FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 68 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 00 18 -SPM -AK-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TERRY M. DUFRAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 1 7, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Terry DuF ranap pe al s h is sen te nc e fo r rec ei ptof c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(A) an d (b )(1 ). DuFr anarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredinap pl y in g atwo -le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(3 )(F) for

di st rib ut io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. Acco rd in g t o t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort, Du Fran was arres te d fo ll owi ng anin ve st ig at io n o f pe er-t o- pe er fi le sh ari ng ne two rk s co nduc te d b y th e NorthFlo rid a In te rn etCri m es Agai ns t Ch il dr enTaskFo rce. In Nov em be r 20 09 , a ta skfor ce ag en t u se d s pe ci al iz edso ftwa re t o l oc at e a co m pu te r of feri ng to di st rib ut e ch il d p orno gr ap hy. The same IP add res s h adbe enreco rd edoff eri ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy file s fo r di st rib ut io n b etweenSep te m be r 7, 2 00 9, an d F eb ru ary 3, 2 01 0. Th e ag en t v ie wedon e v id eo an d c on firm edth atitde pi ct edch il d po rn og rap hy. In ve st ig at or s ev en tu al ly trace d t he IP ad dr es s t o Du Fran ’s res id en ce. Law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers ex ecu te d asea rch warran t fo r th e res id en ce an d re co ve reda lapt op co m

pu te r th atco nt ai ne d n um ero us im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. DuF ran adm it te d t ha t the co m

pu te r was hi s. He ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t h adin st al le d a fil e-s ha rin g p ro gr am , Fro st W ire , on hi s co m pu te r, an d h adus edth atpro gr am to do wnl oa d i m ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. DuF ranwas a ware t ha t an y im ag es inth e Fro st W ire “ sh are f

ol de r” co ul d b e acc es se d b y othe r co m

pu te rs run ni ng th at pr og ram . He was s ur

pr is edth atth e ag en ts ha d fo un d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy onth e

2co m

pu te r be cau se itwas h is st an da rdpra ct ic e to “wip e” the ch il d p orno gr ap hy aft er h e was fin is he d v ie win g i t. Incal cu la ti ng DuFr an ’s gu id el in e ran ge , th e PSI i m po se d atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(F) fordi st rib ut io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy be cau se DuFr anha d p la cedso m e o f th e co nt rab an d fi le s o n afil e sh ari ng ne two rk . DuFr anob

jecte d t o t ha t en ha nc em en t, ar gu in g t ha t the ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to sh ow t ha t h e in te nd edto di st rib ut e ch il d p orno gr ap hy. DuF ranex pl ai ne d t ha t he rem ov edth e ch il d p orno gr ap hy im ag es th athe do wnl oa de d fr om th e Fro st W ire pr og ram ’s sh are f

ol de r be cau se he di d n otwantto m ak e th os e fi le s av ai labl e to ot he rs . He ass ert edth atth e m ere p res en ce o f a fi le -s ha rin g p ro gr am on hi s co m pu te r was no t en ou gh to supp ort the ap pl ic at io n o f a d is tri bu ti on en ha nc em en t The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t the ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d Du Fran ’s as se rti on th athe di d n otin te ndto di st rib ut e ch il d p orno gr ap hy. The go ve rn m en t no te d t ha t Du Franha d i ns ta ll edfil e sh ari ng so ftwa re o n h is co m pu te r an d was aware of h ow i t wo rk ed . The g ov ern m en t fu rth er o bs erv edth atDuFr an ’s IP ad dr es s h adbe ende te ct edoff eri ng to di st rib ut e ch il d p orno gr ap hy file s b etween Sep te m be r 20 09 an d F eb ru ary 20 10 . At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt o ve rru le d Du Fran ’s ob jecti on to th e d is tri bu ti on en ha nc em en t. The co urt o bs erv edth atDuFr anha d u se d 3pe er-t o- pe er fi le sh ari ng so ftwa re t o d own lo adan d d is tri bu te im ag es of c hi ld

po rn og rap hy. The co urt fo un d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t Du Fran was aware tha t the fil e sh ari ng so ftwa re wo ul d a ll ow h im to sh are i m ag es with ot he r us ers . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edDuFr anto a te rm of 2 40 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t . II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs at s en te nc in g fo r cl ear e rro r, an d t he di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es to th os e fac ts de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z- Gar ci a , 56 5 F .3d13 06 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The gu id el in e fo r ch il d p orno gr ap hy offen se s ca ll s fo r a two- le ve l s en te nc in g en ha nc em en t i n c as es wher e th e d efen da ntdi st rib ut edch il d p orno gr ap hy. U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(3 )(F) . The ap pl ic at io n n ot es de fin e d is tri bu ti on as an y act , in cl ud in g p os se ss io n wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e, pr oduc ti on , tra ns m is si on , adv ert is em en t, an d t ran sp orta ti on , rel at edto th e tr an sf er of m at eri al in vo lv in g t he sex ua l ex pl oi ta ti on of am in or . Acco rd in gl y , di st rib ut io n i nc lu de s p os ti ng m at eri al in vo lv in g t he se xu al expl oi ta ti on of amin oron a web si te forpubl ic vi ewin g b ut do es no t i nc lu de th e m ere s ol ic it at io n o f su ch m at eri al by a defe nd an t. U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 , comm en t. (n .1). DuF rando es no t d is pu te th atm ak in g fi le s av ai labl e o ve r a fi le sh ari ng ne two rkcanco ns ti tu te di st rib ut io n, b uthe arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d n ot
4ha ve ap pl ie d adi st rib ut io n e nh an cem en t i n h is cas e b ecau se he di d n otin te ndto

sh are t he im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy with ot he rs , andto okanaffi rm at iv e st ep to av oi d d oi ng so by rem ov in g t he im ag es fro m hi s co m pu te r’s sh are f

ol de r. DuFr an rel ie s m os t h eav il y

on th e Eig ht h C irc ui t’s d eci si on in Uni te d Sta tes v. Du rh am, 61 8 F .3d92 1 (8 thCir . 20 10 ). In t ha t ca se , a law en fo rcem en t o ffi cer d is co ve red th atDurh am ’s IP ad dr es s was off eri ng to di st rib ut e ch il d p orno gr ap hy file s u si ng th e Lim eWire fi le sh ari ng pro gr am . Id
. at 9 23 . Durh am arg ue d tha t h e sh ou ldno t ha ve rece iv eda di st rib ut io n e nh an cem en t b ecau se th ere was no ev id en ce tha t h e in te nd edto m ak e th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy avai labl e to ot he rs . Id. at 9 24 -2 5. Und er the Eig ht h C irc ui t’s ca se law, a d efen dant ’s in te ntto di st rib ut e co ul d be in ferr edfro m

th e fac t tha t the de fen da ntha d m ad e th e im ag es av ai labl e th ro ug h a fi le sh ari ng pro gr am , un le ss th e d efen da ntpre se nt ed“ co nc ret e ev id en ce o f ig no ran ce.” Id

. at 9 26 -2 7 (c it in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Do dd , 59 8 F .3d44 9 (8 th Cir . 20 10 )). Inot he r wor ds , th e d efen da ntne ed edto co m e fo rwardwith s om e ev id en ce s ho win g t ha t h e d idno t kno w th athe was m ak in g t he fil es av ai labl e to ot he rs . The Eig ht h C irc ui t co nc lu de d t ha t Durh am ha d p res en te d s uc h e vi de nc e in hi s ca se . Dur ha m , 61 8 F .3dat 9 31 -3 2. Sp eci fic al ly, Durha m ’s bro th er h ad te st ifi edth atDurh am

ha d n otin st al le d t he Lim eWire p ro gr am an d was no t kn owl ed ge ab le ab ou t the pro gr am . Id
. at 9 28 -2 9. Al th ou ghDurh am ha d u ti li zed 5Lim eWire t o d own lo adch il d p orno gr ap hy, the re was no th in g i n t he reco rdto

su gg es t tha t h e was aware o f th e p ro gr am ’s up lo ad in g c ap ab il it ie s. Id. at 9 29 -3 2. Acco rd in gl y , th e Eig ht h C irc ui t re ve rs edDurh am ’s two -le ve l d is tri bu ti on en ha nc em en t. Id
. at 9 32 . Thi s ca se is di st in gu is habl e fro m Dur ha m be cau se DuFr anin st al le d t he Fro st W ire pro gr am

hi m se lf andwas fa m il ia r wit h h ow i t wo rk ed . Am on g o th er th in gs , DuFra n was aware t ha t an y fil es inth e p ro gr am ’s sh are f ol de r co ul d b e do wnl oa de d b y

ot he r co m

pu te rs co nn ect edto th e fi le sh ari ng ne two rk . Alth ou gh DuF ranex pl ai ne d t ha t h e n orm al ly del et edth e fi le s af te r vi ewin g t he m , law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers de te ct edhi s co m pu te r of feri ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy ov er the Fro st W ire ne two rkbe twee n S ep te m be r 7, 2 00 9, an d F eb ru ary 3, 2 01 0. Th us , it ap pe ars th atDuFr andi d, atso m e p oi nt , m ak e ch il d p orno gr ap hy avai labl e fo r di st rib ut io n. Gi ve n Du Fran ’s kn owl ed ge of F ro st W ire ’s fil e sh ari ng cap ab il it ie s, itwas re as on ab le for

th e d is tri ctco urt t o d et erm in e th athe m ad e th e fi le s av ai labl e in te nt io na ll y . W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err by app lying a two -le ve l en hanc em en t und er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(3 )(F) . Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm DuF ran ’s sen te nc e. AFFIRMED. 6