## 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

- 2515 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v . S T EV EN L ACEY, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 07 C R 40052

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judg e.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 20, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 12, 2009

Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. St eve n Lane Lacey ple aded gui l ty to posse ssing chi l d pornog ra phy i n vio latio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 2 25 2A ( a) ( 5) ( B). The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced h im to 10 8 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t. L ac e y ap p ea ls, ch all e n g i n gb o th h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d h i s s e n t e n c e . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 08

- 2515 I. W hi l e i nv es ti g at i ng tw o Ya ho o g r o ups t r an smi tt i ng i m age s o f chi l d pornog ra phy ove r the inter net, Fe deral Bu re au ofInve sti gat i on a gents tr aced o ne o fthe i m age s t o 47- yea r- ol d S tephen Lane Lacey, w ho poste d the i m age o f a nude prepubesce n t fem al e e ngage d i n or alse x w i th an ad u lt m ale . W h e n t h e a ge n ts int er vie w ed L ac ey ath is w or kpl ace, he adm i tte d t o tr adingchi l d pornog ra phy ove r th e I nt erne t sinc e 19 96
. H e al so admi tt ed th athe us ed o ne of h is t w o h om e c om p u t e r s t o s h ar e a n d vie w ch ild po r no g r aph y . Age nt s se i ze d a c o m put erha r d dr i ve a nd seve ra lCD

- RO M s a fterLaceyco nsented t o a s ear ch of hi s ho m e. The i te m s se i ze d c o ntained se ve r altho us an d sti l lim ag es and app ro xi m ate l y tw o dozen vi deos of chi l d pornog ra phy. Lacey w as i nd i cted and pl eaded gui l ty to one c ou n t of po s s e s s i o n o fc hi l d p o r no g r a ph y i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 22 52 A(a ) ( 5) ( B)
. At the c hang e o fpl ea he ar i ng, the di st r i ctc o ur t asked La ce y, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, i fthe g o ve r nm en t co ul d pr o ve b eyond a r ea so nabl e do ubtthe “juri sdic ti onalel em ent” ofa § 2 252A(a) ( 5) ( B) v i ol ati on

— tha tthe c hi l d p o r no gr a ph y “ ha d b e e n t r a ns po r t e d, s hi pp e d o r ma i l e d in i nt e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n c o mm e rce , in c lu d in g b y c om p u te r. ” L ac ey res p on d ed , “Y es , sir.” Lat er, whi l e r ec i tingthe f ac tu alb as i s f o r the p lea, the gov er nm ent’ s a tto rney as ser ted thatthe “i m age s hav e tr av ele d in i n t e rs ta te co m m er c e t o e n d u p in . . . I llin ois .” The cour t a ske d Lacey i fthe gov er nm ent coul d prove that aver m ent b eyo n d a reas onabl e doubt; Laceyag ai n re spo nde d, “ Ye s, s i r . ” Bas ed o n tho se a ffi r m at i o ns, the cour t a ccepted Lacey ’ s pl ea.N o. 08

- 2515 3

The PSR l is ted 25 v ideo fil es as rel evant condu ct
. H ow ever, 1 the dist ri ctc o u rt, afterex am ini ng the videos, cull ed that num ber dow n to 12 afterex cl ud ing the video s th at were eithe r d u p licates or d id no t clearly d ep ict m ino rs. Pr i o r t o s en te nc i ng, La cey ad va nc ed se ve r alo bj ec ti o ns to the pre se nt en ce r epo r t ( “P S R” )
. Am o ngtho se o bj ec ti o ns was hi s cl ai m tha t h e was no t su bj ec t to a fi ve - l ev ele nha nc ementunde r U. S
. S
. G. § 2G2
. 2(b) ( 7) ( D) f o r po ss es sing ove r 600 i m age s of chi l d pornogr aphy. I nstea d ofthe 5, 000- plus i m ag es att ributed to hi m i n the PSR, Laceyi nsi ste d h e w as on ly re sp on sib le for th e fo u r im ag es liste d in the i nd i ctm ent and to w hi ch he pl eaded gui l ty ofposs ess i ng . Acco r di ngt o La ce y, a ny a m o unto ver th e f o ur i m age s was unrel i abl e be cause the g ove rnm en t had not pro du c e d e v i de nc e tha ta nyo fthe o the r i mag e s de pi c t ed actu al m inors as op p osed to com p ut er-ge n e rated “virtu al ” ch i l dr en . A fter a th oroug h review of t he i m ages, the d istri ct cou rt rej ecte d Lacey’ s obj ecti on a nd appli ed the enhancem ent. I t g ave seve ra lr eas ons f ordoi ng so . Fi rs t, th e c ou rtdi scussed twel ve oft h e video i m age s the PSR incl ud ed as re l evantco nd uct. I t found that the vi deos featured actual 1 child ren beca use, to the cour t’ s know l edge, m aking a m ov ie w ith virt u al a c to rs w h o w er e in d ist in gu ish ab le fro m r ealact or s wa s im possibl e. Because the Gui del i nes tr ea t twe l ve v i deo s o fc hi l d por no g r aph y a s equi va l en t to ove r 600 sti l li m age s, the cour t found the fi ve- l eve l enhancem ent j usti fi ed on that ba si s a l one. N ext, the cour t turned to the sti l lim age s r eco ver ed fro m Lac ey ’ s co m put era nd the CD- ROM s i n his po ss es si o n.4 N o. 08

- 2515

T he N C M E C m ain tain s a d ata b ase o f k no w n v ictim s of child 2 por nogr aphy , whi c h c an be us ed for pur pos es ofc om par i s on. Disc ar ding du pli cate i m ag es , tho se ofpoorqual i ty or sm al lsi ze, and any i m age thatdi d not cl ear l y portr ay m i nor s, the dist ri ct c ou rt nar ro w ed the tot alnum ber l i ste d i n the PSR to ar ound 2, 000 i m age s. The co urt sta ted that i t v i sual l y inspected tho se re m ai ni ng i m age s, sto p ping i ts i nspecti on o nl y a fteri t had dete rm i ned that th er e was “ no que st i o n” tha t atl east 1, 00 0 o fthe m i nvol ved r ealchi l dren. The co urt not ed its cal cul ati on was co ns i st en t wi ththe go ve r nm en t’ s r epo r t fr o m the N ati onalCenterf orM i ssing and Exp l oi ted Chil dren ( “NCM EC”) , whi chconc lud ed th ata t l ea st1 , 22 2 o fthe 2 i ma g e s fr o m L a c e y ’ s h a r d d r i v e a n d h i s C D- R O Ms i nvolved real ch ild r en . On those bases , the d istri ct cou rt appli ed the enhancem ent. I n additi on t o the fi ve- l eve l enhancem ent under § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 7) ( D), the dist ri ct c ou rt a d ded a f our- l eve l enhancem ent under U
. S. S. G. § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 4) f orm ate ri al th atpo r tr ay ed sa di st i c an d m asoc hi st i c co nduc t. The cour ti de nt i fi e d two i mag e s a nd o ne v i de o tha tj us t i fi ed t h e en h an c em en t: a p h ot og ra p h of a c h ild be in g s ex u ally ab us e d wh i l e b l i nd f o l de d; a no the r i mag e o fa c hi l d, bl i ndf o l ded wi thha nds b o und a nd a r o p e a r o und the neck, who was be i ng se xua l l y ab us ed; an d a vi deo of a young chi l d scr eam i ng and c ry i ng as she w as ra ped by ano l derman. Af te r a ppl ying thate nha nc ement, the co ur t ca l cul ated La ce y ’ s o ffen se l ev ela t 33 a nd hi s se nte nc i ngr an g e at1 35 t o 1 68 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t. TheN o. 08

- 2515 5

D u ring ora l arg u m en t, L ace y ’ s attor ne y als o a ttem p ted to 3 c hal l en ge the c ons t i t ut iona l i t y of§ 22 52 A as appl i ed t o the Int ernet
. In hi s app el lat e bri ef, how ever, Lacey speci fic a ll y st ates t h a t he is notchal le nging the c onst itutional ity ofthats tatute. A pp el lantb r. a t 11- 12. H e has the ref ore waived any such arg u m en t. st atut o r y maxi m um f o r Lac ey ’ s o ffen se was te n y ea r s, a nd th e co ur t i m po se d a s en te nc e o f1 08 months ’ i m p ris o nm ent. Laceyappeal s.

II. On app eal, Laceyfi rs t c hal l enges the evi dence es tabl i s hingthe j ur i s di c t i o na le l e men to fh i s § 2 2 5 2 A ( a) ( 5 ) ( B) convi cti on. H e a rgues that the g ov er nm ent di d not

3 p rod uc e any eviden c e t h a t the im ages foun d on his ha rd dri ve and C D-ROM s had be en tr anspor te d i n i nter sta te c om m er c e. L ac ey ac kn ow led ge s t h at h e d i d n otrais e t h is iss u e in th e d ist ric t c ou rtan d th at a gu ilty p lea ord in ar ily w aiv es all ob j ec tio n s t o a co n vic tio n . Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 484 F. 3d 453, 455 (7th Cir
. 2007)
. H owever, Lacey conte nd s that a sufficie ncy chal l enge to the j uri sdic ti onal el em ent c annot be wai ved. In the al ternati ve, he a rgues that the di str i ct j ud ge f ai l ed i n hi s obl i gat i on under Fed eral Ru le ofCrim inal Proced ure 11(b)( 3) to satisfy hi m sel fthatther e was a f actualbas i s fo r the j uri sdic ti onal el emento fLa ce y ’ s co nv i ct i o n. Se c t i o n 2 2 5 2 A( a ) ( 5 ) ( B) p r o s c r ib e s kno wi ngp o s s e s s i on ofchi l d pornog ra phy “thathas been m ai l ed, o r shi pp ed or6 N o. 08

- 2515 t r a n s p o r t e d

. . . i n o r a ffe c t i n gi n t e r s t a t e o r f o r e i g n c o mm er ce b y a ny m eans, i ncl ud i ng by com pu ter
. ” That quoted l anguage i s c om m onl y r efer re d to as the “j uri sdic ti onal ele m en t” of th e o ffen se . Se eU ni t e d S t at es v. Ande rs on , 28 0 F.3 d 11 21 , 112 5 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ). L ac ey cla im s t h at h is chal l enge to that el em ent of th e o ffense cannot be w ai ved by hi s guil ty ple a due to i ts j uri sdic ti onalnatur e. Lacey cor re ctl y note s that a gui l ty ple a does not w aive cer tain j uri sdic ti onalchal l enges to a convi cti on

— c h all en g es tha t g o “ to the v ery po wero fthe St at e to b r i ngthe defen dan t i nt o c o ur t to a ns werthe c ha r g e br o ug ht aga i nst hi m . ” B la c k l e dge v . P erry, 417 U
. S. 21, 30 (1974); se e also U nite d State s v. B el l , 70 F. 3d 495, 496-97 (7t h C ir. 19 95 ). H ow ev er , con tr ar y t o L ac ey ’s c on te n tio n, his att ack on the e vi dence supporting the j uri sdic ti onal e l e men to fh i s § 2 2 5 2 A( a ) ( 5 ) ( B) c o nv i c t i o n i s n o tth a tty pe of jur isd ict ion al c h alle n ge . A “jur isd ict ion al e lem en t” is si m plyan e l em ent o fa federa lcr i m e. I t i s j uri sdic ti onal “onl y in the shor thand sense thatwitho ut that[ i nterstate c om m er c e] n ex u s, th er e c an be n o fe d er al c rim e . . . . It is n o t ju r isdictiona l in the sens e tha t it affects a cou rt’s subj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on, i.e. , a cour t’ s co nsti tuti onalo r sta tutory power to ad j u d i cate a case , her e a uthor i zed by 18 U
. S. C. § 3 231. ” U nite d State s v. M arti n , 147 F
. 3d 529, 53 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( i n ternalci tat i on o m i tte d). A s a n offense elem en t, it does n ot im p li cate th e cou rt’s pow er to hear a c a s e a nd c a n b e wa i v e d b y a g ui l ty ple a

— as i t was her e. See M ilh em v. U nited Sta tes , 83 4 F
. 2d 118, 12 0 (7 th Ci r. 19 87) ( noti ng tha t “ a p lea of gui l ty to an o ffense const i tutes a wai ve r o fa ny c l ai m o fi ns uffi ci en cyo fpr o o fo n a ny el em ent o fthato ffense” )
. Because Lacey h as n ot asked toN o. 08

- 2515 7 setas i de hi s guil ty ple a, we w i l lnotentert ai n hi s chal l enge to the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence supporting the j u risdi ct i o na le l emento fhi s § 22 52 A(a ) ( 5) ( B) c o nv i ct i o n. L ac ey ’s o th er cla im

— that the di str i c t cour t f ai l ed to su ffici en tly app rise i tself of the factu al ba s is f or La cey’s ple a

— i s co ntra dict ed by the re cor d. A t the change ofpl ea hear i ng, Laceyadm i tte d

— tw i ce

— that such a f actual ba si s ex i st ed. F i r st, whenr ec i tingthe e l ements o fthe cr i m e, the di st r i ctc o ur t spe ci fi ca l l y a sk ed Lac eyi fhe ag re ed th at th e gov er n m en t c ou ld p ro ve th at th e c h ild p or n og ra p h y w as “t r a n s p or te d , sh ip p ed or m aile d in i nter sta te orfo re i gn co m m er ce . . . as char ged, ” t o w hi ch he r epl i ed, “Yes, si r. ” S eco nd , afterthe gov er nm ent s et f orth the f actualbas i s forthe ple a, wh i ch i ncl ud ed that th e im ag es of ch ild p or n og r a p h y h ad “t ra ve led in i nter sta te com m er ce, ” the co urt ask ed L aceyi fthe gov er n m en t c ou ld p ro ve a ll ith ad rec ite d be yo n d a re as on ab le doubt, to wh i ch he a gain re pli ed, “Y es, sir
. ” Th ose adm i ssi o ns a r e su ffi ci en t to e st ab l i sha f ac tu alb as i s f o r the j u ris d ict ion al e lem en t o f th e § 2 25 2A (a)( 5)(B ) offe n se . C f. U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 272 F.3d 380 , 389-90 (6th C ir. 2001 ) ( fi nd i ng g ove rnm ent’ s co ntenti on tha t it was pre

p ar ed to pro ve conspi ra tor s “ had pu rchas ed i tem s that m o ve d i n int er st at e co m m er ce i n pr epar at i o n fo r the cr i m e” s uffi ci en t to e st ab l i shthe f ac tu alb as i s f o r the j u r i s d i c t i o n a le l e me n to fth e H o b b s A c to ffe n s e )
. We th er efo r e r ej ec t Lac ey ’ s ch al l en g e to hi s co nv i ct i o n. I n additi on t o chal l engi ng the j uri sdic tio n alel em ent o f h i s c o n v i c t i o n, L a c e y a r g u e s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o mmi t t e d two e r r o r s a ts e nt e nc i ng . F i rs t, La c e y c o nt e nd s8 N o. 08

- 2515

T h e S u p r e me C o u r t h e l d i n A shcr of tv. Fre e Spee ch Coal i t i on , 4 53 5 U. S. 2 34 ( 20 02 ) , thatthe Fi rs tAm en dm en tpr ot ec t s the pos s es s i on ofvi rtual i m age s ofc hi l d por nogr aphy

. that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n fi nd i ng tha t th e o ffense in vo lve d m or e t h an 60 0 im ag es of ch ild p or n og r a p h y, a fin d in g w h ich i n c re as ed h is gu id elin es ran ge five lev els und erU
. S. S. G. § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 7) ( D). “W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c o ur t ’ s a pp l i c a t i o n o fthe s e nt e nc i ngg ui de l i ne s de n ovo , bu t d e fe r to the cou rt’s find ing of facts u nless th ey are c l e a r l y e r r o ne o us . ” U n ited St ates v. Irb y, 24 0 F
. 3d 597, 59 9 (7th C ir. 2001). Re l y i ngo n U nite d State s v. Frabizio , 44 5 F
. S up p. 2d 15 2 (D. M ass. 2006), La cey claim s tha t t h e d istri ct cou rt’s vi su ali ns pec ti o n o fthe i m ag es was i ns uffi ci en t to fi nd that they w er e i m age s o factual m i nor s a s o pp ose d to vi r tu alo ne s. In Frabizio , the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that 4 vi suali nsp ec tio n al one w as i nsuffi ci ent t o differ enti ate r ea l ch i l dr en fr o m vi r tu al o ne s. 44 5 F
. S upp. 2 d a t 15 5. The d ist ric t court ther ef or e re qu ire d fu rt h er ex tr in sic evi dence bey ond vi suali nspecti on

— th ou gh w h at sp ec ifical l y that would e ntai l( othe r than an “expertwith gr eat erkno w l edge o fco m pu ter s”) , the cour t di d not s ay. Id

. at15 9. Laceywould have us go ev en fartherthan F r ab izio ; h e a rgues that “ [ w ] i thout tes ti m ony ofa perso n w ho par ti ci pated i n the cre at i on o fa di g i ta li m ag e, no au th en tic it y of th e c laim ed im ag es ca n be d et er m in ed .” A p p ell an t br. at 13 (em p ha sis add ed ). L ac ey ’ s r el i an ce o n Frabizio i s m i spl aced. N ot onl y is Frabizio a district cou rt case th at is not p reced en tial au th or-N o. 08

- 2515 9

The Fi rs tCi rc ui the l d i n U ni t ed Sta t es v. Nol an , 818 F. 2d 1015, 5 1017- 19 ( 1stCir. 1987) , thata tri er of f act, w ithout the ass is tance o f a n ex pert or otherevidence, can dis cer n betw een an ac tual and vi rtual i m age ofc hi l d por nogr aphy . H oweve r, i n U n i te d Sta t es v. Hi l t on , 36 3 F .3d 58, 65-66 ( 1st C ir. 20 04 ), the F irst Ci rc ui t, r el yi ng o n A shc ro ft v . F re e Spee ch Coal i t i on , 535 U.S
. 234 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , mo v e d a w a y fr o m N ol an and he l d that the go ver nm en t was obl i gat ed t o pr oduc e ex per tt es t i m ony t o e s t ablish the rea lity of an im ag e of child p or no g rap hy

. T he First C ircu it la te r w ith d re w th a t o p in io n, U ni t ed Sta t es v. Hi l t on , 386 F. 3d 13 (1 st C ir . 20 0 4 ), b u t th e st a tu s o f N ol an rem ain ed in d ou b t un til R odr iguez- Pachec o , whi c h r ea ffi rm ed the ho l di ng i n N ol an . The di s t ri c tc our ti n Fra b iz i o issued its ru ling d u ring tha t interim o f u n ce rt a in ty
. S ee F ra b iz io , 445 F. Supp
. 2d at 156- 57. ity , M a then y v. U nite d Sta tes , 469 F.3d 109 3, 1097( 7th Cir. 2006 ) , but al so i t i s no l onger good l aw . A fterthe dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Frabizio , th e F irs t C i r c u it d efin itiv ely hel d, contr a Frabizio , thatthe gov er nm en t is notr equi re d to pre sent any furtherev i dence ofthe re al i ty ofthe ch ild re n d ep ict ed oth er th an th e p ict u re s t h e m se lve s. See U nite d State s v. R odriguez-Pacheco , 4 75 F. 3d 434, 44 1- 42 (1s t C ir. 20 07 ). In so h old in g, th e F irs t C irc u it w as sim p ly 5 ec h oin g w h at ev er y ot h er c ou rtof ap p ea ls c on fro n tin g t h is i ssue has co ncl ud ed: exper t e vi dence i s no t requ i re d to p ro ve th e rea lity of ch ild re n p or tr ay ed in p or n og ra p h ic im ag es . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l ci do , 50 6 F. 3d 729, 733- 34 ( 9th C ir. 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m ) (“W e a gr ee w ith ev er y ot h er circ u it that has r ule d on the i ssue that expertte sti m ony i s no t re quire d fo r the g ove rnm ent t o est abl i sh thatthe i m age s d ep ict ed an ac tu al m in or .”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ir vi ng, 45 2 F. 3d 11 0, 1 20

- 22 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 6) ( r ej ec tinga ppel l ant’s10 N o. 08

- 2515 cl ai m t h at the gov er nm ent m ust pro du ce e vi dence ex trinsic to the p ictures them selves); U ni t e d S t ates v. Farre lly, 38 9 F
. 3d 649, 654 ( 6th Ci r. 20 04) ( “The questi on ofwh etherthe i m age s a re vi rtual o r re ali s one off act, to be deter mi ne d b y e v i de nc e ab o utwh i c h a r g ume ntc a n be m ad e to the j ury.”), abro ga ted o n o ther g rou nd s by U nited S t a t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 411 F.3d 675, 677 n
. 1 (6th C ir. 2005); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sl ani na , 35 9 F. 3d 356, 35 7 ( 5th Ci r. 20 04) ( per curi am ) ( hol ding extr i nsi c ev i dence w as not re quir ed to p ro ve rea lity of ch ild re n in im ag es ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e at on , 3 2 8 F
. 3 d 4 5 4 , 4 5 6 ( 8 thC i r . 20 0 3 ) ( p e r c u r i a m) ( ho l di ngthat t he “ pi ctur es the m se l ve s su ppo r t th e d istric t cou rt’s det erm ination th at th e im ages w ere pla i nl y o fchi l dren u n d er ag e 1 2, and depict ed actual c h ild re n ”); U nite d State s v. Hall, 31 2 F
. 3d 1250 , 12 60 ( 11th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( re vi ewi ngf o r pl ain e r r o r a nd de te r m i ni ng fr o m the p orno g r aph i c pi ctur es the m se l ve s th at“ no reason a b le jury cou ld h ave foun d that the im ages w ere v i r t ua lc hi l dr e n c r e a t e d b y c o mput e r t e c hnol o g y a s o pp osed to actu al chil d ren” ). J o i ni ngo urs i st erc i r cui ts , we r ej ect Lac ey ’ s ar g um en t th at th e govern m en t w as req uired to prese nt an y exp ert evi dence, m uch les s test i m ony fro m tho se w ho cr eat ed the pornogr aphic i m age s, to es tabl ish that the i m age s depict ed r ealas o pp ose d to vi rtual chi l dren. Because Lacey has pre sente d no ev i dence thatw ou ld cal li nto que st i o n the r ea l i tyo fthe c hi l dr en, we hol d th at th e d istri ct cou rt’s vi su al ins p ection w as su ffici en t to sup p ort its find in g t h at t h e im ag es d ep ict ed ac tu al c h ild re n . See Ir vi ng, 4 52 F
. 3d at1 21
. In a ddi ti o n, we no te tha t th e d ist ric t c ou rt, in its th or ou gh ora l d isc u ss ion of th isN o. 08

- 2515 11

W e n o t e a n a l t e r n a t i v e g r o u n d for affir m i n g th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 6 a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t : t h e tw e l v e v i d e o s o n L a c e y ’s com pu tertha tthe dist ri ctcourt f ound contai ned chil d p ornograp h y . O n a p p e a l , L a c e y d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’s find ing th at tho se v id eo s con tain ed real ch ild ren . A s tho se v id eo s b y th em se lv es su p p o rt th e fiv e-l ev el en h a n ce m en t, see U .S. S.G
. § 2G 2.2 ap p lication no te 4(B )(ii) ( 20 07 ), L ace y ’ s cha ll en ge t o the c our t ’ s r el i anc e on its v i s ual i ns pec t i on ofthe st il l im ages m akes no d ifferenc e t o his s ente nce. i ssu e , b a s e d i t s fi nd i ngn o tj us to n i t s v i s ua lins pec ti on a l o ne ; i ta l s o c o mpa r e d i t s o b s e r v a t i o ns wi th the NCMEC r epo r t to c o nfi rm th at th e i m ag es i nv o l ve d r ea lc hi l dr en . See U nited Sta tes v. Ho ey, 508 F. 3d 687, 691 ( 1st C ir. 20 07) (rel ying on sim il ar N C M E C report). 6 Lacey’ s s eco n d chal l enge to hi s s entence i s e asi l y di spatched. Laceyco ntends thatthe Si xth A m endm ent, as i nt er pr et ed i n Blake l y v. Wa shing t on , 542 U
. S. 296 (2004), and i t s p r o g e ny, r e qu i r e d a j ur y a nd n o tthe di s tr i ct cour t t o deter m i ne co ntest ed f actuali ssues atse n tenci ng, suc h a s ho w man y i mag e s La c e y po s s e s s e d, i fea ch i m age depic ted an a ctualm i nor, and w hetheran i m age depi ct ed sa di st i c o r maso ch i st i c co nd uc t. Tha t ar g um en t h as n o m er it. See U nite d Sta te s v . White, 47 2 F
. 3d 458, 46 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( chara cter i zi ng thi s l i ne o far gu m en t as “fri volous” ). “I n th e afterm ath of B o o k er, the s en te nc i ng g u i d e l i ne s a r e c o n s t r u e d a s a d v i s o r y, n o tma n d a t o r y . We have re peatedl y hel d .

. . th at sente nci ng enhancem ents need not be found b y a j u rybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt because theyno l onge r al te r the s tatutor y m axi m um . ” Id

. ( i nter nalci tat i on o m i tte d). Because Lacey w as sente nced12 N o. 08

- 2515 b elo w th e sta tu to ry m ax im u m of ten ye ar s fo r h is offense, hi s a rgum ent i s unavai l i ng.

III
. Lacey’ s pl ea ofgui l ty w aiv ed h i s chal l enge to the j uri sdi ct i o na le l emento fhi s § 22 52 A(a ) ( 5) ( B) c o nv i ct i o n. M o r eo ve r, the di st r i ctc o ur t, re l y i ngon Lac ey ’ s admi ss i o ns du ring the change o fpl ea hear i ng, suffi ci entl y a pp ri sed i tse l fof t he f actualbas i s forthe j uri sdic ti onalel em ent. R e g a r d in g L ac ey ’s s en te n c e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly e nh a nc e d h i s s e nt e nc e fi v e l e v e l s u nd e r U. S. S. G. § 2 G 2.2 (b )(7) (D ) for p os se ss in g ov er 60 0 im ag es of ch ild pornog ra phy base d o n the num er ous i m age s a n d vi deos he poss ess ed. M or eov er, bec ause the c ourtse ntenced La c e y b e l o w the s t a t ut o r y ma xi mum, n o Si xth Am e nd

m ent v i ol ati on o ccurr ed. W e t here f or e A FFIRM La cey’s convi cti on a nd se ntence.

6- 12- 09