Opinion ID: 76025
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Image in Hall's Case

Text: 49 In light of our precedent, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that the image in government exhibit 4A did not depict the infliction of pain. 17 In reviewing the image to see if the young child in the image visually indicated that she was experiencing pain, the district court failed to recognize that an adult male vaginally or anally penetrating a young child would necessarily cause pain to that child. The image in government exhibit 4A depicts actual, not illusory, vaginal penetration of a young child by an adult male. Moreover, it is plain that the victim in this image is a very young child. At sentencing, Agent Dubord testified that the girl was definitely under 12. The image itself reveals that the child is considerably younger than 12, 18 given the small size of the child overall, the small size of her hands, her total lack of pubic hair and breast tissue development, and the relative size of the child vis-à-vis the adult male in the picture. 50 Accordingly, after a careful review of government exhibit 4A, we have little difficulty concluding that the district court clearly erred in finding that the government had not established that exhibit 4A involved pain and was sadistic. Thus, a four-level sentencing enhancement was warranted under § 2G2.2(b)(3).