Opinion ID: 765659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: U.S.S.G. sec. 2G2.2(b)(3)--Sadistic or Masochistic Conduct

Text: 7 Section 2G2.2(b)(3) provides: If the offense involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, increase by 4 levels.
8 Mr. Turchen asserts that the district court erred in applying sec. 2G2.2(b)(3) because the photograph at issue is not sadistic, masochistic or violent. According to the defendant, every child pornography picture is, by its nature, a depiction that is humiliating or degrading to the victim. He points out that other circuits require that a heightened factor be present within the depiction, such as extreme cruelty being directed against the victim in the photograph or a sado- masochistic act like the bondage of the victim. See United States v. Delmarle, 99 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir. 1996) (concluding that an excessively cruel act that was quite likely to cause pain to the child victim was sadistic), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1156 (1997); United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723, 734 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding no clear error in enhancement for pornography pictures of female minor in bondage), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 (1996). Mr. Turchen argues that the image of men urinating on a grimacing girl does not depict an act that per se causes pain to the victim or is excessively cruel. 9 Mr. Turchen further asserts that the district court could not know the feelings of the people in the photograph and should not have speculated that the men were deriving pleasure at the infliction of this act or that the girl's grimace reflected pain. According to Mr. Turchen, the girl's grimace reflects mere disgust or aversion rather than actual pain. Thus the depiction is not clearly sadistic, masochistic or violent, by any definition, and does not merit the 4-level enhancement under sec. 2G2.2(b)(3).
10 Because Mr. Turchen has challenged whether the district court correctly applied the guidelines, we review de novo the court's decision to apply a specific guideline, in this case sec. 2G2.2(b)(3). See United States v. Ellison, 113 F.3d 77, 79 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 235 (1997). We also conduct a plenary review of the court's interpretation of terms used in the guidelines, for such an interpretation involves a legal determination of the meaning of guidelines language. See United States v. Eyoum, 84 F.3d 1004, 1007 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 941 (1996). However, we review the district court's findings of fact only for clear error. See United States v. Hall, 142 F.3d 988, 997-98 (7th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed the record, including the sentencing transcript and presentence report, along with the parties' briefs, and conclude that the district court did not err in either regard. We reached this conclusion by considering first the methodology employed by the district court at sentencing. 11 At the sentencing hearing, the district court recited the undisputed description of the image at issue, the description incorporated in the presentence report, and that report's unchallenged conclusion that the depiction is certainly a very degrading act. R.30 at 12. To determine whether the depiction meets the special offense characteristics described in sec. 2G2.2(b)(3)--by portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence--the court examined definitions from various dictionaries and other sources in making its evaluation. 4 The court commented that sadistic perversion involves gratification . . . obtained through cruelty and masochism is abnormal sexual passion in which one finds pleasure in . . . being abused or dominated. Id. at 13. It concluded that sadism and masochism do not require the kind of violence we normally consider as violence. Id. at 14. 12 The district court then made factual findings about the image. It found that the urinators were finding pleasure in abusing and cruelly treating a child who had not reached puberty and hence they had pleasure in abusing the person or dominating the person. Id. The court also described the little girl's reaction: She certainly wasn't enjoying it. She was grimacing and attempting to turn her head away. Id. It concluded that the photograph did indeed suggest an abnormal sexual passion, one that depicted mental anguish, mental violence and physical violence. Id. at 14-15. It specifically concluded that the conduct shown in the image was degrading, depraved, sadistic, masochistic, perverse, and a form of violence. In the written judgment of the court, in its Statement of Reasons, the court repeated the definitions of sadism and masochism and concluded that the grimacing prepubescent nude female reflects that pain which can be attributed to those actions of the urinating males and certainly must address that violence to which the Sentencing Commission referred when addressing sadism and masochistic behavior. R.22 at 8-9. The court then departed upward 4 levels under sec. 2G2.2(b)(3). 13 After our plenary review of the district court's decision to apply sec. 2G2.2(b)(3) to increase Mr. Turchen's sentence, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the court's methodology. When interpreting a provision of the sentencing guidelines, a court must begin with the text of the provision and the plain meaning of the words in the text. See United States v. Norris, 159 F.3d 926, 929 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1153 (1999); United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1453 (11th Cir. 1997). If a term in the guideline is not defined and does not have an established common-law meaning, it must be given its ordinary meaning. See Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 461-62 (1991); United States v. Checora, 175 F.3d 782, 790 (10th Cir. 1999). We note that the Second Circuit, in Delmarle, used the Webster's Dictionary definition of sadism when analyzing a picture of a sexual act. See 99 F.3d at 83. 14 In light of those precepts, we believe the district court quite properly consulted definitions of sadism and masochism to confirm both the ordinary meanings of the terms and more clinically precise explanations. See, e.g., Norris, 159 F.3d at 929 (consulting dictionary for definition of victim). Those definitions make clear that sadistic and masochistic conduct includes sexual gratification which is purposefully degrading and humiliating, conduct that causes mental suffering or psychological or emotional injury in the victim. In fact, the Black's Law Dictionary definitions are helpful in demonstrating that violence is not necessarily found in such conduct. Black's offers these definitions: 15 Masochism. A form of perversion in which sexual pleasure is heightened when one is beaten and maltreated at the hands of the other party; the opposite of sadism. Sexual perversion in which a member of one sex takes delight in being dominated, even to the extent of violence or cruelty, by one of the other sex. 16 Sadism. A form of satisfaction, commonly sexual, derived from inflicting harm on another. It is a type of insanity or mental disease. The opposite of masochism. 17 Black's Law Dictionary 879, 1198 (5th ed. 1979) (emphasis added). We therefore agree with the district court's conclusion that sadism and masochism do not necessarily require violent conduct. We also believe that the image, depicting the objective act of males standing over and urinating onto the face of a grimacing prepubescent girl, portrays the infliction of harm, in fact violent harm, both physical and mental, on the child victim. 5 Perhaps the picture depicts pain or excessive cruelty of a different type from that found in the picture being reviewed by the Second Circuit in Delmarle, but it is no less sadistic within the meaning of sec. 2G2.2(b)(3). We have no difficulty coming to the same conclusion that the Second Circuit did: that the sexual act depicted here was also quite likely to cause pain in one so young and that the subjection of a young child [to that act] is excessively cruel and hence is sadistic. Id. at 83. 18 We hold that the district court's factual findings that the image depicted sadistic or masochistic conduct were certainly not clearly erroneous. Mr. Turchen disagreed with the court's findings that the girl's grimace reflected pain and that the males appeared to be experiencing enjoyment. He offered another view of the picture: The girl was merely disgusted and the men were not demonstrating any emotion. However, his presentation of a different perspective of the photograph is not enough; he must demonstrate the court's clear error in its finding. Mr. Turchen has failed to meet this burden. We believe that the district court did not clearly err in describing what it saw in the photograph and in concluding that such acts depict sadistic or masochistic conduct. We agree that the photograph at issue justifies the upward departure and therefore uphold the district court's application of sec. 2G2.2(b)(3). 19 The district court also offered an alternative reason for an upward departure of Mr. Turchen's sentence; it determined that the enhancement would be allowed by a departure under sec. 5K2.0, 6 when there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind or to a degree not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines. Because we hold that the court did not clearly err in applying sec. 2G2.2(b)(3) to increase Mr. Turchen's sentence, we need not address the alternate method of enhancing his sentence. 20