Opinion ID: 2766194
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sadistic or Masochistic Material

Text: Walters next appeals the district court’s application of a four-point enhancement for exchanging material that is sadistic, masochistic, or otherwise violent. He argues that this No. 14-3097 United States v. Walters Page 10 enhancement also constitutes impermissible double counting and must be removed from his sentence. This argument also fails. The Sentencing Guidelines for crimes under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252A(a)(5) state that if the particular offense “involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence,” the court should enhance the defendant’s sentencing level by four points. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4). Walters contends that “every image involving children in any sexual context or for that purpose is, at the very least, an image of violence,” and that any act to which U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) might apply is always “an act that satisfies the violence enhancement therein.” Thus, he reasons, the enhancement serves only to punish an offender twice for the same conduct. However, we have held that the enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(4) does not apply to all child pornography convictions. United States v. Phillips, 383 F. App’x 527, 532-33 (6th Cir. 2010). In Phillips, the defendant was similarly convicted under § 2252(a)(2) and the district court applied the same four-level enhancement for sadistic and masochistic material at issue here. Id. at 528. On appeal, Phillips argued that “‘[c]hild pornography inherently victimizes the child [portrayed therein] through sexual dominance and control,’ and that the district court therefore ‘misapplied the law . . . when it overruled [his] objection that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) . . . enhances a base sentence which intrinsically already contains the U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) considerations.’” Id. at 532 (alterations in original) (quoting the appellant’s brief). We rejected Phillips’ interpretation, noting that “sadistic or masochistic conduct” typically involves an additional element: “the infliction of pain.” Id. at 532 (citing United States v. Groenendal, 557 F.3d 419, 425 (6th Cir. 2009); United States v. Quinn, 257 F. App’x 864, 866-67 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Fuller, 77 F. App’x 371, 383-84 (6th Cir. 2003)). We explained that [t]he base offense[] at issue here-receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)-need not involve the depiction of acts likely to cause pain. Those base offenses require receiving or possessing depictions of minors “engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” which is defined to include not just hardcore sexual acts, but also, inter alia, “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.” It is clear that, at least under some circumstances, lascivious nude posing, without more, would not inflict sufficient pain on a minor to trigger the sadomasochism enhancement. No. 14-3097 United States v. Walters Page 11 Id. at 532-33 (citing United States v. Borho, 485 F.3d 904, 909-10 (6th Cir. 2007) (stating that “not all child pornography is equally sadistic” and distinguishing an image of sex between two minors and “a video clip depicting an adult male anally raping a toddler”)). We held that the enhancement was not double counting.1 Id. at 533. On appeal, Walters makes the same argument as Phillips, and his argument fails for the same reasons. Among the pornographic materials discovered on his computer at the time of his arrest were several videos of adult males raping prepubescent boys and girls, including a video of a male subject having genital-to-genital intercourse with a female toddler. These videos are clearly distinguishable from materials involved in other child pornography cases. The four-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(4) does not “double count” any aspect of Walters’ crime. Rather, it separately punishes him for exchanging and possessing the sadistic, masochistic material it is explicitly designed to address. The district court acted within its discretion to apply the enhancement.