PUBLISH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ROLANDO CIFUENTES-LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 21-6053

________________ _________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:19-CR-00364-G-1)

________________ _________________ Submitted on the briefs: * Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, and Meredith Esser, Assi stant Federal Public Defender, Office of Federal Public Defe nder, Denver, Colorado, for DefendantAppellant. Robert J. Troester, United States Attorney, and Mary E. Walters, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Oklahoma C ity, Oklahoma, for PlaintiffAppellee.

________________ _________________ Before TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge, BRISCOE , and MATHESON , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ TYMKOVICH , Chief Judge.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 26, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 12 ________________ _________________ Rolando Cifuentes-Lopez admitted to having commercial sex with two minors and was sentenced to 24 years and 4 months in prison. He claims that the district court erred in applying certain sentencing e nhancements pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; one enhancement for a pattern of sexual conduct with a minor, and the other for his conviction on mu ltiple counts. He argues that: (1) the application of a pattern of activity enha ncement under U.S.S.G § 4B1.5(b)(1) should not apply to him because he engaged in only one prohibited sexual act with each minor; and (2) the application of the patt ern of activity enhancement along with a multiple count enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3D 1.4, is impermissible double counting. We find that the district court correctly applied the enhancem ents. First, the pattern of activity enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) can be applied to either repeated abuse of a single minor or to sepa rate abuses of multiple minors. Second, applying a five-level pattern of activity enhancement unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) along with a two-level multiple count enha ncement under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 is not double counting in this case because the Guidelines expressly intend cumulative application, and the enhancements serve di fferent sentencing goal s. For the reasons below, we reject both of Ci fuentes-Lopez’s arguments and AFFIRM the district

court. 

### I. Background Cifuentes-Lopez rented a tra iler home to a tenant and engaged in commercial sex with each of the tenant’s two minor children. Cifuentes-Lope z pled guilty to engaging in Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 23 prohibited sexual conduct with the two minors on one occasion each. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (b)(2), (c) and 18 U.S.C. § 1594(a). The probation office generated a presentence report (PSR) with th e following sentencing calculations:

 A base offense level of 30 for a vi olation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1).

 A two-point increase under U.S.S.G. § 2G1. 3(b)(4) because the offense involved the commission of a sex act or sexual contact.

 A two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 because there were multiple counts of conviction that were equally serious in nature.

 A five-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) because Cifuentes-Lopez engaged in a pattern of activity i nvolving prohibited sexual conduct. With acceptance of responsibility , Cifuentes-Lopez’s total offense level was 36. With a criminal history category of I, the resulti ng Guideline range was 188 to 235 months. At sentencing, the governme nt argued that two additio nal enhancements should apply:

 A two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) because CifuentesLopez had exerted undue in fluence over the minors.

 A four-level aggravating role enhan cement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for Cifuentes-Lopez’s role as “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participan ts or was otherwise extensive.” Id. Cifuentes-Lopez countered that the five-level increase pursuant to U. S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) for engaging in a pattern of activity invol ving prohibited sexual conduct should not be applied because he only had se x with each victim one time. Further, he argued that the application of this enhanc ement along with the two-le vel enhancement for multiple counts or multiple victims pursuant to U.S.S. G. § 3D1.4 constituted impermissible double Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 34 counting. He claimed that the two enhancemen ts did not address separate effects and did not otherwise operate independently of each other. The district court applied all the enhan cements in the PSR along with the undue influence enhancement proposed by the gove rnment. The district court rejected Cifuentes-Lopez’s objections. Ultimately, the district court f ound Cifuentes-Lopez’s total offense level was 38 and his criminal hi story category was I, re sulting in a Guideline sentencing range of 235-293 m onths of imprisonment. Th e district court sentenced Cifuentes-Lopez near the top of that range: 292 months. 

### II. Analysis We review the district court’s legal conc lusions under the Sent encing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear er ror, “giving great deference to the district court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Evans , 782 F.3d 1115, 1117 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Salas , 756 F.3d 1196, 1204 (10th Cir. 2014). Cifuentes-Lopez raises two argument s regarding his pattern of activity enhancement and alleged impermissible double counting. We address each argument in

turn. A. Pattern of Activity Enhancement Section 4B1.5 applies to a “Repeat and Da ngerous Sex Offender Against Minors.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5. Subsection (b) provides for a five-level increase in the offense level if (1) “the defendant’s instant offense of conv iction is a covered sex crime” and (2) “the Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 45 defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” 1 Id. at § 4B1.5(b). And Application Note 4(B)(i) provides that a “defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited se xual conduct if on at least two separate occasions, the defendant engage d in prohibited sexua l conduct with a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) cmt. n.4(B)(i). In the present case, the district court app lied a five-level increase for a pattern of activity pursuant to § 4B1.5(b)(1) because Cifuentes-Lopez had engaged in prohibited sexual conduct on more than one occasion. Cifuentes-Lopez argues that the district court erred in applying the pattern of activity enhancement becaus e he engaged in only one prohibited sexual act with each minor, and separate acts do not create a pattern. See United States v. Riccardi , 314 F. App’x 99, 103 (10th Cir. 2008) (“While § 2G2.1 allows for an enhancement for multiple

1 The full text of subsection (b) says: (b) In any case in which the defendant ’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime, neither § 4B1.1 nor subsection (a) of this guideline applies, and the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct: (1) The offense level shall be 5 pl us the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three. Ho wever, if the resulting offense level is less than level 22, the offense level shall be level 22, decreased by the number of levels corresponding to any applicable adjustment from § 3E1.1. (2) The criminal history category shall be the criminal history category determined under Chapter Four, Part A. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b). Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 56 victims, § 4B1.5 allows for enhancement if a defendant exploite d victims on multiple occasions.”). He contends that § 4B1.5(b)(1) is reserved fo r situations in which sexual acts have occurred with the same minor on multiple occasions. We disagree with this logic. First, the Application Note says that a defendant must engage in prohibited sexual conduct with “a minor” on two separate occasions to qualify for the enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) cm t. n.4(B)(i). The word “a” indicates that the two separate occasions of sexual c onduct may—but do not ha ve to be—with one minor. Cf. United States v. Thompson , 402 F. App’x 37 8, 384 (10th Cir. 2010) (“The use of the indefinite article ‘a’ before ‘dwellin g’ suggests the ‘dwe lling’ need not be a specific dwelling.”); United States v. Jenkins , 904 F.2d 549, 553 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Section 848’s use of the indefi nite article when describing ‘ a position of organizer’ or

‘ a supervisory position or any other position of management’ contemplates that a given network may have many persons in author ity.”). Thus, the plain meaning of the Application Note is that a pattern of activity includes when a defendant engages in sexual conduct against two different minors on separate occasions or against the same minor on two different occasions. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) cmt. n.4(B)(i); United States v. Oakie , 993 F.3d 1051, 1053-54 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming application of § 4B1.5(b) enhancement where defendant molested one gi rl one time and later molested a different girl one time); United States v. Fox , 926 F.3d 1275, 1280 (11th Cir. 2019) (“The plain meaning of ‘separate occasions’ . . . requi res only events that are independent and distinguishable from each othe r. Multiple, distinct instances of abuse—whether ongoing, related, or random—meet the requi rements under § 4B1.5(b)(1).”); United States v. Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 67 Broxmeyer , 699 F.3d 265, 285 (2d Ci r. 2012) (“[W]e accord Guid elines language in the plain meaning: ‘two’ means two, not three; and ‘separate’ means the two occasions must be separate from each other.”). This interpretation is consistent with th e history of the enhancement. The prior version of § 4B1.5(b)(1) requi red “at least two minor vic tims of the prohibited sexual conduct” for the enhancement to apply. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 cm t. n.4(B)(i) (2002) (“[T]he defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if— (I) on at least two separate occasions, the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor; and (II) there were at least two minor vic tims of the prohibited sexual conduct.”). The Applicat ion Note explained that a de fendant engaged in a pattern of activity “if there were two separate occa sions of prohibited sexu al conduct and each such occasion involved a differe nt minor”—the exact situation presented in this appeal. Id. In 2003, “[i]n an effort to broade n § 4B1.5(b)(1)’s scope,” Congress amended Application Note 4(B)(i) “to eliminate the re quirement of at least two minor victims in order for the enhancement under § 4B1.5(b)(1) to apply.” United States v. Brattain , 539 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2008). Thus, the enhancement was expanded to include repeated abuse of a single minor, not restricted to only instan ces where a defendant repeatedly abuses a single minor. In summary, the pattern of activity en hancement under § 4B1.5(b)(1) can be applied to either repeated abuse of a single mi nor or separate abuses of multiple minors. Accordingly, the district court correctly a pplied the pattern of activity enhancement to Cifuentes-Lopez. Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 78 B. Double Counting The Sentencing Guidelines sp ecify that offense level ad justments for more than one specific offense characteristic are cumula tive, whereas within ea ch specific offense characteristic they are alternative. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, cmt. n.4. Impermissible double counting occurs in Guideline ca lculations when “the same conduct on the part of the defendant is used to support separate incr eases under separate enhancement provisions which necessarily overlap, are indistin ct, and serve identical purposes.” United States v. Fisher , 132 F.3d 1327, 1329 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Blake , 59 F.3d 138, 140 (10th Cir. 1995)). All three criteria must be satisfied to constitute double counting. See United States v. Rucker , 178 F.3d 1369, 1371 (10th Cir. 1999). But a court “may apply separate enhancem ents to reach distinct aspects of the same conduct.” United States v. Reyes Pena , 216 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). There is no double counting when a court punishes “the same act using cumulative Sentencing Guidelines if th e enhancements bear on ‘conceptually separate notions relating to sentencing.’” Id. at 1209 (quoting United States v. Lewis , 115 F.3d 1531, 1537 (11th Cir. 1997)). Put another way, “cum ulative sentencing is permissible when the separate enhancements aim at different harms emanating from the same conduct.” Reyes
Pena , 216 F.3d at 1209-10. Here, Cifuentes-Lopez argues that his pattern of activity enhancement is impermissible double counting. He contends that the five-level pattern of activity enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) cann ot be applied at the same time as a twolevel multiple count enhanc ement under § 3D1.4. See United States v. Fadl , 498 F.3d Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 89 862, 867 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that “the enhancement for multiple victims could be applied without the application of an e nhancement for multiple occasions, and viceversa”). Cifuentes-Lopez contends that the two enhancements punish him for the same criminal conduct—i.e., the fact that there are multiple vi ctims—and thus the enhancement provisions “necessarily overlap , are indistinct, and serve identical purposes.” Fisher , 132 F.3d at 1329. In other words, Cifuentes-Lopez contends that both U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5( b)(1) and § 3D1.4 are aimed at punishing offenders for multiple criminal acts and thus applying the two en hancements constitutes impermissible double counting in his case. We are not persuaded. Do uble counting did not occur be cause (1) the Guidelines expressly intend cumulative application, and (2) the enhancements serve different sentencing goals. First, the Guidelines antic ipate a cumulative applicati on of both enhancements. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) expressl y states that if the provisi on applies, the resulting offense level “shall be 5 plus the offense level determined und er Chapters Two and Three.” Id. (emphasis added). The additiv e noun “plus” tells us that “the guidelines intend the cumulative application” of such enhancements. United States v. Dowell , 771 F.3d 162, 170 (4th Cir. 2014) (discussing a Chapter Two enhancement and § 4B1.5(b)(1)); see also United States v. Von Loh , 417 F.3d 710, 715 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that the application of § 3D1.4 and § 4B1. 5(b)(1) did not constitute imperm issible double counting because “[t]he word ‘plus’ [in § 4B1.5(b)(1)] indi cates that the Senten cing Commission intended Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 910 that the repeat sex offender enhancement be imposed in addition to calculations made pursuant to §§ 2A3.2 and 3D1.4.”). Second, the two enhancements are direct ed to different purposes and aimed at different harms. The purpose of the multi ple count enhancement in § 3D1.4 is to “provide incremental punishment for signi ficant additional criminal conduct.” See U.S.S.G. § 3D intro. cmt. The purpose of § 4B1.5(b)(1) is to protect minors from sex offenders “who present a conti nuing danger to the public.” See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 cmt. bkgd. (noting that the enhancement is derive d from a Congressional directive “to ensure lengthy incarceration for offenders who enga ge in a pattern of activity involving the sexual exploitation of minors” ). Punishing an offender fo r additional criminal conduct and continued danger to the public is not double counting—those are two separate sentencing goals. Cf. United States v. Seibert , 971 F.3d 396, 400 (3d Cir. 2020) (concluding that § 4B1.5(b)(1) serves a diffe rent sentencing goal than offense-specific Guideline provisions “[b]ecause it pertains to the part of the Guidelines dealing with career offenders”); United States v. Dowell , 771 F.3d 162, 171 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that application of § 4B1.5(b)(1), together with § 2G2.2(b)(5), was not impermissible double counting because “§ 4B 1.5(b)(1) aims not merely to punish a defendant for the specific characteristics of the offenses of convi ction . . . but to allow a district court to impose an enhanced period of incarceration because the defendant presents a continuing danger to the public”). The fact that diffe rent harms may emanate from the same conduct does not result in impermissible double counting. See Reyes Pena , 216 F.3d at 1210. Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 1011 In summary, applying a five-level pattern of activity enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) along with a two-level multiple count enhancement under § 3D1.4 is not double counting in this cas e because the Guidelines expressly intend cumulative application, and the enhancements serve diffe rent sentencing goals. Thus, the district court correctly applied both enha ncements to Cifuentes-Lopez. 

### III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court. Appellate Case: 21-6053 Document: 010110716026 Date Filed: 07/26/2022 Page: 11