N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JONATHAN PAUL C ALVO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50064

D.C . No. 5:11-c r-00070-VAP-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 10, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SILVER

M A N, B EA, a

nd C HRISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Jona tha n Pa ul C a lvo a

ppe a ls his 240-month se nte n c e im p ose d following his guilty

ple a to e ntic e m e nt of a m inor to e nga g e in se xua l a c tivity , in 

# F IL ED JAN 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).-2-

viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2422(b). W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and for re se nte nc i ng. On a ppe a l, C a lvo c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s im position of c e rta in
se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nts a

nd thesubsta

ntivere a sona

ble ne ss of his sente nc e . Whe n re v ie wing a

se nte n c e , we first c onside r whe the r the distric t c ourt c om m itte d signific ant proc e dura l e rror. Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). “ In de te rm ining whe the r the distric t c ourt c om m itte d proc e dura l
e rror, we re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tat ion of theSe nte nc ing Guide line s de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of theSe nte n c i ng Guide line s to thefa c ts of a
c a se for a buse of disc re tion, a

nd thedistric t

c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings for c le ar e rror.” Unite d State s v . Brook s , 610 F.3d 1186, 1198 (9th C i r. 2010). First, C a lvo c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

five -le ve l
se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5(b) for e nga ging in a patte rn of prohibite d se xu a l c onduc t with a m inor. Unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5(b), a five -le ve l
e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s: “ In any

c a se in whic h the de fe nda nt’ s insta nt offe nse of
c onvic tion is a

c ove re d se x c rim e , ne ithe r § 4B 1.1 nor subse c tion (a) of this guide l ine a

pplie s, a nd thede fe n da

nt e nga ge d in a patte rn of a c tivity involving prohibite d se xu a l c onduc t[.] ” The distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of this enha

nc e m e nt
wa s prope r be c a

use C a lvo e nga ge d in prohibite d se xua l c onduc t with a

m inor on-3-

m ultiplese p arate oc c a sions. Se e Unite d State s v . Fe rguson , 560 F.3d 1060, 1066 (9th C ir. 2009). Further, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t C a lvo pre s e nte d “ a

c ontinuing da

nge r to the public .” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5 c m t. (ba c kg’ d). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a pply ing a five -le ve l
e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5(b). Se c ond, C a lvo c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s im

position of a

two-le ve l
se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B ) for unduly influe nc ing a
m inor to e nga ge in prohibite d se xua l c onduc t. Unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B ), a two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt a

pplie s if thede fe n da

nt “unduly

influe nc e d a

m inor to
e nga ge in prohibite d se xua l c onduc t.” “ Undue influe nc e ” is de fine d in the Guide line s a s a c tivity

tha t “ c o m prom ise [s] the volunta

rine ss of them i nor’ s be havior[.] ” U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3 c m t . n.3(B ); ac c ord United

State s v . Smith , 719 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th C ir. 2013); se ealso U nite d State

s v . Patte rson , 576 F.3d 431, 443 (7th C i r. 2009) (“ [T] he de fining c ha ra c te ristic of undue influe n c e is tha t it involve s a

situa tion whe re the influe nc e r ha s suc c e e de d in a lte ring thebe havior of the t arge t .” (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d)). The re is a re butta b le pre s um

ption that a de fe nda nt unduly influe nc e d a

m inor whe n the de fe n da

nt is a t le a s t te n y e ars olde r tha n the vic tim
. U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3 c m t. n.3(B ).-4-

A pre sum p tion of undue

influe nc e a

pplie s in thepre se nt c a se be c a u se C a lvo is a t le a st te n y e ars olde r tha

n the vic tim . Howe ve r, the undispute d e vide nc e in the
re c o rd re buts thepre sum

ption. Thee vide nc e shows tha t the vic tim we nt to the inte rne t c hatroom

of he r own a c c ord, willingly be frie nde d C a lvo, volunta rily
e nga ge d in se xua l ba

nte r with him , re que s te d tha t he pic k he r up, a

nd willingly
e nga ge d in these xua l a c ts a t issue . The re is sim

ply no e vide nc e tha

t C a lvo did or
sa id a nything to procure the vic tim ’ s c onse nt to c onduc t tha t she wa s not a lre a dy inc l ine d to do. The e v ide n c e shows tha t the vic tim

wa s pre dispose d to e nga ge in the c onduc t at issue and volunta rily c onse nte d to it. Although not a de fe n se to the
c rim e , this e vide nc e is suffic ie nt to rebut the pre sum ption of undue

influe nc e , pa rtic u la rly in the a b s e nc e of any

e vide nc e indic ative of a

n atte m pt to pre ssure or pe rsua de
. 1 B e c a use C a lvo re butte d

the pre sum

ption of undue

influe nc e , for the
e nha nc e m e nt to be a

pplie d, the re m

ust be e vide nc e in there c ord showing tha t he

1 W e find the g overnment’s reliance on United States v. Brooks , 610 F .3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2010) unpersuasive, as Brooks is disting uishable from the present case. I n Brooks , we found evidence showing

the victim’s willing ness to eng ag e in sex ual activity irrelevant to the undue influence determination because the prohibited sex ual conduct at issue was prostitution, and “[ n] othing in the record sug g est[ ed] that the g irls were inclined to eng a g e in commercial sex acts before they

met [ the defendants] .” I d. at 1199 (emphasis in orig inal). In contrast, here, Calvo has presented the Court with evidence showing that the victim was inclined to g o with him and eng ag e in the specific sexual conduct at issue. I n addition, we find the out-of-circuit cases cited by the Government unpersuasive and decline to follow their reasoning
.-5-

a c tua lly e xe rte d undueinflue n c e ove r the vic tim . The re is none . Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt should not ha ve a pplie d a two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B ). B e c a use we re m an d

for re se nte nc i ng ba s e d on thedistric t c ourt’ s proc e dura l
e rror, we ne ithe r re a c h

nor do wee xpre ss a

ny opinion a s to whe the r C a lvo’ s se nte nc e is substa

ntive ly re a sona ble
. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Forre ste r , 616 F.3d 929, 950 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.Unite d

State s v . C alv o , No. 13-50064 C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a n d disse nting in pa

rt: I a gre e tha

t the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by

a pply i ng a five
le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5(b), a n d c onc ur with tha

t pa rt of the
m a jority ’ s disposition. B e c a use , in m y vie w , C a lvo ha s not shown tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by

a pply ing the two-le ve l e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B ), I re spe c tfully disse nt from

tha t pa rt of them a

jority ’ s re a s oning. The re c ord c onta ins e vide nc e that the vic tim wa s groom e d. This supports the distric t c o urt’ s finding of undue influe nc e . The m a

j ority c onc lude s tha

t C a lvo
re butte d the pre sum

ption of undue

influe nc e through e vide nc e of the vic tim ’ s volunta rine ss, but tha

t e vide nc e is c onsiste nt with a vic tim subje c t to theinflue nc e of an onlinepre dator. L.S. willingly e nga g e d in a

n onlinere lationship with C a lvo
and re que ste d tha

t he pic k he r up, but this doe s not e s ta blish tha t she “ willingly
e nga ge d in these xua l a c ts a t issue .” As se ve ra l of our sister c irc uits ha ve he ld, unde r the se c irc um sta

nc e s e vide nc e of a

vic t im ’ s willingne s s doe s not re nde r a distric t c o urt’ s finding of undue influe nc e c le arly

e rrone ous. Se eUnite d State s v . W atk ins , 667 F.3d 254, 265 (2d C i r. 2012); Unite d State s v . Hage n , 641 F.3d 268, 270–71 (8th C ir. 2011); Unite d State s v . Mille r , 601 F.3d 734, 737 (7th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . Lay , 583 F.3d 436, 445–46 (6th C ir. 2009). 

# F IL ED JAN 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSB e c a

use I find no proc e dura l e rror and no substa ntiveunre a sona

ble ne ss, se e Unite d State s v . Hilge r

s , 560 F.3d 944, 948 (9th C ir. 2009), I would a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s se nte nc e .

2