Opinion ID: 2672443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Guilty Plea and Presentence Report

Text: On July 10, 2012, a federal grand jury in the District of New Mexico indicted Mr. Lucero on three counts of receipt of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually -3- explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1), and 2256, and two counts of possession of matter containing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B), 2252(b)(2), and 2256. On December 4, 2012, Mr. Lucero pled guilty to the indictment without a plea agreement. On February 14, 2013, a probation officer issued a presentence report (“PSR”) calculating Mr. Lucero’s Guidelines sentencing range at 78 to 97 months in prison. The PSR set Mr. Lucero’s base level at 22 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, which states the base level for child pornography offenses, including Mr. Lucero’s. From there, the PSR calculated Mr. Lucero’s total offense level based on the following:  A two-level decrease because his offense was limited to receipt and not distribution of child pornography, § 2G2.2(b)(1);  A two-level increase because the material uncovered on his computers depicted pre-pubescent minors, § 2G2.2(b)(2);  A five-level increase because he engaged in a “pattern of activity” involving the sexual abuse of minors, including molesting his nieces, § 2G2.2(b)(5);  A two-level increase because his offense involved the use of a computer, § 2G2.2(b)(6);  A two-level increase based on the number of images involved in the offense, § 2G2.2(b)(7)(A); and  A three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, § 3E1.1. Mr. Lucero’s total offense level was 28, which, when paired with his criminal history category of I (based on no prior criminal offenses), yielded a Guidelines range of 78 to 92 months in prison. -4- On March 22, 2013, Mr. Lucero filed a sentencing memorandum objecting to the PSR’s application of § 2G2.2(b)(5), which calls for a five-level increase “[i]f the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.”1 The guideline defines “pattern of activity” as “any combination of two or more separate instances of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor by the defendant . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5), cmt. n.1. The PSR applied this enhancement based on the two separate occasions on which Mr. Lucero admitted to having sexually touched his minor nieces. In his memorandum, Mr. Lucero contended this enhancement was based on conduct that had “nothing to do with the present charges,” and that any pattern of activity in Mr. Lucero’s conduct “was broken when Mr. Lucero was confronted by his family and got treatment for his issues [in the 1980s].” Suppl. ROA at 5. As an alternative to recalculating the Guidelines range, Mr. Lucero requested a variance from the advisory range to a sentence of 60 months. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The U.S. Probation Office prepared an addendum to the PSR addressing Mr. Lucero’s objections. It noted Mr. Lucero had admitted to sexually touching two different nieces on two separate occasions, and that there is no time limit for the conduct to support a “pattern of activity” enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(5). 1 Mr. Lucero also objected to the two-level increase for use of a computer pursuant to § 2G2.2(b)(6). The district court overruled that objection, and Mr. Lucero does not raise it again on appeal. -5-