Opinion ID: 3061719
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Enhancement for Distribution

Text: Holt argues that the district court erred in applying an enhancement for “distribution” because his conduct did not constitute “distribution” as defined in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(3). Holt contends that the court interpreted “distribution” too broadly, and that his actions do not qualify for the § 2G2.1(b)(3) 20 two-level enhancement. Section 2G2.1(b)(3) provides for a two-level increase to the offense level if the “offense involved distribution.” Although this Court has not defined what constitutes “distribution” under § 2G2.1(b)(3), we are not without guidance. The commentary to § 2G2.1 (b)(3), cited by Holt, provides as follows: ‘Distribution’ means any act, including possession with intent to distribute, production, transmission, advertisement, and transportation, related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, distribution includes posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for public viewing but does not include the mere solicitation of such material by a defendant. § 2G2.1, cmt. n.1. We have, moreover, considered the meaning of “distribution” elsewhere in the guidelines. In United States v. Probel, 214 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2000), this Court considered a prior version of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2) and held that distribution included an uncompensated transmission of pictures via the internet. Id. Furthermore, our sister circuit held in United States v. Hecht, 470 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2006), that pointing a web camera at pornographic images on a computer screen and transmitting the images over the internet constituted “distribution” of child pornography under § 2G2.2(b)(2)(2003) (amended 2004), which provides an identical definition of 21 “distribution” to § 2G2.1(b)(3). Compare Hecht, 40 F.3d at 182-83; with U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, cmt. n. 1. Hecht interpreted “distribution” broadly, noting that: “Whether the images are sent over the internet attached to an e-mail or sent over the internet via a web camera, the sender has engaged in an act ‘related to the transfer’ of the images.” Id. at 183. Holt argues that merely showing pornographic images on his cell phone to a third party and never relinquishing control or possession of his cell phone does not constitute “distribution”. We disagree. We find that Holt’s actions fall within the definition of “distribution” under this guideline. Holt’s publication of the pornographic images to a third party using his cell phone was “related to the transfer of material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.” As noted in Hecht, “distribution” is defined broadly and can involve various methods of transfer, including, we believe, Holt’s act of displaying the content to a third party via his cell phone camera. The commentary language defines “distribution” as somewhere along the spectrum between posting material on a website (which is distribution) and mere solicitation of the material by defendant (which is not distribution). U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 cmt. n.1. Here, Holt’s actions constituted more than mere solicitation of the material. Holt solicited the material, stored it within his possession in an electronic medium, and then showed the images to a third party. Under these facts, we hold that Holt’s 22 actions crossed the threshold of mere solicitation and constituted distribution. Thus, the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement for distribution.