Opinion ID: 65507
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of “Pattern of Activity”

Text: Carter argues that his sentence should not have been enhanced based on a “pattern of activity” because he claims that he participated in one ongoing offense. Carter, however, did engage in a pattern of activity. The commentary to § 2G2.2 defines a 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, whether or not the abuse or exploitation (A) occurred during the course of the offense; (B) involved the same minor; or (C) resulted in a conviction for such conduct.” U.S.S.G. 2G2.2 cmt n.1. Carter had multiple photographs and videos of eleven different identifiable child victims, and physically touched the genitalia of two different children. This sexual exploitation of multiple victims and the possession and distribution of multiple photographs and videos establishes that Carter engaged in “two or more separate instances” comprising a pattern of activity. A pattern of activity under § 4B1.5(b)(1) was also applied appropriately. Under that section, “the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct if on at least two separate occasions, the defendant 7 engaged in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 cmt. n.4. As noted, Carter possessed over 4,800 photographs with eleven identifiable young girls and admitted taking multiple pictures with his web cam. This constitutes a pattern of activity. Carter argues that his behavior did not “rise to the level” of a pattern of activity because it was not as egregious as cases involving child rape and other conduct more extreme than his own. This is not the standard. Carter engaged in criminal activity on at least two occasions, and his sentence was thus properly enhanced for a pattern of activity. ii. Alleged Double Counting of Pattern of Activity Carter also argues that the application of sections 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines that both address a pattern of activity constituted impermissible double counting. Section 2G2.2(b)(5) states that it applies “[i]f the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” Section 4B1.5(b)(1) provides for an enhancement “[i]n any case in which the defendant’s instant offense of conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” As stated above, this Court presumes that the Sentencing Commission intended for Guidelines sections to apply cumulatively. Additionally, here we 8 have specific guidance that these sections were not intended to be exclusive of one another. Section 4B1.5(b)(1) states that the enhancement from that section “shall be 5 plus the offense level determined under Chapters Two and Three.” (emphasis added). This indicates that the Sentencing Commission intended for the application of enhancements under Chapter Two (like the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement applied here) to be added to the § 4B1.5(b)(1) enhancement. These two sections also address different harms. Section 2G2.2(b)(5) addresses the fact that the offense itself involved a pattern of sexually exploiting minors. Section 4B1.5, however, looks at the likelihood that the defendant will become a repeat offender and whether lengthy incarceration is therefore needed to protect the public. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) cmt. background. The application of sections 2G2.2(b)(5) and 4B1.5(b)(1) did not, therefore, involve impermissible doublecounting.