Opinion ID: 795016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Increasing Offense Level by Five Units

Text: 16 In the alternative, Kiel argues that if the grouping calculation is not applicable, the district court erred in finding an adjusted offense level of 38 because the PSR stated that there are a total of five units under § 3D1.4 and increased the adjusted offense level by five units for a total of 38 instead of following § 3D1.4, which states that five units would only cause an increase of four levels, for an offense level of 37 and an advisory Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months' imprisonment. 17 Under § 2G2.1, the offense level of a defendant who pleads guilty to sexual exploitation of children . . . is determined, in part, by the number of minors exploited in the commission of the offense. Specifically, § 2G2.1[(d)(1)] requires the sentencing court to treat each minor exploited as though the exploitation of that minor was contained in a separate count of conviction. United States v. Reinhart, 357 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir.2004); see also United States v. MacLeod, 80 F.3d 860, 863 (3d Cir.1996) (Because MacLeod's offenses involved the exploitation of more than one minor, the exploitation of each minor was treated as if it were a separate count of conviction. These `counts' were not grouped.). Here, Kiel pleaded guilty to five Production Counts, but Count IV involved two children. Therefore, under § 2G2.1, the district court was to treat Count IV as two separate counts, for a total of six counts. 18 Section 3D1.4 states that the district court determines the offense level by taking the offense level applicable to the Group with the highest offense level and increasing that offense level by the amount indicated. . . . For more than five units, the district court is to increase the defendant's offense level by five levels. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. 19 Here, Kiel was charged with five Production Counts. Kiel's PSR only reflects one unit for Count IV, not two units, even though Count IV involved two different minor female children. Therefore, the PSR table only equates to five units, meaning that, under § 3D1.4, the district court should only add four levels, not five. However, when Kiel originally objected to the multiple count adjustment, the U.S. Probation Officer replied: 20 The Special Instruction found at Section 2G2.1(c) directs that if the offense involved more than one minor the grouping rules should be applied as if each minor had been contained in a separate count of conviction[.] Application Note 2 clarifies that multiple counts involving the sexual exploitation of different minors are not to be grouped together. Further[,] if the relevant conduct of an offense of conviction includes more than one minor being exploited[,] whether specifically cited in the count of conviction or not[,] each such minor shall be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction[.] 21 Therefore, the Probation Officer clarified that Count IV involved two victims, meaning that each violation of a minor should be treated as if contained in a separate count of conviction. Kiel concedes that Count IV involved victims A.K. and P.C., meaning that Section D shall be applied as if the exploitation of each minor had been contained in a separate count of conviction. 22 Thus, while the PSR did not explicitly list two units for Count IV because Count IV involved two minors, equating to a total of six units instead of five units, the district court properly added five levels to Kiel's offense level.