Opinion ID: 1235169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Misrepresentation of Identity Enhancement

Text: Finally, Starr argues that the district court erred in applying an enhancement for misrepresentation of identity. He argues that although he lied about his age there is no evidence he did so for the purpose of producing sexually explicit material. The district court should apply a two-level enhancement to a defendant's offense level [i]f, for the purpose of producing sexually explicit material, the offense involved the knowing misrepresentation of a participant's identity to persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, a minor to engage sexually explicit conduct.. . . U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(6)(A). Starr contends that he did not misrepresent his identity because he only lied about his age and that he was otherwise truthful about himself. This argument is foreclosed by the comments to the Guideline, which state, [t]he misrepresentation to which the enhancement . . . may apply includes misrepresentation of a participant's. . . age . . . as long as the misrepresentation was made with the intent to persuade, induce, entice, [or] coerce . . . a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing sexually explicit material. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 cmt. n. 4. There was ample evidence in the record from which the district court could conclude that Starr's age misrepresentation was instrumental in getting the victims to engage in sexually explicit conduct. The record is quite adequate to show that Starr sought the production of sexually explicit images of the victims. He also argues that there was no misrepresentation because he gave enough information for the girls to discover his true age. Specifically, he states, Should K.E. have taken the time to look, she could have found David Starr quite easily in a phone book or online people-locator service, along with his likely date of birth, address, and other information. The Guidelines, however, do not place the burden on minor victims to research the age of a defendant. We find no error in the district court's calculation of Starr's advisory sentence under the Guidelines.