR, defendant fi l ed a p ro se m oti on t o w i thdraw hi s g ui l t y p l e a , a l tho ugh he wa s r e pr e s e nt e d b y co unsel at the t i m e o fthe fi l i ng. In the m oti on, Patt er son ar gued th athi s pl ea was no t m ade kno wi ng l y orvo l unt ar i l y . The di st r i ctc o urt h eld a he ar i ngo n de fen dan t’ s m o ti o n. Defen dan t was r epr es en te d b y c o uns ela t th e he ar i ng, a nd counselexpre sse d his o pini on tha t Pat ter son’ s pro se m oti on had no m er i t. The di st r i ct courtr ul ed th ati t woul d no t co ns i derthe m er its of th e m ot ion be c au se i t w as n otfiled by co u n se l. The dis tr i ct c ou rt a d d i ti onal l y s tat ed that eve n i fi t had co ns i der ed th e m er i ts , i t woul d ha ve denied i t o n the gr ou n ds that i t “ ha[ d] no m er i t. ” The co urt i nfo rm ed Patte rs on that he coul d fi l e a m oti on f or subs ti tuti on of attorneys i f h e w ished

. De sp ite the d istri ct cou rt’s rul i ng, Patt er son sta ted atthe hear i ng tha t his co unsel “pro m i sed [ hi m ] a sente nce that [he] d i dn ’ t g et” ( al though atthe t i m e o fthe he ar ing, he h ad no t y etb ee n s en tence d). Defendant al so sai d that he had on ly had ten m i nutes t o l oo k a t the p l ea agr eem ent b ef or e he ple d gui l ty. H owever, the distric t co urt re m i nd ed Patte rs on that he had ear l i erst ate d und ero ath that h e had re vi ew ed the agr eem ent a nd understo od i ts ter m s, wh i ch de fe nd a nta c k no wl e dg e d.N o. 08

- 2240 7 T he district cou rt ad op ted the Su p p le m en tal PSR ’s Gu i del i nes c al cul ati ons and sentence d Patter son to 26 2 m onths i n pri son follow ed by fi ve yea rs o fsuperv i sed re l eas e. The defendant did not a sk t he di str i ct c ourtto v a c a t e h i s p l e a a ts e nt e nc i ngb utdi d obj e c tt o the S up p lem e n t al P SR ’s a p p lica tio n of th e c ar ee r offe n d er p ro vis i o n a s w e l la s th e “ u n d ue i nfl u e n c e ” a n d “ u s e o fa c o mpu ter ” e nhancem ents. Patte rs on now appeal s hi s s entence o n a num bero f gr ounds.

I I . Discussi on A . Ev i den t i ary Hear i ng R ega r ding Ple a W i t hd r aw al Pa tterson ’s first argum en t is th at th e d istri ct cou rt shoul d have hel d an evi denti ar y hear i ng with re gar d to his m otion to w ithd raw his plea. T he district cou rt rej e c t e d P a t t e r s o n’ s mo t i o n t o wi thd r a w h i s p l e a b e c ause i t was fi l ed pro se at a t i m e when Patter son w as re p re se nt ed byc o unsel ; the di st r i ctc o ur t al so s ta te d tha t th e m o ti o n was mer i tl es s. The g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s th atthe dist r i c tc o ur twa s c o r r e c tt o r ej e c tP a t t e r s o n’ s mo t i on because i t was neve r proper l y b ef or e the co urt and al so because Patt er son did notm eethi s b u rd en o fsho w i ng a f ai r and j ust r eas on f orwithdrawal o fthe ple a. A buse o fdi scr eti on is th e s tandard o fr evi ew f orbo th a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m oti on fi l ed pro se by a d efe n d an t r ep re se n te d by co u n se l, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. C hav in , 316 F.3d 666 , 6 7 1 (7th C ir. 2002) (“[ W ]heth er a d e fe n d a n tma y a c ta s c o - c o u n s e la l o n gwi th h i s o wn att or ney, i s a m att erwithi n the disc retio n o fthe dist ri ct8 N o. 08

- 2240

cour t. ”) ( ci ti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Tu t i no , 8 83 F. 2d 1125 , 11 41 ( 2d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ) , a nd f o r a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni a l o fan ev id en tia ry h ea rin g, see O sag iede v. U nit e d S t a tes , 54 3 F
. 3d 399, 408 (7th C ir. 2008). The deci si on r ega rdi ng wh etherto all ow a defendant to re present hi m sel fwh en he i s a l so re prese nted by counsel i s “ ‘ sol el y w i thi n the disc re ti on o fthe tr i alco urt. ’ ” C hav in , 316 F. 3d at 671 ( quoti ng Tuti no , 883 F.2d at11 41 )). A defe nd ant doe s no t hav e a “ri ght” to such an ar ra ngem ent. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Gwiazdzi ns ki, 141 F. 3d 784, 78 7 ( 7th C ir. 1998) ( “A defendant does not have an affi rm ati ve ri ght t o subm i t a p ro se br i efwh en r epres ented by c ou n se l.”) (c ita tio n o m i t te d ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Si ngl e t on , 1 07F
. 3d 10 91 , 1 10 1 n. 7 ( 4th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( notin g that “[ t] he cas es re i ter ating the pri nci ple thatco urts ar e n otreq u ire d to allow d efe n d an ts to sp lit th e re sp on sibil iti es of the rep resen tation w ith a n attorn ey are m yri ad”)

. Ind eed, thi s co urt has sta ted thatsuch a rr angem en ts are d isfa vo re d

. C hav in , 31 6 F
. 3d at 672. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourtreject ed Patte rs on’ s a tte m pt at sel f

- re prese ntati on a nd advi sed hi m thathe c ou l d fi l e a m oti on f orsubst i tuti on o f counsel i f he w i shed. I n l i ght o f the di str i ct c ourt ’ s wide di scr eti on t o rej ect pr o se subm i ss i o ns b y d efe nda nt s r epr es en te d b y c o uns el, a nd because the dist ri ct cour t prese nted Patte rs on w i th an a l t e r n a t i v e a v e nue t h a tP a t t e r s o n d e c l i n e d t o p u r s u e , we con clud e tha t the district cou rt’s d e nial ofPatt erson ’s m oti on w ith ou t a n evi denti ar y hea ring was not an abuse o fdi sc r et i o n. H ow ev e r , eve n if P at te rs on h ad p ro p er ly ra ise d th is i ssue thro ugh counsel, the dist ri ct c ou rt w ou l d not hav eN o. 08

- 2240 9 abused i ts disc re ti on byd en yi ng the m oti on without a n evi denti ar y hea ring. Fe deralRule o fCri m i nalPro cedure 11 al l o ws a de fend an t to wi th dr aw a g ui l typl ea “ afte r the c ou rtac c ep ts th e p lea , bu t b efo re it im p os es s en te n c e if .

. . the defendant can s how a f ai r and j ust rea son f orr equesti ng the w ith d ra w al

. ” F ed. R. Cri m . P. 11 ( d)( 2) ( B). But a defe nd ant who sta tes ata ple a co l l oquy that hi s pl ea w as “fre el y a nd kno w i ngl y g i ven . . . f aces an uphil lbat tl e” in con vincin g a j ud ge th at his reason s for w ithd raw al are “f ai r and j ust” because r epres entat i ons m ade ata plea col l oquy a re u n d er oath and ar e g i ven a “pre sum pti on ofve ri ty. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e s s i no , 55 F. 3d 1241 , 1 24 8 (7 th C ir. 1995). W e hav e stated that district cou rts are “gen eral l y j usti fi ed i n dis cre dit i ng the p ro ffer ed re aso ns f or the m oti on to w i thdraw and hol ding the defe nd ant to [ hi s] adm i ssi ons at the [ ple a co l l oquy]
. ” Id

. At the heari ng on defen dan t’ s pr o s e m o ti o n t o wi th

draw hi s ple a, Patt er son sta ted thathi s l aw yer“pro m i sed [ hi m ] a sente nce that [ he] di dn ’ t g et” and that he d i d not h av e e n ou gh tim e t o re vie w th e p l e a a gr ee m en t. W h ile on thei r f ace, tho se re aso ns appearco m pel l i ng, we have sta ted that“[ c] l ai m s o fi nvol un tari ness orco nfusi on that i n th e a bs tr a c ts e e m l i k e s u ffi c i e n tr e a s o n s t o a l l o w a defen dan t to wi th dr aw hi s pl ea, o r a t l ea st look into the m atter furth er, m ay be insu ffici en t in the c o n t e xt of a re cor d conta i ni ng substanti ali nd i cati ons ofvo l untariness and l ack ofco nfusi on. ” U nited Sta tes v. Tr u s s el , 96 1 F
. 2d 68 5, 68 9 ( 7t h C ir. 19 92 ); see also M e s s i no , 55 F. 3d at 1248 ( ci tat i on om i tte d). “One es peci al l y i m port ant co nsi derati on i s the defendant’s answ er s t o the quest i ons posed at hi s Rul e 1 1 hea ring. ” Trussel , 961 F. 2d at 689 -90 . H er e,10 N o. 08

- 2240 defe nd ant’ s r eas ons to w i thdraw his p l ea pla i nl y c ontr adict ed hi s s w or n sta tem ents du ring the pl ea colloq uy. M o r eo ve r, Pa tter so n’ s at to r ne y, who was pr es en t atthe hear i ng, to l d the co urt he be l i eve d the p ro s e m oti on l ac k ed m er i t. I t i s a l so wor thno tingtha t defen dan t di d no t i ndi cate to th e di st r i ctc o ur t ( an d ha s no t i ndi ca te d o n a ppea l ) tha t he woul d hav e p r es en te d a ny othe r evi d en c e ofi nvol untariness orco nfusi on a t a put at i ve e vi den ti ary he ar i ng . Thu s, e ve n i fde fen d ant ha d pr o per l y r eque st ed ane vi den ti ar y he ar i ngr eg ar di ng hi s re qu e s tt o wi thd r a w h i s g ui l t y p l e a , b a s e d o n the se f acts , and i n l i gh t of the hea vy burden shoul dered bya d e fe n d a n twh e n r e q u e s t i n gt o wi th d r a w a g u i l t y p l e a , we could n ot co ncl ud e that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on wh en i t deni ed an ev i denti ar y hea ring.
B. Pat t er son’ s Ple a Patte rs on ar gues that, eve n asi de fro m hi s re q u es t fo r an ev i denti ary hearing, the dist ri ct c ourtsho uld have vacat ed hi s guil ty ple a be cause hi s pl ea agr eem ent was b a s e d o n th e p a r t i e s ’ “ mu t u a l mi s t a k e ” r e g a r d i n gt he appli cati on o fthe car eero ffen der guidel i ne, o r, i n an al t e r na t i v e r e a di ngo fthe s a me e v e nt s , b e c a us e the g o vernm en t “b r ea ch ed th e ag r ee m en t. ” The g over nm en t m ain ta in s t h at P at te rs on ’s “ u n d er es tim at [ion o f] h is se n tence” at the ti m e he enter ed hi s ple a i s not a v alid re aso n to per m i t hi m to withdraw his pl ea. B ec au se , as d isc u ss ed ab ov e, P at te rs on n ev er p ro p er ly r e q u e s t e d th a tth e di s t r i c tc o u r tv a c a t e hi s g u i l t y p l e a , we re vie w fo r p lain err or . P uc k ett v. U nited Sta tes , ___ U
. S.
___,N o. 08

- 2240 11 12 9 S
. Ct. 1 42 3, 1 42 8 ( 20 09 ) ( fi ndi ngtha t Rul e 52 ( b) ’ s pl ainer r o r t es t appl i es t o a f o r fei te d c l ai m tha t th e g o vernm ent f ai l ed to m ee t it s obl i gat i ons und era ple a a gr eem ent). U nd erpl ai n er ro r re vi ew , the defe nd ant m ust es tabl i sh( 1) a n e r r o r ( 2) tha t was pl ain, ( 3) a ffe ct ed th e de fen dant’s subst anti alr i ghts, and ( 4) se ri ousl y a ffecte d the f ai rnes s, int egr i ty, o r pu bl i c r eputati on o fthe j ud i ci al p ro c ee d in gs . Id. at 14 29 ; U n i ted St at e s v. Jul i an , 42 7 F
. 3d 471, 481 (7th C ir. 2005). O ur p reced en t estab li sh es th at p lea agreem en ts are g ov er n ed by ord in ar y c on tr ac t p rin c ip les

. U ni t e d S t ates v. B a rnes , 8 3 F
. 3d 934, 93 8 (7 thCi r . 1 99 6)
. In B a rnes , we st at ed th at th er e m u st b e a “m ee tin g of th e m in d s” o n a ll ess enti al e lem ents ofa gui l ty ple a in or der forthe ple a t o b e va lid , an d th at, “[a]t lea st in t h eo ry , am b igu ity in ane ss en ti alt er m o r a mutua lmis ta k e about th e m ea ni ng ofsuch a te rm can i nval i date [ a pl ea]
. ” Id

. A s i n the i ns ta ntc ase, i n B a rnes , th e d efe n d an t a rg u ed th at h is ple a was inval i d because nei therhe, the pros ecuto r, nor th e co ur t r ea l i ze d a t th e ti m e o fthe pl ea c o l l o quytha t he w ou ld be se n te n c ed as a c ar ee r offe n d er . Id

. Though the B a rnes cour t a cknowle dged that ther e m ust be a m eet i ng o fthe m i nd s r egard i ng the ag re em ent’ s e sse nti al ter m s, i t found that the defendant’s g u iltypl ea, wh i ch w as m ade pursuant to th en -Rule 11( e) ( 1) ( B), di d not con tem p late the ac tu a l p un ishm en t as an essen tial term of th e a gr ee m en t. Id

. R ath er, th e p arties left “th e d eterm i nati on o fa sente nce t o the di scr eti on o fthe dist ri ct cour t, as g u i ded bythe sente nci ng guidel i nes a nd by the a pp l i cabl e cr i m i nalst atute s. ” Id. T hus, the c o ur t co ncl ud ed that the pl ea agr eem ent was va l i d and enfo rce abl e.12 N o. 08

- 2240 This case i s s i m i l arto B a r nes . W hi l e i t i s t rue that Patters on’ s pl ea agr eem ent “ anti ci pated” a sente nce l o wertha n the o ne he ul ti m at ely r ec ei ve d, the a g r ee m en t sta ted se ver alti m es that i t di d n ot u l ti m ate l y c ontr ol the s entence i m posed by the di str i ct c ourt
. S peci fi cal l y, th e ag r ee m en t st at ed th ati ts Gui d eli ne s ca l cul at i o ns w er e “ non-bi nd i ng pre dict i ons up on wh i ch nei therparty i s e nti tl ed to r el y” and al so th at t he defendant coul d not w i thdraw his ple a i fthe dist ri ct c ou rt r ej ecte d the ag re em ent’ s Guidel i nes c al cul ati ons. M or eov er, t he ag re eme n te x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d th a ti ti s n o ta F e d. R. C r i m. P . 1 1( c) ( 1) ( C) pl ea, i n w hi ch the dist ri ct c ourti s bo und by the s enten c i ng r eco m m endati ons conta i ned i n the agr eem en t. See B a rnes , 83 F. 3d at 938 ( not i ng tha t a gr eem ents mad e u nd e r R ul e 1 1 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( C)

— a pre vious ver si on o f Ru l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( C)

— would i nc l ude the de fen dan t’ s puni sh

m en t a s a n es se n tia l te rm ). I t i s t h u s c lea r h er e, as in B a rnes , thatthe defe nd ant’ s ac tu al s entence was not an es se nt i alt er m o fthe a g r ee m en t, s o the a g r ee m en t cannot be voi ded because of “m utual m i sta ke ” w i th r e g a r d t o the s e nt e nc e i mpo s e d. Pa tt er so n a l so ar g ue s tha t the go ve r nm en t br ea ch ed th e ag re em en t b y a r g u in g for a h igh er se n te n c e a fte r it l ea r ne d tha t Pa tt er so n was po ss ibl y e l i g ibl e f o r s en te nc i nga s a ca r ee r o ffen der

. Howev er, the g o ve rnm en t neveragre ed to not ar gue fo r a d i ffer ent sentence
. T he pl ea agreem en t sp ecifi cally state d that “[d]efend an t un d erst an d s t h at fu rt h er rev iew of th e fa c ts or th e a p p lica b le l e g a lp r i nc i pl e s ma y l e a d the g o v e r nme ntt o c o nc l ud e th at d iffer en t o r ad d itio n al G u i d elin e p ro vis ion s a p p ly in th is case . ” W hile Fed eral R ules of C rim in a l Proc ed ure 11(c)( 1) ( B) a nd ( C) a l l ow fo rm ati on o fan a gr eem ent thatN o. 08

- 2240 13 bi nd s the go ver nm ent, Patt er son’ s a gr eem ent was not m ade pur su an t to the se pr o vi si o ns . Acco r di ng l y, the gov er nm ent did notbr each the t er m s o fthe ple a a gr eem en t. See U nited Sta tes v. Lind er, 5 30 F. 3d 556, 56 4- 65 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( r ej ec tinga r g um enttha t g o ve r nm en t br ea ch ed th e pl ea a g r ee m en t bya dvo ca tingf o r a n e nhancem en t where agr eem ent was notm ade pursuant to Fed eral Ru les ofCrim inal Proced ure 11(c)( 1)(B) and ( C ))
.
C. C a r e e rOf f e nde rE nha nc e me nt The dis tr i ct c ourtde term i ned that Patte rs on was a c ar eero ffender und erthe Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes. Pre dica te to thi s c o nc l us i o n wa s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s fi nd i ngtha t Patte rs on’ s co nvi cti on f ortr anspo r t ingamino rin i nter sta te c o mme r c e f o r th e p u r po s e o fp r o s t i t u t i o n w a s a “ c r i me ofvi ol ence” und erU
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 2. Patt er son ar gues that 18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) i s no t a cr i m e o fvi ol ence unde r the S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in B ega y v . U nited Sta tes , ___U .S
. ___, 128 S.C t. 15 81 (20 08 ), an d th at h is se nt en cing as a c ar ee r o ffen derwas the r efo r e er r o r . The g o v e r nme nta r g u e s th a t1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 4 2 3 ( a ) i s a c r i me of vi ol ence because i t prese nts a gr eat ri sk of p h ysic al i nj ur y t o i t s v i c t i ms a nd i s a p ur po s e ful, a g g r e ssi ve, an d vio len t c rim e. W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i nt er pr et at i o ns o fthe Se n te n c in g G u id elin es d e n ov o. U nited Sta tes v. Ho w a rd, 352 F.2d 818, 831 (7th Cir. 2001). The Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes defi ne a cri m e o fvio l ence as: A ny o ffense und erfeder alo r sta te l aw , punishabl e by i m pri sonm ent fora ter m exce edi ng o ne ye ar, that

—14 N o. 08

- 2240

Bec aus e the ACCA us es ne ar l y i dent i c al language t o the 1 c a r e e r o ffe nd e r gui de l i ne , th i s co ur tha s c on s i de r e d Begayt o be ex tr em el y p er su a siv e au th o ri ty re g a rd in g § 4 B 1 .2. S ee, e.g ., U ni t ed Sta t es v. Templ et on , 54 3 F
. 3d 3 78 , 38 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( c i t i ng U ni t ed S tates v. Upton , 51 2 F .3d 39 4 , 40 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. How ze, 34 3 F .3d 91 9 , 92 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 3 )). ( 1) ha s a s a n e l e men t the us e , a t t e mpt e d us e, o r thre ate ned use o f physi cal f or ce a gainst the per son ofano ther, o r ( 2) i s bur g l ary o fa dwel l i ng, a r so n, o re xt o r ti o n, i nvol ves use ofexpl osi ves, o r othe rwis e invol ves conduct thatpre sents a ser i ous pot enti alr i sk of p hy sical injury to anoth er. U
. S. S. G. § 4B 1. 2 ( 2006 )
. The go ver nm ent c l ai m s that Pa tt er so n’ s o ffen se f al l s unde r the s ec o nd c l ause ofthe se co nd pr o ngo fthi s defi ni ti o n ( so m et i m es c al l ed th e “r esi du al c l ause”) bec ause i t “ i nvol ves conduct that prese nts a seri ous pot enti alr i sk ofphysi cali nj ury to anot h er .” To deter m i ne wh ethera convi cti on qual i fi es as a cri m e o fvi ol ence, co urts use a “ cate gor i calapproac h ,” und erwh i ch the Court loo ks to the s tatutor y e l em ents ofthe offense and not t o the par ti cul arf acts o fthe und er l yi ng co nvi cti on. See Ta ylo r v. U nited Sta tes , 49 5 U.S
. 575, 600 (1990 ). The S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Bega yanal yze d whethe r dr i vingunde r the i nfl ue nce sh o ul d b e co nsi dered a cri m e o fvi ol ence und erthe A rm ed Caree r C rim in al A c t (A C C A ). Se eBegay, 1 28 S
. Ct. a t 15 83
. The 1 C ou rtfirstd et er m in ed th at th e e x am p le c rim es liste d inN o. 08

- 2240 15 th e fi r stc l au se o fthe s ec o nd pr o ngo fthe s ta tu te ( “bu rgl ar y, a r s o n, e xt o r t i o n, a nd c r i mes i nv o l v i ng the us e o f ex pl o si ve s” ) li m i te d the ty pes o fc r i m e co ve r ed bythe re si du alcl ause ( cri m es “thatpre sent[ ] a ser i ous pot enti al ri sk of physi cal i nj ury to anothe r” )
. The Court reasone d th at th e residu al cl au s e c o vered only “crim es th at are r o ughly s i mi l a r, i n k i nd a s we l la s i n de g r e e o fr i s kp o s e d, to the e xam ple s them sel ves. ” Id. a t 15 87
. To he l p de te r m i ne whethe r the de fen d an t’s c r i m e i s si m i l ari n k i nd t o the en u m er at ed ex am p les , Bega y ex ami ne d whethe r the cr i m e “ty pi ca l l y i nv o l ve [ s] pur po se ful, ‘ vi o l en t, ’ a nd

‘ ag g r es si ve ’ c o nduc t. ” The Cou r t f o und th atdr unkdr i ving w as m or e a p p r o p r iat ely u n d er st oo d as a c rim e o f n eg lig en ce o r r ec k l es sn es s r athe r tha n o ne o f p urpo se a nd del ibe r at i o n a nd the r efo r e co nc l ude d tha t dr unkdr i ving w as n ota c rim e o f vio len c e. Id

. The Suprem e C ou rtr ecent l y a pp l i ed the Bega yte st in C ha m bers v . U nited Sta tes , ___ U
. S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 687 (2009). I n C ha m bers , th e Su p rem e C ou rt held that a conv ict’s “f ai l ure to re port ” i s no t a cr i m e o fvi ol en c e. Id . a t 6 91. A lthou gh the gove rnm en t c laim ed that f ail ure to report shoul d b e und er sto od as a cri m e of vi ol ence b ecause i nd i vi du al s who f ai lto r epor t a re l i ke ly to use vi ol ence to avoid recap tu re, the C ou rt held that f ail ure to rep o rt w as not a cr i m e o fvi ol ence because “the cr i m e a m ounts to a for m o finact i on, a f arcr y fro m the pu rpos eful, vi ol ent, and aggr ess i ve conduct pote nti al l y a t i ssue w hen an o ffen derus es ex pl o si ve s ag ains t pr o per ty, c o m m i ts a r so n, b u rg les a d w ellin g or res id en c e , o r en ga ge s in ce rt ain f or m s o fexto rt i on. ” Id. at 692. The C ha m bers Courtdi d not defi ni ti ve l y i ndi cate whethe r v i o l en ce tha t m aya tt en d16 N o. 08

- 2240

a cr i m e, but i s no t a n elem en t of the cr i m e, sho uld be con side red i n d eterm ining w he th er to treat a st atu tory vi ol ati on a s a “c rim e o fvi ol ence. ” The Courti nstea d st at ed th at“ ev eni fwe as su m e f o r a r g um en t’ s sa k e th e re l e v a nc e o f v i o l e nc e tha t may o c c ur l o ng a fter an o ffen derf ai l s to r epor t, we ar e no t co nv i nc ed [ bythe d at a p re se n te d by the gov ernm ent s up portin g t h at p ro p os iti on in thi s ca se]
. ” Id

. ( surve yi ng the data p ro vi ded by the g ove rnm ent a n d c on c l ud i ng tha t i t s how ed a r el ati vel y l ow inci dence of vi ol ence att ending ar re sts o f ind ivi d ua ls w ho h ad f ail ed to report). W hi l e th er e ha ve b ee n s ev er alc i r cui t co ur t dec i si o ns pri orto Bega yh o l d i n gth a tS e c t i o n 24 2 3 ( a ) w a s a c r i me of v iole n c e, se e, e . g., U nite d State s v. C urt is , 4 81 F. 3d 836, 83 8

- 3 9 ( D .C . C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 26 6 F
. 3d 1089 , 10 90- 91 ( 9th Ci r. 20 01) , o nl y o ne co urt has had o c casion to consid er the q ue stion after Bega y, see U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 29 F .3d 1 (1 st C ir. 20 08 ), cert. denied , ___ U. S
. ___, 1 29 S
. Ct. 15 80 ( 20 09 )
. In Wi l l i a ms , th e F irs t C irc u it f ocuse d fi rs t o n t h e ri sk ofhar m acc om panyi ng a vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) , fin d i ng tha t “ i nd ecentse xual conta ct c ri m es perpetr ate d by a du l ts again st chi l dren cate gor i cally pre sent a s er i ous r i sk ofphysi cali nj ury. ” Id. at 5. T he cou rt w as u np ersu ad ed by the de fend an t’s ar gu m ent that hi s cr i m e was notvi ol ent b ecause he was not “se xually a cti ve” in t h e com m i ssi on o fthe offense but r ather, “m er el y f aci l i tat ed others ’ se x u alco ntact w i th the m i nor . ” Id

. Rather, the cour t fou n d that b y tr anspor ti ng the m i norwith the i ntent that th e m i nor en g ag e i n pr o st i tu ti o n, the de fen dan t “pl ac ed th e m in or in h ar m ’s w ay an d led ine lu c ta b ly to a se x a c t
. . .N o. 08

- 2240 17 between the m i norand an ol der m an unconcerned w i th her w el f ar e. ” Id. T he co urt al so note d that the co m m er ci al aspect of18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a)

— as op p os e d t o s im p le seducti on o fa m i nor

— i nc r ea se d the l ev elo fr i skt o the m i norbec ause i t i ncre ase d the ri sk of physi calabuse fro m m u ltip le p a rt n er s a n d th e ris k of c on tr ac tin g a se x u ally tr an sm i t t ed d ise as e. Id. Fin ally , Wi l l i a ms not ed that Bega ydi d no t pr o vi de m uchg ui dan ce f o r i ts de ci si o n. Bec au se a ne w te sti s i nt r od uce d a nd b ec au se the Court’ s deci si on i s it selfcl ose , i t i s har d to be abso

lu te ly c e r t ain h ow a m ajorit y of t h e Ju st ice s w ou ld ap p ly th e test to th e crim e at issue h ere

— a cri m e t hat f al l s nei therwithi n the safe harboro fo ffenses with l i m i ted sc i enterr equi re m ents and uncerta i n conse qu en ces ( li ke D U I ), nor am ong th ose th at ha ve d eliberate vi ol ence as a nec ess ar y e l em ent o r ev en as an alm ost inevitable con com itant. A dj ectives li ke “p urp oseful” an d “aggressive” de not e qu ali ties th at are ineluc tably m an ifeste d i n d egree an d ap p ear in differ ent c om b in at ion s; th ey are , th er efo re, i m preci se ai ds. Id. a t 7. De spi te the a m bi g ui tyc o nt ained i n Bega y, h o weve r, the Fi rs t Ci rcui t foun d t hat, “[ u]nl i ke DU I, [ a vi ol atio n of18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) ] i s purpose ful and the per petr ato r i s a w ar e o fthe risks that the pr ost i tuted m i nor w i l lf ace” and that “the cri m e is i m pli ci tl y ( and som eti m es ex p licit ly) a gg re ss ive , an d c o er c ion of th e m in or is vi rtual l y inherent

. ” Id. T itle 18 , Sec tio n 24 23 (a) m ak es it ille ga l to “ kn ow in gly tr anspor t[ ] an i nd i vi du al w ho has not att ai ned the age of 18 y ea r s i n int er st ate or f o r ei g n c o m m er ce . . . wi thi nt en t18 N o. 08

- 2240 tha tthe i nd i v i du a le ng a ge i n pr o s t i t ut i o n. ” 1 8 U. S
. C. § 24 23 ( a)
. Defen dan t ar g ue s th at tr an spo r ta ti o n ofa m i nori n i nt er state com m er ce with the i ntent she e ngage i n pros ti tuti on i s no t “ si m i l ar ” in ki nd to the cri m es l i ste d i n Bega y ( b u r g l a r y o f a d we l l i n g, a r s o n, e x t o r t i o n, a nd c rim es inv o l v i n g e x p los ive s). H e c laim s t h at th e e x am p le cri m es al l sugge st the use of f or ce or vi ol en c e, w hi ch 18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) does notr equi re . Patt erson al so ar gu e s th at th e g ov er n m en t’s em p h as is on th e s oc ial ills as so ci at ed wi thpr o st ituti o n i s m i spl ac ed. He po i nt s o ut that 18 U
. S.C . § 24 23( a) does notpunish pros ti tuti on, per se, and note s th at a vi ol ati on o fthe sta tute does not eve n re quir e that pr ost i tuti on t ake pl ace. The go ver nm ent a rgues that 18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) pro hibi ts pu rpos eful, ag gr ess i ve and v iole nt co nd uct and ther ef o r e i s si m i l ari n k i nd t o the c r i m es en um er at ed i n the st at u te . First, th e g o ve rn m en t s ay s t h at th e c rim e is

“ p u r p o s e fu l ” b e c a u s e i tr e q u i r e s th e p e r p e t r a t o r t o kn o wi ng l y t r an spo r t a m i no r t o a no th ers ta te a s wel la s i nt en d th at th e m in or to en ga ge in p ro st itu tio n . Th e c r im e is ther ef or e “deliber ate , ” unl i ke the s tr i ct l i abi l i ty offenses co nt r as te d i n Bega y, i n w hi ch “the o ffender need not have had any cr i m i nali ntent at al l

. ” Bega y, 12 8 S
. Ct. at15 86- 87. Se cond, the gov er nm ent c onte nd s that 1 8 U.S
. C. § 2 423( a) conte m pla tes “a ggr ess i ve” conduct beca use co m m i ssi on ofthe cri m e puts the per pet ra to r into a pos i ti on o f p ow er ov er th e m in or su c hth a t a n ele m en t o f co er c ion is i nhe r en t i n th e cr i m e. The g o ve r nm en t cl ai m s th atthe cr i m e, i n thi s way, i s “a na l o g o us to k i dna pi ng, ” whi chthe com m en tary to U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.2 li s ts as an exam p le ofa c rim e o f vio len c e. See U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1 .2 cm t n.1. ( H ow ever,N o. 08

- 2240 19

Indeed, the ai m ofour inquir y is to determ ine w hether 2 S ec tio n 24 2 3 (a ) is a “c ri m e o f v io le n ce .” ki dn api ng r equi re s that the d efe n d ant use f or ce t o prev e nt the v i c t i m fr o m e s c a pi ng, a n e l e men t no t r equir ed f ora convi cti on und er 18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a)
. ) Final l y, the g ove rnm ent a rgues that 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) i s a “vi ol en t” o ffense b ec au se the pe r pet r at o r musti nt en d the m i norto enga ge i n pros tit uti on a nd ther ef or e, acc or d in g t o th e g ov er n m en t, “k n ow [ s] t h at th e m in or w ill mo s t l i k e l y b e r a p e d , a s s a u l t e d , o r ab u s e d b y p i mps a nd c u st om er s.” W e ag r ee wi ththe g o ve r nm en t th atthe c rim e a t i ss ue i s “ pu rpos eful” and “a ggr ess i ve. ” The cl ose st questi on is w h et h er a viola tio n of 18 U .S.C
. § 24 23 (a) is “ v i o len t.” 2 On th e o ne hand, Patt er son i s co rr ect that the s tatute d oe s n ot contai n as an el em ent a ny use ofvi ol ence or f or ce. On the o therhand, the gov er nm ent i s c orre ct that vi ol ati on ofthe sta tute cre ate s a si gni fi cant ri sk ofvi ol ence agains t the victim by the perp etr ator as w ellas third par ti es . Ul ti m at ely, we ar e persu ade d b y the g o ve r nm ent’ s pos i ti on that t he r i sk ofvi ol ence w hi ch att ends a vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 2 423( a) j u stifi es i ts cl ass i fi cati on as “violen t ” an d that 18 U
. S. C
. § 2423(a) i s the refore “si m i l ari n ki nd ” t o the Gui del i ne’ s en u m er ate d cri m es. W hi l e the S up r e me Co ur th a s n o tde fi ni t i v e l y i nd i c ate d whethe r “ at te nda nt ri sk s” s ho ul d b e ta k eni nt o a cc o unt w h en an aly zin g w h et h er a c rim e is sim ilar ly v io len t, see C ha m bers , 12 9 S
. Ct. at69 2 ( ass um i ng “forthe sak e o f argu m en t” th at atten d an t ris k o f viol en ce w as relevan t),20 N o. 08

- 2240

Com m on l aw burg l ar y i s defi ne d as “br ea ki ng a nd e nt er i ng 3 an oth er’s d w elling a t n igh t w ith th e inten t to co m m it a felony.” Bla ck’s Law Di ct i onary (8 th ed . 20 0 4 ). consi derat i on o fthi s f act or w ou l d app earto be appropri ate i n l i ght o fthe f act that the s eco nd clause o f U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 2(2 ) itsel fr efer s t o the “ potenti alr i sk” in h er en t in cr im es of vio len c e. See U
. S. S. G
. § 4B 1.2( 2) ( a “cr i m e o fvi ol ence” i s “ burgl ar y o fa dw el l i ng, ar son, o r extor ti on, i nvol ves use o fexpl osi ves, o r othe rwis e i nv o l v e s c o nd uc tthat pre s e nts a s e r i ous pot e nt i al r i s k of ph ysic a l inju ry to an o ther ”) ( em p ha sis add ed ). C ons iderat ion of risks atten d an t to com m issi on of a c rim e i s a lso su p p or te d by U .S.S.G . § 4B 1.2 (2)’ s e x p licit enum er ati on o fbu rg lar y a s a cr i m e o fvi ol ence. Li ke Se cti on 2 423( a) , burg l ar y does not re quir e the use off or ce o r v i o l en ce. Butthe S upr eme Co ur t r ea so ne d i n Taylo r 3 that Congre ss i ncl ud ed burg l ar y a m ong the “ cri m es of vi ol ence” i n the A CC A bec ause Congre ss thought that cer tain gene ra lcat ego ri es of proper ty cri m es . . . so oft en pre se nte d a risk of injury to person s , or w er e s o oft en co m m itt ed by ca re er cr im inal s, thattheysho uld be i ncl u d ed i n the enhancem ent s tatute e ven though, consi dered sol el y in ter m s o f th ei r s t at u to ry ele m en ts , th ey d o n otn ec es sa rily i nv o l ve the us e o r thr ea t o ff o r ce a g ains t a per so n. Taylo r, 49 5 U.S
. at59 7. L ike w i se here , a vi ol ati on o f18 U .S.C . § 24 23 (a) d oe s n otreq u ire vio le n t c on d u c t, bu t it prese nts a subst anti al ris k that v i ol ence w i l lo ccur. M or eove r, we agre e with ourco l l eagues in the Fi rs t Ci rcui t,N o. 08

- 2240 21 th at it is “ su rp as sin gly d ifficu lt to s ee h ow bu rg lar y c ou ld be t r ea te d a s a vi o l en t cr i m e y etc hi l d t r affi cki nge xem pted. ” S e eWi l l i a ms , 52 9 F
. 3d at 8. A vi o l at o r o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 423(a) e ng ag es i n pur po se ful c on d u c t th at ex p os es th e crim e’s vic tim to a fore se ea b le ri sk ofvi ol ence, physi cali nj ury, and dis eas e. W e there

f o r e co nc l ud e tha t1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 4 2 3 ( a ) i s “ s i mi l a r i n k i nd ” to the e num er ate d cri m es i n U
. S. S. G. § 4B1. 2( 2) and i s a cri m e o fvi olen c e f orpurposes o fthe Se ntenci ng Guidelin es . Se eBegay, 128 S
. Ct. at15 87; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Te m pl e t on , 54 3 F .3d 37 8, 38 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ).

D. “ Undu e I nf l ue nc e ” and “U s e o fa C o mput e r ” Se nten ce En h an cem en ts Pa tt er so n al so o bj ec ts to th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s enha nc ement of his sen ten ce for “U n d u e Influen ce” an d “U se of a Com pu ter
. ” W h en r evi ew i ng a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on of s en tencing enhancem ents, we re vi ew the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s le ga l int er p re ta tio n s d e n ov o, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Katalini c, 5 10 F .3d 74 4, 74 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , and i ts f actual fi nd i ngs forcl earer ror, U nit e d S t at e s v. Bryant, 55 7 F
. 3d 48 9, 50 0-0 1 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Th e c lea r er r o r s ta n d ar d is si gni fi cantl y defer enti aland an appel l ate co urt “m ay onl y r eve rs e a fac tu alfi nd i ng under thi s s tandard wh en i t i s l eft with a ‘ defini te and fi rm convi cti on that a m is t a k e h as be en co m m itt ed .’ ” U nite d State s v. G erst ei n , 104 F. 3d 973, 980 ( 7th Cir
. 1997 ) (quoting A nders on v. C ity o f Bes se m erCity, 4 7 0 U. S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) ( o th e r c i t a t i o ns om itted ).22 N o. 08

- 2240 1. Un du e I nfl uen ce S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e § 2 A3
. 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) r e q u i r e s a t wo l eve le nh a nc em ent where a par ti ci pant “undu l y influenced th e vi ct i m t o e ng ag e i n prohibit ed se xua lc o nduc t. ” The c om m en ta ry to th e G u id elin e in st ru c ts co u rt s t o clo se ly con side r the p articu lar facts of the cas e to de term in e w h et h er a “p ar tic ip an t’s influ en c e o ve r th e v ict im c om p ro m ise d th e v olu n ta rin es s o f th e v ict im ’s b eh av ior.” U. S
. S
. G. § 2 A3. 2, c m t. n. 3. Thi s co ur t ha s st at ed th atthe d efin in g c h ar ac te ris tic of u n d u e in flu en c e is th at it i nvol ves “a si tuati on w here the ‘ i nfluencer ’ has succee ded i n al ter i ng the behav i oro fthe tar get
. ” U
. S. v. M it chel l , 35 3 F.3d 552 , 557 (7th C ir. 2003). H er e , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta p p l i e d th e e n h a n c e men t be ca us e th e defen dan t “was the o ne ” o r “ was on e o fthe p eop le ” who he l ped i nv o l ve the v i ct i m wi thpr o st i tu ti o n. Thi s fi n d i n gwa s s u p p o r t e d b y th e r e c o r d

. T h e d e fen dan t w as a forty-tw o y ear old m an and the victim w as a fourte en ye ar old girl at th e t im e o ft h e c r i m e. T h e v ict im te st ified to t h e g ra n d j u ry th at sh e h ad n ev er w or ke d in p rostitution before th e d efend an t enc ou raged her to try i t. M or eov er, the vi cti m w as desti tute and penn i l ess w hen P a t t e r s o n b e g a n ur g i ngh e r t o t r a v e lt o Ch i c a go wi thhi m t o en g ag e i n i nt erne t-ba se d pr o st i tu ti o n, making her m or e v ulne rabl e t o hi s influence. Because the r eco rd supp or ts the dist ri ct cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe enhancem ent, and because there i s no bas i s for a defi ni te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has been com m i tte d, w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l ica ti on o f the “ und ue i nfluence” enhancem ent.N o. 08

- 2240 23 2. Use ofa Com pu t er Patte rs on a rgues

— an d the gov er nm ent c oncedes

— that the di s t r i c tco ur te r r e d wh e n i ta pp l i e d the U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G 1.3 (b )(3) en h an c em en t fo r “u se of a c om p u te r.” U n d er th is p ro v i sio n of th e Se n te n c in g G u id elin es , a defe nd ant’ s o ffense l eve li s incre ase d tw o l eve l s: [ i ] f the o ffe ns e i nv o l v e d the us e o f a c o mput er o r an i nter acti ve com pu terse rv i ce t o . . . ent ice encour age , offer, o r sol i ci t a p er son to engag e in prohibi ted se xual c on d u c t w ith th e m in or . . . . U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G1. 3(b) ( 3)
. The c o m m en ta r y, ho wever, furtherp ro vi des that“[ s] ubsect i on (b) ( 3) i s intended to apply onl y t o the use o f a c om pu tero r an i nter acti ve com pu terse rv i ce t o com m unica te dir ectly with a m i nor or w i th a perso n w ho e xerci ses custo dy, car e, o r superv isory c ontr olo fthe m i nor . ” Id . § 2G 1.3 cm t. n . 4
. In th is case , no com pu ter s were used to “co m m unica te dir ectly” w i th the vi cti m o r the v i cti m ’ s cust odi an, so the enhancem en t d o e s n o ta p p l y . We th e r e f o r e r e v e r s e a n d r e ma nd w i th r ega rd to thi s e nhancem ent in or der to ensure that i t pl aye d no parti n Patte rs on’ s s entence
.
E. Use oft he 2007Sentenci ng G uidel i nes Fi nal l y, Patte rs on a rgues that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s use o f the 2 007 Sen te n ci ng Guidel i nes t o cal cul ate hi s s entence vi o l at ed th e ex po stf ac to c l au se o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n. Patte rs on nev err ai sed thi s a rgum ent b ef or e th e d i str i ct c ou rt, so w e re vie w for p lain err or . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. B aretz , 411 F.3d 867, 875 (7th C ir. 2005).24 N o. 08

- 2240 Patte rs on’ s a rgum ent i s forecl ose d by U ni t e d S t at e s v. D em a ree, 45 9 F. 3d 791, 795 (7th Cir
. 2006) , w hi ch h el d that a ch an g e i n the Sente nc i ngGui del i ne s th ate xpa nds the gui del i nes r ange f or a cri m e doe s no t r ender appli cati on o f th e l at er - Gui del i ne s an ex pos t f ac to l aw. De fen dan t argues that D em a ree did notta ke Kim b r ough v. U ni ted Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85 (2007) or G a ll v . U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S
. 38 (2 007) into acc ou nt
. H ow ever, the hold ing of D em a ree ha s been ap p li ed after Kim b r ough a nd G all , s e e, e . g. , U nited State s v. Kr as i ns ki, 545 F.3d 546 , 552 (7th C ir. 2008), an d does not contr adic t those deci si on s. Defe nd ant’ s o ther argum ent, not w i thsta nd i ng D em a ree, i s tha t offen d ers w ho w in t h e ir sent en cing ap p eals “run the risk ofa re m and fo r a s i gn ifica n tl y l onge r sente nce” under a new ve r si o n o f th e Gui del i ne s. H o wev er, as th e gove r nm en t poi nts o ut, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 742( g) (1) d i re cts that defe nd ants w ho win thei r sente nci ng appeal s be r es entence d und er th e Gu idel i ne s “in e ffec t o n the da te o fthe pr ev i o us se n te n c in g.” Because Patte rs on has prese nted no com pel l i n g rea son to re vi si t D em a ree, a nd b ecaus e hi s ar g um en t r eg ar di ng th e po te nt i alf o r hi g he r s en te nc es o n r emand ha s no m er it, w e rej ec t h is c on te n tio n th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp lain ly er re d by ap p lyin g t h e 2 00 7 G u id elin es .

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe re as ons expla i ned abov e, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent of the dist ri ct cour t e xcept with r ega rd to the “use of a co m pu ter ” s entence enhancem ent. W i th r egard to thatN o. 08

- 2240 25 i ssue, we R EVER S E a nd R EMA ND f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 5- 09