Opinion ID: 1225474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Heather Fiorella's Sentence

Text: The district court determined that the total offense level for Fiorella's three child pornography possession offenses was 41, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentencing range of 324-405 months in prison. The parties agreed to an adjusted offense level of 22 under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. The court then applied a 4-level enhancement for possession of sadistic or violent images, § 2G2.2(b)(4); a 5-level enhancement for a pattern of child exploitation activity, § 2G2.2(b)(5); and a 5-level enhancement for possession of 600 or more images, § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). The court then applied the cross-reference to the child pornography production guideline, § 2G2.1, because Fiorella and Shuler induced and enticed both K.G. and M.B. to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct. § 2G2.2(c)(1). This increased Fiorella's adjusted offense level to 38. The court imposed enhancements for obstruction of justice and multiple victims, denied a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, and denied Fiorella's motion for a downward departure or variance. The court sentenced Fiorella to three consecutive 120-month sentences, the statutory maximum for each count. United States v. Fiorella, 602 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1065-76 (N.D.Iowa 2009). A. On appeal, Fiorella first argues that three maximum, consecutive ten year sentences are unreasonable in a child pornography case. After rehashing the mitigating circumstances argued at sentencing, Fiorella complains that the district court simply imposed the sentences that were determined in the court's thorough sentencing memorandum; granted every sentence increase sought by the government; discounted positive attributes of Fiorella's prior life; and rejected every one of her reasonable arguments for a less punitive sentence. Particularly given the district court's thorough explanation of its sentencing decisions, these contentions fall far short of persuading us this is the unusual case warranting reversal because a sentence is substantively unreasonable. Feemster, 572 F.3d at 464. Fiorella further argues that the child pornography guidelines warrant downward variances because they were promulgated at the urging of Congress without the Sentencing Commission exercising its traditional role ... of empirical analysis. She relies on published decisions of other district courts in this circuit that have granted downward variances on this basis. See United States v. Shipley, 560 F.Supp.2d 739 (S.D.Iowa 2008); United States v. Baird, 580 F.Supp.2d 889 (D.Neb.2008). This categorical argument was appropriately made to the district court, which explicitly distinguished these cases and rejected their reasoning. Fiorella, 602 F.Supp.2d at 1074-75. It is not properly made to this court; our appellate role is limited to determining the substantive reasonableness of a specific sentence where the advisory guidelines range was determined in accordance with § 2G2.2. See United States v. Kiderlen, 569 F.3d 358, 368-69 (8th Cir.2009). [2] B. Fiorella next argues that the district court committed procedural error by applying the cross reference to § 2G2.1 in determining her total offense level. The cross reference applies when the offense involved causing, transporting, permitting, or offering or seeking by notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct. § 2G2.2(c)(1). This provision is to be construed broadly. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 comment. (n.5). Fiorella argues the cross reference should not apply because there was no proof she was present when Shuler took the sexually explicit photos of her daughter, and no proof she knew Shuler made a surreptitious video of their pornographic session with M.B. It is undisputed that Fiorella encouraged her daughter to take nude photographs and later uploaded them onto a computer. The district court credited her earlier statements admitting that she participated in the photo sessions, rather than her later assertion to the contrary. Fiorella, 602 F.Supp.2d at 1067. The video of M.B. shows Fiorella directing M.B. to a chair directly facing the hidden camera, encouraging M.B. to take nude pictures of herself, discussing sexual positions with M.B., applying a gel to her genitals and encouraging M.B. to do the same, and asking M.B. if she would consider giving John a blow job. Even if Fiorella were ignorant of the hidden camera, the tape is ample evidence Fiorella enticed M.B. to produce child pornography. The evidence was clearly sufficient to support the district court's decision to apply the cross reference in § 2G2.2(c)(1). See United States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 1001 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 746, 172 L.Ed.2d 742 (2008). C. Finally, Fiorella argues the district court committed procedural error by imposing enhancements under § 2G2.2(b)(4) and § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) because there was insufficient proof that she possessed Shuler's collection of sadistic or violent material and 600 or more images of child pornography. We need not consider the merits of these contentions because any error would be harmless. Due to the cross-reference we have now upheld, Fiorella's advisory guidelines range was based on the child pornography production guideline, § 2G2.1, which resulted in a higher total offense level than the child pornography possession guideline would have produced with the § 2G2.2(b)(4) and § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) enhancements. The judgments of the district court are affirmed.