# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 10 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Eli se o F lo ren ci o Go m ez-Di az

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 18
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 28 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SHEPHERD, KELLY, an d S TRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a jury tri al

, Eli se o Fl or en ci o G o mez -Dia z was co nv ic te d of pr od uc in g
ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). Gom ez-Di az ap pe al s,
ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a le ss er-i nc lu de d- of fen se in st ru ct io n, it s
de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

, an d i t s a p pl ic at io n of an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t at sen te nc in g. We affi rm in pa rt a nd rem an d fo r res en te nc in g.I

Twent y -o ne -y ear- ol d Gom ez-Di az had be en se xu al ly ab us in g hi s gi rlf rie nd ’s

ei gh t-year-o ld bro th er, M., for sev eral m on th s. The se xu al co nd uc t went un no ti ced

un ti l hi s gi rlf

rie nd

, lo ok in g th ro ug h Gom ez-Di az’s ph on e on e ni gh t, fo un d si x

p i c t ur es of hi m an d M. pe rfo rm in g or al se x on each ot he r, whi ch ha d be en t a k e n
earl ie r th at ev en in g. The gi rlf rie nd cal le d th e po li ce, an d Gom ez-Di az was pr om pt ly

arre st ed

.

Gom ez-Di az ne ve r de ni ed en ga gi ng in se xu al co nt act wit h M. Bu t hi s de fen se

th eo ry at tri al was th at he di d no t en ga ge in se xu al co nt act fo r th e pu rp os e of

pr od uc in g ch il d po rn og rap hy—an el em en t of § 22 51 (a)

. To th at en d, Gom ez-Di az

as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to in st ru ct th e jury on th e le ss e r-i nc lu de d of fen se of

po ss es si on of c hi ld po rn og rap hy un de r § 2 25 2( a)(4 )(B) . The d is tri ct co ur t re fu se d,

reas on in g th at po ss es s io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy is no t a le ss er-i nc lu de d of fen se of

pr oduct io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on de no vo , se e
Uni te d St at es v. So ria no -Hern an de z, 31 0 F.3 d 10 99

, 11 03 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), we ag ree.

A de fen da nt ’s pr op er req ue st fo r a le ss er-i nc lu de d- of fen se in st ru ct io n wil l be

g r a n t e d w h en , a m on g ot he r th in gs , “ th e el em en ts of th e le ss er of fen se are id en ti ca l

to pa rt of th e el em en ts of th e gr eat er of f e ns e,” th at is

, whe n th e le ss er of fen se

co nt ai ns no el em en ts th at th e gr eat er of fen se do es no t. Uni te d St at es v. Rai nb ow, 81 3

F.3 d 1 09 7, 1 10 5 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fel ix , 9 96 F.2d 20 3, 2 07
(8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). Po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in cl ud es at le as t on e el em en t th at

pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy do es no t: po ss es si on

. Gom ez-Di az do es no t di sp ut e

th is

, bu t he arg ue s th at in p r a c t i ce, it is im po ss ib le to pr od uc e ch il d po rn og rap hy

w i t h ou t ne ces sa ril y po ss es si ng it

. Gom ez-Di az m ay be rig ht th at a pe rs on w h o

pr od uc es ch il d po rn og rap hy of te n al so po ss es se s it

, bu t th at is no t al way s th e cas e.

-2

-Fo r ex am

pl e, an y pe rs on who “ pe rs ua de s” a m in o r t o e n g a g e in “ se xu al ly ex pl ic it

co nd uc t fo r th e pu rp os e of pr od uc in g an y vi su al de pi ct io n” or “ tra ns po rts ” a m in or

fo r th at pu rp os e m ay be co nv ic te d un de r § 22 51 (a). Bec au se § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) req ui res

an el em en t no t re q u i r e d f or § 22 51 (a), th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y refu se d to is su e a
le ss er-i nc lu de d- of

fen se in st ru ct io n.

II

Dur in g tri al

, Gom ez-Di az’s co un se l ex pl ai ne d to th e jury th at he was “ th e

vo ic e” fo r hi s cl ie nt

. Dur in g cl os in g arg um en ts

, th e pr os ecu to r rem in de d th e jury of

th at co m m en t an d st at ed

, “ You are th e vo ic e fo r” th e vi ct im

. Thi s st at em en t el ic it ed

an im m ed ia te ob

jecti on fro m th e d e f

e n s e ; t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t ru le on th e
ob jecti on in it ia ll y , an d th e pr os ecu to r rep eat ed he r st at em en t. The de fen se ob jecte d

ag ai n, ex pl ai ni ng , “ Tha t’s im pr op er arg um en t, y ou r Hon or

. The jury is no t a vo ic e

fo r an y bo dy.” The di st ric t co ur t th en su st ai ne d th e ob ject i o n a n d in st ru ct ed th e

pr os ecu to r to m ov e on

. Late r, Gom ez-Di az m ov ed fo r a m is tri al ba se d on th e

pr os ecu to r’s st at em en t. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. Bu t Gom ez-Di az al so

req ue st ed an d rece iv ed th e fo ll owi ng cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n: “ You are no t to m ak e a
de ci si on on be ha lf of [th e vi ct im ]. You are to m ak e th e de ci si on ba se d up on th e

ev id en ce in th is cas e as it ap pl ie s to th e Defen da nt in th is cas e.” On ap pe al

, Gom ezDiaz co nt en ds th at th e d is tri ct co ur t er red in refu si ng to gra nt a m is tri al

.

W e rev ie w th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r m is t r i a l ba se d on pr os ecu to ria l

m is co nd uc t fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Zies m an , 40 9 F.3 d 94 1, 95 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ). W e wil l re ve rs e a co nv ic ti on ba se d o n a pro se cu to r’s co m m en ts du rin g
cl os in g arg um en t on ly if (1 ) th e pr os ecu to r’s co nd uc t was im pr op er an d (2 ) th e

co nd uc t pr ejud ic ia ll y affe ct ed th e “ de fen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s so as to de pr iv e hi m

of a fai r tri al .” Uni te d St at es v. Bec km an , 22 2 F.3 d 51 2, 52 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). The

pr ejud ic e in qu iry fo cu se s on th ree fact o rs : (1 ) th e m is co nd uc t’s cu m ul at iv e effe ct

,

-3

-(2 ) th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce of th e de fen da nt ’s gu il t, an d (3 ) th e tri al co ur t’s

cu rat iv e act io ns (or lac k t he reo f). Id

.

The pr os ecu to r’s st at em en ts h e r e w e re im pr op er. See Uni te d St at es v.
Alab ou di

, 78 6 F.3 d 11 36

, 11 44 –4 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) ( “In t h e c on te xt of th e

go ve rn m en t’s cl os in g arg um en ts in th is cas e, we do no t co nd on e th e go ve rn m en t’s

co m m en ts th at th e juro rs were th e on ly on es who co ul d ‘ sp eak fo r’ or ‘stan d up fo r’

th e vi ct im s.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z, 5 8 1 F

. 3 d 77 5, 80 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(co nc lu di ng “ th at a pr os ecu to r’s br ie f cl ai m to ‘spe ak fo r’ a vi ct im is im pr op er if, in

th e co nt ex t of th e su rro un di ng st at em en ts

, th e co m m en t ap pe al s ex ces si ve ly to juro rs ’

em ot io ns ”); Ro be rts v. Delo

, 20 5 F.3 d 34 9, 35 1 (8t h Cir. 20 00 ) (“ [I]t is im pr op er to

as k juro rs to pu t th em se lv es in th e p l a ce of th e vi ct im .”). Bu t we can no t sa y th at

th es e li m it ed im

pr op er co m

m en ts were so pr ejud ic ia l th at th ey de pr iv ed Gom ez-Di az

of a fai r tri al

. Mo st im

po rta nt , t he di st ric t c o u r t s u s t ai ne d Gom ez-Di az’s ob jecti on

to th e co m

m en ts an d la te r is su ed a cu rat iv e in st r u ct io n to th e jury. “ It is pr es um ed

th at a ju r y w i ll fo ll ow a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n un le ss th ere is ‘an ov erwh el m in g

pr ob ab il it y ’ th at it was un ab le to do so .” Uni te d St at es v. Uph of f, 23 2 F.3 d 62 4, 62 6
(8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng Greer v. Mi ll er, 48 3 U.S. 75 6, 76 6 n.8 (1 98 7) ). The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n whe n it de ni ed Gom ez-Di az’s m ot io n fo r a m is tri al

.

III

At se nt en ci ng , Gom ez-Di az ob jecte d to an ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t

un de r Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s § 3C 1.1

, whi ch cal ls fo r a 2- le ve l in crea se

in th e of fen se le ve l if “ th e de fen da nt wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d, or at te m

pt ed

to ob st ru ct or im

pe de

, th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n,

pr os ecu ti on , or s e n t e nc in g of th e in st an t of fen se of co nv ic ti on .” The pr es en te nc e

in ve st ig at io n rep or t reco m m en de d th is en ha nc em e n t be cau se Gom ez-Di az’s

-4

-te st im on y at tri al was in co ns is te nt wit h th e vi ct im ’s st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t. 1

The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d Go m ez-Di az’s o bjec ti on wit ho ut ex pl an at io n, s ta ti ng

[T]he Co ur t is rath er con vi nc ed th at th e reco rd th at ex is te d i n t hi s ca se
pr io r to to da y be cau se of th e tri al pr et ty well st an ds f o r it se lf, bu t

n e ve rth el es s, th e Co ur t ne ve rth el es s do es at th is ti m e ad op t t h e
pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t in to ta l. It do es fin d— de ni es al l of th e de fen da nt ’s ob

jecti on s t o t he PSR.

It va rie d do wnwar d fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 36 0 m on th s of im pr is on m en t ba se d

on Gom ez-Di az’s y ou th an d la ck of cri m in al hi st or y an d im po se d a se nt en ce of 24 0

m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t.

W e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g
Gui de li ne s de no vo , an d we rev ie w fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r. See Uni te d St at es

v. F l o r e s , 3 62 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). A di st ric t co ur t m ay ap pl y th e
ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce en ha nc em en t o n l y if it fin ds by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce th at th e de fen da nt en ga ge d in ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t. Id

. Perju ry m ay qu al ify

as ob st ru ct iv e c o n d uc t un de r § 3C 1.1

, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t can no t im po se th e

Sp eci fic al ly, th e rep or t s ta te d, 1

The de fen da nt ’s tri al te st im on y in cl ud ed st at em en ts th at co nt rad ic te d
in fo rm at io n rep or te d to la w e nf or cem en t by [t he vi ct im ] re g a r d i n g th e le ng th of th e se xu al ab us e, th e oc cu rren ce o f a na l-g en it al pe ne tra ti on , th e pr ev io us pr od uc ti on of ph ot og rap hi c im ag es on hi s ph on e, an d th e
t h r e a t en in g st at em en ts m ad e to [th e vi ct im ]. His te st im on y was al so in co ns is te nt wit h hi s own pr io r st at em en ts to la w en fo rcem en t reg ard in g th e le ng th of t he sex ua l ab us e.

In ad di ti on , th e pr es en te nc e rep o r t reco m m en de d th e en ha nc em en t ba se d on th e th reat s th at Go mez

- D i a z al le ge dl y m ad e du rin g th e se xu al ab us e. The go ve rn m en t do es no t p ur su e th is sec on d b as is on ap pe al

.

-5

-en ha nc em en t “ si m pl y be cau se a d e f

e n d a n t te st ifi es on hi s own be ha lf an d th e jury

di sb el ie ve s hi m .” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 31 8 F.3 d 84 5, 86 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 )). In st ead

, th e di st ric t co ur t m us t “ co nd uc t an in de pe nd en t ev al ua ti on an d

de te rmi n e whe th er th e de fen da nt co m m it te d pe rjury.” Id

. At a m in im um , it m us t

m ak e a fin di ng of an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce “ th at en co m pa ss es al l of th e f

a c t u a l

pr ed ic at es fo r a fin di ng of pe rjury.” Uni te d St at es v. Dun ni ga n, 50 7 U.S. 87

, 95
(1 99 3) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ it is pr efer ab le fo r a di st ric t co ur t to ad dr es s each el em en t of

th e al le ge d pe rjury in a se pa rat e an d cl ear fin di ng ”). T he di st ric t cou rt di d no t do so
he re.

Thi s co ur t ha s, fro m ti m e to ti m e, affi rm ed co nc lu so ry fin di ng s of pe rjury whe n

th os e fin di ng s were ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. See Uni te d St at es v. Kes sl er,

32 1 F.3 d 69 9, 70 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ The re was pl en ty of ev id en ce fo r th e jury to fin d

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt was gu il ty. And I un de r s t a n d he

co nt in ue s t o m ai nt ai n hi s in no cen ce, bu t I he ard th e tri al te st im on y , an d I th in k it

co ns ti tu te s o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce.” (cl ean ed up )); Uni te d St at es v. Br own , 31 1 F .3d

88 6, 89 0 (8 th C i r

. 20 02 ) (“ I be li ev e th e de fen da nt di d te st ify un tru th fu ll y an d y ou r
ob jecti on to th e en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce is de ni ed .”). The go ve rn m en t

rel ie s on th es e cas es to arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t

is no t erro ne ou s. Bu t he re, th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to m ak e an y fin di ng s co nc ern in g

o b s t r u c t i o n o f jus ti ce, an d th e fai lu re to do so am ou nt s to erro r. Thi s is no t th e

“ ex cep ti on al cas e” in whi ch th e reco rd co mp e l s a fin di ng of pe rjury, so rem an d is

req ui red . Uni te d S ta te s v . Esp arza , 29 1 F .3d 10 52 , 10 56 & n .3 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ). 2

The go ve rn m en t ha s no t rai se d ha rm le ss erro r. In co ns id eri ng whe th er to rai se 2

i t su a sp on te

, we m

us t co ns id er, am on g ot he r th in gs , “ th e cert ai nt y of th e ha rm le ss ne ss fin d i n g , ” a n d we “ sh ou ld err on th e si de of th e cri m in al de fen da nt .”
Lufk in s v. Leap le y , 96 5 F.2 d 14 77

, 14 81 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ). Eve n in cas es in whi ch th e
go ve rn m en t ha s rai se d ha rm le ss erro r, th is co ur t ha s lo ok ed to th e erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d

en ha nc em en t’s effe ct on th e di st ric t co ur t’s an al y si s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) whe n de te rm in in g whe th er the erro r was tru ly ha rm le ss

. See Uni te d St at es v. Je ns en , 83 4

-6

-IV

A cco rd in gl y , we affi rm Gom ez-Di az’s co nv ic ti on , va cat e hi s se nt en ce, a n d

rem an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r res en te nc in g.

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art , di ss en ti ng in pa rt.

I co nc ur in Part s I an d I I o f t h e Co ur t’s op in io n an d wou ld affi rm Gom ezDiaz ’s co nv ic ti on

. Howev er, I res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m Part III, as I wou ld affi rm in

fu ll th e se nt en ce of th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d on ha rm le ss erro r. Here, th e go ve rn m en t

fai le d to arg ue ha rm le ss erro r an d th us waiv ed th e is su e. Lufk in s v

. Le a p l ey , 96 5

F.2 d 14 77 , 1 48 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 )

. H o w ev er, ou r Co ur t m ay ov erl oo k su ch a waiv er

an d rai se ha rm le ss erro r su a sp on te in cer t a i n c i rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g if rev ers al

wou ld res ul t in “ co st ly an d fu ti le pr oc eed in gs in di st ric t co ur t” an d th e ha rm le ss ne ss

of th e erro r is cert ai n. Id

. (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gio va nn et ti

, 92 8 F.2 d 22 5, 22 6- 27
(7 th Ci r. 1991) (p er cu ria m )); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z-M en do za, 61 1 F.3 d

F.3 d 89 5

, 90 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (“ Bas ed on th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc lu de d th at it co ul d no t ‘find in th is si tu at io n th at a se nt en ce of an y th in g le ss th an th e st at ut or y m ax im

um is ap pr op ria te .’ Tha t st at em en t

. . . cl ari fie s th at an y po te nt ia l
ch an ge in of

fen se le ve l bas ed on th e ad jus tm en ts at is su e o n a pp eal wou ld no t h av e ch an ge d th e se nt en ce im

po se d in th is cas e.”); Uni te d Stat es v. St on g, 77 3 F.3 d 92 0,
92 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ Fu rth e r c o n f i r m in g th e ha rm le ss ne ss of ap pl y in g th es e

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts

, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y st at ed th at it wou ld im po se th e

sa m e 1 10 -y ear s en te nc e ev en if its cal cu la ti on of th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge was

erro ne ou s.”) ; Uni te d St at es v. Bas ti an , 60 3 F.3 d 46 0, 46 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ Ass es si ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at Bas ti an ’s se nt en ce wou ld
b e 60 0 m on th s ‘even if th e co ur t erre d in in te rp ret in g or ap pl y in g th e Gui de li n e s

. ’
The refo re, an y erro r in as se ss in g a fiv e-l ev el up ward ad jus tm en t

. . . was ha rm le ss .”). Here, th e Gu i d e l i n e s ’ le ve l-4 3 cap m as ke d th e effe ct of th e ob st ru ct io n- of -jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t on th e Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on

. Bu t wit ho ut an y fin di ng s a t a l l o n th e
pe rjury is su e, we err on th e si de of th e de fen da nt an d de cl in e to rai se ha rm le ss erro r

un bi dd en

.41 8, 41 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [I]t is well es ta bl i s h e d th at th e co ur t m ay co ns id er

ha rm le ss ne ss on it s o wn i ni ti at iv e.”).

The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de a m ax im um off en se lev el of 4 3 s uc h t ha t

“ [a]n of fen se le ve l of m or e th an 43 is to be tre at ed as an of fen se le ve l of 43 .” Uni te d

St at es Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on , Gui de li ne s Man ua l, Ch

. 5, Pt .A co m m en t. (n .2).

Gom ez-Di az’s to ta l of

fen se le ve l was 51

. Bec au se of th e se nt en ci ng cap , th e di st ric t

co ur t cal cu la te d hi s se nt en ce ba s e d o n an of fen se le ve l of 43

. Bec au se th e
ob st ru ct io n- of

- ju s ti ce en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to USSG § 3C 1.1 is a two -le ve l

en ha nc em en t, wit ho ut it

, Gom ez-Di az’s of fen se le ve l wou ld be 49

. Ju st as hi s of fen se
le ve l wit h th e en ha nc em en t, hi s rem ed ie d of fen se le ve l wou ld be tre a t e d a s a to ta l

of fen se le ve l of 43

. “ W he re, as he re, an erro r in ap pl y in g se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts

do es no t al te r th e de fen da nt ’s to ta l of fen se le ve l, su ch an erro r is ha rm le ss .” Uni te d

St at es v. St on g, 77 3 F.3 d 92 0, 92 5- 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (an y erro r by th e di st ric t co ur t

in de te r mi n i n g en ha nc em en ts an d red uc ti on s was ha rm le ss whe re th e de fen da nt ’s

to ta l of fen se le ve l wou ld no t ch an ge be cau se of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in e cap of 43 );

se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Je n s e n , 8 34 F.3 d 89 5, 90 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s am e); Uni te d

St at es v. Si gi ll it o, 75 9 F.3 d 91 3, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Bas ti an , 60 3 F.3 d 46 0, 46 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ame). The m ajor it y ’s co nc ern th at th e
ob st ru ct io n- of

-jus ti ce e n h a n c em en t m ay ha ve be en co ns id ered by th e di st ric t co ur t

in it s fin al se nt en ci ng de ci si on is m is pl aced be cau se , in th is ap pe al

, Gom ez-Di az do es

no t ch al le ng e th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce. In st ead

, he rai se s on ly

a pr oc ed ur al cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t m is cal cu la te d hi s of fen se le ve l. Fu rth er, th e

ha rm le ss ne ss of th e err o r is rei nf or ced by th e fact th at th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d 10

y ears be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 36 0 m on th s to im po se th e 24 0- m on th se nt en ce,

an d t he co ur t d id no t m en ti on th e o bs tru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t i n e xp la in in g

th e reas on s fo r th e se nt en ce. B e cau se th e ha rm le ss ne ss of th e erro r is cert ai n an d

rem an di ng wou ld be fut il e, I wou ld affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s s en te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8-